Ok so Ill start...
Billi tell me what you think makes a good member of society - but without referencing religion!!!
Printable View
Ok so Ill start...
Billi tell me what you think makes a good member of society - but without referencing religion!!!
Wtf?!? Are you serious? :p
Ok, since I can’t mention ***, then the most important thing is to love one another, even your enemies!
Then it’s to sort yourself out, improve yourself and pick up some responsibilities to make yourself useful to this world in your own special way!
I think that’s it. If I can think of anything else to add, I’ll be back! :p
Maybe someone who doesn't try to troll him all the time lollll
I know we discussed taxes and the rich - what is your attitude on wages, especially do you think companies should link top salaries to the base salaries?
I find it hard to believe that the CEO is actually "worth" 100 times a base employee. Sure they have skills and education but that is an obscene ratio. They do have pressure and probably actually work longer hours. Also they can have a big impact on the finances of the company. But in some top US companies its even more, its 400x for some.
https://www.business.org/finance/acc...-vs-employees/
It just seems that this is totally out of whack. They can earn more in a day than some do in a year.
And while this is just 1 person vs many, this wage inequality is a problem and seems to be getting worse.
Like to hear your thoughts...
Man, this sure feels weird. DN is like a reporter interviewing the boards most ignored member. This thread probably won’t generate much ratings you know? ;)
Anyway, since you asked, it’s only polite for me to answer… I personally don’t believe we need to limit how much money a person can make. Minimum wage, definitely. Maximum wage? Never.
For CEOs, perhaps we can follow Elon’s footsteps… that is pay CEO just bare minimum wage because it’s just not right to not have a salary for CEOs, but have their bonuses tied to company’s performance. If the company performs well, then the CEO ought to be compensated just as well. If company didn’t do well, then ceo only gets the min wage for the year. Whether he stays on next year, that’s for the board and himself to decide. It certainly makes no sense for a ceo who screwed up and still get millions of compensations as he is let go…
Anyway, I really don’t think this wage gap is that big of a problem. Just as do you truly believe that if Elon became a trillionaire because Tesla and SpaceX end up doing super well by building cool affordable EVs and getting our asses to Mars within our lifetime… do you really believe that can be a problem for the world? Do we absolutely need to make Elon make less money?
I think the problem only comes when wealth clouds a person’s judgement… just like traps that any dictator/monopoly might fall into… they think they can do whatever they want… that’s probably when we need to step in and stop them because we all know absolute power/wealth can corrupt people.
We probably don’t want to have Tesla as the only car company nor SpaceX as the only rocket company in town… other than that, I’m not sure why we should care how much money Elon makes.
[edit]
Just saw this story and I thought might be relevant to our discussion:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/m...164421929.html
Elon taunts Bernie Sanders because Bernie thought as you do that the amount of money Elon has is at an 'immoral' level... so Elon is firing back on twitter saying that he'll finally be paying his 'fair share' thru capital gains tax. (Given that his $1 salary probably won't generate much income tax)
I have to say that those 2 folks currently are probably my most admired folks each at the opposite end of the political spectrum. However, admiring them doesn't mean I have to agree 100% with them all the time. I think the key thing that I admire those 2 is their unwavering 'integrity' to avoid getting corrupted by money and power? Bernie's vision hasn't changed from when he was young til now. Likewise Elon's vision to get his ass to mars still hasn't changed.
I'd worry about those rich people without any real dreams and visions... those are the type who'd likely end up hanging out with the likes of Jeff Epstein and become cancers of society.
My point is that money itself really isn't evil. We don't need to limit the amount of money a person can make. It's the love of money that can be problematic. I think it should be clear that neither Sanders nor Musk are driven by money. I think that's the main reason why I love them. Where they land on the political spectrum is irrelevant to me. Bernie just need to focus on helping workers in need, rather than try to prevent rich people from making more money. Socialism should just focus on helping people earning below average income and let capitalism work freely, given that nothing illegal/immoral is really going on. Elon also should continue on making cool things that'll benefit our world and stop wasting time on twitter like Trump! :p
Of course, what is 'immoral' in a discussion that can't refer to ***?
Let's go back to loving our neighbors(and enemies) and relentless pursuit of self improvement and the improvement of our world. If we all do those things, it'll be hard for us to do anything immoral?
So I really think Jesus, the MAN, is probably the best role model for us. :p
Out of curiosity, who do you think is the best role model for humanity?
But its never that simple...Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity
In most corporations the wages all come from the same pot of money, so the more you pay senior roles (not just the single CEO) means that there is less to go to others. Thats why Im saying that tying senior wages to lower wages could be good. No you havent limited maximum wage. But it stops them just throwing more money at people who have a large amount already. Want more - need to give a share to everyone else. Esp when those near the top are usually the ones making the decisions on where the money goes.
Maybe the lowest paid should have a go at setting wages!
This becomes even more important when you realise that 10% more money makes a huge difference to the lives of those on the least but makes a much smaller impact on those at the top.
If a company’s board is dumb enough to pay all or most of it available pot of money to sr management and not enough to pay its workers…, then this company will likely go bankrupt eventually. Sure, they can attract top management talent, but if they can’t attract enough actual workers, not sure how they can survive?
Anyway, I just think it doesn’t make sense for government to intervene and micromanage all companies like that. It’s not like politicians are just so responsible financially themselves?
Having a min wage to protect the most vulnerable is probably enough? (we're having trouble to do even that, and do you really think our congress will be able to pass laws to cap CEO's pay?)
Besides CEOs, what about athletes? Should their pays be capped? We just should not pay Lewis Hamilton above X million dollars? Who gets to determine at what X, that level will all of a sudden turn ‘immoral’?
Also, just because Lewis can command such high salaries, does it make sense to also make the companies janitor to end up making a lot of money because his salary's tied to company's top earner? So if the janitor were to go work else where..., he will all of a sudden unable to support his family because his standard of living had been raised thanks to Lewis...
I think it'd be great if a company can profit share bonuses with it's employees if they had a great year or something, but probably shouldn't become their permanent salary.
Also, if such salary tying laws are in effect, do you know what would happen to Tesla and SpaceX employees? Given that their CEO is only making $1/year! :p
Personally, I'd like to see politicians passing laws for themselves 1st. It doesn't make sense for them to be making so little with their salaries compared to the corporate world. Politicians also should get bonuses if they can balance budgets that year... if they failed to agree to a budget and cause govt shutdowns, then they automatically lose their jobs as punishment and the government will simply revert/repeat to the same budget as last year. Politicians also shouldn't be allowed to own stocks of their own, but government should take good care of them financially for the rest of their lives. If you own a lot of stocks/private businesses that you just can't give up, then public office isn't for you! There are a lot of things that we need to fix on the government side 1st IMHO.
Point is, until we can have fiscally responsible government, I just don't believe it should have the power to tell corporations what to do.
Let companies experiment however they want provided that they don't hurt folks... entrepreneurs should be allowed to try new things without their hands tied behind their back such as bunch of govt red tape. Government can then regulate things that may be harmful to society. CEO's and Sports athletes high salaries are not that harmful to society I don't think.
I think the main problem with our current system is that our CEO enjoys all the benefits of high salary, but none of the responsibilities. CEOs of companies that caused market crashes or plane crashes are rarely held responsible financially or legally. That needs to change.
LOL
Thanks DN.
Found the thing I agree with Billi on!Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity
Yeah! ;)
Not only that, but if they fail, they usually get millions of dollars in buyouts somehow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
Resistance is futile. You just can't ignore Billi. ;)
Anyway, upon thinking about this problem of avoiding responsibility some more, I think perhaps this has become a pretty pervasive 'cultural' issue? We all know about the CEOs usually don't pickup their responsibilities... if we look at average folks in our nation, it's obvious most conservatives would champion rights and freedom without considering the consequences that might follow by refusing masks and vaccines. We just can't achieve true freedom, and rights, if we ignore responsibilities!
The left isn't immuned to this benefit seeking and responsibility avoiding type behavior... particularly with social justice warriors. Let's just take fighting climate change for example. SJW would typically want giant corporations to cut things back, but wouldn't personally take up responsibility to do anything himself to help fight climate change. One might justify by saying hey, I'm just one poor person, I don't impact the environment much, we just need to get the rich corporations to do it! While that is a true statement, but again that is avoiding personal responsibility. Imagine if everyone takes on personal responsibility to fight climate change... to just compost food waste... we could collectively make a lot of difference!
I'm just glad Greta isn't a hypocrite like that. At least she travels by sailboat... not flying around on jets to make her appearances. Most SJW love the attentions but rarely live up to their own standards that they're fighting for.
I really think our entire culture has been trained to avoid responsibilities rather than pick it up... warning labels on products... frivolous law suits... Not really sure how we can fix that. It's always much easier to tell others to be more responsible. I guess the only way to fix it is to remind ourselves that we need to be more responsibly with our own lives. That way, you can be a more convincing and effective SJW or CEO or whatever it is that you do.
Well I think we can find hundreds of examples of companies that do this and are doing well enough to survive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity
And I think that's a problem with your logic - it assumes that capitalism and a company doing well is a good enough excuse to justify most behaviours. But history has shown that the powerful will exploit others to make money (and more power) for themselves.
Setting a min wage would be good, but the USA has such a terribly low min wage that it barely protecting these workers.
And ignore Elon - that's one wage of a guy who owns a decent chunk of the company and doesn't need income.
Id guess that there are plenty of high paid senior people at Tesla and SpaceX.
I think its good that athletes that bring in the dollars are rewarded.Quote:
Besides CEOs, what about athletes? Should their pays be capped?
But this can also end up with a bad balance. We had an issue a few years back (10?) where the 2nd tier cricketers were complaining that they weren't paid enough. Not enough to live and put up with the stress and demands of the job. Unfortunately this level of the sport runs at a loss, it doesn't generate much income and costs a lot to run. Its funded from the top level. Now a few of the top level players came out and pushed this issue so they public were aware. But hey, were they willing to take a 10% hit of their million a year to top up some people who were on 50k a year?? They just wanted the players to get a bigger pie, they wouldn't consider how the pie was distributed.
So not capped - but the distribution of the funds should be reasonable.
I think some of the min wage earners working for them might have a different view...Quote:
Let companies experiment however they want provided that they don't hurt folks... entrepreneurs should be allowed to try new things without their hands tied behind their back such as bunch of govt red tape. Government can then regulate things that may be harmful to society. CEO's and Sports athletes high salaries are not that harmful to society I don't think.
And Id definitely say that this hurts society. A wealthy nation with people living in poverty, even people working who live hand to mouth, that's seriously messed up.
If the US would tie min wage to actual living wage, maybe things won’t be as messed up.
If we’re talking about a boss exploiting his workers to enrich himself, that of course would immoral even in my eyes. However, if it’s the board of a company who willingly pays super high salaries to hire someone, that should be a different matter, right?
Also, athletes or f1 teams who can’t pay their bills should just get out of the way rather than expecting hand outs from top teams, right? Nobody’s exploiting these lower pay athletes and nobody is exploiting Williams Or Haas… if they just can’t go on any longer, just quit! Or sell your team or whatever else of value, right? Do they have a right to exist and to perform at such low levels? Who wants to watch that?
Budget cap is the right thing to do, it’s also to FIA’s(government) interests to help smaller teams if it want to give financial assistance to smaller teams, but I don’t see why Mercedes(rich company) needs to distribute their wealth and successes? FIA can use its own profit(tax) to help the little teams.
In my mind, company’s singular mission should be to turn out great products ( money will naturally follow). It’s governments job to look after those who need help. Of course ideally the government probably should NOT tax the money making companies so much that it stifles their growth.
Companies (capitalism). Government (socialism). Companies should not be distracted and be forced to take care of the poor. Governments should just focus on setting up sufficient safety net for folks who might need help and not use the net to trap rich companies.
Problems with the US is not because our companies are too rich, but our government, even democrats, cannot pass laws to make sure workers can have living wages! It’s our government failing it’s job because it’s hi jacked by the rich.
Even if I agree with you to cap CEO pays, there’d be no way that can be implemented. So why not 1st thing 1st? Let’s aim for living wage for all and make the most basic healthcare as affordable as Covid vaccines? If that doesn’t fix things, then maybe we can try your idea? ;)
I think I can bring this back to SJW thing that I was talking about. Yeah, we want to rich to cut back pollution, to feed the poor…, but who’s really gonna make them? Might as well just take matters into our own hands. Help the needy and fight climate change ourselves rather than counting on the rich. The people could also just revolt and riot and trash the rich and make everyone suffer if the rich became too out of touch I suppose…
Okay, I finally found the source of what Neanderthal was talking about regarding Andrew yang. Apparently he was talking about that on David Pakman…
Anyway, so I’ll just reiterate this Billi vs Dems topic here in this thread rather than stuffing RWA with too much salad in the political thread… ;)
I think it’s pretty clear in the show that Yang was not really seeking help from white supremacists. He was just hypothetically asked the question and Yang stated that he’s not going to exclude anybody as long as this can help our democracy. (IMHO, that’s real diversity!)
I know Neanderthal is probably the minority dem ‘extremist’ around here, but he does represent the DNC pretty well. He would rather tell Billi, Yang, Tulsi, Bernie, AOC, Jordan Peterson… or anyone who doesn’t nicely fit under the liberal ideology to fuck off and lose the election… than to win with the coalition of a truly diverse group of folks.
Look, nobody is really with the white supremacists, okay? Once we get rid of this stupid lesser of the 2 evil 2 party system… in a more healthy democracy, do you guys really believe white supremacists will actually win any elections in America?!?!? Do you guys really believe white supremacists will take over in a nation when whities are now a minority? And the only human race /minority group NOT allowed to be proud of themselves?
I know CRT isn’t being taught in schools officially, but this ‘politically correct theory’ is definitely being shoved down people’s throats. If you dare go against that, then the dem collective will reject, ignore or cancel you. Whether it’s Andrew Yang or Kyle R or Dave Chappelle… if your speech isn’t PC enough… then it’s hate speech and so you must to be cancelled!!!
Look guys, the right is already crazy enough. I hope the left will also soon ‘awake’ from its own craziness…
Oh boy, I can't wait to revisit this tomorrow morning!
Okay, to start, I think it's always been clear he wasn't "seeking help" from white supremacists, but that he was more than okay with it and willing to look past their white supremacist viewpoints if they helped further common goals. At least that's my takeaway from that quote.
Real diversity doesn't mean accepting in white supremacists. I know you think it's not real, but the paradox of tolerance is a thing, and not excluding people who want to exclude others leads to further exclusion. I think the only reasonable response there, much like if, say, ISIS wanted to join in on your coalition because they were also pro universal healthcare or something, would be "we neither want nor need their help, and they can fuck off."
Aside - I'm not sure where you got hung up on this idea that anybody said that someone should give up on a goal if a group like white supremacists also have that goal. You kept pushing that in the politics thread, but you were the only one who ever said it, and you kept doubling down on it when myself and others tried to point out to you that nobody else was talking about that. That's a common thing with you, basing your arguments on something that nobody else said and fiercely sticking to your guns as you argue with only yourself, what's up with that?
Uhhh... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_...right_politicsQuote:
Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity
Let's also not forget Paul Gosar.
That's nonsense. The default state here is pride in white males - look at the vast majority of statues, holidays, Mt. Rushmore, etc etc etc. Having "white pride" rallies is a lot like "blue lives matter": It's the default state and it exists only to further the status quo. Everybody knows blue lives matter - when a police officer is killed in the line of duty, the police response is overwhelming, there's tons of news coverage, funerals get carried live on TV. When some black guy gets killed, you're lucky if it makes the news at all. That's why "Black Lives Matter" is important, because a lot of people literally treat a lot of black lives like they *don't* matter. Very few people do the same with cops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity
Can you give an example of this 'politically correct theory' being taught in schools? Can you give an example of, say, Dave Chappelle getting cancelled? How about pretty much anybody being "cancelled"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity
‘Politically correct theory’ is just something I coined and it’s should be very apparent that in most universities and even quite pervasive in our culture already.
Dave Chappelle is not under threat of cancellation? You also know how I thought cancellation of senator Al Franken was pretty stupid. Jordan Peterson fighting against the law compelling people to use certain pronouns was being viewed as him being hateful… but that’s Canada, let forget about that for now…
These are the kind of stupid fights we don’t really need to have!
Back to our original discussion, I don’t mind ISIS fighting along side me for a common cause. ISIS better not tell me that this is ‘their’ cause. If they wish to hijack the cause and make it theirs, then I’ll fuck them off too. However, the more important issue really should be winning the cause.
We can’t claim to be a free and diverse society if we selectively pick and choose who can join. Intolerance is intolerance. Be open about it. Let stupid ideas naturally die off by themselves! Harsh ‘bans’ rarely works… Didn’t work for alcohol, drugs nor terrorism… lastly, what are we to do with fellow Americans who got suckered into believing stupid ideas? Similar to Americans got sucked under poverty line, we ought to find ways to help them out, rather than cast them away in Florida!
Especially in universities, there ought to be opened intellectual discussions rather than just outright ban for pretty much most conservative speakers.
If your idea is so superior, why can’t others bring up other ideas? We don’t all have to agree on everything but at least to me, it felt like most liberals cannot handle other ideas very well. Things will quickly degenerate into accusing the other person as some sort of phobe.
An back to KR, I really thought he’s just a white supremacist and really had no desire to get to know him until recently in this forum… that’s when I realized he didn’t kill any black lives! So how does he become a white supremacist? It’s just a tag the left gave him. I also learned that KR is actual a fan of Andrew Yang! He also declared himself as a BLM supporter on FOX! He only votes Trump because who else is he going to vote for in our 2party system? I also learned that the liberal group in ASU want the school to expel KR the mass shooter…
Okay, so the right likes alternate facts, but the left wants alternate verdicts now? I really don’t think we need to have Cancel Court around.
To me at least the jurors have been consistent. The losing side is the more aggressive/chasers. The videos are pretty clear who’s being chased and attacked 1st in both KR and Artery’s case and the jurors decided accordingly.
Look, conservatively guessing, let’s assume we have 2/3 of republicans as white supremacists… that means the other 1/3 might end up supporting a future Hitler because they have no other options to vote for.
So back to Andrew, if we can somehow get more than 2 parties going, I just don’t believe white supremacist could ever gain majority control. It’s not to the white supremacists advantage to help Andrew or help create other parties. So we also don’t need to have this hypothetical fight too!
Our current 2 party system is really killing us and forcing Americans into false dichotomy in pretty much every issue…
And to Neanderthal, I just want to say that the right is definitely more fucked up than the left. It’s just that this forum has already managed to exclude all those hateful righties so I can’t preach to them here! :p
Do you have an example? Also, what if it's not just politically correct but also just correct? What then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity
No, I don't. He still is making tens of millions of dollars, still has a contract with Netflix, and was nominated for a Grammy. I don't know how you can get less cancelled by the mainstream than being nominated for a Grammy. He got criticized for his latest work. Some people wanted Netflix to pull it, but weren't calling for *all* his work to be pulled. He's not even remotely close to being "under the threat of cancellation." Al Franken wasn't cancelled, h's literally embarking on a comedy tour. Jordan Peterson isn't cancelled, he appears to be quite successful all things considered. Being criticized or losing your job isn't being "cancelled."Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity
This is one we'll just have to disagree on. To me, it's morally reprehensible to accept their help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity
1930s Germany would like a word with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity
As far as KR goes, there were two people were literally and irrevocably cancelled that night, and he's the one that did it.
Only the left? I wonder how most people (honestly, on both sides) would answer "Is OJ Simpson guilty of murder?" Mike Flynn and George Papadopoulos both plead guilty, but plenty of Trump supporters think they're innocent. It is incredibly common for people to disagree with verdicts, this isn't just a "left" thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity
Putting the discussion as to whether Trump is a white supremacist or supports them or whatever, I think it's really clear that one man with bad ideas *can* basically take control over the whole party. Even the "stronger" members of the party like Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham fall in line real fucking fast after they dare criticize dear leader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity
For the record, I am also not a fan of the two party system, but that's basically how our political system generally shakes itself out. Unless we go with more of a parliamentary style system, I don't see that ever changing, just the parties themselves change every once in a while.
Finally, maybe that's a good use of this thread. When things start getting off the rails in another thread, just start something here and post a link to it in the other one to avoid just taking over the other thread.
Example of political correctness? Here's a dictionary example:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.
"women like him for his civil rights stand and political correctness"
Also pretty much every Ivy League school began because of Jesus, but today, are these universities more conservative or more liberal? Are you really going to tell me university students and professors are all politically neutral?
Isn't it clear that most 'intellectual prof and students' believe liberal ideology is 'correct'? Profs like Jordan Peterson can't possibly be the norm in Western universities.
Also, I believe the Bible is correct, but that doesn't mean I need to ban all other 'wrong' religious texts. We don't need to be like CCP and censor all the wrong things to protect the mass. Especially college level students. Do they have critical thinking skills to differentiate good or bad ideas or not? Why do they need such protection?
The cancel attempt wasn't that successful, doesn't mean nothing happened. I have no problems with critics, but if you believe he was only 'criticized' and nothing more... then let's just agree to disagree right there. I just think if it was Senator Chappelle in congress, maybe he'll be able to manage to save his seat from the dems. Al was just a bit too slow, maybe too old, to fight back IMHO. ;)Quote:
No, I don't. He still is making tens of millions of dollars, still has a contract with Netflix, and was nominated for a Grammy. I don't know how you can get less cancelled by the mainstream than being nominated for a Grammy. He got criticized for his latest work. Some people wanted Netflix to pull it, but weren't calling for *all* his work to be pulled. He's not even remotely close to being "under the threat of cancellation." Al Franken wasn't cancelled, h's literally embarking on a comedy tour. Jordan Peterson isn't cancelled, he appears to be quite successful all things considered. Being criticized or losing your job isn't being "cancelled."
I can respect that, but please just don't judge others when they fight side by side against some sort of existential threat.Quote:
This is one we'll just have to disagree on. To me, it's morally reprehensible to accept their help.
The rest of the world was fucking with the Germans...making them pay for their past sins... because they're just such hateful assholes...Quote:
1930s Germany would like a word with you.
Just as today, we are now fucking with the Rednecks... making them pay for their slave owning past... because they're just a bunch hopeless assholes...
When a groups of folks are miserable and suffering and a guy offered to help make them great again... it'd sound very appealing.
We need to learn to give people some breaks okay? Stop creating the conditions that help people like Hitler and Trump to gain popularity. The hunt for the rednecks need to stop. IMHO, most privileged white people live in blue states. From Elon to Jeff..., these asshole white privileged billionaires didn't exploit anybody in red states.
KR shouldn't be guarding stores that ain't his... and those protesters should not be chasing a kid with rifles. 2 wrongs will never make anything right.Quote:
As far as KR goes, there were two people were literally and irrevocably cancelled that night, and he's the one that did it.
There's no argument there. We can't laugh at their alternate facts if we believe in alternate verdicts. Disagreeing on verdict is one thing, but to actively push somebody out of an university is quite another... not to mention KR is attending online and would not be able to shoot any of his classmates.Quote:
Only the left? I wonder how most people (honestly, on both sides) would answer "Is OJ Simpson guilty of murder?" Mike Flynn and George Papadopoulos both plead guilty, but plenty of Trump supporters think they're innocent. It is incredibly common for people to disagree with verdicts, this isn't just a "left" thing.
no disagreement there. This is why we need more than just 2 major parties.Quote:
Putting the discussion as to whether Trump is a white supremacist or supports them or whatever, I think it's really clear that one man with bad ideas *can* basically take control over the whole party. Even the "stronger" members of the party like Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham fall in line real fucking fast after they dare criticize dear leader.
No disagreement there either.Quote:
For the record, I am also not a fan of the two party system, but that's basically how our political system generally shakes itself out. Unless we go with more of a parliamentary style system, I don't see that ever changing, just the parties themselves change every once in a while.
Yeah, I don't agree with the Kid and not sure if he's interested in political discussions at all, but he does have a point... RWA probably shouldn't be eating that much salad. :pQuote:
Finally, maybe that's a good use of this thread. When things start getting off the rails in another thread, just start something here and post a link to it in the other one to avoid just taking over the other thread.
Still, I wish Americans can engage in more 'discussions', not just fights. It's all too easy for us to just shut others who disagree with us down. I know we don't actively ban conservatives in this forum, but have you considered why all the conservative GTXFers all would just either be quiet or just leave?
Aren't liberals supposed to be more diverse and tolerant?
The ideology of not tolerating those who are intolerant is just dangerous. Just label somebody as hateful and intolerant... voila! Now you are justified to hate somebody! yeah!
I really believed the media that KR is a white supremacist! I guess if you love guns and carry a rifle, white supremacist you are!?!?
I'm grateful for the heroic protesters who sacrificed themselves to tried to protect us from white vigilantes.
Storefronts are all insured. White vigilantes should all just stay home and let us rob these stores?
Not trying to stop people from protesting in middle of the night, but do you see why I'd prefer peaceful day time protests?
Currently both sides can only see the other sides' shortcomings, but totally blind to their own faults. We already know the limitation of such bipolar 2 party system, let's please try to be careful not to fall into this trap ourselves.
I'm asking for an example because you keep speaking in generalities, like there's this foregone conclusion that all universities are now just this left-wing hellscape, the existence (and success) of groups like Turning Point USA being notably ignored. A dictionary definition of political correctness is an example of a definition, not an example of this "being shoved down someone's throat." Beyond that, you mentioned this in relation to CRT, which the whole controversy there is that supposedly this is all being taught in public schools prior to college/university.
My main point is that I think the media you consume is leading you to believe that the woke left has taken over all schooling from preschool to graduate school and that you're uncritically believing that. I don't doubt that there are instances of things happening, just like there are instances of teachers telling their students that vaccines are demonic and that Trump won in 2020.
Speaking of definitions, what's your definition of cancelled? What criticism is okay? If I choose not to spend money on a movie because I find it offensive, am I participating in cancel culture? What if I tell other people that I feel that way? What's the line there? I feel like under your definition I have to support everything no matter what it is or else I'm part of cancel culture.
Who's hunting rednecks? Are they being hunted for sport? Lynched? Eaten? What hunting is happening?
But besides that, your definition of privilege is not what people are talking about when they talk about privilege. Privilege in this context doesn't mean "all white people are successful and rich." It means that, as a general rule, white people have fewer disadvantages for a given socio-economic level than non-white people. For example, a rich white person is probably not likely to be treated the same as Salehe Gembury was for a jaywalking offense in Beverly Hills. A poor white person is less likely to get pulled over for a pretext traffic stop. Here in LA, there was just an article showing that Hispanic people on bikes were massively more likely to get stopped and searched/interrogated by LASD than other races. Privilege does not mean that you are rich and successful by default if you're white and you have no chance to be rich and successful if you're not. It just means that there's a structure in place that tends to make it harder for non-white people to be successful than white people. The existence of a poor white person does not contradict that, just like the presence of a rich black person doesn't contradict that.
As far as KR's victims go, the problem here is that they never got a chance to defend themselves in court. We don't know their thinking and we can never know their thinking. They may have thought they were protecting the crowd from a maniac with a gun. We'll never know. But there is a *huge* difference between verdicts and facts. Verdicts are judgment calls made by humans. Facts are...well...facts. There is no such thing as an "alternative fact." There may be alternative interpretations of facts, but facts are facts.
To me, though, diversity and tolerance doesn't mean that everyone's opinions are equally valid. Part of the marketplace of ideas is that ideas can come from everyone, but it also means that some ideas are shit and will be pushed out by the marketplace. You don't deserve a seat at the table just because you have an idiotic hot take.
And yes. All vigilantes should stay at home. Vigilantes are bad. We have trained and uniformed people who are empowered by the state to enforce the law. Having randos with guns out there is bad.
Speaking of, the "roof Koreans" were brought up in the other thread. I did a little research into what happened during the riots. Four people were killed in Koreatown during that. Two of them are unsolved (to the extent that they have no idea if the people killed were looting or just happened to be there), but in the other two deaths, they were people killed by friendly fire from people defending their businesses. One was a security guard, the other was someone coming to assist their family/friends in defending the store.
Vigilantism is *bad*. Full stop. An insured storefront can be rebuilt. Those lives can't.
Canada is certainly way more extreme than us... so the best example would be when Canadian government tried to compel certain pronouns be used, that's when Jordan Peterson bulked and that's how he got famous actually. It is pretty clear that even the American left views Peterson as some sort of homophobe for refusing to bend to the 'correct' use of pronoun. Do you believe it's correct to enact such laws to tell people proper usage of pronouns?
As for differences between criticism vs cancellation... naturally it's a critics' job to do their reviews... so our focus is purely from consumer point of view... we are definitely within our rights to not financially reward people who we don't like and stop doing business with them. However, if somebody loses his job or got their contract terminated earlier than expected... then I'd consider that cancellation. I have no problems with 'cancellations' if this person got convicted of crime or something, but people shouldn't be cancelled just because the mob is big enough. If consumers are upset enough to stop paying which cause that person's job to be terminated... that's fine. I'm okay with that. I'm just not okay with preemptive cancelling to cater to the demands of the mob. For sure Chappelle and Peterson are not cancelled, but what do you think happened to Al Franken? Just retired?
We need to allow proper due process, not just go along with the mob.
Regarding privilage, yes, I do agree color of our skin matters very little now. One needs to be rich to be privileged. So poor white people really should be able to celebrate their color of the skin without being viewed as white supremacists, right? :p
Regarding our recent trials, yes, dead people won't get a chance to defend themselves. Fortunately we have video footage. I think I'm with the jurors. Please don't go chasing aggressively when you see people you don't like. Because you'll either wound up dead or be found guilty. Best thing to do is to both stay home. If you really need to protest, then please don't cause property damages. If you want to play white vigilante or heroic protester, then you better not be chasing anybody down. If you don't let people run away safely, be prepared to die in self defense or be found guilty and be locked up.
Of course not everything is equally valid. If you truly want a 'market' place, then let the market decide... If you are a market owner, you can't just decide for the market preemptively who's worthy to be in the market place. Are you CCP or something? And are shoppers really that stupid and can't figure out this vendor is selling shit that we need you to help them decide what is shit and what is not?Quote:
To me, though, diversity and tolerance doesn't mean that everyone's opinions are equally valid. Part of the marketplace of ideas is that ideas can come from everyone, but it also means that some ideas are shit and will be pushed out by the marketplace. You don't deserve a seat at the table just because you have an idiotic hot take.
Market is usually not that stupid.
I think our market is fucked because we only have 2 vendors both selling us different kind of shit. But my shit is better than your shit? ;)
Maybe China knows best? They know the correct path for all Chinese people... and people and ideas that disagree with the CCP can just disappear into the sewage because they are all shit anyways?
If you don't believe in the absolute morality from God, then at least let market decide what stays and what goes. Those in power should not decide who's worthy of a seat in the market place or not.
Now, I think shit is probably not a very good adjective... is this product shit because it sucks or because it's just down right fraudulent? If the vendor is clearly cheating and fraudulent, then I suppose you can take away his seat in the market. However, I'd like to see a conviction of some kind proving that the vendor is selling ponzi scheme!
However, when it comes to ideas... sometimes that's just hard to prove.
I can't prove Jesus exists... and you can't prove Jesus does't exist. When this happens, naturally Jesus still deserves a seat... just as with any other religions.
Are all religions equally valid? Of course not..., but let's just let the market decide the fate of those different ideas... because none of us know what's really 'correct' with absolute certainty.
I don't believe the CCP single party model is correct. US's 2 party system isn't right either, but it's better.
I hope we can further improve upon that.
From a financial point of view, 'free market' capitalism really works. China clearly showed us that they collectively got richer by adopting the free market approach. I believe ideas can work the same way. Of course socialism works too. I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive. Government's job is to help people in trouble to get better..., but not to tell people what to do and what to think.
I'm not 100% clear on what happened with Peterson. I just read up on it and it sounds like a lot of him mischaracterizing the bill (I mostly see that if he continued to refuse the requested pronoun after being ordered by a court to use it, he could be held in contempt, and that the entire scenario was "extremely unlikely") and playing the victim. I do think refusing to use the requested pronoun unless essentially they asked nicely without "a chip on their shoulder" sounds like being a massive asshole, and yes, to me that sounds transphobic. I think it's reasonable to enact some laws - public institutions should use preferred pronouns - but of course I don't think that people shouldn't be required to use them in their private lives.
I know some trans people. Coming out as trans is not something they took lightly, and them being trans was most definitely not a choice. They did so fearing being ostracized and often at significant personal loss. I cannot come up with a reason to not use their preferred pronouns other than you just want to be a massive asshole. I will also say that for the people who came out when I knew them, I often used the wrong pronoun. They were never mad about it, because I wasn't doing it to be a dick, it was just an honest mistake. It's easy to tell which angle someone is coming from. But, I digress.
Onto cancellation: What if someone loses their job because the outrage they created just becomes too much of a liability to the company? Once you have signed on somewhere or taken a job, can you just do whatever you want without fear or retribution because that'd be cancellation? Do I think Al Franken should have resigned? Probably not. Was he cancelled? I'm still reading interviews with him and he's still out there in the public eye, going on tour, so I'd say no. He just lost that job. I lost my job for accidentally pushing something to production that was a little crude at best. That wasn't cancellation - I became a liability to my company and I lost my job. I'm still doing good, it was a momentary setback that I brought upon myself. I cannot think of anybody who is truly cancelled (other than people killed) outside of folks like Harvey Weinstein, where they aren't cancelled because of a potentially offensive view but because they're criminals. You might make a case for Roseanne Barr, though I would argue that spouting Q nonsense deserves a little cancellin'.
For what it's worth, due process applies to the law. You don't get due process being kicked out of someone's house, or a bar, or losing your job, or losing a friend, or whatever. There's no such thing as due process for that.
Onto the marketplace: If the market decides you suck and you get cancelled, isn't that part of the marketplace? Isn't that the marketplace deciding? If not, who decided it? There are little tiny boycotts all the time (I've been boycotting AT&T as best I can since the early 2000's), but it's only when there's enough genuine "fuck this person" response that you get what you're calling "cancellation". And of course a market owner gets to decide that! That's part of their own freedom of speech. Nobody has to allow any idiot on their airwaves/stream/on a soapbox in their store.
So here's where I'll agree with you. The market is not usually that stupid. That's why "cancel culture" exists. The market's had enough of intolerant assholes.
I’m no legal expert, but Peterson was either actually right about being compelled to speak ‘correctly’ or they were just passing a toothless law trying to make a minority group feel better? Either way, it’s not a very good law. Assuming Peterson mischaracterized, that law doesn’t really compel anything… That is actually the essence of what is wrong with PC. It’s fake niceness. You make it appear that you’re nice to the marginalized, but you’re not really doing anything of real substance to help. Just like fake Christians can always pray for you without lifting a finger to help.
Onto cancellation, I don’t think anyone would actually defend Harvey, right? Some cases are just so black and white. Just as nobody in their right mind would defend blue live and say George Floyd’s life don’t matter. In gray area cases, people can just agree to disagree.
Point is i don’t believe in market manipulation. When it’s not genuine market forces causing this change in market, then I think it’s wrong. Problem is this is never very obvious. Remembered the day when CA has power shortages and Enron was blaming our stupid liberal state for not building enough power plants? Also during the financial crisis, we couldn’t even find anyone to blame!
I think the only thing we really need to regulate is fraud and cheats… and punish them severely so that it won’t happen again. We don’t need laws enacted to help people feel better. We only need laws to protect people from getting ripped off! Obviously GOP don’t protect consumers that much, but Obama admin wasn’t doing that great in that respect too, right?
If you want to act PC and pray for others, that’s fine, but don’t enact any laws regarding those things. Be nice for the sake of being nice. We can have laws protecting people from assholes I suppose. Make sure the laws are enforcible and can truly protect people!
I don’t believe Peterson or chappelle are hateful assholes. If you don’t like them, that’s cool… but you don’t need to hate them for sure.
That's the thing - the market is the market. If there are stronger market forces that manipulate the market, that's still the market. I personally fall on the side that regulation is important, but I feel like you believe that the market should sort itself, but then get mad when it sorts itself in a way that you don't like. Enron got itself to that point via the unregulated market. Those are "genuine" market forces. Monopolies and oligarchies are "genuine" market forces, and why we've had the power structures we've had for millennia. It's only recently that there's been a concerted effort to level the playing field.
I don't hate Peterson or Chappelle. I, as a general rule, like Chappelle, though I think he's going down a misguided path. I think Peterson is an asshole. I think that *they* hate people, I don't hate them.
Regulations are definitely needed. We can’t have zero check and balances… however, I just don’t want regulators stifle the market with excessive red tape. Main objective of regulators is to detect fraud and punish appropriately. Not to tell the market what to do.
Also, beside stamping out fraud, monopolies and oligarchies/dictators, “gambling” speculators can definitely be a threat to free market too. If the market is no longer behaving to normal supply/demand, then it’s not free anymore. If it’s manipulated, it’s by definition no longer free. I don’t think we need to allow whatever outside forces to mess with the market.
Anyway, obviously we are wearing different political lenses…
So may I ask why you think Peterson is a hateful person or why is he an asshole?
Pretty sure I already went through that. If you purposely refer to trans people by a pronoun they've asked you not to because you think they "have a chip on their shoulder", I think you're an asshole. "Dance for me, or I call you what I want no matter how it makes you feel." I do not see any way that's not about just being a bullying asshole.
I think you are mischaracterizing Jordan Peterson. He has no problems not being an asshole by referring to someone with whatever pronoun the person wishes. His main beef was with government enacting laws compelling him to say the ‘correct’ things.
https://youtu.be/44pERGAaKHw
"Dance for me" bullying.Quote:
When asked in September 2016 if he would comply with the request of a student to use a preferred pronoun, Peterson said "it would depend on how they asked me.… If I could detect that there was a chip on their shoulder, or that they were [asking me] with political motives, then I would probably say no.…
Okay, I watched that video. He's a bigger piece of shit than I thought. He's straight up arguing against legislation that he misunderstands on the backs of other people. He's willing to disrespect and bully other people in a protest over a law he doesn't fully understand.
What a fucking asshole. Even if he's right and the law makes him use certain language, he's still targeting people who aren't responsible in his protest. Absolutely bullying nonsense.
It’s the Canadian govt compelling him to dance to a certain tune… and you are saying Peterson is mischaracterizing that… nobody is really compelling him to dance… and if he doesn’t dance, then he must be an asshole.
That’s the power of PC. If you don’t submit to its correctness, you are always the asshole.
He is very clear with his statement that you quoted. If you genuinely wish to be called a certain pronoun, he’s fine with that. But if you are the asshole bully trying to paint him as the asshole bully, then he will tell you to fuck off.
Who is the ultimate bully here?
The left think it’s the right and the right think it’s the left.
Video footage is clear… the chasing aggressor is more bullish according to the jurors.
Jordan Peterson got famous just as KR. They fought against the liberal bullies and won and therefore will forever remain assholes because of that.
I just don’t see it that way.
These conflicts/fights really should not even happen in the 1st place.
We shouldn’t enact such laws in the 1st place. KR should not try to be a vigilante and protesters should not be destroying properties.
How hard it is to just say and dance for me and be nice? How hard is it to watch your store burn down? Insurance will pay you back! Don’t be an asshole like Jordan!
Will revisit this in the morning to hopefully not awaken my wife with the typing. Much like you're revisiting things I thought we already hashed out this morning, but apparently are repeating.
I don’t really know KR; however, obviously something is not right if we can see the same Jordan Peterson so differently.
These different lenses that we’re wearing probably changed the way we see Jesus as well.
Hope we can truly help each other clear up each other’s lenses…
Anyway, good night and please don’t wake your wife up. :p
Btw, I think I found a better video explaining why he refuse to dance to that ‘law’. This clip also has the comments opened. So you can also see other peoples thoughts.
https://youtu.be/s_UbmaZQx74
Possibly the reverse (or is it the same?) of how some Protestants in HK insist that only THEY are "Christians", and that Catholics are merely "Catholics" (as opposed to Christians). Whereas anyone not involved in this pathetic extremist pissing feud (like me) knows that they should all actually be called Christians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
I mean, there's no real point to this example, other than perhaps to demonstrate if I'm being an asshole by insisting to these Protestants that Catholics are also Christians (which I probably am, but fuck them and the misguided and pathetic high horse they rode in on) then whoever refers to trans people by a different pronoun to have a chip on their shoulder is almost certainly also an asshole. So does he justify this sort of behaviour against trans people but get outraged when others do it to his religion? Hmmmmmmm
I can't speak for Peterson, but I think you are right to consider them all as 'Christians' because all of their faith is due to Christ. No Christ would mean none of those 'Christians'.
Now some Christians might find it offensive to be 'lump' as those other less worthy 'Christians'... so they might prefer you to call them Catholics or Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses or whatever they self identified as, but the point is there shouldn't be any kind of laws telling people to refer to religious people by their appropriate names. Whether the law actually criminalizes or not is kinda irrelevant to me. Either way, this supposedly 'compassionate' law is dumb. If it doesn't criminalize violating assholes, then what's the point of the law? If it does criminalizes, then it's a law worthy of CCP(Canadian Communist Party)!
That's actually kinda fascinating, because my wife was raised Catholic and she has insisted that only Catholics are Christians, and that Protestants are Protestants. It's my understanding that if you follow a religion based on Christ, you're Christian.
In her case it definitely doesn't come from a hateful place (at least not with her, it likely did originally), it's just a categorization thing, like how you'd classify a tomato as a fruit rather than a vegetable.
Back to Peterson - the short version of my thoughts is that he's transphobic and couching that in a "I'm protesting against government overreach" argument. To me, that feels a lot like "my parents abuse me, so I'm going to be a bully in school to my smaller classmates."
He might have a legitimate argument, but his method of arguing it is just being a bully and an asshole to people he perceives as lesser. He both shows a disdain for trans people and also claims that he's the arbiter of who is "truly" trans, like he's some sort of master judge of it. There's also an element of "you have to make me comfortable with your being trans" that he brings up. Like it's their job to make their existence palatable to him for him to accept it. There's no reason he can't be respectful of people while also arguing what the government should be able to dictate, and I think beyond that he's grifting off anti-trans sentiment.
I really think you're mischaracterizing what he's saying.
He's not asking the marginalized to make him comfortable in order to be nice, he's just warning the leftist bullies to not push him around.
It's really simple actually... if somebody dresses as a girl, any normal human being would address to 'her'. Likewise, if some look like boys, then they'll be referred to as such. If you look neutral and we can't tell easily... then maybe we'll try to avoid referring to you as anything until you tell us who you really are. No biggie. Now, if you self identify as a king and wishes to be addressed as your majesty, then you can fuck off. To me, that's essentially what he's saying.
This is what's scary about the left extremists. It's just so easy to label somebody as a hateful asshole. I really don't believe Peterson and Chappelle are hateful assholes... and to me, Chappelle is pretty much the same Chappelle and not venturing down any misguided path. You only think he's venturing down a misguided path because of the corrective lenses that you're wearing.
I'm really interested to hear what Neanderthal has to say about Chappelle. Is his favorite comedian really is venturing down this misguide path?
Or how about you explain to me how is Chappelle venturing down a 'misguided' path?
I made an effort to listen to what he was saying. That's my take on it. I'm not sure how I can mischaracterize that.
He's claiming to be the arbiter of what gender is. His target is trans people and claiming he knows about gender identity, and that the government is trying to twist that. Is he making the same argument that the government is overreaching when it insists that 2 + 2 = 4? He's not. He's specifically saying that this is the line, that he knows better, and that the government is trying to force him to acknowledge otherwise.
Not only is he wrong about whether he's being forced, he's insisting that he knows better than actual trans people how gender works.
Call me an extremist if you want - he is using his transphobia as a way to grift off other hateful people to make a name for himself and make money. He is not a good person. He talks about people coming together in good faith to find the truth, but he is not doing that.
The search for truth shouldn't be about compelling others to dance for you. Peterson shouldn't do that... nor should trans people. People should just be allowed to freely have their conversations... and be allowed to choose to be nice or assholes on their own accord without a law hanging over their head.
Whether it's search for God or for gender, who really knows it all with absolute certainty? Do Christians really know who or what Jesus is? If so, there wouldn't be so many denominations! If Christians wish to preach, go ahead, you can preach, but people don't have to be compelled to do anything. People should be free to choose. Christians also shouldn't consider unrepentant sinners as assholes. For Jesus is pretty clear, we ought to not only love God, but also love our enemies! Christians are only commanded to spread the good news, not to compel people into a religion that they don't want to be in.
You are free to believe Canadian government knows better than Peterson if you want. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
It's just mind boggling to me that you don't think people on the left are capable of being bullies. It's always the folks on the other side who are bullies.
Okay, let's just say Peterson is the asshole and move on...
What about that piece of Canadian law? Do you think it's necessary?
A while back I mentioned that you have this penchant for arguing things that nobody else has said. When did I say that people on the left are incapable of being bullies? I certainly don't remember saying that. If I did, I was incorrect - of course I believe you can have bullies on all sides.
That said, when it comes to gender, I will defer to people who know differently about their own gender. Similar to sexuality - I do not find men attractive and I don't know how one could. Yet, many men I know do find men attractive. My personal experience doesn't discount theirs. Why would gender be different? As I previously mentioned, I have a friend who came out as trans. He was Jake, now she is Jolie. She did it fearing that she might lose her job, that her coworkers and friends might reject her, and that it might destroy her home life. It was clearly a part of who she is at her core, it wasn't something she just did on a whim. Why would Peterson know better than someone who has gone through that?
In addition - the law change that Peterson is so bent out of shape about is Bill C-16. It is, and I quote:
It wasn't even a new law. It just added gender identity to the list of already protected classes. It didn't create new penalties or requirements, it literally just added gender identity to other classes such as race and sexuality.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bill In Question
Jordan Peterson didn't object to this bill before when it was about other classes, a bill that has been in existence in Canada since 1985. He objected to this specifically because of gender identity. It is not a principled stance against government overreach. It is specific bigotry against a specific class of people.
My apologies for putting words into your mouth... again... It just felt like you think left can do no wrong and is always the victim to me.
Anyway, Peterson has issues with 'hate speech' bans as well..., but I think his only objection was that it'd be stupid to have laws dictating people to never say anything offensive. If we're no longer allowed to say anything offensive, then everyone will eventually sound like CEOs and politicians... using bunch of fancy inoffensive words in their speeches while telling us absolutely nothing of substance... However, he does understand some hate speech can be really bad... so he didn't object to that as vehemently because it's just so hard for everyone to draw the same line as to what's really hate speech...
He only has issues with gender pronouns because he felt compelled to speak in a certain way he disagree with thanks to this new amendment... It's this 'compulsion' which made him necessary to draw a line in the sand.
So okay, let's just say he misinterpreted or mischaracterized that amendment and using it as an opportunity to make his asshole truly shine...
The law was only intend to protect people from discrimination, nothing more. No compelled speech at all. That asshole simply made a huge fuss out of nothing.
I'm no legal expert, so I'll go along with that narrative, but based on what I've read and heard from Peterson, he just doesn't sound like an asshole to me. I can't agree with his strange diet and he obviously has his health issues, but whatever works for him I guess.
Now I do realize just because you think somebody is an asshole, doesn't mean you hate him or want to cancel him. You're only making a judgement on him based on this particular issue. That's totally fair. But do you believe that's the general consensus of the left?
Same goes for folks like Dave Chappelle and KR I think.
I don't really know what KR is good for... since he's just a kid, but Chappelle is hilarious and Peterson IMHO is just an amazing person in a lot of levels.
Anyway, to me, the danger of extreme liberal ideology is that they can hide behind the marginalized people and then use them as tools to justify bullying others. As I mentioned earlier, to me, PC is fake niceness, just as fake Christians' croc tear prayers. I don't like fake things, not even Christian fake things...
So I think YW's actually astutely pointed out this is pretty much all 'faith' based. Whether it's Jesus or Jordan, do you 'believe' what he's telling you? We are obviously seeing the same things, but perceiving them differently. Like you said, maybe I'm just too gullible? Or maybe I have homosexual tendencies and I just like assholes? ;)
BTW, based on what you've read about what Jesus said, do you think he's an asshole too? :p
But his compulsion is new based on a specific class. He didn't have the same objection before. He might have had it to some extent, but he took a stand when it came to gender issues and trans people.
I assume that you don't think he's an asshole. I think if you don't view him through a critical eye, he sounds eloquent and principled. I also think that under a small amount of scrutiny he turns out to be a bigoted jerk that is really good at sounding eloquent and principled.
I do not expect to change your mind. You like Jordan, I get that. I don't, and that's also unlikely to change. I personally think it's dangerous to try to push him as a cure of all ills for people here that might be struggling, as I think he's insidious.
This is going to sound dumb, but your next to last sentence struck a chord with me. Not all homosexual guys are into butts. Some are. Some straight guys are too. There's not actua a oflly an equality there.
I don't have much of an opinion on Jesus. My only real opinion is that very few people who claim to worship him follow in his example.
Jesus himself said it... he's not going to 'know' a lot of them self identified Christians... it is a very narrow gate to heaven. I hope I can make it...
Anyway, pushing or compelling anyone or anything for all people can be dangerous. For some, maybe masks could be harmful... plus I saw an article saying some had to go back to online schools not because of covid, but because some kid had lost proper social abilities and became too much of a trouble... so they had to go back to virtual for now... Vaccines too. Some people ARE allergic to it. Plus, if there really is something wrong with our vaccines and caused all of us to die, at least those anti-vaxxers will survive. ;)
I'm definitely not smart nor eloquent enough to know all the answers or even ask the right questions... all I know is that something is wrong with our current culture. I sorely miss the days when this community was full of truly 'diverse' group of people. Don't get me wrong, I like you guys, including YW and Neanderthal too, but I just wish we could be even MORE diverse...
Also, percentage of republican assholes will probably be very high wearing your lenses, but my gullible lenses could be under-estimating all the GOP assholes? ;) Best way is probably try to get to personally know your conservative neighbors around us rather than just assume they're assholes? Our political stances could very well be like our sexual orientations. Our tastes vary, but we are not really defined by these preferences? Try to overlook these difference and try to find what we have in common? Gran Turismo was the common theme that brought us together I guess. Once that common ground faded away, all we have left are our differences?
I suppose the more radical factions of each side will try to claim ownership of the term to indicate that they are right. On the occasions I've encountered it in Protestants he zeal (almost religious, one might think) with which it is advanced is shocking, sad, and funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
Of course, there are segments/factions within other religions who take a similar attitude toward other segments/factions.
When religious factions look the same as any other political factions , then it should be clear God is not there… for God is love. If God/love makes no difference to how people behave then what’s the point?
(shit... been busy and missed this for a few days. good to see its doing its job of keeping billi vs the world)
Heh, it ultimately feels a little futile as Billi is world-class at digging his heels in, so most of the time when you're going back and forth with him it's in an attempt to make your point to onlookers rather than to each other. Still, glad to be able to go toe to toe without pissing too many people off.
Its also very hard to be aware of your own privilege, esp if most people around you have similar privilege.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
Many people who scream "what privilege?" are unaware that just going around and not being hassled is a privilege that others dont have.
I see that with some people I know. It doesn't fit their narrow world view and it seems to be a personal affront to get them to be respectful to others. They them twist it like they are the victim because they have a right to be an arsehole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
Then there are those in the media who then leverage this to build a following.
Golden rule - you expect others to correctly use your name, your chosen pronouns (even if you argue you didn't chose them). But then they refuse the same basic civility to others.
When these arseholes can lead to serious issues and mental health troubles - yeah why not use the law to protect people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity
We have plenty of other laws against being a dickhead - like defamation. As long as the punishment fits the crime, I dont have a huge problem with putting some legal weight against people being arseholes.
I enjoy seeing others perspective, even when we basically agree. I can put a different spin on things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
But I also enjoy thinking over and clarifying my concepts. Why is X a good idea? What is wrong about Y?
Oh com’on, my heels have definitely been moved over the years… by Doc Love, Jesus and now Jordan Peterson… well Peterson never drastically altered my world view, I just thought he’s very smart, with broad knowledge and also just very motivating… he has also talked about women and relationship stuff because he’s a psychologist… so I guess seeing him on YouTube is like me finally seeing Doc Love and Jesus all at the same time where as I usually just read about them… ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
Anyway, I really think political orientations are very similar to sexual orientations…, we just won’t be able to convince each other to actually switch sides. I do quite enjoy our discussions though. Thanks for spending the time. Roofer for sure won’t have sufficient patience to have such in depth discussions with me when we talk about what’s fucked up in the right side of the world. ;)
Billi - one thing you mentioned above, that we shouldn't cancel/shut the door on people.
People who are behaving outside what is socially acceptable shouldn't just be punished. Think racist, sexist, phobic people. Esp ones that might end causing real harm.
Its much better to have an environment where they can feel that they can be encouraged to change/grow, rather than be outcast. Ostracising can result in people going rogue or worse joining a group.
There is still a big issue with sexual assaults and men who are sliding down a slope from yelling, threats that will lead to increasing violence. Its good that we are encouraging society to say a big NO to this behaviour, but if it means we cut off people who are at the lower levels of harm then it doesn't help them move in the right direction.
So yeah - we shouldn't just "cancel" people, we should give second chances and help. But they do need to accept this help.
I can agree with what you said here if there’s really an asshole causing people mental harm. However, situation is never that straight forward. How far would you go with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicknose
So you believe it’s a good idea to criminalize people for refusing to ‘dance’ with the trans community by addressing them properly?
Protecting the marginalized is perfectly fine, but if a law compels people to refer to them with more special pronouns, we really need to criminalize people for refusing to play nice? What kind of punishment would fit that crime?
Or you’re just making a claim that Peterson the psychologist is just a bully asshole causing problems for Canadian trans people mental health? So should an asshole like that be allowed to teach at any schools?
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicknose
However, current cancel culture isn’t what you are describing here, right?
I think he is an arsehole. Actually I think that's pretty clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity
Punishment - I think it should be a bit like defamation. The punishment is monetary and fits the scale of the crime, which includes the size of the audience and the harm caused.
I can understand people making mistakes or assumptions, but once someone has said "please call me X" you are just a dick if you dont. Im sure even Peterson would get annoyed if people starting call him something he didn't like.
As for teaching... if he does that inside a job then it could be covered by workplace bullying. I have no problem with someone losing their job from deliberately being a dick to annoy others.
Wasn't saying anything about cancel culture. Was just saying that people who are outside acceptable behaviour (esp behaviours that were ignored or accepted previously) shouldn't be just hung out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity
Anyway, I was talking about cancel culture. :p like I said, I have no problem with your suggestions.
Cancel culture is essentially mob taking over as judge and executioner… the equivalent on the right is of course authorities taking over as judge and executioner such as just shooting someone dead… both extremes are just wrong.
As for Peterson, I really don’t believe he’ll be an asshole to a trans person. He’s just being an asshole to a liberal govt which he felt like it’s ready to criminalize him if he doesn’t speak more politically correctly…
I personally place Peterson as high regard as Bernie Sanders. I don’t always agree with them on everything but based on all the old videos of them, you can tell they haven’t changed much over the years. That’s a sign of a person with high integrity. Whatever they said, they really mean it!
Can’t say the same for Andrew Yang or Obama. Both I also held in high regard at 1st, but it’s obvious to me now that although they sound good, they don’t alway mean what they say…
Not changing at all is also a sign that someone doesn't listen or learn as they go through life.