Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!

[Shatterface]

Maths can't be that hard. How many numbers can there be? Once you've memorised them all the rest is easy.

It's just like English. There are only 26 letters. Writing Hamlet is just a matter of putting them in the right order.

[katamari Damassi]

[youtube][/youtube]

[KiwiInOz]

CV

Educational Experiences
2015 – 2016
Princeton University, PhD in Mathematics

How the fuck you get a Ph.D. in one year?

Something to do with the folding of time? Or is that physics?

[KiwiInOz]

CV
Educational Experiences
2015 – 2016
Princeton University, PhD in Mathematics

How the fuck you get a Ph.D. in one year?

I think she was working on her PhD for some time before that; 2015-2016 is when she went/returned to Princeton and finished up under formal supervision.

That said, quick PhD's are possible. Took me only 2 1/2 years.

:cdc:

:hand:

Took me 6 years part time.

[HelpingHand]

This our favorite Flavor Aid haired vixen?

https://masteroverwatch.com/profile/pc/ ... ccavs-1545

Name is right. Looks to be a big lull in stats during the vacation window. And interestingly is ranked near the bottom.

Although looking at more players, it seems the vast majority are not even ranked. Not sure if ranking is reserved for the top, thus making this player near the bottom of the best, or is related to sheer number of hours spent in game.

[Old_ones]

"For one brief shining moment you were Camelot"

Now not so much.

It disgusts me how much more valuable virtue signaling and ideology whoring are to some "skeptics" than incisiveness and clear thinking. People like Dawkins, Harris and Shermer are more than mediocre propaganda mouthpieces. If you've heard one of them speak, you've probably learned something. If you've heard one social justice warrior you've heard all of them. Everything they say is trash.

[Lsuoma]

Just listening to the live version of Crossroads by Cream - you can't beat power trios (I include The 'Oo and Led Zep).

[Bhurzum]

[youtube][youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

[dogen]

2 1/2 years?
That 's not bad for an astrologer. :P

Hahaha, nice one, centurion!

[pro-boxing-fan]

Good remake i just discovered.

[youtube][/youtube]

[Old_ones]

My favorite of Chris Cornell's stuff is from the Temple of the Dog album. I've been listening to it all day. Seems appropriate given that the project was itself a eulogy. Seeing Cornell go like this hits me in a different place than any of the other recent musician deaths; I probably spent 500 hours of my formative years listening to Superunknown let alone the rest of their discography.

[youtube][/youtube]

Goodnight Mr. Cornell.

[pro-boxing-fan]

Peterson did quite well at the Senate hearing on Bill C16. Im impressed.

[youtube][/youtube]

[Steersman]

My favorite of Chris Cornell's stuff is from the Temple of the Dog album. I've been listening to it all day. Seems appropriate given that the project was itself a eulogy. Seeing Cornell go like this hits me in a different place than any of the other recent musician deaths; I probably spent 500 hours of my formative years listening to Superunknown let alone the rest of their discography.

[.youtube][/youtube]

Goodnight Mr. Cornell.

Seems Pakistani-Canadian atheist-Muslim (bit of an oxymoron) Ali Rizvi had pretty much the same experience; kind of a nice eulogy of sorts:

[MarcusAu]

I would say that she is reaping the just deserts of her fomenting outrage culture, but at best she was bringing in enough money from the monetization to buy a 6-pack of beer each month.

It isn't youtube dropping her, but all of the advertisers who are smartly shy of advertising on controversial subjects. And discussions of mansplaining, feminism etc all fall under that category.

All she has to sell is the "poor me" victim stance which has been her bread & butter ever since she stirred the pot with Dawkins. She has nothing else. Not even a work ethic.

Her own de facto separation from the skeptic community is just as valid as PZ's formal 'divorce'

Conferences and/or speaking engagements have dried up, Skepchick no longer has the footprint it once had so can't be bringing in much money, and she is too lazy to make a go of selling T-shirts and associated knick-knacks.

And that's just monetarily - she is not now, and never has, produced much of scientific or skeptical value.

It seems like she didn't bother to check the expiry date on the product she is selling.

[feathers]

It's also good on the differences between different strands of communism. Not just Lenin and the Bolsheviks vs Trotsky and the Mensheviks but between Lenin and Marx's materialism and Alexander Bogdanov's Empiriomonism. In many ways Bogdanov is the father of campus radicalism: Marx and Lenin rejected subjectivity as irrelevant; it was Bogdanov who focused on 'subjectivity' or what we'd now call 'lived experience'.

True, you must bellyfeel SocJus.

[paddybrown]

"For one brief shining moment you were Camelot"

Now not so much.

Traditional female gender role: malicious gossip. Toxic femininity?

[Brive1987]

I think she was working on her PhD for some time before that; 2015-2016 is when she went/returned to Princeton and finished up under formal supervision.

That said, quick PhD's are possible. Took me only 2 1/2 years.

:cdc:

You so dumb.

For 490 bucks you can translate your work experience into a piece of paper.

http://www.expressuniversitydegree.com/degree-fees/

Better yet it is a robust and legit pathway:

If you buy a PhD you will achieve promotions at your workplace without having to write complex projects and attending classes that will ruin your family or work life. If you buy a PhD from our company you will get unlimited career opportunities and you will gain the respect of your employers and co workers.

If you buy a PhD from our company you will purchase an accredited reputable degree that can be used internationally. Due to the fact that we collaborate with accredited universities we help you buy a PhD with great value that will serve you in order to open doors for the best paid jobs. All you have to do is to fill the online application in order to detail the work experience you have in the field of your choice and to provide the work tasks that you have completed. You can provide additional documents that prove your life experience in order to prove the institution that you are eligible to buy a PhD.

It worked for Myers and is Carrier endorsed.

Next time talk to me first.

[feathers]

I'm much more a fan of the early Tom Baker stories produced by Phillip Hinchcliffe. Gothic horror like Ark in Space were the aliens lay their eggs in people and the larvae eat them from the inside (this was before Alien)

Or The Brain of Morbius when Sarah accidentally decants the brain onto the floor and the mad scientists' assistant is shot in the guts and bleeds[/b].

Or The Talons of Weng-Chiang when when the magician smokes opium after his legs are bitten off by a giant rat.

jusf because it's a kids show doesn't mean it should be a safe space.

It's the only Doctor I've ever watched, when I was 9 or so. My mother didn't like it one bit because she thought it made me wet my bed. She may have been right.

I tried to watch some of them more recently but the magic had disappeared, so I won't bother with any newer doctors.

[Brive1987]

Hot from Melbourne University:

Men should learn how to speak like women," the report found, "(and) not speak with absolute confidence when they are in fact not sure or expressing an opinion

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/we-should ... w89ps.html

[shoutinghorse]

I would say that she is reaping the just deserts of her fomenting outrage culture, but at best she was bringing in enough money from the monetization to buy a 6-pack of beer each month.

It isn't youtube dropping her, but all of the advertisers who are smartly shy of advertising on controversial subjects. And discussions of mansplaining, feminism etc all fall under that category.

All she has to sell is the "poor me" victim stance which has been her bread & butter ever since she stirred the pot with Dawkins. She has nothing else. Not even a work ethic.

Her own de facto separation from the skeptic community is just as valid as PZ's formal 'divorce'

Conferences and/or speaking engagements have dried up, Skepchick no longer has the footprint it once had so can't be bringing in much money, and she is too lazy to make a go of selling T-shirts and associated knick-knacks.

And that's just monetarily - she is not now, and never has, produced much of scientific or skeptical value.

It seems like she didn't bother to check the expiry date on the product she is selling.

She was given every opportunity by her sycophantic fan boys in the 'skeptic' movement, promoted at every event by the likes of (then a fairly big hitter) PZ and others, she got herself onto the popular SGU podcasts and could boast a few famous names among her acquaintances and friends. Prof, Brian Cox & his wife for example. The concept of Skepchick wasn't a bad idea but she just never had the work ethic to promote it to a wider audience.
She fucked up marrying the English dork Rodrigues on a narcissistic whim, got another chance with Isaak, who by the length of time they were together (6yrs) and the help and support he gave her, must have really loved her, but she blew that too. She is just lazy & selfish who plays at being a serious 'science communicator' Christ even most of her former pals have very little to do with her now.

You reap what you sow.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Hot from Melbourne University:

Men should learn how to speak like women," the report found, "(and) not speak with absolute confidence when they are in fact not sure or expressing an opinion

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/we-should ... w89ps.html

Let me try..Melbourne University, fuck off! Oh, sorry.. maybe you should think about fucking off?

[feathers]

My thesis is this thing that was initially going to be a grenade launched at my ex-prison, for better or for worse, and instead turned into some kind of positive seed bomb where flowers have sprouted beside the foundations I thought I wanted to crumble.

https://mathbabe.org/2015/12/11/piper-h ... -d-thesis/

Chick is a 5150 waiting to happen.

User Joshua tries to ask relevant mathematical questions:

Dear Piper,

Some thoughts. I’m not in this area, so this is all probably hopelessly naive (and maybe already covered in your thesis):
(1) What about n=2? Is that well understood (trivial?) or more complicated (too few symmetries)?
(2) Are there similar results for finite fields? Any interesting compare/contrast?
(3 In 1.2.2, you mention S_n being the least “symmetric.” Another way to phrase it is to think about whether the components are generic or special. Take S_4 vs D_4 (use the model of symmetry group the square). If someone asks you to choose a vertex of the square, there’s really no choice, since all the vertices are generic up to symmetry. However, if they ask you to choose another one, suddenly it makes a difference. So, while the vertices are generic, pairs of vertices aren’t. And, maybe surprisingly, triples of vertices (without order) are generic again.

With S_n symmetry, all choices of subsets of your components are generic, so none of the choices matter. And, I guess you’ll agree with this: when none of your choices make a difference, then you don’t really have a choice.

(4) the implication of your result is that, if we wanted to find number fields in a particular subspace of the space of shapes, then there should be some there. (i) Any guesses about how large a discriminant we would need to have a certain confidence of getting some fields (given a particular subspace)? (ii) Are there any interesting subspaces where it is helpful to know that we can find number fields’ shapes living there?

(5) Is the absolute value of the discriminant just a handy way to list out the number fields or is there something particular that is happening as the AVotD grows?

(6) back to the symmetry groups. is there anything interesting we can say about number fields with symmetry groups smaller than S_n? Everyone has their favorites, right: normal subgroups, solvable subgroups, subgroups with index p^m (for prime p), etc? You can tell I don’t know what I’m talking about here . . .

Obviously, no reason to take any of this seriously or even respond.

That can't stand, of course, so the Look At Me I'm A Black Mathematician retorts:

December 18, 2015 at 6:00 am

first, thank you for reading my post and looking at my thesis!!!!

i have really struggled with whether and how to respond to this. The execution of this message was very nice and respectful, and I genuinely appreciate that. The premise, however, is problematic. Maybe not inherently, but within the context of the sexist society we live in. Men are allowed, and often feel compelled, to think out loud at women, to share unsolicited not necessarily informed thoughts at women. (And usually these men, unlike you, don’t even seem to recognize that their thoughts may not be useful.) Women on the other hand aren’t allowed to be as open. So, if you want to not just be respectful, but actually be anti-oppression, it is better (IMO) not to respond to a woman’s work with the types of thoughts that other men pawn off as insights, if you know what i mean. again, i appreciate your honesty, but i feel obligated to point these things out.

So, was she given her PhD just to make her go away?

[rayshul]

I had a colleague tell me about a woman who claimed her work could only be judged by someone like her, not a white man. From memory she was a lesbian Jamaican with a disability.

[MarcusAu]

Was she named Fanny Diver?

[Brive1987]

I would say that she is reaping the just deserts of her fomenting outrage culture, but at best she was bringing in enough money from the monetization to buy a 6-pack of beer each month.

It isn't youtube dropping her, but all of the advertisers who are smartly shy of advertising on controversial subjects. And discussions of mansplaining, feminism etc all fall under that category.

All she has to sell is the "poor me" victim stance which has been her bread & butter ever since she stirred the pot with Dawkins. She has nothing else. Not even a work ethic.

Her own de facto separation from the skeptic community is just as valid as PZ's formal 'divorce'

Conferences and/or speaking engagements have dried up, Skepchick no longer has the footprint it once had so can't be bringing in much money, and she is too lazy to make a go of selling T-shirts and associated knick-knacks.

And that's just monetarily - she is not now, and never has, produced much of scientific or skeptical value.

It seems like she didn't bother to check the expiry date on the product she is selling.

She was given every opportunity by her sycophantic fan boys in the 'skeptic' movement, promoted at every event by the likes of (then a fairly big hitter) PZ and others, she got herself onto the popular SGU podcasts and could boast a few famous names among her acquaintances and friends. Prof, Brian Cox & his wife for example. The concept of Skepchick wasn't a bad idea but she just never had the work ethic to promote it to a wider audience.
She fucked up marrying the English dork Rodrigues on a narcissistic whim, got another chance with Isaak, who by the length of time they were together (6yrs) and the help and support he gave her, must have really loved her, but she blew that too. She is just lazy & selfish who plays at being a serious 'science communicator' Christ even most of her former pals have very little to do with her now.

You reap what you sow.

I remember when she attacked Kylie Sturgess just because Kylie wanted to send her dead animals in the post.

Like that's a problem.

[Kirbmarc]

That can't stand, of course, so the Look At Me I'm A Black Mathematician retorts:

December 18, 2015 at 6:00 am

first, thank you for reading my post and looking at my thesis!!!!

i have really struggled with whether and how to respond to this. The execution of this message was very nice and respectful, and I genuinely appreciate that. The premise, however, is problematic. Maybe not inherently, but within the context of the sexist society we live in. Men are allowed, and often feel compelled, to think out loud at women, to share unsolicited not necessarily informed thoughts at women. (And usually these men, unlike you, don’t even seem to recognize that their thoughts may not be useful.) Women on the other hand aren’t allowed to be as open. So, if you want to not just be respectful, but actually be anti-oppression, it is better (IMO) not to respond to a woman’s work with the types of thoughts that other men pawn off as insights, if you know what i mean. again, i appreciate your honesty, but i feel obligated to point these things out.

So, was she given her PhD just to make her go away?

So she won't answer to question to her thesis if they're made by men? How did she get Manjul Bhargava to collaborate with her on her thesis?

"Piper, are you sure this derivation is correct?"

"OMG how dare you think out loud at me I'm so triggered by your assumption that I may have done something incorrect you're so sexist Manjul this was definitely not OK not respectful at all so problematic for you as a man to assume that I might have done a mistake, apologize and check your privilege!"

"....never mind (fuck, I'll have to fix it later when I'm on my own...wh did I agree to coauthor an article with her?).

[windy]

An alternative argument would be that muslims are having more children while Europeans are having less children due to secularization of Europe. Europeans are having less children, and it's possible that this is due to secularization (mostly indirectly, due to the lack of forced marriages and child marriages and to the fact that more women spend a lot of time in education and are part of the workforce.

And/or because the introduction of pension schemes meant that children weren't needed for old-age security:

Pensions and Fertility: Back to the Roots -- The Introduction of Bismarck's Pension Scheme and the European Fertility Decline

Abstract
Fertility has long been declining in industrialised countries and the existence of public pension systems is considered as one of the causes. This paper provides detailed evidence based on historical data on the mechanism by which a public pension system depresses fertility. Our theoretical framework highlights that the effect of a public pension system on fertility works via the impact of contributions in such a system on disposable income as well as via the impact on future disposable income that is related to the internal rate of return of the pension system. Drawing on a unique historical data set which allows us to measure these variables at a jurisdictional level for a time when comprehensive social security was introduced, we estimate the effects predicted by the model. We find that beyond the traditional determinants of the first demographic transition, a lower internal rate of return of the pension system is associated with a higher birth rate. This result is robust to including the traditional determinants of the first demographic transition as controls as well as to other policy changes at the time.

[Kirbmarc]

An alternative argument would be that muslims are having more children while Europeans are having less children due to secularization of Europe. Europeans are having less children, and it's possible that this is due to secularization (mostly indirectly, due to the lack of forced marriages and child marriages and to the fact that more women spend a lot of time in education and are part of the workforce.

And/or because the introduction of pension schemes meant that children weren't needed for old-age security:

Pensions and Fertility: Back to the Roots -- The Introduction of Bismarck's Pension Scheme and the European Fertility Decline

Abstract
Fertility has long been declining in industrialised countries and the existence of public pension systems is considered as one of the causes. This paper provides detailed evidence based on historical data on the mechanism by which a public pension system depresses fertility. Our theoretical framework highlights that the effect of a public pension system on fertility works via the impact of contributions in such a system on disposable income as well as via the impact on future disposable income that is related to the internal rate of return of the pension system. Drawing on a unique historical data set which allows us to measure these variables at a jurisdictional level for a time when comprehensive social security was introduced, we estimate the effects predicted by the model. We find that beyond the traditional determinants of the first demographic transition, a lower internal rate of return of the pension system is associated with a higher birth rate. This result is robust to including the traditional determinants of the first demographic transition as controls as well as to other policy changes at the time.

Thank you very much for sharing this paper. Yes, this is another aspect of industrialized modern societies which is depressing fertility. As I said a lower fertility actually isn't so bad as long as it doesn't go too far: at the very least it reduces the issues with overpopulation, which is already a concern in terms of resource consumption in many areas of the world, and a gradual reduction of fertility rates due to voluntary choices is better than a sudden drop due to authoritarian impositions (see: China), at very least because there are less problems with gender imbalance (see again China).

The problems come from a growth in the percentage of those who are unable to work due to advanced age as a result of sub-replacement fertility.

Through advancements in agriculture and medicine we have reduced infant mortality and the incidence of diseases and have greatly improved elderly care, so world population has been booming in the last two centuries. Reduced fertility is a way to keep it in check. However not every area has seen its fertility rates reduce in the same way, and the improvements in elderly care have led to a larger number of elderly people surviving for a longer period of time.

Balancing out differential rates of fertility, shifting age pyramids, productivity, pension systems and migration isn't easy.

[Keating]

On the right - I've heard several people suggest that the rise of islam in Europe (and worldwide) is due to the secularisation (or atheisation - if that's a word) of the West.

I don't agree - but I can see this position being advanced in the short to mid-term.

It looks like they are saying - 'We aren't going to argue about whether god exists any more or not - but people should still believe for the good of society'.

This is would be blatantly true if loads of people were converting from Christianity to islam. This isn't happening, though, western converts account for a very small number of muslims in the west. Most people who leave traditional Christianity embrace either a vague lack of concern for religion or some wishy-washy version, lovey-dovey version of christianity (cafeteria christianity), or atheism, or a vague jelly-like dribble about "spiritual forces".

I think the argument is more that the decline of Christianity has lead to a decline in cultural confidence. That is that this connection is causal. The West is no longer is prepared to argue it's case on anything of substance. Would today's Brits decide to invest their own blood and money to end the slave trade? Would the British demand the Indians end the practice of sati today? They can't even deal with the industrialised rape of their children because of fear of being called racist.

It's not just the right making this argument, either. Peterson also argues that undermining the foundations of Western culture has led to a people with nothing they really believe in, and therefore not prepared to actually stand for anything, least of all themselves. I also think there's a lot of truth to it.

[Keating]

Hot from Melbourne University:

Men should learn how to speak like women," the report found, "(and) not speak with absolute confidence when they are in fact not sure or expressing an opinion

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/we-should ... w89ps.html

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that we should quarantine and cleanse Victoria with fire.

[feathers]

A gram of umpty? 20 years hard, citizen.

Come now, not even Viagra can cause a 20-year hard. Certainly not in a woman.

[MarcusAu]

I think the argument is more that the decline of Christianity has lead to a decline in cultural confidence. That is that this connection is causal. The West is no longer is prepared to argue it's case on anything of substance. Would today's Brits decide to invest their own blood and money to end the slave trade? Would the British demand the Indians end the practice of sati today? They can't even deal with the industrialised rape of their children because of fear of being called racist.

It's not just the right making this argument, either. Peterson also argues that undermining the foundations of Western culture has led to a people with nothing they really believe in, and therefore not prepared to actually stand for anything, least of all themselves. I also think there's a lot of truth to it.

Well yes - but when religious people do this - they are looking back to some fictional golden age.

Even when the British were ending the slave trade (or shortly afterwards) - at the height of J S Mill's fame a popularity there was a famous case of whether the governor of Jamaica should be prosecuted for his conduct in the riots at the time. Things were not so clear cut as we like to think.

And not to get back into the whole Jordan Petersen debate - but are any of his large scale suggestions framed in a falsifiable or testable way? Or does he even state what needs to be done except at an individual level?

Anyway - as an atheist I don't think that religion is going to do the job. But people need to know their history - specifically why the Enlightenment happened, what it's values were and how much we owe to it. Or at least what the alternatives were / are.

[Brive1987]

I've got something very special planned for my 11,000th post.

Can't wait.

[MarcusAu]

I've got something very special planned for my 11,000th post.

Can't wait.

Too late.

And watch yourself - I'm gaining on you.

[CommanderTuvok]

http://imgur.com/YhpseEp.jpg

I agree that we must punish the Saudis with boycotts, etc. but sending Toby Keith there is way to harsh for them.

[Hunt]

I've got something very special planned for my 11,000th post.

Can't wait.

Just making this post to see how many posts I've made because I'm too lazy to scroll back to my last one.

[Hunt]

Fuck, 1988. That was a really shitty year.

[MarcusAu]

Just making this post to see how many posts I've made because I'm too lazy to scroll back to my last one.

1988

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988

[MarcusAu]

I'm not updating that year

[shoutinghorse]

Sweden have just dropped their rape investigation against wikileaks founder Julian Assange

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39973864

[Brive1987]

Sweden have just dropped their rape investigation against wikileaks founder Julian Assange

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39973864

They withdrew their probe.

[Keating]

Or does he even state what needs to be done except at an individual level?

That's actually all he says individuals should act on. He literally says work on yourself. Listen to your conscious on the small scale, address the little nagging issues that you've ignored for a long time and work on improving yourself. Indeed, don't try to solve bigger problems until you're comfortable that you've got your own life sorted out.

Anyway - as an atheist I don't think that religion is going to do the job. But people need to know their history - specifically why the Enlightenment happened, what it's values were and how much we owe to it. Or at least what the alternatives were / are.

Oh, I agree. What I would say, and I suspect Peterson would agree on, is that there is no reason to believe the Whig view of history.

[TedDahlberg]

This our favorite Flavor Aid haired vixen?

https://masteroverwatch.com/profile/pc/ ... ccavs-1545

Name is right. Looks to be a big lull in stats during the vacation window. And interestingly is ranked near the bottom.

Although looking at more players, it seems the vast majority are not even ranked. Not sure if ranking is reserved for the top, thus making this player near the bottom of the best, or is related to sheer number of hours spent in game.

Looking up myself (https://masteroverwatch.com/profile/xbl ... aladanWolf), and assuming that that profile is hers, I take some pleasure in knowing I'm only slightly worse (going by win rate) with a tenth of the number of matches played.

Also, top 9% for damage blocked, woot.

[MarcusAu]

Or does he even state what needs to be done except at an individual level?

That's actually all he says individuals should act on. He literally says work on yourself. Listen to your conscious on the small scale, address the little nagging issues that you've ignored for a long time and work on improving yourself. Indeed, don't try to solve bigger problems until you're comfortable that you've got your own life sorted out.

Anyway - as an atheist I don't think that religion is going to do the job. But people need to know their history - specifically why the Enlightenment happened, what it's values were and how much we owe to it. Or at least what the alternatives were / are.

Oh, I agree. What I would say, and I suspect Peterson would agree on, is that there is no reason to believe the Whig view of history.

Perhaps I'm being too argumentative.

Oh well - each to their own.

[Lsuoma]

A gram of umpty? 20 years hard, citizen.

Come now, not even Viagra can cause a 20-year hard. Certainly not in a woman.

Two of sand, one of cement.

[Scented Nectar]

I had a colleague tell me about a woman who claimed her work could only be judged by someone like her, not a white man. From memory she was a lesbian Jamaican with a disability.

I used to have some friends who faked job searches to welfare back in the day when welfare actually required people to look for them. They would call random companies in the phone book, and to make sure they didn't get asked in for an interview by accident, they'd make themselves sound bad on the phone, swearing or making gross noises, and asking things like how long people get for lunch and breaks there. Then, they'd write down the company and date they called, and if welfare checked up on them, they'd find they really did call these places. Lazy fuckers but clever.

[Kirbmarc]

I think the argument is more that the decline of Christianity has lead to a decline in cultural confidence. That is that this connection is causal. The West is no longer is prepared to argue it's case on anything of substance. Would today's Brits decide to invest their own blood and money to end the slave trade? Would the British demand the Indians end the practice of sati today? They can't even deal with the industrialised rape of their children because of fear of being called racist.

It's not just the right making this argument, either. Peterson also argues that undermining the foundations of Western culture has led to a people with nothing they really believe in, and therefore not prepared to actually stand for anything, least of all themselves. I also think there's a lot of truth to it.

I think that this is mostly due to Post-Modern cultural assumptions that went mainstream more than due to the decline of Christianity (although the decline of Christianity might have left room for the rise of Po-Mo ideas).

The first Po-Mo idea which has taken hold is cultural relativism. Up to a certain extent cultural relativism is simply accepting that cultural biases exist, which is undoubtedly true. The Po-Mo criticism of a naive version of the Enlightenment which considered all cultures equal and men to be a rational fact-checking machine is correct: cultures aren't equal and human beings aren't 100% rational, or even able to check their irrationality completely (Leibniz' "calculemus!" is a Utopian dream, people are never going to solve their differences just by sitting down and rationally discussing them).

However, as with all the Po-Mo ideas, this was already present in the most refined version of the Enlightenment itself: Hume wrote that reason is only a slave to passions, for example. The Po-Mo criticism, as usual, takes the most naive version of modernity and criticize it, then jumps to the conclusion that all of modernity is "problematic".

Anyway cultural relativism in its strong form is that there is no truth, only social constructions. This means that not just that nothing is "better" or "worse" according to a naive absolute scale of "inner goodness" but also that nothing "works" or "doesn't work" from a pragmatic point of views when challenged by reality, because reality doesn't "really" exist, it's just a social construct, a collective belief that shapes the frameworks which people use to interact with each other.

This is one of the reasons for the intellectual paralysis of the "west" when it comes to morality: there's no reason why you should rationally and abstractly prefer one moral choice to another (true, as Hume pointed out) ergo all morals are equal and to believe that one system of morals is better than another on pragmatic terms is only expression of bigotry (false).

This form of moral relativism has reshaped the "west" in a very deep way. The values of the Enlightenment itself, which were the most pragmatically productive at creating reliable knowledge and a reduction of violence, diseases, early mortality and unneeded suffering, have been characterized by the Po-Mo critics only as "cultural hegemony", "cultural imperialism" and of course "bigotry".

Cultural relativism is the ultimate reason why, for example, self-professed paladins of women's individual rights to personal autonomy can side with reactionary islam, which is antithetical to personal autonomy in general and had assigned the specific role of wife and mother to women by suppressing all perceived threats to this role. To criticize a non-white culture as a white person is to be a bigot, to let your socially constructed moral prejudices control your narrative without leaving the non-whites free to express their non-whiteness.

Cultural relativism is a staple of academia, and it's been carried to ridiculous extremes, like accusing Jared Diamond of being "Eurocentric" simply because he wanted to explain pragmatically why the European powers were more successful at colonizing. The extreme form of cultural relativism can't even allow a focus on pragmatic success, that's at best highly prejudicial, at worst outright bigotry.

Insinuating that something (or someone) might be more successful than something (or someone) else due its properties, rather than due to its cultural acceptance, is anathema to Post-Modernity, because it shows that some things might not actually be social constructs, that some things (or people) work better because they're pragmatically better in face of external challenges, not just because of a collective illusion that they're intrinsically better.

Post-Modernity is inherently anti-scientific because science is realist: scientists work under the assumption that an external reality a)exists and b)is potentially knowable. Post-Modernism rejects this, in Post-Modernism all reality is only a social construct and researchers don't discover anything by challenging beliefs against an external reality, but only express themselves and their narrative by questioning (or supporting) the "dominant narrative".

Another concept, closely tied to cultural relativism, is the Po-Mo version of Rousseau's "Good Savage", the "state of nature" were man was truly free from social constructs before society really exist. Rousseau saw the "Good Savage" simply on moral terms, since he was convinced that the status of man without society was one of moral neutrality and only society shaped people into a moral framework.

The Po-Mo version of the "Good Savage" is to dream of a primordial existence before "the White Cis Hetero Male Patriarchy". In Po-Mo theories not only morality, but the entirety of human cognition is corrupted by social constructs which support oppression. Human beings, according the Po-Mo understanding of reality, are only truly free from oppression when the stories they tell each other change from one of "white cis hetero male supremacy" to all possible stories at once, no matter how contradictory or always shifting.

The idea of pragmatic success of a society over another to respond to external challenges is only a "cultural reinforcement" of the "oppressive white cis hetero male supremacy". So if you point out that interpersonal and intersocial violence declined in liberal democracies with respect to authoritarian, tribal cultures you're not acknowledging a reality, you're just being racist, trying to impose your narrative over other people's narratives.

Po-Mo culture isn't just the specifics of Critical Theory. It's a social zeigeist of ideas that have become popular even beyond academia and beyond the political aisle of the left. Cultural relativism, for example, is often used by the post-modern identitarians to say that their culture isn't "closer to the Principle of Good" or "effective at something", but simply Our Culture and therefore to criticize it is to Deny Our Humanity. This is present in both left-wing identitarians AND right-wing identitarians: it's not just that liberal democracy, mixed economy, reformism and intellectual pluralism are more pragmatically efficient, it's that to criticize White Culture (in all its forms, even just to suggest that liberal democracy might work for non-whites, too) is to want to impose the White Cultural Genocide.

Some people's reaction to Po-Mo's "alternative interpretations" is a return to the traditional, pre-Modern methods, which based cultural pride (like everything else) not on the reflection of one's humanity into a narrative but as the reflection of an essential and eternal "Greater Good" (the "god" of Christianity, which is linked to the pre-Christian, Platonic "form of the Good", since Christianity is Greek philosophy within Jewish trappings ).

That ship has sailed though. The essentialist, eternal perspective has been effectively criticized for its lack of basis, as a collective projection of one's cultural assumptions over reality, because it is. People no longer "just believe" because of authority, because that's what's the "eternal good" and nothing can change it. People no longer accept their place in society because Destiny or God says so, and that's not likely to change, at least not for people exposed to criticism of the "Eternal Form of Good". God is dead and isn't coming back. Societies have changed, the idea of Greater Eternal Good has by and large become socially meaningless along with the ideas of a fixed social order, of fixed gender roles, of an eternal structure behind reality

Others like Peterson know this and want to recreate religion on pragmatic basis, not by supporting the idea of god in itself but by saying "it's what works for society as a whole". However this requires an epistemological shift within religion, from belief in something to a guide for behavior.

It's for this reason that Peterson is forced to change epistemology from the assumption that "true" is what is found in an external reality to the assumption that "true" is what is pragmatically convenient, so the "Eternal Truth" isn't something that is based in an external reality (Peterson's God doesn't "exist" like a mountain "exists") but rather the eternal guiding pragmatic principle of survival. This is already "problematic" because of the assumption that the principles of survival is eternally similar to itself (it might not be: in a society with an overpopulation problem reducing fertility is a good thing to do in order to survive, even though normally reducing fertility is anti-survival) but it becomes even more philosophically unsound since it clashes with the assumption of an externally existent reality.

Peterson has a created a post-modern version of religion, centered neither on the reality of religion against a challenge but on its efficiency as a narrative for getting results. He's fighting post-modernism with post-modernism, not by saying that what he believes in is true but that it works better than post-modern assumptions.

I think that there is room for another rejection of post-modernism, one which isn't based on fighting a narrative with another narrative, but on rejecting cultural relativism altogether along with identitarianism in favor of Enlightment values, redefined not as a naive assumption of a completely rational human being, but as the best compromise we can find so far.

The advantage over Peterson's Post-Modern religion is that Enlightenment values aren't linked to any specific cultural narrative. The post-modern are doing their worst to attack Enlightenment as "Western imperialism", but it doesn't and shouldn't stick, because Enlightenment isn't "western" anymore than science is "western". Peterson has good intentions in trying to create a "western cultural pride", but it's an idea that is ultimately exclusive of Enlightenment supporters among non-"western" people.

Enlightenment values are the rejection of identitarian narratives, the focus on individual rights and responsibilities rather on group identities, pragmatic agnosticism towards religious positions as a matter of fact and defense of a common framework based on equal rules for everybody, equal responsibilities for everybody, freedom of speech, presumption of innocence, secularism (i.e. agnosticism of politics), separation of powers, etc.

The mistake of "New Atheists" was to try to construct atheism as an unifying identity. The intent, to challenge the stigma attached to atheism, was good, but the result was that instead of rallying together all supporters of Enlightenment values (the ultimate goal of the Enlightenment-based "New Atheists") others have redefined atheism identity as something else (like the infamous "Atheism Plus").

Now the stigma on atheism has been greatly reduced, it's time to move on from that battle. It's time to fight not so much for atheism in itself, but for liberal democracy and the Enlightenment. I think that Peterson could do a lot of good if he rallied moderate and liberal Christians (like him, he's no Bible-thumper) to a pragmatically agnostic movement based on the protection of liberal democracy and of the Enlightenment values which doesn't exclude anyone for their personally held belief. Pushing the narrative that you need christianity (or even just religion) to defend liberal democracy and the Enlightenment values is counterproductive to this common goal.

I think that a large movement against all forms of authoritarianism, religiously based or not, which includes all believers and non-believers alike who like liberal democracy, freedom of speech, Enlightenment values, while being agnostic on identity (religious or otherwise) might succeed at challenging reactionary islam and at helping those muslims who do support those Enlightenment values to defeat the muslim supremacists. In the long term the best case scenario is a secularization of muslims, not a War of Civilizations.

[Sulman]

Hot from Melbourne University:

Men should learn how to speak like women," the report found, "(and) not speak with absolute confidence when they are in fact not sure or expressing an opinion

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/we-should ... w89ps.html

Do the people that write these things know any women? They're entirely capable of being as full of shit as men are.

[Kirbmarc]

Basically what I'd like to happen is a movement which includes all people with a moderate and sane view of reality, who accept that others might disagree but that's not the end of the world, and excludes all the loonies and the supremacists from wherever they're from.

[jet_lagg]

Hot from Melbourne University:

Men should learn how to speak like women," the report found, "(and) not speak with absolute confidence when they are in fact not sure or expressing an opinion

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/we-should ... w89ps.html

Do the people that write these things know any women? They're entirely capable of being as full of shit as men are.

Abstract it up a level to remove any emotionally loaded ideas about masculine versus feminine modes of communication, and it just becomes an argument in favor of things like the "epistemic status" levels you see on Scott Alexander's blog. I'm all in for that.

[MarcusAu]

Basically what I'd like to happen is a movement which includes all people with a moderate and sane view of reality, who accept that others might disagree but that's not the end of the world, and excludes all the loonies and the supremacists from wherever they're from.

I do have rather an affection for argumentative and contrary pricks (if not outright arseholes). Not least because they actually instigate debate when most people are too polite to say anything.

Say whatever the fuck you want - the red line is taking action against someone else.

[shoutinghorse]

Hey Brive .. you been giving our Becky pet care tips? ;)

http://i.imgur.com/5NhUfyq.png

[Kirbmarc]

Hot from Melbourne University:

Men should learn how to speak like women," the report found, "(and) not speak with absolute confidence when they are in fact not sure or expressing an opinion

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/we-should ... w89ps.html

Do the people that write these things know any women? They're entirely capable of being as full of shit as men are.

When it comes to an expression of feelings and emotions women are actually more likely to speak with absolute confidence than men since women in general are more emotionally expressive than men. Women are much better at emotional gossip, for example, and are very confident when they express emotional (and moral) judgement, especially when it comes to gut-reaction to harm.

Men tend to be more confident when expressing matters of fact, or what the perceive to be matters of fact, and to adjust their moral judgement according to context, so they're less dogmatically confident in their moral intuitions. In general they're also less confident when it comes to expressing their emotional reactions.

Men are more likely to express an opinion as a matter of fact, but women are more likely to express a moral judgement as a strong emotional reaction, or to express themselves more confidently about their emotional reactions in general.

[Kirbmarc]

Basically what I'd like to happen is a movement which includes all people with a moderate and sane view of reality, who accept that others might disagree but that's not the end of the world, and excludes all the loonies and the supremacists from wherever they're from.

I do have rather an affection for argumentative and contrary pricks (if not outright arseholes). Not least because they actually instigate debate when most people are too polite to say anything.

Say whatever the fuck you want - the red line is taking action against someone else.

I don't mind contrarian pricks and people who create scandals...but they have a role to play, which is to stir debate, as you say, not to draft policies and agreements, or to support ideas that work. The contrarians are at their best when they're left free to say what they want but not taken too seriously.

[Oglebart]

Hot from Melbourne University:

Men should learn how to speak like women," the report found, "(and) not speak with absolute confidence when they are in fact not sure or expressing an opinion

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/we-should ... w89ps.html

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that we should quarantine and cleanse Victoria with fire.

Aw, come on, she's not that bad.

http://keyassets-p2.timeincuk.net/wp/pr ... 30x473.jpg

Actually, on second thoughts, go for it.

[Scented Nectar]

Squatting Slav TV: Transgender Rally Fail
[youtube][/youtube]

[Bhurzum]

Squatting Slav TV: Transgender Rally Fail
[youtube][youtube]

Fucking LOVE this guy!

:clap:

[d4m10n]

Basically what I'd like to happen is a movement which includes all people with a moderate and sane view of reality, who accept that others might disagree but that's not the end of the world, and excludes all the loonies and the supremacists from wherever they're from.

1) Build a time-machine

2) See you at TAM


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[feathers]

For 490 bucks you can translate your work experience into a piece of paper.

http://www.expressuniversitydegree.com/degree-fees/

From their FAQ:

Why should I avoid fake degrees, diploma mills or so called “life experience” degrees online?

You will be at risk of losing your job or going to jail. No one will recognize a so-called life
experience degree, a diploma mill or a fake degree, as they are already blacklisted in wikis or other online forums.

The irony, it burns.

[feathers]

You reap what you sow.

I sow what you did there.