The mouth breathing youtube media uh stars own crappy thread

[Ikki]

His fame predates email and the internet itself. What's your point?

Public intellectuals should get off twitter and so should everyone else. It's a cesspool.

The point is that in order to spread your message you need as big of a loudspeaker as possible - especially since how the MSM minimise exposure to voices they don't like these days. People care about Chomsky's opinion because they already know about Chomsky. Without Twitter, people would still be making **** up about Peterson just to shut him up.

And I disagree. All intellectuals of every kind should be on Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc. Get your ideas out there so we can determine whether it's garbage or useful.

 

[Munificent_Fool]

The point is that in order to spread your message you need as big of a loudspeaker as possible -

No, what's your point when you say his fame predates twitter? How is that relevant?

especially since how the MSM minimise exposure to voices they don't like these days.

These days? That's always been the case. In fact the media is far more open nowadays than in previous generations.

People care about Chomsky's opinion because they already know about Chomsky.

Do they? And if so, why are you arguing he should be on Twitter then?

Without Twitter, people would still be making **** up about Peterson just to shut him up.

Er, okay?

And I disagree. All intellectuals of every kind should be on Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc. Get your ideas out there so we can determine whether it's garbage or useful.

That all sounds very nice and pluralistic but it fails to take into account the practicalities of the medium with respect to discussing important and complex issues. Twitter is nothing like youtube, as you obviously know. You can post a 10 hour video, or you can post a 140 character comment. Not exactly the ideal medium for "getting your idea out there." One has substantial power to influence, and potential for analysis of ideas, and the other doesn't.

 

[Uppercut]

It’s a totally fair point that sustaining fame without Twitter is much easier than finding it. Piketty did it though, so not impossible.

Not being on Twitter is a bit like being dead. You don’t get heard anymore, but you preserve your dignity by not constantly offering a boring opinion on whatever random shite is doing the rounds on any given day. You can be off Twitter and widely respected like John Lennon or stay and become a windbag like Paul McCartney.

 

[GIMH]

Heh, I once compared Lennon to McCartney on here by quoting Alfred in The Dark Knight, ‘You either did a hero or live long enough to become the villain.’ Grecian gave me flak for it. Not sure if you deliberately aped said quote there but it was nicely done regardless

 

[Niall]

Out of curiosity is there anyone whose twitter presence ruined them somewhat for you?I don't mean someone like Toby Young or Louise Mensch who we knew were bell ends before social media, but for me someone like graham linehan has gone down hugely in my estimation due to how awful he has been on it.

 

[Athlai]

Wait people respect Lennon more than McCartney? News to me

Edit: I mean, people definitely revere Lennon as a talent, but isn't he seen as a bit of a ****wit? And McCartney a gc?

 

[Bahnz]

I don't think McCartney is seen as a gc, but yeah, I think Lennon is most often seen as an example of the worst sort of egotistical, holier than thou hippy. I also think the general consensus from people I know who care about music is that McCartney was considerably more talented than Lennon - again that may well be due to the fact that Lennon never had the chance to grow beyond his activist-experimentational phase and just focus on making good music like McCartney did.

 

[Spark]

Out of curiosity is there anyone whose twitter presence ruined them somewhat for you?I don't mean someone like Toby Young or Louise Mensch who we knew were bell ends before social media, but for me someone like graham linehan has gone down hugely in my estimation due to how awful he has been on it.

Neil degrasse Tyson wasn't ruined per se but he did become increasingly extremely annoying. Ended up unfollowing, which has saved his reputation in my eyes.

 

[Munificent_Fool]

I don't think McCartney is seen as a gc, but yeah, I think Lennon is most often seen as an example of the worst sort of egotistical, holier than thou hippy. I also think the general consensus from people I know who care about music is that McCartney was considerably more talented than Lennon - again that may well be due to the fact that Lennon never had the chance to grow beyond his activist-experimentational phase and just focus on making good music like McCartney did.

I don't know anyone who thinks McCartney was "considerably more talented than Lennon." Unless they're talking about instrumentally. Most people and most critics regard Lennon as the greater talent. And rightly so, imo. Lennon wrote more of The Beatles best songs, Plastic Ono Band is pretty widely accepted as the best post-Beatles album. I mean what has McCartney produced post 1980 that even comes close to POB or Imagine, or even his best post-Beatles work, Band On The Run?

He's made 20+ albums since the break-up and there's about 9 good songs. Not to be crude but I wouldn't wipe my arse with Silly Love Songs and most of the other crap he's come out with.

 

[hendrix]

He is essentially saying that inequality and a hierarchy are more or less facts of evolution. There has to be a subset of a species that obtain a particular superiority with which the rest mimic and improve if they can or follow said leaders as it helps their survival. In humans he expands re psychology and mythology to show the development of people with regards to the hero ideal and what that means in practice. These weren't just forced upon people but were witnessed and passed down through thousands of years. They were values that benefitted the individual, their family and society at large and they would not have held but for being true. It would pass down as females would mate with competent partners - Peterson sees competency and power as synonymous here.

It's very interesting hearing him talk about it. That first humans associated the ideal with the actual person and then became able to understand the abstract of that with regards to stories and values that were passed on even when the human that embodied them passed away. It's what stopped societies crumbling into chaos when they lose such a good leader or staving a bad one off when a tyrant would come along. That's why the eternal ideals tend to have a religious/mythological story associated with them - some may call it God or refer to the prophets and other heroes.

As he's explained, because it is to the benefit of people to cooperate with others. Giving power to someone and having it taken from you are two different things.

Someone being promoted to the top of a hierarchy because of a higher level of competency by their peers vs Someone being at the top because they take others' will and ability to choose.

The stories are warnings for those who think they are incorruptible.

No no no! You have not understood him at all!

He is describing these things as features of evolution. He is describing it, he is not passing any judgement on whether they are the most efficient of best way of doing things. He IS using these features to explain why people are unhappy - the whole point of the lobster thing with heirarchy being linked to serotonin - the whole point was to explain why we desire social status, and how it impacts on our feeling of wellbeing.

You seem to be conflating his description of the realities of social hierarchy with any argument for social hierarchy. He is explaining our behaviour, not advocating for it.

 

[GIMH]

I don't know anyone who thinks McCartney was "considerably more talented than Lennon." Unless they're talking about instrumentally. Most people and most critics regard Lennon as the greater talent. And rightly so, imo. Lennon wrote more of The Beatles best songs, Plastic Ono Band is pretty widely accepted as the best post-Beatles album. I mean what has McCartney produced post 1980 that even comes close to POB or Imagine, or even his best post-Beatles work, Band On The Run?

He's made 20+ albums since the break-up and there's about 9 good songs. Not to be crude but I wouldn't wipe my arse with Silly Love Songs and most of the other crap he's come out with.

I don’t think he’s considerably more talented but I’d say he edges it

The nine good song comment is just silly, and all of his output from the mid 90s on has been good. No, probably not as good as POB but Lennon never scaled those heights again either.

We’ve actually had this debate before over at cricsim so no point retreading old ground. I love them both and it was as a partnership that they were most effective. But you’ve unnecessarily denigrated Macca there IMO

 

[Munificent_Fool]

I don’t think he’s considerably more talented but I’d say he edges it

The nine good song comment is just silly, and all of his output from the mid 90s on has been good. No, probably not as good as POB but Lennon never scaled those heights again either.

We’ve actually had this debate before over at cricsim so no point retreading old ground. I love them both and it was as a partnership that they were most effective. But you’ve unnecessarily denigrated Macca there IMO

lol nah let's retread that old dirt road. I'm bored.

I mean of course, to each their own. Frankly, I reckon it's garbage. As for Lennon never scaling those heights again, well it's a pretty tall order to follow considering POB is probably one of the best albums of all time. Imagine wasn't too bad as a follow up. Both were better than any album McCartney ever produced. Lennon's solo catalog is far more impressive imo.

Mother, Working Class Hero, Imagine, Jealous Guy, Mind Games, Whatever Gets You Through The Night, #9 Dream, Instant Karma, Power To The People, Nobody Loves You, Starting Over, Watching The Wheels, Beautiful Boy, Woman, Cold Turkey, Give Peace A Chance, Happy Xmas, Nobody Told Me and of course many other great, less commercially appealing songs.

McCartney: Maybe I'm Amazed, 300 other average songs.

 

[Top_Cat]

He's no Michael Jackson, though.

 

[Uppercut]

Out of curiosity is there anyone whose twitter presence ruined them somewhat for you?I don't mean someone like Toby Young or Louise Mensch who we knew were bell ends before social media, but for me someone like graham linehan has gone down hugely in my estimation due to how awful he has been on it.

Linehan's a great example of someone that actually makes you go "wait a minute, this guy's a dick". The NGT example is more common, usually they just churn out boring opinions until you unfollow them. Robert Harris and Tom Holland come to mind, great writers but absolute crashing bores on Twitter. The problem is that almost everyone gets sucked into tweeting about politics, when almost nobody has anything new or interesting to say about it.

 

[StephenZA]

No no no! You have not understood him at all!

He is describing these things as features of evolution. He is describing it, he is not passing any judgement on whether they are the most efficient of best way of doing things. He IS using these features to explain why people are unhappy - the whole point of the lobster thing with heirarchy being linked to serotonin - the whole point was to explain why we desire social status, and how it impacts on our feeling of wellbeing.

You seem to be conflating his description of the realities of social hierarchy with any argument for social hierarchy. He is explaining our behaviour, not advocating for it.

But that is like looking at the universe through a hole the size of a pin.... makes no sense and does not actually explaining the realities or the solutions. But it works for people who are only interested in small parts of the truth.

Edit: Just to clarify I don't actually disagree with hendrix post here. More that Peterson using this as some sort of behaviour explanation is just really poor and quite pathetic, particularly from a scientific point of view.

 

[StephenZA]

Interesting counter point of Petersons assertion.

theconversation_psychologist-jordan-peterson-says-lobsters-help-to-explain-why-human-hierarchies-exist-do-they

 

[Uppercut]

But that is like looking at the universe through a hole the size of a pin.... makes no sense and does not actually explaining the realities or the solutions. But it works for people who are only interested in small parts of the truth.

Noooo.

 

[GIMH]

lol nah let's retread that old dirt road. I'm bored.

I mean of course, to each their own. Frankly, I reckon it's garbage. As for Lennon never scaling those heights again, well it's a pretty tall order to follow considering POB is probably one of the best albums of all time. Imagine wasn't too bad as a follow up. Both were better than any album McCartney ever produced. Lennon's solo catalog is far more impressive imo.

Mother, Working Class Hero, Imagine, Jealous Guy, Mind Games, Whatever Gets You Through The Night, #9 Dream, Instant Karma, Power To The People, Nobody Loves You, Starting Over, Watching The Wheels, Beautiful Boy, Woman, Cold Turkey, Give Peace A Chance, Happy Xmas, Nobody Told Me and of course many other great, less commercially appealing songs.

McCartney: Maybe I'm Amazed, 300 other average songs.

I hate Maybe I'm Amazed but there's stacks of quality. Every Night, the whole of Band on the Run, Calico Skies, Driving Rain, the medley on his 2007 album (name escapes me, the one with Dance Tonight on). The albums don't deliver with the consistency that The Beatles did, but neither do Lennon's after Ono Band. There are plenty of great songs amongst lots of filler.; Imagine is pretty good but I'd stack a few of Macca's above it.

As you say, it's each to their own, you can probably make a case for George having a stronger solo career than either tbh. Either way, I enjoy a hell of a lot of music they all produced post-Beatles, but I genuinely found that once the mid-90s hit and The Beatles were cool again, Anthology went massive, Oasis were shoehorning new fans, Macca found a new groove and produced some cracking stuff.

 

[Ikki]

No no no! You have not understood him at all!

He is describing these things as features of evolution. He is describing it, he is not passing any judgement on whether they are the most efficient of best way of doing things. He IS using these features to explain why people are unhappy - the whole point of the lobster thing with heirarchy being linked to serotonin - the whole point was to explain why we desire social status, and how it impacts on our feeling of wellbeing.

You seem to be conflating his description of the realities of social hierarchy with any argument for social hierarchy. He is explaining our behaviour, not advocating for it.

He does argue it works in certain contexts but I didn't say he advocated for it as if it is the most efficient - I think he is open to the possibility there is something else. I'm actually saying more or less what you've just said re him seeing it as a feature. It's the central part of his argument against the postmodernists/leftists (that seek to make everything equal) to argue that nature itself sorts itself unequally and has done as evidenced by evolution.

 

[Spark]

It seems as if you are never “hard core” enough for YouTube’s recommendation algorithm. It promotes, recommends and disseminates videos in a manner that appears to constantly up the stakes. Given its billion or so users, YouTube may be one of the most powerful radicalizing instruments of the 21st century.

This is not because a cabal of YouTube engineers is plotting to drive the world off a cliff. A more likely explanation has to do with the nexus of artificial intelligence and Google’s business model. (YouTube is owned by Google.) For all its lofty rhetoric, Google is an advertising broker, selling our attention to companies that will pay for it. The longer people stay on YouTube, the more money Google makes.

What keeps people glued to YouTube? Its algorithm seems to have concluded that people are drawn to content that is more extreme than what they started with — or to incendiary content in general.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-politics-radical.html