lichess.org
Donate

Politics

Here we go again...
> also bear in mind that you initiated by replying to me here, not the other way around.
Yes. That IS how questions work. Typically, the proper etiquette is for the other person to answer.

> if there's anyone i was condescending towards, it was jordan peterson, a full-blown charlatan. then you came in, i think even admitted you didnt know who that is, but defended him as a source anyway?
See the "Ratt" video (above).

> *then* you admitted that you dont know anything about the subject, and also dont watch documentaries on political subjects. and you are upset that i have pointed out what you have simply admitted on your own, which is that you do not actually intend to learn more about this subject.
See the "Ratt" video (above)

>instead youre talking to me about, like, being polite and having a good sporting debate. i dont do debates, i just try to provide good information and if someone tries to spread absolute nonsense, i point that out.

See the "Ratt" video (above)

> think about if this were flipped around. if you recommended a book on a political topic written by someone with literal in-person experience on the subject, and i said 'heh, i dont think so. i dont read books on political topics. too biased. but i think sonic the hedgehog might be a great source on this topic instead,' how would you react to this?

Pretty much the way I'm reacting now, tbh.

> youre telling me you would be polite and kind about this and want to 'engage in debate' with me over this? i would hope not! i'd hope that you would be incredulous and basically explode me out of the sky for saying something so silly.

You want me to be violent and abusive in response to someone saying something dumb? I'm sorry, but that's not how I roll.
>
> like im sorry that i'm communicating this to you in a direct and like, harsh way, but at some point youve gotta look in a mirror with this. you cant get upset when someone points out what you yourself willingly admitted.

See the "Ratt" video above
>
> your given reason for not watching the documentary is 'bias,'
So, tell me: when did I imply that I didn't watch the documentary? How would I critique a documentary that I hadn't seen?

> i guess you only learn from unbiased sources, aka ones that are more in line with your preexisting beliefs.
What the... you just ran me over hot coals for (an exaggerated version of) my lack of prior knowledge, then criticize me for not being willing to change beliefs that I don't have?

> unfortunately this is consistent with my expectations for you;
That's just uncalled for.

>... it is sad that literal interviews with people in palestine is 'biased' and 'sensational' to you though.

Well of COURSE Palestinians are gonna have a pro-Palestine bias. If everyone had a pro-Israeli bias, then we wouldn't be having this pseudo-conversation.

The style of the film was sensationalist. The Palestinians in said film were not.

> if im being honest, the idea that that's even possible actually scares me
Well, it should comfort you that your idea is based off of wild speculation.
speaking of disinformation, the US just spent millions of dollars shooting down 4 balloon, one an errant Chinese weather balloon, another a cheap hobbist balloon (Aviation Week story), and the other 2? probably more of the hobby balloons. and this country is one of the 2 great nuclear powers in the world, with a hair trigger.
"You don't seem to grasp the fact that I never defended anyone, unless you consider my brief mention that Peterson "seems fairly well informed" a defense. I'm not sure what else you want me to say (or rather, NOT say)."

You misunderstand deeply. I fully grasp that you *said* that you weren't defending anyone. You took great care, as you always do, to construct your statements in a way where you can be seen as 'not taking a side'--while implicitly taking a very clear stance in defense of jordan petersens claims about palestinians not being real or whatever nonsense he apparently said.

I knew you would say something like this. You have a consistent, ongoing strategy of always avoiding actually *saying* what you stand for. you instead express selective skepticism for opinions and sources that go against your actual, largely concealed, beliefs. this allows you to come off as an impartial arbiter of fairness and truth, when really your intent is to defend absolute and utter nonsense.

if i said "i prefer waffles to pancakes and here are some reasons why," and your opinion was that pancakes are better, you would never come out and directly say "i think pancakes are better." that is too risky for you because you are intent on appearing impartial. instead, with your pinky in the air, you'd say something like, "ah, some of the reasons you gave for waffles being better seem rather fallacious to me. would you care to expound?"

then if i say "oh you like pancakes? okay." you'd say something like "oh please dont misunderstand, miss! why, i never *said* i prefer pancakes!! im only asking questions, is all..."

im not sure whether youre aware that you do that or not. either way, id like to suggest that one of the main reasons you hate dealing with me is that i dont play those kinds of games

----

it's a risky feeling to actually say where you stand on something. here it would mean you have basically two options

you can say outright, without hedging, that you agree with pawnedge and actually think that jordan peterson, a known charlatan, is a reasonable source on anything, much less palestine.

or, you can say, 'actually you know what no, i think i have to swallow my pride and admit that that source is ass and that i'm wrong on this topic. maybe since i'm kind of friends with pawnedge on this site, i should have a discussion with him about it and in that way i would help friends to learn with me more about this topic.'

so yeah it is understandable that you would want to avoid this. saying your shit opens yourself up to some possible socially uncomfortable situations for sure. sometimes you have to get exploded for having an opinion others dont like. sometimes you have to disagree with someone you like. that's the risk you have to take if you want the reward of actually having real discussions that go anywhere instead of empty little debate games.

i try to do things this way and i think it's just better. when there's a climate change thread and i believe that the US military's role is a big issue in that area, i say my shit straight up. are there consequences for that? yes, people jumped on me a bit over that. most people expressed disagreement, including people i think are cool, and that sort of thing can be stressful even online! i'm at peace with that though because i want to have real conversations that go actual places with people who actually may want to learn together. genuinely, you should try!
^ i'm gonna call it here for today at a minimum because i'm spending too much time on this. i get addicted to this stuff and try to keep it in check when it's sucking away too much time. peace for at least a while!
When I get accused of being too manipulative to know my own sinister thoughts, that means it's officially time to bust this out:
https://i.imgur.com/TV6zrRN.png
Reading from good old Nathan J Robinson's always entertaining socialist journal, is actually an interesting study in obscurantism (or perhaps equivalently, long-windedness?) when it comes to JBP, and circles back to the original topic. Look at this fascinating piece of text Robinson quotes from Peterson:

"Procedural knowledge, generated in the course of heroic behavior, is not organized and integrated within the group and the individual as a consequence of simple accumulation. Procedure “a,” appropriate in situation one, and procedure “b,” appropriate in situation two, may clash in mutual violent opposition in situation three. Under such circumstances intrapsychic or interpersonal conflict necessarily emerges. When such antagonism arises, moral revaluation becomes necessary. As a consequence of such revaluation, behavioral options are brutally rank-ordered, or, less frequently, entire moral systems are devastated, reorganized and replaced. This organization and reorganization occurs as a consequence of “war,” in its concrete, abstract, intrapsychic, and interpersonal variants. In the most basic case, an individual is rendered subject to an intolerable conflict, as a consequence of the perceived (affective) incompatibility of two or more apprehended outcomes of a given behavioral procedure. In the purely intrapsychic sphere, such conflict often emerges when attainment of what is desired presently necessarily interferes with attainment of what is desired (or avoidance of what is feared) in the future. Permanent satisfactory resolution of such conflict (between temptation and “moral purity,” for example) requires the construction of an abstract moral system, powerful enough to allow what an occurrence signifies for the future to govern reaction to what it signifies now. Even that construction, however, is necessarily incomplete when considered only as an “intrapsychic” phenomena. The individual, once capable of coherently integrating competing motivational demands in the private sphere, nonetheless remains destined for conflict with the other, in the course of the inevitable transformations of personal experience. This means that the person who has come to terms with him- or herself—at least in principle—is still subject to the affective dysregulation inevitably produced by interpersonal interaction. It is also the case that such subjugation is actually indicative of insufficient “intrapsychic” organization, as many basic “needs” can only be satisfied through the cooperation of others."

This is basically saying:

Sometimes actions in different contexts can clash, creating moral conflict at the individual level. For example, moral systems might need to be reorganized to defer instant gratification for more long-term gains, since its better for the individual overall. Regardless, work is still needed to define a system for working with others, since many needs can not be achieved on one's own.

Also lol @clousems XDDD
@kyanite111 said in #38:
> actually an interesting study in obscurantism (or perhaps equivalently, long-windedness?)

I guess that's the point -- that when intellectualism becomes mere long-windedness, we're not doing any creative thinking. Rather, JBP is _marketed_ intellectualism, meant to dazzle people without telling them very much.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.