Jordan Peterson cult followingz

Why is that heartening?

Click to expand...

Because The Atlantic is left-center.  The left's critique of him usually lack any substance and spare no time for reasonable inquiry. He is in the process of killing their sacred cow (IP) so they typically read worse than fox news.

Maybe it has changed some in the last 15 years since I graduated

Click to expand...

You can find it ridiculous or you can search on it.  Conspiracy nutter Alex Jones should raise a big red flag, but instead people are delighted four of the biggest social media companies coordinated a joint banning of him overnight.

boji said:

Because The Atlantic is left-center.  The left's critique of him usually lack any substance and spare no time for reasonable inquiry. He is in the process of killing their sacred cow (IP) so they typically read worse than fox news.

Click to expand...

Sounds like quite a conspiracy. 

You can find it ridiculous or you can search on it.  Conspiracy nutter Alex Jones should raise a big red flag, but instead people are delighted four of the biggest social media companies coordinated a joint banning of him overnight.

Click to expand...

Alex Jones is your example? A guy who claims he is in the entertainment business, running a show fictionally claiming school shootings were false flags and the parents of dead children are crisis actors? That's your real life example of identity politics? 

The article talked all about this oppressive"left" and its "policed discourse that dominates American campuses"
Seems nonsensical in the real world, but just a debate of a false reality on the internet and youtube. Go out and experience the real world - you're caught up in a stupid internet debate.

And what of a government purge firing an FBI agent that made personal communications that were anti-trump? Identity politics?

Sounds like quite a conspiracy.

Click to expand...

 
'I can ignore this claim about IP and reduce it to quack conspiracy since it is not in my wheelhouse'
Hello brewery, we meet again.

Alex Jones is your example?

Click to expand...

The action against AJ is only a most recent example. This has nothing to do with his value, it has to do with his right to use internet platforms that were previously market driven but are clearly becoming curated by political interests.

But is it necessary to spell out the dangers of deplatforming 'deep state' paranoids with 1m+ subscribers?

I live in one of the most liberal cities

Click to expand...

Seems nonsensical in the real world, but just a debate of a false reality

Click to expand...

boji said:

The action against AJ is only the most recent example. This has nothing to do with his value, it has to do with his right to use internet platforms that were previously market driven but are clearly becoming curated by political interests.

But is it necessary to spell out the dangers of deplatforming 'deep state' paranoids with 1m+ subscribers?

Click to expand...

So is this forum a part of the identity politics movement you see? There are forum rules here that lead to individuals being banned or having their posts edited (very similar to twitter). [deleted]

I'm trying to get you to look at it in the real world instead of what seems like a false reality / narrative that's been built up in certain internet echo chambers.

Just because a lot of people believe in this narrative doesn't mean it is substantially valid.

And what of a government purge firing an FBI agent that made personal communications that were anti-trump? Identity politics?

Click to expand...

Political discussion needn't be a zero-sum game. Providing equivalent examples of bad choices on the right does not nullify arguments against IP and tribalism.

Also note it is somewhat humorous to read the dismissal of IP overreach made using an IP point of departure (Who you are or where you're from does nothing to refute group behavior claims).

This isn't to say one can or should avoid IP entirely, I'm just saying it's being used to quash reasonable debate fairly regularly nowadays, and the data of its increased abuse exists in the real world if you only look for it.

So what is it in your estimation that drives the language of collectivist movements like the alt-right or antifa?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gdTRqd3Ys4

boji said:

Political discussion needn't be a zero-sum game. Providing equivalent examples of bad choices on the right does not nullify arguments against IP and tribalism.

Also note it is somewhat humorous to read the dismissal of IP overreach made using an IP point of departure (Who you are or where you're from does nothing to refute group behavior claims).

This isn't to say one can or should avoid IP entirely, I'm just saying it's being used to quash reasonable debate fairly regularly nowadays, and the data of its increased abuse exists in the real world if you only look for it.

So what is it in your estimation that drives the language of collectivist movements like the alt-right or antifa?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gdTRqd3Ys4

Click to expand...

Good points.
I need to read more about it I guess. I'm not saying I don't see this going on all over the internet right now. 
What I was trying to say (poorly) was that in the real world I get a very different picture.
Perhaps it is caused by people thinking differently about how the behave or speak on the internet vs in real life. For instance the forum rules here for civility, no hate, etc... are very similar to the rules that twitter, Universities, etc are imposing to curtail hate speech, but in the general internet, that is being criticized as squashing reasonable debate.
Is there a real example of a good debate that was squashed by identity politics? The Atlantic article actually pointed out some good debates that were brought on by identity politics, like the poem.
It seems the distinction is real life (1st person interactions), closed internet communities like groupdiy (2nd person - we sort of know each other), general internet (3rd person). In the 3rd person, people say and do things differently than 1 on 1.

In contrast to the voting map bogi posted above, this shows regions in black where the majority of eligible voters that did not vote was the 'winner'
I thought it was an interesting contrast.
Neither is really the best story though because who cares about land area.

The actual vote tallies were  non-voters by a landslide.

DMP ,  how can that non voting map be black(non voting ). Around LA?  It seems like that area should be blue.

It just means more eligible voters did not vote in that region than either blue votes or red votes

The overall map of the country would be black because the totals were:
Red (trump): 63 million
Blue (clinton): 65 million
Black (non-voters):  ~110 million

Good points.
I need to read more about it I guess.

Click to expand...

Thank you, truly, for trying to appreciate an opposing viewpoint, even if you don't agree with it.  I'll do the same.

At last, Peterson and Harris tete-a-tete.

To anticipate the reflexive neg of JP/SH haters, I don't believe these conversations are merely a word slog. Some of it cuts at the root of the idea that a rational, evidence based approach is all anyone needs to win at the game of modern ethics.

Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jey_CzIOfYE
Part2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEf6X-FueMo

Edit: It's also beautiful to see two intellectuals steel man each other's arguments in part 2! So rare to see.

The Weinstein brothers, Bret and Eric are super smart. Between them and Jonathan Haidt we might find some sanity returning to politicized social media.

Of course scott! Glad you took something from them.