| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17926 Posts
On April 09 2018 08:41 IgnE wrote: Anti-intellectualism is one of the biggest problems in this country. Along with technocratic fetishism and misplaced trust in experts. I like this. If only more people thought for themselves... | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 09 2018 08:44 Acrofales wrote: I like this. If only more people thought for themselves... most people do not have the capability to do so that effectively; either in training, or in temperament. depending of course on what you meant by people thinking for themselves. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4715 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22998 Posts
On April 09 2018 08:41 IgnE wrote: Anti-intellectualism is one of the biggest problems in this country. Along with technocratic fetishism and misplaced trust in experts. It's a fascinating dynamic indeed. The 'sides' pitted against each other as if the pursuit of one of them vanquishing the other is a biological imperative for them both. On April 09 2018 08:47 Uldridge wrote: What's wrong with technocratic fetishism? It's the only thing that'll save us all! See what I'm sayin' yo? | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On April 09 2018 08:41 IgnE wrote: Anti-intellectualism is one of the biggest problems in this country. Along with technocratic fetishism and misplaced trust in experts. I would say replace experts with themselves. The US is rotten with "I am the exception to the rules" thinking so people can disregard whatever evidence is against them because their personal experience and can do attitude trumps experts. There is a very real lack of respect for them now a days if anything. Or you could say people "shope around" for one that agrees with them. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On April 09 2018 08:41 IgnE wrote: Anti-intellectualism is one of the biggest problems in this country. Along with technocratic fetishism and misplaced trust in experts. Seems like two weird points to bring up together. Anti-intellectualism is rooted in instinctive distrust of experts. How would an 'intellectualism' look that is not willing to recognise authority of experts? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44052 Posts
On April 09 2018 07:19 IgnE wrote: I think that judgment says more about you than it does about Peterson. And I know that you wouldn't say that a middle school student should be able to open a mathematics book on set theory and understand it. Many STEM people seem to suffer quite a bit from Dunning-Kruger when it comes to writing and literature. Nobody reads Maps of Meaning because it is Peterson's scholarly attempt to comprehensively tackle a subject. He's not an educator translating his findings to students in that text. He is an expert speaking to people who have already or are willing to put in the work to understand what he's saying. This conflation of his teaching and his scholarly writing is so lazy. I don't even think Peterson is a great writer! There are certainly valid criticisms of his writing style that could be made. But I reject the lazy, anti-intellectual philistinism on display here. You bolded that phrase, but I'd like to point it out too... yes, he's an educator. He's literally a college professor; that's what I was referring to. For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to come across smugly as a STEM person (i.e., belittling other subject matter as trivial compared to how awesome math is, or saying that writing and literature are inferior or easy); as a fellow college professor and educator, I was thinking about how I (and other educators) speak, write, and present things to other people (students or otherwise), and I found a contrast between that and how Peterson presents things in interviews or on paper. That contrast, I feel, is not subject-dependent, and I also think it's unfair that you assume that critics of his statements simply haven't "put in the work to understand what he's saying". What if we have? Anyway, assuming that you'll happily concede the point that Peterson is indeed an educator (because I don't think that makes or breaks your rebuttal), I think your criticism of that specific point would then be that his book of musings doesn't have to be aimed as educational or easy to digest simply because he's also, separately an educator, and I think that's fair. I'm sure it's possible for some teachers to turn off their teaching switch when doing other projects, and I think that's the point you're trying to make with that response. If I haven't correctly understood that remark, then please clarify it further for me. That being said, just because Peterson's maps and words may be difficult to unpack doesn't mean he's brilliant. I really don't think this is an instance where everyone who criticizes him is simply too stupid to fathom his complexity. On the contrary, as was stated before, I think that the more we unpack the more we see a dearth of substance, hidden sometimes by Barnum/ fortune cookie/ horoscope-esque descriptions (so broad and unclear that anyone could agree with the statement if they really tried to only count hits and ignore misses), and hidden other times by language so overly complicated and superfluous and confusing and wordy that people are fooled into thinking that it must be dazzling and innovative, when in reality it's a mundane and simple thought. There are many examples of both of these scenarios in the sources previously linked (especially the pancake-dragon article). I feel his speaking and writing styles mask the fact that many of the things he says are not groundbreaking; they're often pseudointellectual or even just plain wrong. Here is a paragraph I wrote to you earlier (nested in this very conversation), and I notice that you only responded to the one remark about his style (I've bolded it) and you ignored the rest of the list (all substance, based on positions he's taken, which I've underlined): Besides his obsession with trying to make outdated and disproven Jungian analysis look credible, his insistence on taking mundane and unremarkable platitudes and making them sound as ridiculously wordy and confusing as possible (which equates to "brilliance" in the minds of his supporters), his victim blaming for sexual harassment in the workplace, his denial of any gender pay discrimination, and the fact that he says he identifies as a Christian yet doesn't believe in Jesus's resurrection story (which I think is a contradiction or at least an inconsistency, no?), didn't he also gain notoriety from refusing to follow university protocols on simply acknowledging gender equity (citing freedom of speech, as if his employers aren't allowed to try to enforce additional policies that are aimed towards fairness and acceptance of students)? I find those positions of his to be incredibly controversial and probably wrong, and when he responds with circumlocution it only furthers my suspicion that he's not being honest or fair. Furthermore, I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss critiques of substance and style as "philistinism". There's a difference between not being cultured and not putting up with remarks against women or the LGBT community. I also don't think it's appropriate to dismiss certain things as simple fetishes when referring to the communication and clarity of ideas. Considering how viral and politicized his statements are in the United States, I think it's quite important his viewers and readers understand what he is actually saying and not saying. And yeah, that's the educator in me who always strives for clarity, but that's also because it's vital we have a well-informed electorate. There's enough lying and absurdity and smoke and mirrors in politics already. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
For what it's worth, I think that pretty much the entirety of the underlined paragraph is an overreach, but I won't go into it now, because somewhere in that thicket of overstatements is a set of reasonable criticisms that I agree with. Edit: please note the closing prepositional phrase in the sentence, "He's not an educator translating his findings to students in that text." | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9092 Posts
On April 09 2018 08:44 Acrofales wrote: I like this. If only more people thought for themselves... There's a low ceiling for how much one person can know, think all you want there's simply not enough time to dip below surface level on more than a few fields. As for the rest, it's not exactly a mystery which option is less risky. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44052 Posts
On April 09 2018 10:46 IgnE wrote: Well I didn't address the underlined part of your text precisely because I wasn't trying to dismiss the critiques of his substance. If you are going to critique someone, you should do it well. Diluting a critique with petty arguments about how "wordy and confusing" his book is is counterproductive and annoying. The critiques of his style, wordiness, and ambiguity are perfectly valid on their own merits, and you haven't managed to refute the many examples besides making a blanket statement of the assumption that his critics either can't or don't want to understand his brilliance. That's disingenuous, especially when people have written pages and pages of criticisms of his quotes. Are they quote mining and misrepresenting everything? If so, then you should argue such a thing. Literally everything in the pancake-dragon link ( https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve ) is quite damning, for a start. The criticisms presented there, elaborating on just how wordy and confusing Peterson's remarks can be, appear to be quite legitimate. You may not like that, but I feel like you're conceding his flaws of substance and expecting the compromise that everyone else will drop the criticisms of his stylistic flaws. I think Peterson fails frequently in both cases, as is shown by the countless examples already presented. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On April 09 2018 11:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The critiques of his style, wordiness, and ambiguity are perfectly valid on their own merits, and you haven't managed to refute the many examples besides making a blanket statement of the assumption that his critics either can't or don't want to understand his brilliance. That's disingenuous, especially when people have written pages and pages of criticisms of his quotes. Are they quote mining and misrepresenting everything? If so, then you should argue such a thing. Literally everything in the pancake-dragon link ( https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve ) is quite damning, for a start. The criticisms presented there, elaborating on just how wordy and confusing Peterson's remarks can be, appear to be quite legitimate. You may not like that, but I feel like you're conceding his flaws of substance and expecting the compromise that everyone else will drop the criticisms of his stylistic flaws. I think Peterson fails frequently in both cases, as is shown by the countless examples already presented. Really dude? You want to go back to square one? You want to go back to how "confusing" Peterson's writing is? Really? I've been talking about just that article for like 3 thread pages now, and it doesn't sound like you are specifically responding to anything I've actually said about it. I never said he was brilliant. If anything I was implying that he was completely ordinary. And I'm sorry, but just because you write "pages and pages" of criticisms, that doesn't mean they are legitimate. I really can't be asked to respond to this if you don't indicate even the faintest understanding with what my argument the last three pages has been. I'm not even mad, just disappointed. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44052 Posts
On April 09 2018 12:15 IgnE wrote: Really dude? You want to go back to square one? You want to go back to how "confusing" Peterson's writing is? Really? I've been talking about just that article for like 3 thread pages now, and it doesn't sound like you are specifically responding to anything I've actually said about it. I never said he was brilliant. If anything I was implying that he was completely ordinary. And I'm sorry, but just because you write "pages and pages" of criticisms, that doesn't mean they are legitimate. I really can't be asked to respond to this if you don't indicate even the faintest understanding with what my argument the last three pages has been. I'm not even mad, just disappointed. My intentions were not to regress; I actually felt that we hadn't significantly progressed. I know that you don't identify him as brilliant, and you've outlined reasons why you disagree with him. I think I should take a little break from the Peterson conversation for now, and certainly get some sleep. I appreciate the dialogue  | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17926 Posts
On April 09 2018 10:49 Dan HH wrote: There's a low ceiling for how much one person can know, think all you want there's simply not enough time to dip below surface level on more than a few fields. As for the rest, it's not exactly a mystery which option is less risky. There's a big difference between thinking and knowing. I often think I should talk to someone knowledgeable about a topic before making my own decision.  | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
It's absolutely not a surprise that the equity authoritarian who still believes in a naive egalitarian mindset doesn't allow comments on his articles. Nor is it a surprise that at least two of the people in the thread who at least mildly believe in equity are misrepresenting Peterson so blatantly and doing so knowingly. On April 09 2018 10:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: his victim blaming for sexual harassment in the workplace Absolutely untrue. This is a vice smear attempt. He was asking about what are the rules of the workplace. Vice attempted to make him seem like an oppressive patriarch who was asking why should women be allowed to wear makeup in the work place. His denial of any gender pay discrimination Also untrue. He explains part of why it happens. I.e. women are on average far more agreeable than men (or more submissive, if you will). Most of it is not 'systemic discrimination'. Hilariously enough when most companies get accused of this for paying females lower than males they often say, 'after our analysis we are actually paying our employees equally.' Pic very related. I have more. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/T4tIi2t.jpg) didn't he also gain notoriety from refusing to follow university protocols on simply acknowledging gender equity (citing freedom of speech, as if his employers aren't allowed to try to enforce additional policies that are aimed towards fairness and acceptance of students)? This is untrue. His concern was with writing compelled speech into law. Which has never happened in Canada and is dangerous territory to attempt to legislate thought. These are not simple university guidelines. Why should anyone support the far left ideologues attempts at pretending equity is the ideal? Men and women are not equal. And they should not be treated as such. They should both be treated well by their peers and society - and they should both be treated fairly, yes. But male and female are not just physical manifestations. There are also internal differences rooted deeply in their being. This doesn't disclude outliers but when working with a group it's fair to say the averages are clear. On the subject of Peterson it should be noted that every time he was debated on live television or just in general he has trounced the opposition thoroughly. What he wants to have with these people is a meaningful dialogue and he says that clearly. Which is why he would like to be invited back on to talk to Cathy Newman after he tears down her ideological possession. But he keeps running into ideological possession and indoctrination. That much has been clearly seen. Which again, leads to his very widespread support. Also since this is a lefty hideout and I was assured that most lefties believe in reformative justice I am surprised to see I am banned permanently from this thread. Rather they should allow me in to their community so that I can re-integrate myself and attempt to learn to conduct myself better through trial and error. Much like a youth whom has 35 arrests but the courts cannot keep the youth behind bars because he is just shy of 18. If I am permanently banned, are they not denying me human dignity and my human rights to speak as an equal with my peers? It's a private site but surely they should practice what they preach. It's been a year of being banned. It's not very inclusive of them and shows that they are not willing to engage in a diversity of opinion. Since I believe them when they say they believe in reformative justice and not authoritarianism and censorship, surely my ban should be lifted. Consider this post an appeal to that. Though I expect it to be thoroughly denied. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44052 Posts
Thanks for responding to some of my remarks. I'm going to take at least a day or two off the Peterson conversation and focus on other topics and irl things so that I have time to digest what I've learned and encountered over the past few days. If the Peterson conversation is still going on then, or if it comes back in the near future, I'd be happy to address your points then. For what it's worth, a few days/ pages ago we already covered the victim blaming situation by looking at his exact interview clip and question and response, so it's definitely not a mistranslation, let alone a "smear attempt". I've seen and heard enough of his actual responses- either on YouTube or in writing- to have made that list of controversial issues that I disagree with him on. He and his supporters frequently attempt to justify those positions, but that's completely different than pretending they don't exist. Anyways, I'm sorry to hear that you're banned from this thread for whatever reasons (although you just posted! yay! so maybe not perma?), and I think that varying political viewpoints can strengthen our thread discussions. I feel like you calling this thread a "lefty hideout" is purposely inflammatory and focusing on the wrong people, as I absolutely welcome reading articulate and informative posts by everyone on the political spectrum. Echo chambers can be bad, but shouldn't you be critiquing any politically outspoken members who purposely avoid the thread, rather than critique those of us who actually show up for the discussion? Instead, why not challenge those on the right to join our conversation? We might all learn something new | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8008 Posts
| ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36990 Posts
| ||
|
Schmobutzen
Germany284 Posts
Therefore it is a little snide to comment on your post, it is with good attentions though! Although some of you looked at the clips in question, that doesn't mean that it is in good faith. I saw some and then some more confirmation biases. I think that is what Testie means, when he speaks of a leftist thread, a thing which I cannot really subscribe to, although some of the more prominent posters are left leaning, because there are posters like zeo and Danglars and the usual right leaning suspects who can lend their voice here. But they get trounced upon more so than the left leaning ones, with the exception of GH because he is over the top left. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
On April 09 2018 22:20 Plansix wrote: There are plenty of right leaning posters in the thread depending on the topic, they just don’t actively complain about number of left leaning posters. There is this narrative of repression and victimization among some self appointed spokespeople for the right. It is often used as a substitute for real arguments. Furthermore, it is hard theory to agree with since the Republicans have held both chambers for around 8 years at this point and the majority of the last two decades. It is hard to argue that a political view is oppressed when hold power for a decade or more. But it is a great way to stifle discussion. Even more remarkable is that the ones whining on the right don't make the obvious connection between their flawed views and the decline of their power. They scream about media bias, shills, and manipulation instead of simply acknowledging that their "side" is just flat out regressive/unpopular. I have a number of friends who just can't seem to understand that they're backing a losing horse in this race of ideologies. Frankly, it scares me a bit. It shows that some people really are just too far gone to be helped. That's why I poo poo anyone who claims the path to victory is trying to get through to those people and "turn" them. The numbers are such that they can just be ignored. I think the Dems should take power, impose their will legislatively and without mercy, and move on from there. It's like dealing with children. Your kids don't understand or agree with your decision to ground them for breaking the rules, but they get it when they reap the benefits later. Same here. The Trumpets will get it when they have Medicare for all and decent jobs. Until then, just pretend they don't exist. | ||
| ||
|
|
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Road to EWC
SC Evo League
Road to EWC
Afreeca Starleague
BeSt vs Soulkey
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
