Well yeah, but this boils down to "the problem with society is that it's made up of humans". Conservatives are fond of saying that human nature is unalterable (which I think is partially true, but partially the result of emergent collective phenomena which can be changed with structural changes), this is one of its most obvious traits.
All the more reason to encourage the primacy of the individual.
Well, perhaps, but "encouraging the primacy of the individual" skips the question of said emergent collective phenomena completely, and that is what matters at the societal level. And that's what most economic leftists would ask.All the more reason to encourage the primacy of the individual.
If there's a way to implement it without force then it sounds good to me. But then we'd be talking about libertarianism, not leftism.
It's clear you haven't really engaged with a lot of his material and have just Googled something controversial about what he has said. I have listened to hours of his speeches, lectures and interviews and generally when it comes to Islam he doesn't give any wide-ranging takes because he self-admittedly is still learning much about that faith. He is humble enough to not engage in that, where a lot of people on the right aren't - regardless of whether they're right or wrong about their opinions. Read on its own, it seems incendiary.I don't doubt his sincerity and I do find his ideas interesting (even if they are, if you know a lot about traditional Christian theology, very, very, very far from original or even remarkable), but geez he provokes some eye rolls with his use and abuse of reductio ad absurdum.
Like this, that I just found after a few minutes of google, is just flagrantly and wilfully dishonest trolling:
I get that he's frustrated at all, but when one of the central planks of your critique is that your opponents fail to engage you in good faith, not a good look. Like I said, I don't think his fanbase is representative of him, but when his Twitter feed is full-on no-compromises 100% culture war, then hard to be shocked by it. Which is a shame, because his academic work I find interesting and his advocacy for e.g. marine protections to be a far more important and notable cause than soul-destroying culture war stuff.
. This is just a poor character assassination attempt to level charges against his fans in order to make him look bad - and the reality is that his fans for the most part are intelligent people who have become fans of Peterson because of his own virtuous actions. If a troll doesn't like one of Peterson's opponents (e.g. Cathy Newman), then he's got something wrong with him if he thinks insulting or threatening her makes them or Peterson look good. The man himself never engages in such things, as you can see by the video posted in this thread.
Many modern right wing political thinkers refuse to even acknowledge the legitimacy of the question full stop. "It's 100% your fault you're poor" and all that.
I don't think his Twitter persona is grating, you simply aren't familiar with his persona which is evidently clear to someone who has. If you want to know who someone is then of course engaging more of their material and words is going to give you a better representation. How is this suggestion controversial?
Yes, bringing up marine protections is just a deft way to feign knowledge. I know Spark isn't that familiar with him because of everything else he said. Triggered? Superficial knowledge is superficial knowledge. I'm willing to discuss criticisms from someone who has clearly spent time studying a subject even if I believe they're wrong - heck, I engage with you on economic matters all the time.Yes, the guy who mentioned how he finds Peterson's academic views interesting, esp on marine protections has "just googled him" and "used 140 characters to sum him up"
Stop being triggered, Ikki. Intellectually bankrupt much?
It's really getting tedious, this selective ignorance of 90% of what my posts say and picking a fight over the rest.Yes, the guy who mentioned how he finds Peterson's academic views interesting, esp on marine protections has "just googled him" and "used 140 characters to sum him up"
Stop being triggered, Ikki. Intellectually bankrupt much?
Yup, as usual, you know everything about everybodyI don't think his Twitter persona is grating, you simply aren't familiar with his persona which is evidently clear to someone who has. If you want to know who someone is then of course engaging more of their material and words is going to give you a better representation. How is this suggestion controversial?
Seriously, you're just coming off as someone who has started from the fixed position of not liking him or his fans and theorising about who he is and his intentions. It's just ignorant and your response to the suggestion of actually consuming more material illustrates that you're not really interested in finding out who he is.
Yes, bringing up marine protections is just a deft way to feign knowledge. I know Spark isn't that familiar with him because of everything else he said. Triggered? Superficial knowledge is superficial knowledge. I'm willing to discuss criticisms from someone who has clearly spent time studying a subject even if I believe they're wrong - heck, I engage with you on economic matters all the time.
Don't know much about him in general, but this doesn't strike me as a good argument. He has to point out exactly what is common (some gene, or brain structure) that makes hierarchies inevitable, and what biological mechanism causes hierarchies to arise. I'm sure there are plenty of animals that share common biological features with humans, that also don't have social hierarchies.
It's very interesting. He uses more examples for this in his lectures. It's also a reality of economics, when given freedom there is basically always a 10% that rise far above the rest.
It is flagrantly dishonest trolling. It's not an attempt to argue about why feminists should critique Islam more, or critique them for said or perceived lack of critique, or even find a flaw in their overall arguments, it simply states that feminists don't critique Islam because they secretly desire male dominance. No evidence for this is given, no argument as to why this is true is given, no attempt to make a good faith engagement is given. It's just a troll, in that it gets a rise out of his political opponents."Woe is me, someone called me on my bullshit" .... "How dare you call him on his bullshit, are you triggered?"
Spark didn't just say he was grating, he said: "he provokes some eye rolls with his use and abuse of reductio ad absurdum" and "is just flagrantly and wilfully dishonest trolling". It's just a poor characterisation, as if this is his modus operandi. As I said, I'm not sure there is someone who is more careful with his words. If you listen to his lectures, he pauses many times just so he chooses the right words - it's actually a distinguishable character trait he has, it's almost annoying at times but admirable all the same.
I don't even care if you disagree with him or consider him a troll (he isn't) but he's not being dishonest. You're generalising to attack his character which I find distasteful - not because you don't like him or whatever but because you clearly don't know enough not to like him for the stated reasons and it's obvious. The guy who has an almost pathological need to be clear and accurate uses and abuses reductio ad absurdum? Yeh, nah.
There is plenty of argument on this that he's made. You would know this if you've actually listened to his lectures, speeches and interviews. The idea that he should write a dissertation on Twitter every time he makes a statement is ridiculous.
Nonsense, you act like he makes incendiary comments and trolls in every post.
The irony is you're doing what Cathy Newman was doing: projecting your own ideas on his values and what he is saying in order to make him seem insulting and ridiculous. I've explained his tweet for you because it is clear you're just not very familiar with his thoughts. And yet you are still trying to cling to this false perception - ironically, you're acknowledging it is flawed, yet wish to use it to hammer him all the same.
You’re being too kind imo. He either means his culture war tweets or he doesn’t. Ausage and Ikki hated the suggestion that either of those was the case.
