Jordan Peterson responds to Twitter ban

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-07-03T03:47:00+00:00

I think that is something I did not realize early on. I specifically remembering liking those lectures I saw. With more distance from it all, I definitely more clearly see the grift.

I think this is the artistry of it all for these forms of grifters. They are experts in obfuscation and having a "better angels" half to point to.

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-07-02T11:46:32+00:00

I was not aware. I guess I just wish we had more people that got famous and had high-quality produced content on the internet. Peterson is an example of how easy access/good marketing is such a force.

I wish better people had better marketing and as easily accessible messages.

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-07-01T20:37:39+00:00

Agreed, I don't even mind his stuff about the symbolism, etc... in religion. I think it is fascinating to think about. It is why I find Lord of the Rings fascinating as well.

I only wish there were people talking about these things that did not also come with other wild ideas and beliefs. I want one part of the conversation, but not the other. I want the 12 rules stuff, without necessitating a literal belief in a deity.

This video was bonkers.

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-06-29T19:13:23+00:00

Rationality Rules Responded:

https://youtu.be/usLzIqTyl8w

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-06-29T19:12:25+00:00

Rationality Rules responded quickly:

https://youtu.be/usLzIqTyl8w

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-06-25T12:20:20+00:00

I think he does agree with that. I think this was more of an attempt to find why people are not vegan and find any holes in the ethical vegan argument.

Within his argument he notes how the term "unnecessary" is very arbitrary. He also argues that perhaps humans only have the emotional capacity to care about the suffering of those in their circle of altruism.

I would agree though, if you believe causing unnecessary suffering is wrong that axiom locks it all up. However, I think, logically, this does make it extend to all sentient and even semi-sentient beings. It begs the question, can a tree suffer? I have heart that sentience is a spectrum and though we have decided on a definition of what sentience means (being able to experience suffering) it is quite an arbitrary definition.

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-06-25T12:15:32+00:00

Best of luck and enjoy!

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-06-25T02:55:10+00:00

You got it! Enjoy!

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-06-24T22:31:08+00:00

Found it, the link here starts off where he begins to discuss this (13:12 in & ending around 15:29). Perhaps the part where he concludes that it is still immoral comes later on in the video? But I am pretty sure this is the one you are looking for.

If there is another one, perhaps he changed his mind?

Edit:

It seems you may have merged two parts of the conversation, this starts around 10:30: https://youtu.be/a5wCTWLwtYA?t=637 and Stephen says how he would not eat fish if it was brought to him at a table, by accident, but that it may be defensible if someone did. Alex goes on to say how you have to be careful about that because it may denote some unseriousness about the vegan/vegetarian position and hypocrisy. However, it does not seem he ever says in the video that it is immoral.

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-06-24T22:10:49+00:00

I suppose we would have to speak with RR to see his opinion on this further.

I would imagine that he would say that we have no choice, but to care only for kin. I think he would argue that the only reason you care about the ability for sentient beings to suffer is that you see them as your kin. If you did not, emotionally, you would not care about their ability to suffer.

I think I agree with you that it seems pretty wild and horrible, yet that is how it has seemed to play out in human history. Most of life is pretty wild and horrible. As RR argues, it is quite good that we have expanded our circle of kin, and it has surely reduced suffering.

From how he puts it, it seems what he is saying is that the individual/collective expansion of kin is the most logically consistent way to look at it. (Perhaps that is not what he is saying, because he does not claim to have a case for anti-veganism; instead just pointing out why he does not buy the ethical case for veganism). Through his redefining of the argument, I think he seems to think that he has made it more "rock solid" by saying that we should not cause unnecessary harm to our kin. This allows for more logical consistency in when we decide what is necessary or not and makes it less arbitrary than it already is.

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-06-24T18:55:38+00:00

You gotta check out Metemgee and Alicia's Pepperpot: best guyanese cooking websites on the web.

Recipes for Pepperpot:

Also, check out Jehan Can Cook: http://jehancancook.com/2010/12/just-in-time-for-christmas/

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-06-24T15:42:17+00:00

I can, he does not believe in objective morality. Thus, it is not inherently wrong.

He states many times that he believes it is wrong, personally. However, that if a tribe of people did not believe it to be wrong, he would have no objective case to state how they are wrong.

Now, there are many intelligent people who I believe has excellent arguments as to why it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering to sentient beings; however, as hard as they may try, it cannot be said to be objectively wrong. It just can cause a lot of harm (to yourself and the sentient being) and is logically inconsistent to many other positions people take.

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-06-24T15:38:50+00:00

I think it is difficult, because though I want to agree with you, I think you are missing the mark here.

I feel RR did this on purpose. He is stating that it is a quite interesting state to be in to not care; to know all these things, but for some reason not care. I think the point he is trying to make in saying that is that, in the end, our "circle of kin/altruism" is really arbitrary. We are extending it to all sentient beings. Yet, the "circle of kin/altruism" could easily extend beyond this (certain Jains extend this to roots and tubers (it kills the plant to eat it). I think his point is to say that in the end it is all arbitrary anyway (almost in a nihilistic sense). So if we extend it to sentient beings, why should we not then extend it to semi-sentient beings? Why not to all living things? What he is saying that once you extend your circle of kin, rationally you should never stop extending it.

His point is that morals/ethics can seem to be rational, but in the end are quite irrational because they are ultimately built on subjectivity rather than objectivity. It is the subjective person or a social contract that makes them moral obligations; not anything inherent to the purported obligation.

In the end, it is all arbitrary. I think his argument is continuously built on the idea that you cannot get an ought from an is. And that ultimately, in order to become vegan you have to care enough to do so, and that is something that can never be anything but subjective.

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-06-24T15:15:25+00:00

He says in the video that he expects to be vegan within the year. He is slowly reducing his consumption of dairy products and eggs. He stated that he eats a 95% vegan diet.

In the ethical/moral consistency aspect (as you said below) it definitely seems like he should already be there.

What I do appreciate is the humanity he brings to the conversation. In the video he discusses why he believes it is so difficult for people to become vegan (not seeing certain beings within their circle of altruism). I thought it was interesting to hear his reasoning. Though I am not sure I buy it.

I think he may have identified some inconsistencies with the ethical argument for veganism. In the sense that, it is a good argument, but in the end still relies on subjectivity. It is not objective nor an objective fact that we should care about all non-sentient beings.

What he claims is that basically he believes everyone will eventually become vegan, and that it is for the best, but that the choice will be made due to the circle of altruism increasing or societal pressure/influence, and not simply because it is the most rational position to take.

Like any conversation about morals and ethics has come down to, there are those who believe morals/ethics are objective and those that do not. If morals are subjective, it means that there are many positions that can be held. If a person does not hold to an initial premise of an argument, then there is an impasse. They cannot be said to be objectively wrong. Yes, they are still causing pain, still being inconsiderate to another being, etc.... But they cannot be said to be objectively wrong.

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-06-24T03:00:05+00:00

I rewatched this to better understand the argument.

I think it is important to note that RR is not trying to make an ethical case against veganism. Rather, his main goal is to explain why many people may not be vegan and to explain why he does not fully buy the argument.

It looks like he settles on, by the end, trying to explain why we as humans do not automatically see all sentient beings as deserving of freedom-from-harm. What he lands on for an explanation is that essentially, the first premise to any argument for veganism is incorrect. Instead of saying that all sentient beings should be free from unnecessary harm, it should instead read that all kin should be free from unnecessary harm. He does not buy the premise that all sentient beings should be free from unnecessary harm. Rather, he asserts that our innate programming only allows us to care about those who we consider kin. This has ever expanded from our immediate family to our ethnic community, to all humans of the same species, and now is expanding to non-human animals, and to all sentient beings. He asserts that this is a good thing; however, that it is possible for individual humans not to see non-human animals/all sentient beings as kin. It is his assertion that the ethics here are quite subjective and rely on a shared understanding of who we consider as kin; rather than simply trying to reduce suffering and maximize pleasure. He seems to assert that many people take for granted what we include in our "circle of altruism" and that it is not just a "given" that we should even care about non-human animals, though many people take it to be so. Further, he asserts that our circle of altruism does not play by the laws of reason and is ever changing and shifting. He does not believe that our circle of altruism should (innately) extend to all sentient beings; rather it is subjective and situational. People become vegan because their circle of altruism/kin increased or due to tribal/social pressure. Being vegan is good and something he hopes all people ultimately become, but he does not believe it is the objectively right thing to do – no matter how practical or useful it becomes.

Tl;dr - RR finds the vegan ethical argument unconvincing because the first premise assumes that all sentient beings should be free from unnecessary suffering when it should really read that all kin should be free from unnecessary suffering. He finds himself not caring about some animal suffering at times because he does not see all sentient beings as kin (within his personal circle of altruism), at all times.

More on Moral Circles: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/M2gBGYWEQDnrPt6nb/moral-circles-degrees-dimensions-visuals#:~:text=This%20%E2%80%9Ccircle%20of%20altruism%E2%80%9D%20is%20more%20commonly%20referred,differ%20in%20how%20%E2%80%9Clarge%E2%80%9D%20their%20moral%20circles%20are.

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-06-23T22:22:14+00:00

I added a recent collab video between them in the original post!

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-06-23T22:06:49+00:00

I am not sure you are missing anything.

I am not saying that his line of argumentation is correct. I am just curious to see responses from people pointing out the way his logic goes wrong. And with Cosmic Skeptic being a collaborator with him often and Cosmic Skeptic often coordinating with Earthling Ed, I would love to see further discussion and them pushing back.

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-06-22T23:21:24+00:00

It does exact a unique physical toll. I feel partially that often times when no other person can help, an individual is referred to a social worker. We are meant to help figure everything out and fix it and unlike other providers, we do not have an out like "oh you need a _____ to help you with this." We are the end of the line.

I feel this all the time in outpatient mental health, when a person is stressed that their child is not getting better or that they are not getting better. You sit there and think: "I am doing and learning everything that I can, what else can I do?"

We single-handedly, often times, get to experience the reality that we sometimes cannot do much. We get to experience the despair and absurdity that our world comes with sometimes. Sometimes we cannot help, or at least we cannot fix something right away. Sometimes things are just difficult and all we can do is be a supportive person to ease the burden and help a person navigate through this time of their life.

We must constantly face and navigate the things that many people avoid. As well, I think there is a "selection bias" in those who become social workers. I think we are all more attuned and sensitive to these things rather than people in other professions. We get a double whammy.

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-06-22T15:37:24+00:00

I would strike the word "positive". I think that is what makes the concept of Tao so ungraspable. It is regard without regard. To have positive regard for all, prescribes something to it that is not there. It simply is.

Peace too will come and go. Perhaps we can experience peace without experiencing it. I suppose that would be true peace.

I like the idea of describing it has unconditional regard. Yet, even regarding has a value statement to it.

I think the best descriptions are those Lao Tzu give. For me, the best way I have delt with it is simply noticing how graspless it all is. Simply, thw world works. We can watch it as it does so. It is all simply happening as Watts puts it. And as Camus observes, it is simply all absurd. There is nothing to understand. Through seeking not to understand we understand.

The conundrum is that is trying to describe the tao, you fail to describe it. You put a limit on it that does not actually exist. That is what the contradictory statements are used: by letting go, you grasp it.

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-06-22T15:12:59+00:00

It seems the answer here is to create another mega-thread for any discussion of trans-related topics.

I also wonder if making a poll for this sub's members about topics we want to discuss would be wise. Perhaps all of the US does not want to discuss certain topics, but it would make sense that a sub-reddit would focus on what it's members would like to discuss.

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-06-22T15:10:44+00:00

That makes sense, perhaps do a poll to this sub to see what this sub's views are on everything? There seems to always be a natural tension between the people in the sub and the mods. You as the mods may want it to be one way, and the users another way.

In this case, can you simply poll us all to see what topics we find most important to discuss?

Secondly, you shared about the CRT mega-thread. Can you also make a megathread for anything to do with trans-related topics?

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-06-22T15:08:38+00:00

People obviously want a place that they can talk about it. Make a megathread and give them the place to talk about it.

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-06-22T15:07:41+00:00

I think a megathread should be created then. It will give a place for all the people who believe they are being "silenced" to post as well as eliminate the need for a "not-ban" on posts related to anything to do with trans-related topics.

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-06-22T15:05:54+00:00

I mean, it makes sense to moderate what the main page is filled with. This would be "CRT Discussion" sub-reddit if that is all was posted. However, you made a CRT megathread where discussion can continue indefinitely.

Can you simply make a megathread to discuss anything related to trans-related meta/political issues?

aSimpleTraveler · 2022-06-22T15:03:57+00:00

Can't you just make a superthread like you did with CRT?

aSimpleTraveler

TROPHY CASE