In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

[gurugeorge]

I don't understand the concept of 'literary truth'. Literal truth, yes, but when someone says literature is a form of 'knowledge' I don't know what the fuck that means. When someone says a book portrays an experience which is true to life they are either comparing it with something they have knowledge of external to that book or else they are assuming it is true because it is beautifully written, in which case there's no way to distinguish between the breakdown of a romantic relationship and Hobbits tossing a ring into a volcano.

Well, for example, you know how during sex you have unnamed feelings that are still recognizable because they do repeat, even if not very often? Or the unnamed feelings of exaltation, dread, awe, whatever, that you get when you listen to music?

Those are feelings, not knowledge.

But you can have knowledge about feelings.

[gurugeorge]

Truly stunning optical illusion (via Slate Star Codex).

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Something I've noticed about SJWs is their difficulty handling words. For one, they believe in a shamanistic power of utterances -- saying something, using a certain word or phrase, makes it so. Like a chant or a spell. They also have great difficulty recognizing that a certain word can have multiple, nuanced meanings -- they know only one definition, usually the most banal.

As a consequence, they get quite emotionally upset over words, usually taken out of context. This, interestingly , is a trait of borderlines. My working theory is, not only are most activists Cluster Bs, our entire society is taking on Cluster B traits.

[Dave]

Couple of days old news, but given the original creation of this board, I thought yall would be amused by this:

https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/judge-ru ... bott-cunt/

Apparently, "cunt" is legally not an insult in Oz.

Whatever will Rebecunt do now?

[Shatterface]

But you can have knowledge about feelings.

Other than 'I'm happy' or 'I'm sad' what does that knowledge amount to?

[Guest_936d3dec]

[Lsuoma]

Truly stunning optical illusion (via Slate Star Codex).

The cafe wall illusion is so-called because it was first made famous through a publication from Richard Gregory's group at the University of Bristol. Here is Gregory outside the cafe on St Michael's Hill in Bristol.

https://images.justgiving.com/image/2db ... 1d6791.jpg

When I was at Bristol, I was president of the University Chemical Society for a while, and we had Dawkins as a guest lecturer. This cafe is where we took him for supper (it was a lot more salubrious in the late '70s).

[MarcusAu]

Hmm, I was in Bristol over the past weekend.

The bridge was cool - but I did not spot the cafe.

[MarcusAu]

nb Dawkins has come a bit down in the world.

I spotted in a a Wetherspoons in London a couple of years ago.

[free thoughtpolice]

Steersman wrote:

Of maybe some related interest, I see that Zvan is apparently trying to repudiate that equivalence; think she's going to paint herself into a corner real quick, and going to lose great swathes of support - couldn't happen to a nicer person ...
Zvan wrote:
Property Damage as Violence

August 31, 2017 Stephanie Zvan

There’s a lot of good analysis out there right now deconstructing media and other attempts to paint antifa protests as the mirror image of white supremacist rallies featuring Nazis and KKK members. ....

Can tell she's not happy about facing that equivalence - should have her nose rubbed in it. Although maybe she's just grabbing at straws with her "mirror image", but it doesn't have to be the same to be problematic. But apropos of a change in the wind direction, saw that even Nancy Pelosi has condemned the antifa thugs at Berkeley, and Paul Ryan more or less followed suit.

Another comment that won't make it past Reich Marshal Zvan's moderation.

Kristallnacht wasn't violence either. Left wing fascists looking more like their right wing counterpart every day. Thanks for doing your part Frau Zvan.

[gurugeorge]

But you can have knowledge about feelings.

Other than 'I'm happy' or 'I'm sad' what does that knowledge amount to?

But as I said, there's a lot more subtlety and variation in feelings than that binary, there's a whole landscape to the inner world; and a lot of literature revolves around evoking those nuances in a way that people recognize in their own experience, and writers can be good or bad at that.

So while there's no measurement here, and no testability (until you start crossing over into psychology), there is the possibility of being right or wrong about something.

Just as an aside, venturing into larger territory: there's a philosophical point that might be worth discussing here. A good part of the tradition understands knowledge to include the possibility of proof, i.e. you can't know something (episteme) until you can prove it, until then it's just opinion (doxa) that accidentally happens to be right. This is the traditional view of knowledge as "justified true belief" stemming from Plato and Aristotle.

But there's another (Popperian, but others too have had hints of it) way of looking at it: that knowledge is particular kinds of objects, i.e. patterns of symbols embodied in writing, speech, etc. that (via social rules telling us what "correspondence" is) either correspond to the world or don't, while things like belief and proof are, respectively, psychological matters, or aspects of persuasion. This ties in with Schrodinger's prophecy of DNA as an "aperiodic crystal", which ties in with, e.g., a bird's capability of flight is a form of embodied knowledge written in its DNA, or the habit patterns of a community of animals being embodied knowledge of, say, geological or local conditions. So then, analogously, you have the "aperiodic crystal" of language informing our own actions at a memetic level (symbols induce expectations in us, which are either baulked or fulfilled upon further interaction with the world).

So, on this understanding of knowledge, when you know something, that means (roughly) that you are primed by symbols (either self-generated or taught by others) to interact with the world in a certain way, and the world happens to be such that it will respond to your interaction as the symbols prime you to expect it will. Whether you have a psychological feeling of belief (i.e. whether you trust that the world will turn out the way the symbols propose it is) is a side-issue, and whether you can persuade others (prove it) is another side issue.

[Bhurzum]

[free thoughtpolice]

Ho Lee Phuq!

[murtzuphlus]

But as I said, there's a lot more subtlety and variation in feelings than that binary, there's a whole landscape to the inner world; and a lot of literature revolves around evoking those nuances in a way that people recognize in their own experience, and writers can be good or bad at that.

So while there's no measurement here, and no testability (until you start crossing over into psychology), there is the possibility of being right or wrong about something.

Just as an aside, venturing into larger territory: there's a philosophical point that might be worth discussing here. A good part of the tradition understands knowledge to include the possibility of proof, i.e. you can't know something (episteme) until you can prove it, until then it's just opinion (doxa) that accidentally happens to be right. This is the traditional view of knowledge as "justified true belief" stemming from Plato and Aristotle.

But there's another (Popperian, but others too have had hints of it) way of looking at it: that knowledge is particular kinds of objects, i.e. patterns of symbols embodied in writing, speech, etc. that (via social rules telling us what "correspondence" is) either correspond to the world or don't, while things like belief and proof are, respectively, psychological matters, or aspects of persuasion. This ties in with Schrodinger's prophecy of DNA as an "aperiodic crystal", which ties in with, e.g., a bird's capability of flight is a form of embodied knowledge written in its DNA, or the habit patterns of a community of animals being embodied knowledge of, say, geological or local conditions. So then, analogously, you have the "aperiodic crystal" of language informing our own actions at a memetic level (symbols induce expectations in us, which are either baulked or fulfilled upon further interaction with the world).

So, on this understanding of knowledge, when you know something, that means (roughly) that you are primed by symbols (either self-generated or taught by others) to interact with the world in a certain way, and the world happens to be such that it will respond to your interaction as the symbols prime you to expect it will. Whether you have a psychological feeling of belief (i.e. whether you trust that the world will turn out the way the symbols propose it is) is a side-issue, and whether you can persuade others (prove it) is another side issue.

Sorry, but I don't understand what this means. I am probably damaged by being in the middle of this:
https://www.amazon.com/Behave-Biology-H ... e+sapolsky

[Shatterface]

But you can have knowledge about feelings.

Other than 'I'm happy' or 'I'm sad' what does that knowledge amount to?

But as I said, there's a lot more subtlety and variation in feelings than that binary, there's a whole landscape to the inner world; and a lot of literature revolves around evoking those nuances in a way that people recognize in their own experience, and writers can be good or bad at that.

So while there's no measurement here, and no testability (until you start crossing over into psychology), there is the possibility of being right or wrong about something.

I wasn't claiming there was a binary, they were just examples - but even if there is an infinite 'spectrum' of feelings, in what way do those feelings constitute knowledge?

Having knowledge of those feelings might be knowledge but that knowledge is not the feelings themselves. A psychopath might know you are unhappy but they do not share those feelings, and that knowledge is not those feelings; on the other hand someone with alexithymia might experience emotions without any knowledge of what those emotions are.

Just as an aside, venturing into larger territory: there's a philosophical point that might be worth discussing here. A good part of the tradition understands knowledge to include the possibility of proof, i.e. you can't know something (episteme) until you can prove it, until then it's just opinion (doxa) that accidentally happens to be right. This is the traditional view of knowledge as "justified true belief" stemming from Plato and Aristotle.

I don't think scientific knowledge is the only form of knowledge otherwise there would have been no knowledge prior to science. Experience is a form of knowledge. What science and reason and maths tell us is whether that experience can be generalised to tell us something beyond that experience. That's the difference between rational beliefs and the 'lived experience' SJWs bang on about: they take anecdotal data and assume their particular experience can be generalised.

But there's another (Popperian, but others too have had hints of it) way of looking at it: that knowledge is particular kinds of objects, i.e. patterns of symbols embodied in writing, speech, etc. that (via social rules telling us what "correspondence" is) either correspond to the world or don't, while things like belief and proof are, respectively, psychological matters, or aspects of persuasion. This ties in with Schrodinger's prophecy of DNA as an "aperiodic crystal", which ties in with, e.g., a bird's capability of flight is a form of embodied knowledge written in its DNA, or the habit patterns of a community of animals being embodied knowledge of, say, geological or local conditions. So then, analogously, you have the "aperiodic crystal" of language informing our own actions at a memetic level (symbols induce expectations in us, which are either baulked or fulfilled upon further interaction with the world).

To be honest, you are losing me here. If a bird's capability of flight is 'knowledge' encoded in their DNA then gene regulation, cell division, morphogenesis and cancer are forms of knowledge. "Aperiodic crystals of language informing our own actions at a memetic level'' sounds like something from Deepak Chopra. If that's supposed to be an analogy the analogy is more comlicated than whatever you are trying to describe.

So, on this understanding of knowledge, when you know something, that means (roughly) that you are primed by symbols (either self-generated or taught by others) to interact with the world in a certain way, and the world happens to be such that it will respond to your interaction as the symbols prime you to expect it will. Whether you have a psychological feeling of belief (i.e. whether you trust that the world will turn out the way the symbols propose it is) is a side-issue, and whether you can persuade others (prove it) is another side issue.

Again, I'm not sure what you are saying. Symbols determine how you see the world and that perception feeds back into how the world behaves? How does that differ from magic?

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... 5#comments

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/cr ... 40652.html

I suspect this would be getting more news time were the races reversed.

[Steersman]

Steersman wrote:

Of maybe some related interest, I see that Zvan is apparently trying to repudiate that equivalence; think she's going to paint herself into a corner real quick, and going to lose great swathes of support - couldn't happen to a nicer person ...

Zvan wrote:
Property Damage as Violence August 31, 2017 Stephanie Zvan

There’s a lot of good analysis out there right now deconstructing media and other attempts to paint antifa protests as the mirror image of white supremacist rallies featuring Nazis and KKK members. ....

Can tell she's not happy about facing that equivalence ....

Another comment that won't make it past Reich Marshal Zvan's moderation.

Kristallnacht wasn't violence either. Left wing fascists looking more like their right wing counterpart every day. Thanks for doing your part Frau Zvan.

Good man - important to at least show the flag. :-) But you're right - I don't see that comment there; surprise, surprise, surprise. Somewhat apropos of which:

https://twitter.com/SteersMann/status/9 ... 6631940096

And Zvan herself skirts rather close to that line too. Wonder if she has the intellectual honesty to categorically condemn antifa - wouldn't put much money on it.

But, in some related news, my comment in another of her posts which is - natch - still "awaiting moderation"; bunch of gutless wonders over there & at the egregiously misnamed "freethought" blogs:

August 31, 2017 at 2:09 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

August 31, 2017 at 2:09 am

Maybe this time, I’ll even get some answers.

Maybe this [time] you’ll listen instead of shooting the messenger? Though I won’t put a lot of money on it.

[katamari Damassi]

Financial shenanigans at the SPLC?

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2010/11/26/923486/-

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... -accounts/

[Guest_936d3dec]

As the Kos article points out, journalists have been all over the SPLC Extortion racket since 2000, so I predict nothing will come of this and the SPLC will still benefit from the corporate largess being used for virtual signalling.

And the offshore account, hell, even Emma Watson has one of those.

Here is one defense from @ninjaeconomics

inc com/cynthia-than/6-reasons-emma-watson-would-have-an-offshore-account.html

[Sunder]

Kossacks circling the wagons to defend a favored group is as unsurprising as it is unconvincing. Note how quick they are to label someone a suppressive person right-wing shill and ask for bannings.

Peezus's trashhole ASPIRES to be what DailyKos is. The trash overfloweth there.

[fuzzy]

[Steersman]

Should we recognise the lived reality of transwomen by always referring to them as 'transwomen' and never erase their existence by calling them simply 'women'?

I think we should.

How about "cock in a frock" ;)

:lol: Got my vote. Though as others have suggested, Scotsmen might well qualify for that term as well, or at least for a close cousin of it. ;-) You no doubt know of the insult/compliment directed at the Black Watch by German soldiers:

A number of authors state that the regiment was given the nickname "Ladies from Hell" ("Die Damen aus der Hölle") by German troops, allegedly on account of their kilts and fighting qualities.

[Mr. X, Indeed]

Financial shenanigans at the SPLC?

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2010/11/26/923486/-

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... -accounts/

Article from 2009 (rerun recently): https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/25 ... aw-center/

The Ken Silverstein article from 2000 is behind a pay wall at Harper's.

There's good money in scaring people.

[Sunder]

For what it's worth the last time I ever posted at Kos was arguing with someone over Richard Carrier. At the time he was the darling of a small group there. Given how atheism in general and Carrier in particular have fallen so far out of favor among regressives I can't help but wonder how the person I was arguing against feels today.

[Kirbmarc]

For what it's worth the last time I ever posted at Kos was arguing with someone over Richard Carrier. At the time he was the darling of a small group there. Given how atheism in general and Carrier in particular have fallen so far out of favor among regressives I can't help but wonder how the person I was arguing against feels today.

I'd guess that they don't give a shit since there are many more things to get outraged about, and anyway Carrier only "proved them right" about "fake feminist allies".

[Kirbmarc]

True regressiveness means never admitting that you were wrong.

[Sunder]

I just think the brief liberal love affair with New Atheism and the bitter break-up is fascinating. When the religious right were ascendant the atheist counter-movement picked up a lot of fairweather fans who just wanted to be able to tell the godbotherers to stuff it. Carrier's brand of Mythicism was popular among Kossacks not because they'd considered the evidence and found it the most parsimonious explanation, but because they liked the added sting of telling Christians not only did their stories not take place as written, but even the characters were made up from whole cloth.

Nowadays of course liberal/regressive attitudes toward religion are more mixed. They still hate the white conservative evangelicals, but opinions are more mixed on topics like the new Pope. And they're even more in religion's favor where Islam is concerned.

Peezy's only still flying the atheist banner because it is all he ever had or will have.

[deLurch]

Something I've noticed about SJWs is their difficulty handling words. For one, they believe in a shamanistic power of utterances -- saying something, using a certain word or phrase, makes it so. Like a chant or a spell. They also have great difficulty recognizing that a certain word can have multiple, nuanced meanings -- they know only one definition, usually the most banal.

As a consequence, they get quite emotionally upset over words, usually taken out of context. This, interestingly , is a trait of borderlines. My working theory is, not only are most activists Cluster Bs, our entire society is taking on Cluster B traits.

My read on that is that in most situations, they are attributing a worse or made up definition of a word to try and justify their 'outrage.' They also attribute the worst intentions & motivations to people who take stances they do not like.

It is a calculated tactic. They don't feel like they can win on the facts, so they go nuclear at every given chance.

[MarcusAu]

[youtube.]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVRfLwlsNy4[/youtube]

Your choice of videos is disruptive - please calm yourself.

[MarcusAu]

I just think the brief liberal love affair with New Atheism and the bitter break-up is fascinating. When the religious right were ascendant the atheist counter-movement picked up a lot of fairweather fans who just wanted to be able to tell the godbotherers to stuff it. Carrier's brand of Mythicism was popular among Kossacks not because they'd considered the evidence and found it the most parsimonious explanation, but because they liked the added sting of telling Christians not only did their stories not take place as written, but even the characters were made up from whole cloth.

Nowadays of course liberal/regressive attitudes toward religion are more mixed. They still hate the white conservative evangelicals, but opinions are more mixed on topics like the new Pope. And they're even more in religion's favor where Islam is concerned.

Peezy's only still flying the atheist banner because it is all he ever had or will have.

Well one thing that they may have been half-right about is Hitchens. His political views were mixed - some more to the right than they may have felt comfortable with once they realised that just because you agree on one thing - you aren't necessarily going to agree on everything.

Hitchens would talk or argue with anyone - and I think he believed in free speech and discourse more than any other principle. (By way of example - There's a couple of good videos on Youtube where he was discussing the movies JFK or Malcolm X on a panel with other guests).

nb As much as I have affection for him - I don't think that he had all the answers or was a particularly good role model for how to live your life. But you know that doesn't undermine the value of the contributions he made.

[AndrewV69]

Financial shenanigans at the SPLC?

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2010/11/26/923486/-

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... -accounts/

Over the years I have mentioned this here. The accounts in overseas tax shelters, the six figure salaries, the (at the time) 200 million nest egg (got to be at least 300 million by now).

*shrug*

Whatever man. Fuck (Die Antwoord)

[Sunder]

I think saying they were "half-right" about Hitch is being generous. It's more that eventually he managed to flip the binary switch which is all that really divides Good People from Bad People in the mind of regressives. Hitch went from hero to villain virtually overnight.

We can see this in smaller scale with Carrier. While he was still considered a Good Person every excuse could be made for his sketchy behavior. Once he fell into the Bad Person sorting bin suddenly everything people had been apologizing for became evidence that he was always a scumbag. And he was, but the binary didn't allow them to see it until then.

And this is almost certainly what will eventually happen with the SPLC. The same accusations regressives deny today they'll be flaunting tomorrow.

[MarcusAu]

In other words - as skeptics they really do not cut it.

Which is a shame - because I don't think that Randi will be with us for much longer.

[screwtape]

I think saying they were "half-right" about Hitch is being generous. It's more that eventually he managed to flip the binary switch which is all that really divides Good People from Bad People in the mind of regressives. Hitch went from hero to villain virtually overnight.

We can see this in smaller scale with Carrier. While he was still considered a Good Person every excuse could be made for his sketchy behavior. Once he fell into the Bad Person sorting bin suddenly everything people had been apologizing for became evidence that he was always a scumbag. And he was, but the binary didn't allow them to see it until then.

And this is almost certainly what will eventually happen with the SPLC. The same accusations regressives deny today they'll be flaunting tomorrow.

As per someone above, this is the behaviour associated with borderline personality disorder, where someone can go from being the world's best person the world's worst in just one moment. Rather bewildering to grow up with a borderline parent - since she couldn't actually get rid of me, she and I had to wait for the switch to flip again and she would suddenly think I was marvellous again. Exhausting, and not missed one bit.

WRT Hitch, I'm perfectly content to agree with him on many things, and disagree on some others since I reserve the right to avoid package deals when it comes to beliefs, positions and politics. It's true that if you don't buy into one of the common packages you might find it hard to vote for a candidate that says what you like to hear on all things. So you decide what's important and vote for the candidate offering that. Everyone—everyone—ought to be a swing voter. As things stand, the few swing voters are the only ones who decide who wins elections.

[Pseudomonas]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/4 ... e-bergdorf

"L'Oreal has sacked its first transgender model after claims she posted racist comments online.

Munroe Bergdorf reportedly wrote "all white people" are racist in a Facebook post.

The cosmetics company says her comments "are at odds" with their values and has now ended its partnership with her.

The model has since responded, writing online: "Just know that in tearing me down, you are proving everything that I said to be true"."

Offeding comments:

"...it's claimed the 29-year-old wrote online: "Honestly I don't have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people.

"Because most of ya'll don't even realise or refuse to acknowledge that your existence, privilege and success as a race is built on the backs, blood and death of people of colour.

"Your entire existence is drenched in racism."

The comments have since been deleted."

:bjarte:

Pseudomonas

[AndrewV69]

How Canada has been secretly giving asylum to gay people in Chechnya fleeing persecution

Canada has quietly brought in 22 people, with more to come, despite risks to Canada-Russia relations
...
For three months, the federal government has been secretly spiriting gay Chechen men from Russia to Canada, under a clandestine program unique in the world.

The evacuations, spearheaded by Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland, fall outside the conventions of international law and could further impair already tense relations between Russia and Canada. But the Liberal government decided to act regardless.

I doubt it will actually "further impair" relations unless it "officially" comes to the attention of Ramzan Kadyrov and he feels forced to publicly respond.

And yes I believe this and would be surprised if it was only two by now.

Two people have reportedly been killed by their own families and one has died from injuries inflicted on him while he was detained, though these deaths could not

Over the years Ramzan Kadyrov has been steering all of Chechenya towards a "stricter" Salafi version of Islam and recent developments are not a surprise.

I suspect that given their history the outward forms of adherence to the Salafi norm are superficial. Once Kadyrov is gone the "people" will revert to their previous version of Islam.

Of course, I could be wrong but I still see a deep rooted resistance to the fairly recent "innovations" that Kadyrov has introduced, perhaps to co-opt the cooperation of the section of the population that has always adhered to a much more conservative outlook.

You can see this in the way popular female singers dress. They might be "modestly" dressed but their clothing still emphasises their sexual characteristics.

For example, one of my favourite female Chechen singers Makka Sagaipova (ignore the title she is not Russian) typically dresses modestly but like all of them, the dress while covering hair, arms and legs also manages to emphasize her breasts and hips.



Anyway, time will tell. I would not discount the Chechen people. They are clearly either going to thrive or go extinct. Like the Armenians.

[MarcusAu]

In praise of empiricism:



Ask the questions, argue the point, and test everything you can.

[MarcusAu]

I remember an old riddle my dad told me - which went something like this:


"As I was crossing London Bridge, I met a London Scholar. I cut off his head, and drew his blood. Pray tell me the name of the scholar".


Google shows me there are other less violent versions of it. But I was wondering if anyone knew the riddles origin / etymology.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I think saying they were "half-right" about Hitch is being generous. It's more that eventually he managed to flip the binary switch which is all that really divides Good People from Bad People in the mind of regressives. Hitch went from hero to villain virtually overnight.

Ha! And this what bordelines do -- it's called "splitting". The BP can't fathom that a person can be a mix of traits. So they either idolize you or, when you've disappointed them, suddenly & completely devalue you.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

screwtape :nin: me

[Hunt]

In praise of empiricism:



Ask the questions, argue the point, and test everything you can.

Very easy to calculate, given the volumes, specific heats, and temperatures involved. But not nearly as much fun.

[Sunder]

I don't think it's necessary to invoke BPD to explain this perfectly normal human phenomenon of binary thinking. It's not just mentally unhealthy people who engage in this.

However liberals have always prided themselves specifically on NOT engaging in that sort of behavior. They insist that they alone understand "nuance" and "shades of grey." But of course the person most likely to fall for a cognitive trap is the person who's not taking any care to avoid stepping in it because he's so confident in his own superiority, thinking that he and his tribe alone float on air.

[free thoughtpolice]

I don't think it's necessary to invoke BPD to explain this perfectly normal human phenomenon of binary thinking. It's not just mentally unhealthy people who engage in this.

However liberals have always prided themselves specifically on NOT engaging in that sort of behavior. They insist that they alone understand "nuance" and "shades of grey." But of course the person most likely to fall for a cognitive trap is the person who's not taking any care to avoid stepping in it because he's so confident in his own superiority, thinking that he and his tribe alone float on air.

[Shatterface]

I remember an old riddle my dad told me - which went something like this:


"As I was crossing London Bridge, I met a London Scholar. I cut off his head, and drew his blood. Pray tell me the name of the scholar".


Google shows me there are other less violent versions of it. But I was wondering if anyone knew the riddles origin / etymology.

It was nothing to do with Islam.

[Old_ones]

I think truth and wisdom get conflated a lot. This is certainly something Peterson is guilty of, especially when he first became prominent.

Interestingly Peterson and Weinstein just went on the Joe Rogan Experience and talked for awhile about exactly this issue.



(its all interesting but the part I'm referring to comes around the 1:13 mark.)

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

I don't think it's necessary to invoke BPD to explain this perfectly normal human phenomenon of binary thinking. It's not just mentally unhealthy people who engage in this.

However liberals have always prided themselves specifically on NOT engaging in that sort of behavior. They insist that they alone understand "nuance" and "shades of grey." But of course the person most likely to fall for a cognitive trap is the person who's not taking any care to avoid stepping in it because he's so confident in his own superiority, thinking that he and his tribe alone float on air.

I think most liberals are liberal simply as knee-jerk reaction. They no more come to liberalism through reason than religious people come to religion through reason, they simply are looking for something to belong to. Remember Aritina and his commitment to ethics.. :roll:

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

I don't think it's necessary to invoke BPD to explain this perfectly normal human phenomenon of binary thinking. It's not just mentally unhealthy people who engage in this.

However liberals have always prided themselves specifically on NOT engaging in that sort of behavior. They insist that they alone understand "nuance" and "shades of grey." But of course the person most likely to fall for a cognitive trap is the person who's not taking any care to avoid stepping in it because he's so confident in his own superiority, thinking that he and his tribe alone float on air.

I think most liberals are liberal simply as knee-jerk reaction. They no more come to liberalism through reason than religious people come to religion through reason, they simply are looking for something to belong to. Remember Aritina and his commitment to ethics.. :roll:

Aratina rather...

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Did I kill it?

[SM1957]

I think there is a huge clue in this video about who is drawing swastikas on walls

http://www.bz-berlin.de/landespolitik/l ... onstrieren

the police will soon track this guy down.

[Kirbmarc]

I think most liberals are liberal simply as knee-jerk reaction. They no more come to liberalism through reason than religious people come to religion through reason, they simply are looking for something to belong to. Remember Aritina and his commitment to ethics.. :roll:

Jonathan Haidt has a great explanation as to what leads people towards a political position: their personality and more specifically which of the moral foundations are more important to them. The "left" cares more about Care and Fairness, libertarians more about Freedom, and conservatives are equally sensitive to all foundations.

Researchers postulate that the moral foundations arose as solutions to problems common in the ancestral hunter-gatherer environment, in particular intertribal and intra-tribal conflict. The three foundations emphasized more by conservatives (Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity) bind groups together for greater strength in intertribal competition while the other two foundations balance those tendencies with concern for individuals within the group. With reduced sensitivity to the group moral foundations, progressives tend to promote a more universalist morality.

Haidt's initial field work in Brazil and Philadelphia in 1989, and Odisha, India in 1993, showed that moralizing indeed varies among cultures, but less than by social class (e.g. education) and age. Working-class Brazilian children were more likely to consider both taboo violations and infliction of harm to be morally wrong, and universally so. Members of traditional, collectivist societies, like political conservatives, are more sensitive to violations of the community-related moral foundations. Adult members of so-called WEIRD (western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) societies are the most individualistic, and most likely to draw a distinction between harm-inflicting violations of morality and violations of convention.

It'd be interesting to test SocJus fans. I suspect that they also have their own version of Loyalty and Sanctity, different in their content but not in their nature from those of conservatives, and that's why they attack a lot of people who ostensibly share their morals.

My theory is that Political Correctness/"outrage culture" for many SocJus fans is no longer a matter of Care but a matter of Sanctity (hence why all the brouhahas about "cultural appropriation" or about trivial, harmless things like video games, toys or shirts with women on it). So SocJus fans see "offense" no longer as a matter of harm, but as a matter of something which is deemed disgusting and to be avoided at all costs, like religious people see blasphemy.

[Also I think that in a world where people are in constant contact with many different tribes a lesser degree of tribalism and more individualism is a good thing. But that's probably because I tend to align with a generic "progressive" world view, as most atheists tend to do, since they're people who reject a major social convention like religion]

[feathers]

I think saying they were "half-right" about Hitch is being generous. It's more that eventually he managed to flip the binary switch which is all that really divides Good People from Bad People in the mind of regressives. Hitch went from hero to villain virtually overnight.

And when his eviction became inevitable, they'd all known all along that Avicenna was a rotten apple.

[Sunder]

Jonathan Haidt has a great explanation as to what leads people towards a political position: their personality and more specifically which of the moral foundations are more important to them. The "left" cares more about Care and Fairness, libertarians more about Freedom, and conservatives are equally sensitive to all foundations.

Since I'm already ripping on Kos, another thing I remember from before I stopped reading there was a discussion of Haidt. I remember someone in the comments saying they figured it was time for liberals to completely abandon the "liberty" foundation and just focus on care/fairness. Really, someone said this with a straight face.

[Kirbmarc]

I think saying they were "half-right" about Hitch is being generous. It's more that eventually he managed to flip the binary switch which is all that really divides Good People from Bad People in the mind of regressives. Hitch went from hero to villain virtually overnight.

And when his eviction became inevitable, they'd all known all along that Avicenna was a rotten apple.

The stages of SJW reaction to embarrassments on their side:

1) It's all a nefarious plot of the alt-right/Slymepit/white supremacy/Republicans! No one of us could ever do anything bad, ever!

2) OK, maybe something is true, but it's still out of context or exaggerated. This is so unfair, look at how bad Trump is!

3) Fine, fine, it was true, but the person who did was Not A Real Ally.

4) We never liked those assholes anyway. If it wasn't for the Patriarchy we would have figured them out from the beginning.

5) Their existence is why we need more Social Justice.

Remarkably similar to religious/cultish reactions to various scandals. Even Trump fans seem to follow a similar pattern: 1) FAKE NEWS! All fake! 2)FAKE NEWS! But Hillary! 3) FAKE NEWS! True but misleading! Sad! 4) It was a clever ploy all along! HAHAHA tricked you!

[Kirbmarc]

Jonathan Haidt has a great explanation as to what leads people towards a political position: their personality and more specifically which of the moral foundations are more important to them. The "left" cares more about Care and Fairness, libertarians more about Freedom, and conservatives are equally sensitive to all foundations.

Since I'm already ripping on Kos, another thing I remember from before I stopped reading there was a discussion of Haidt. I remember someone in the comments saying they figured it was time for liberals to completely abandon the "liberty" foundation and just focus on care/fairness. Really, someone said this with a straight face.

Once you completely abandon freedom to focus only on fairness and care, the first order of business then is to force all privileged people to pay for their privileges, or else. This is a surefire way to create an Utopia and won't lead to any negative consequences.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... g6NJ7SSvhw

[rayshul]

The L'Oreal thing seems fair to me. I'm usually no don't fire people for saying dumb shit, but this person was literally the face of their company.

[Guest_936d3dec]

tweet takes you to this wsj article (currently not paywalled)

wsj com/articles/the-smartphone-generation-vs-free-speech-1504274890

The Smartphone Generation vs. Free Speech
Controversial speakers are being shut down on campus because today’s college students are obsessed with psychological safety and have little experience with negotiating conflicts

By Jean M. Twenge
Sept. 1, 2017 10:08 a.m. ET

In the past few years, many U.S. college campuses have become embroiled in controversies over free speech. Students have insisted on “safe spaces” to protect themselves from ideas with which they disagree and have demanded the dismissal of faculty members who offend their sensibilities. Campus speakers have been “disinvited” when students object to their point of view. Such events were rare just five years ago but now seem to occur constantly during the school year. Why has this happened? What is so different about today’s students that many of them denounce faculty and administrators who suggest that a basic expectation of university life is for people with differing perspectives to talk to each other?

Meet iGen, the generation of young Americans born after 1995 and the first to spend their entire adolescence with smartphones in their hands. Puzzling as the recent campus controversies might seem, they are rooted in the unique psychology and life experiences of this cohort.

First, iGen’ers grew up in an era of smaller families and protective parenting. They rode in car seats until they were in middle school, bounced on soft-surface playgrounds and rarely walked home from school. For them, unsurprisingly, safety remains a priority, even into early adulthood.

As I found in analyzing several large national surveys of teens from all backgrounds, fewer of them in the 2010s (as compared with the 2000s) say that they like to take risks, and fewer say they get a thrill out of doing something dangerous. That has real benefits. Fewer get into car accidents or physical fights. In the annual Monitoring the Future survey of more than a half million 12th-graders, the number who binge-drank was cut in half between the late 1990s and 2016. In previous eras, teens were willing to live on the edge by doing things they knew weren’t safe—that was the nature of being a teen. Not anymore.

Nor are they just concerned about physical safety. The iGen teens I have interviewed also speak of their need for “emotional safety”—which, they say, can be more difficult to protect. “I believe nobody can guarantee emotional safety,” one 19-year-old told me. “You can always take precautions for someone hurting you physically, but you cannot really help but listen when someone is talking to you.” This is a distinctively iGen idea: that the world is an inherently dangerous place because every social interaction carries the risk of being hurt. You never know what someone is going to say, and there’s no way to protect yourself from it.

The result is a generation whose members are often afraid to talk to one another, especially about anything that might be upsetting or offensive. If everyone must be emotionally safe at all times, a free discussion of ideas is inherently dangerous. Opposing viewpoints can’t just be argued against; they have to be shut down, because merely hearing them can cause harm.


...

[Sunder]

What I think modern kids really need is to be taught to value and protect their own privacy more, and not to volunteer so much of themselves online.

But parents aren't going to do that because no parent wants to teach their kids to keep secrets from them. Regardless of how normal it is.

[Ape+lust]

I think saying they were "half-right" about Hitch is being generous. It's more that eventually he managed to flip the binary switch which is all that really divides Good People from Bad People in the mind of regressives. Hitch went from hero to villain virtually overnight.

And when his eviction became inevitable, they'd all known all along that Avicenna was a rotten apple.

And after she was evicted, she always knew the Slymepit was right about her evictors.

https://imgur.com/rx2cWl3.png

[feathers]

http://wsj.com/articles/the-smartphone- ... 1504274890

Nor are they just concerned about physical safety. The iGen teens I have interviewed also speak of their need for “emotional safety”—which, they say, can be more difficult to protect. “I believe nobody can guarantee emotional safety,” one 19-year-old told me. “You can always take precautions for someone hurting you physically, but you cannot really help but listen when someone is talking to you.” This is a distinctively iGen idea: that the world is an inherently dangerous place because every social interaction carries the risk of being hurt. You never know what someone is going to say, and there’s no way to protect yourself from it.

Interesting perspective, but I'd have expected the youfacetwit generation to be far less sensitive to emotional abuse, as that's what happens on internet fora all the time, and almost unhinged. So I still think such simplified explanations as helicopter parenting don't quite cut it.

For one thing, such maladapted behaviour can only flourish if many in society (educators in particular) condone it. Why do they do this, especially those running the universities? Surely they weren't born joined at the head with an iphone?

[Kirbmarc]

I think saying they were "half-right" about Hitch is being generous. It's more that eventually he managed to flip the binary switch which is all that really divides Good People from Bad People in the mind of regressives. Hitch went from hero to villain virtually overnight.

And when his eviction became inevitable, they'd all known all along that Avicenna was a rotten apple.

And after she was evicted, she always knew the Slymepit was right about her evictors.

https://imgur.com/rx2cWl3.png

So did Ophelia Benson "tone troll" the Slymepit?