Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Bitch be triggered.
She's right, though.
Thought Peterson was good on Question Time the other day
The 1930s progressives are back.
Well without reading the paper it depends what its arguing there's nothing necessarily wrong with the subject. We already practice eugenics. We allow women to abort baby's if they have down syndrome for example, do you think that's wrong? It's perfectly justifiable to think that's the case, but almost every person with who's screened with a down's syndrome baby abort it so we're very much through the looking glass as far as Eugenics is concerned.
If you could have a baby and fix any genes that would otherwise lead to certain diseases would you? Could you morally justify letting a baby be born with Huntington's disease, knowing that you could have prevented that?
Clearly the kind of forced eugenics of the past is not something up for debate, but as a subject its something that is relevant, and will be even more relevant going forward. It's something we already do, its something that will become more widespread as science improves, discussions over where the lines are drawn are important.
Last edited:
The article isn't about diseases, it's about birth rates of lesser people.
The rest of the paper is about designing the perfect way to allow the state to coerce or convince or prohibit reproduction of the unworthy, with him ending by saying he doesn't know if it's possible.
Just a little aside - despite the implications of his data, the average IQ worldwide and within western countries with low birthrates has been increasing for the past century.
Specifically about what you were talking about- Down's syndrome and other medical abortions, this is what the paper has to say:
If you follow the new right, like many of the public figures discussed on this thread do, the logical conclusion is that either climate-induced genocide or a massive eugenics problem is the only way forward. I can talk about this logic at length when I have more time.
Edit - I'm actually curious about what the openly Christian JP thinks about eugenics, since he does about IQ gaps.
Last edited:
I don't expect this to be very popular round here but Stossel has been my favourite pundit for a long time. Well, I agree with him on basically eveything so I'm biased. Still think it's an interesting conversation.
Stossell is a well known libertarian who tends to cherry pick pieces of information to support his views that government should play almost no role in a vast majority of things in society, so obviously everything from global warming to Medicare for all to any number of things requiring robust government involvement is going to be viewed as bad.
Has there been any response from Harris on the 20 pages Foreign Affairs critique so far?
Shapiro interviews Stephen Harper, former Prime Minister of Canada.
I remember thinking the term intellectual dark web was ridiculous given its members prominence in open public discourse. That was based on their impact on popular culture, where they remain dominant. They have in fact grown from that too (also seen in the post just above):
For those that don't know, the Trilateral Commission, the heart of many conspiracy theories, is a body founded by the Rockerfeller Foundation members including future NSA Brezinski and future Fed Chairman Greenspan, that includes all first-world countries and now, some lesser representatives. Its report in the 70s on the problem of too much democracy stands alongside the Powell memo (written by a future SC justice) as the intellectual foundation of the fightback by corporations against western social democracy, especially in the US.
In any case, my point is that the framing of the IDW as some underground dissident movement was false then, and is increasingly ridiculous now- Peterson is an invited guest in a centre of power.
For those that don't know, the Trilateral Commission, the heart of many conspiracy theories, is a body founded by the Rockerfeller Foundation members including future NSA Brezinski and future Fed Chairman Greenspan, that includes all first-world countries and now, some lesser representatives. Its report in the 70s on the problem of too much democracy stands alongside the Powell memo (written by a future SC justice) as the intellectual foundation of the fightback by corporations against western social democracy, especially in the US.
In any case, my point is that the framing of the IDW as some underground dissident movement was false then, and is increasingly ridiculous now- Peterson is an invited guest in a centre of power.
He's had some videos with Jordan Peterson (partly about IQ I think), and it's something Harris talks about too, which is why I thought it was relevant here.
He's a very popular youtube libertarian (almost a million subscribers) with, let's say, strong feelings about the free market, and the role of women in society. (linked 2 long responses to his even longer videos about Roman history and uhhh Star Wars).
I thought the IDW was against faux-outrage...
Honestly, Peterson shoots himself in the foot when he comes up with false equivalences like that. I don't think there is any evidence to support his claim.
Honestly, Peterson shoots himself in the foot when he comes up with false equivalences like that. I don't think there is any evidence to support his claim.
Seen a thing showing Rubin and Peterson attending that right-wing wankathon Turning Shite USA or whatever it's called.
Totally not 'right wingers'. Just for freeze peach.
Totally not 'right wingers'. Just for freeze peach.
Peterson isn’t ring wing. Just because he isn’t left wing doesn’t mean he’s right. Although it does seem that there’s this ‘if you’re not with us you’re the enemy’ mentality that’s increasingly prevalent.
It’s crazy to me how podcasts and online circle jerks, coupled with some strong opinions on hot button issues has been enough to propel Peterson into a position of being among «the most important intellectuals» right now.
No wonder Chomsky shuns the label, it’s all a load of hot air.
Peterson makes a lot of sense in his own field, but it’s so obvious that he’s starting from a conclusion and seeks to bolster it, rather than whittling his way to truth.
No wonder Chomsky shuns the label, it’s all a load of hot air.
Peterson makes a lot of sense in his own field, but it’s so obvious that he’s starting from a conclusion and seeks to bolster it, rather than whittling his way to truth.
there's nothing right wing about about using communism as a suffix every time you don't like something
I think a lot of his views/guff falls into the right-wing view of life and society - especially how much he values/protects religion. And he certainly spends most of his time having 'hang outs' with certain people that are most definitely not in the centre.
But then again, he's not the only one pretending not to be right-wing. It's quite common now.
He used to be very active with the "left wing" party of Canada. I think before his fame he was centrist (and in the American context, Democrat) but since getting an online fan base he seems to increasingly align himself with Republican ideas and policy, at the very least backing down from positions that would go against much of his right-leaning online base.
Certainly his ideas on religion and societal structure would indicate that he is a classic conservative these days. I don't know where he falls in the economic policy spectrum.
Dunno, but last video I saw of him with Rubin and Shapiro (I think?) he said that the US health care system seems to be working well.
Dude clearly sees that he has a better chance of buttering his bread if he strokes the back of the right.
This doesn't surprise me, and speaks to the point I made above of Peterson being increasingly sympathetic to his right-leaning online base. He's challenged them before and backed down due to backlash.
To his discredit, he seems incapable of calling his buddy Shapiro on any of his immoral and intellectually dishonest bullshit.
I reckon it's more likely that he's just cynically raking it in while he can rather than his blind spot being this horrifically big... but you never know.
Either that or he and Sam Harris just sincerely believe that the threat to free speech posed by PC is bigger than any other issue. But you'd fecking think that with their every encounter including some high-minded drivel about how great it is that these people that disagree so much can sit and have a civil discussion, they would find some time in their countless hours of chatting to actually disagree a bit? Outside of Sam challenging religion, there's virtually none of that.
He strikes me as someone who's in between it all, wondering why the two sides are fighting tbh. He's condemned the radical left and right plenty of times, and in terms of the company he keeps, I'm sure he's said he basically talks to whoever will have him. He's been on things from across the spectrum, but it must get a bit tiresome when certain organisations on the left seem to purposely misrepresent what he's saying because they've decided he's public enemy number one. I'm sure I remember him saying on Rogan the other day that he's started to filter out certain interviews that he knows will be more of the same confrontational nonsense.
radical left: "uh don't be racist"
radical right: "kill the jews and black people"
jpb: madmen to left of me madmen to the right i'm so not political
this motherfecker came to fame misrepresenting a law that gave trans people the same rights as other people in canada and continually denies climate change, his views aren't being misrepresented nor are they centre or left of centre, he's a right wing grifter who targets young middle class men with daddy issues
and the gall of his little acolytes to claim that he is being misrepresented if amazing
and the gall of his little acolytes to claim that he is being misrepresented if amazing
I didn't think you'd agree tbf
Real seal of the deal for me. He's a right winger. He might not be a nazi but he sure does love to have coffee with them.
being apolitical by supporting racist youtuber ukip members
What is the response to?
carl of swindon and milo getting kicked off patreon
actively shilling for ukip members is radical centrism
Well, the libertarian, freedom of agency argument would be that Patreon is a private enterprise and has the right to make such decisions. If a cake shop doesn't have to make a wedding cake for a gay couple because of their personal beliefs (Peterson agrees I think) then the logical extension is that Patreon doesn't have to give people like Milo a platform.
You can't have your cake and eat it too!
You can't have your cake and eat it too!
Actually, he was confronted with an analogy by Jim Jeffries, the comedian, who compared it to someone refusing to bake a cake for an interracial marriage or for a black person back in the day, which prompted Peterson to reconsider and say that he might be wrong
