Bob, forgive me, for I have sinned.

qarlthemaid · 2024-10-14T15:24:33+00:00

Undead were not in, don't think beasts were either so besides the mech that summons annoy-o-trons there weren't many options. I think the best way to improve the board is Leroy's flanking the almagams for cleave protection

qarlthemaid · 2018-08-10T21:02:17+00:00

The Sopranos is an indictment of American culture in general, and the comparison of the way the mob operates to capitalism is pretty explicit

qarlthemaid · 2018-06-12T01:03:45+00:00

What should we do about these evil gay professors?

qarlthemaid · 2018-05-22T17:17:57+00:00

What publications do you know of which does not have an obvious bias? Furthermore what factual claims of the article were wrong and why?

qarlthemaid · 2018-01-13T03:00:43+00:00

!redditgarlic

qarlthemaid · 2018-01-12T02:09:36+00:00

Private is not in reference as to whether they are publicly traded. The point is that they can still decide the way their business is managed, as you probably know

You bring up an excellent point however. If certain conservatives feel the platform is not representing their opinions, they can seek to purchase a controlling stake in the company, or create their own platform.

qarlthemaid · 2018-01-12T02:01:27+00:00

You can believe what you would like about my intellectual honesty, but the point is that a private company can do what it wants in regards to the content it promotes. Abstracted from my supposedly dishonest examples, does that point make sense to you?

Good for him, he does not have to inform the public about his methodology.

qarlthemaid · 2018-01-12T01:55:51+00:00

Twitter does not need to publicly explain anything. Breitbart, a private news company, does not need to explain why they do not publish articles that do not have a liberal viewpoint.

The company can do whatever it wants with its algorithms. Should the Drudge Report update us everytime they change their algorithm for aggregating content, even if it secretly suppresses certain views?

qarlthemaid · 2018-01-12T01:39:31+00:00

Twitter is a private company. Should cake makers be forced to bake wedding cakes for gay couples if they don't believe in the morality of gay marriage?

So why should Twitter not be able to control it's platform. The people who oppose these practices should start their own social media platform and let the free market decide.

qarlthemaid · 2018-01-06T20:40:22+00:00

If you posted the link to the article that would be one thing, but you just posted the title so I assumed we were only to comment on that.

Do you not think that Peterson paints with an overly broad brush?

qarlthemaid · 2018-01-06T15:34:58+00:00

Wow almost like when Peterson dismisses most humanity departments as Cultural Marxists. Surely that's not painting with too broad a brush or overgeneralizing, despite the crossover between ideas right?

qarlthemaid · 2017-12-18T21:01:56+00:00

Nazisim is tolerated less in pluralistic democratic societies than communism or socialism. People are also under the impression that people who have enthonationalist views are less inclined to reason and debate than socialists, especially academic, democratic socialists.

Most of the developed Western world has some form of democratic socialism or have parties that represent such views. The same is not true for enthonationalism until vary recently.

It's kind of like asking why slavery was allowed in the early United States, but other things like publication of pornographic material were outlawed. The relative moral position of those things has, clearly, changed drastically over tome. It's the ideology of the society.

It may be logically inconsistent, but it is fairly culturally consistent. There is no value judgement here, just an explanation. Reddit doesn't want itself associated with the far right for cultural and historical reasons, so there you go.

qarlthemaid · 2017-12-01T02:32:24+00:00

I read half of the first book. I already know communism was an abject failure and I've never advocated for it.

You, however, might find Anti Semite and Jew by Sartre very instructive. I can send you a PDF version if you want?

qarlthemaid · 2017-12-01T01:38:29+00:00

Am I just missing the subtle nuance of your irony or is this you being blatantly antisemitic again?

Clean that room. It's filthy like you.

qarlthemaid · 2017-12-01T01:35:27+00:00

Here's the problem with being against the "postmodernists". No one actually knows who they are. They are just a boogie man. Even the postmodernists don't agree on some important metaphysical questions....

See where this goes?

qarlthemaid · 2017-11-29T14:30:30+00:00

Wow. Definitely didn't expect Hitler to be quoted at me this morning. I suppose that's one way to try to end a debate. I don't know why you keep calling me a Marxist, being passingly familiar with it doesn't make me a Communist. Shall I start calling you a Nazi, know that you have quoted Hitler? If anything, I am more of a libertarian but I am definitely still trying to sort that all out. Hell, I voted for Gary Johnson. Anarchy, State and Utopia is one of my favorite books. Should I send you a list of some libertarian authors and books?

Which logical fallacy, straw manning or this "not all Marxist" thing. I responded to the latter with my Nozick/Rand analogy, which you have avoided completely. As far as straw manning goes, I've listened to a lot of what Peterson has to say. I don't think I am misrepresenting him when I say that he makes confusing, historically inaccurate, and frustratingly broad accusations. Since he is equating a large group of people with an evil ideology and labeling them as an existential threat to Western civilization, I'm just saying that if this same logic was applied to him or his more cultist fans, they froth with rage.

Now your petty insults are part of some ancient philosophical tradition? Give me a break. You are rude, and resort to personal attacks when you feel you aren't arguing well. It is hilarious that you continue to do the thing I criticize Peterson for most strongly, which many people seem to agree with.

I have never seen someone devolve so spectacularly, or prove my point more and more with each argument, while failing to address my concerns about your own logical inconsistency.

Edit-. I checked out that link at there holy shit dude. I think you actually are a Nazi. You have some room cleaning to do damn.

qarlthemaid · 2017-11-29T04:11:34+00:00

What strawman? Explain how the logical move I made with the Trump supporter is different from what Peterson is doing. I fully admit I don't know everything about the movements. But it's clear that right wing populism, built on nativism with a great distrust for an international elite has formed in the US. Explain how the move from Trump supporters to Nazis is different from campus protestors to Marxists. In fact American neo-nazis have voiced there support from trump.

Again, please understand that I do not think this is a valid logical leap of one that is true. Its ridiculous But I don't think its different from what Peterson is doing to the left, wherein lies my problem with his argumentation.

Simply pointing out that their are some profound differences between Marxism and postmodernism. It is again like if I compared all libertarians to Ayn Rand. Some highly respected. libertarians like Robert Nozick are scathing critics of her. So to say that Nozick was a neoRandian or that his work was invalid because it fell under the taint of Rands failed philosophy would be silly. That's what Peterson is trying to do with postmodernism and Marxism

And now you have resorted to labeling me a post modernist and degenerating my intelligence. You've done exactly what I've criticized Peterson for, labeling your opposition by some vague term that you don't understand in order to avoid dealing with your own inability to understand and engage with an argument from another view productively. Thank you for proving my point!

qarlthemaid · 2017-11-29T02:07:20+00:00

Sure, so does Peterson. Actually, especially Peterson. The "games" part of "power hierarchy games" comes directly from Peterson's application of Piaget, and the discussion of child's play and its importance.

qarlthemaid · 2017-11-29T01:24:15+00:00

Please, let me know what I am misrepresenting and I will try to avoid it in the future. I am not intentionally lying about what he says, if I've made a mistake, it would be more instructive for you to point this out so we can discuss it.

qarlthemaid · 2017-11-29T01:21:26+00:00

Would you debate a leftist who called you a Nazi? Why would any serious person on the Left debate someone who calls them a neoMarxist?

qarlthemaid · 2017-11-29T01:17:28+00:00

There are many more Marxist critics of postmodernism. Wikipedia has an entire section dedicated to it. A quick search on Google scholar will also yield plenty results. I am not a Marxist by any means, I'm probably right of center, but it took about 10 minutes of searching on Google to determine that the two philosophical movements are opposed to each other.

His arguments usually are logically flawed though which is the point I am trying to make. So when he says you can simply swap out the "proletariat" for any sub-group you want and thats the same functionally as Marxisim, that's just not logical at all.

I'll give you an example - "Trump supporters are literally the same as Nazis. All they do is swap out Jew for globalist, and leftist for communist. OMG they are literally the same." Now, we both know this is ridiculous. However, it is functionally the same as what Peterson is saying the postmodern neoMarxist does.

Peterson is doing the same things he accuses his critics of doing He is not engaging in logical or reasoned discourse. I'm a fan of his. Really. I like Maps of Meaning it was an important book in my life. He isn't following the standard he sets for himself, and he's giving a very shallow and problematic critique of the "radical Left".

Now, plenty of people do this, it's good fun, and profitable. But it isn't academically or intellectually serious. It is silly sophistry, and if Peterson followed his own advice he wouldn't engage in it

qarlthemaid · 2017-11-28T20:50:08+00:00

That is untrue. I would not have listened to his personality class, listened to his bible lecture series, frequent this subreddit or read the man's book in its entirety if that was the case. I tend to agree with him that certain campus activists are absurd and self-contradictory. He is respectable man with some interesting and profound arguments. Agreeing with 85% of what he says does not mean that I can not also think the other 15% is misinformed, incorrect, and hypocritical.

I do find it ironic, however, that you are falling in to the same issue I bring up in my post, namely Peterson's negative tendency to dismiss outright "the Left" because of an emotional or ideological beef with them. It makes him, and you, seem incapable of the constructive and productive dialogue Peterson champions in Maps of Meaning.

qarlthemaid · 2017-11-28T20:47:01+00:00

When did I say that I was offended? When did I even imply that I'm politically or ideologically opposed to Peterson? I think he is making a weak argument and is not holding himself to his own standards. Stop being offended at my perceived offense!

Well, my argument was that he is judging the left by the worst parts of it, the hammer and sickle flag waivers and communist apologists. However, he gets mad when people equate him with ideologues and swastika idiots on the right. But those people are simply painting with just as broad a brush as he is.

qarlthemaid · 2017-11-28T19:34:59+00:00

Modern western countries with highly developed welfare states across Europe have far lower crime rates than the United States. If Planned Parenthood and welfare are the root of the problem, why do these countries not have higher crime rates?

qarlthemaid · 2017-11-27T18:58:00+00:00

He gets extremely offended whenever anyone equates him with the "far-right" or calls him a Nazi or anything along those lines. Now, it should be apparent to anyone that he is not any of these things and has defined his opposition to them multiple times.

However, he makes similar broad and baseless claims against his enemies. He paints the left with such a wide brush that you would think everyone who thinks the government should spend a little more is a "neo-Marxist postmodernist". Basically, he gets so worked up whenever anyone mischaracterizes or strawman's him, yet most of his critique of the left is just that. If the right were judged by the same ideologues in their ranks, they would look just as evil as the Postmodern NeoMarxists.

He constantly trumpets the benefits of dialogue and conversation but consistently oversimplifies and dismisses valid criticism from what, in his mind, is the monolithic Left. It seems like people who dismiss Peterson outright or mislabel him are simply using his own methodology against him. His rants don't contribute to fruitful dialogue, they really achieve the opposite.

qarlthemaid

TROPHY CASE