JBP: Light versus Darkness

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Not a Peterson guy myself, but am amazed at how butt-hurt the reactions are to this guy.

He gives a lot of pompous people the chance to make fools of themselves. Like Michael Dyson who comes off as a poseur- a snippy passive-aggressive one at that.

This clown represents Georgetown University, and I'm sure no one there feels the slightest bit of shame about that.

-----

What really sets them off is how comfortable he is with himself. It's amazing.

[Simple Minded]

Not a Peterson guy myself, but am amazed at how butt-hurt the reactions are to this guy.

He gives a lot of pompous people the chance to make fools of themselves. Like Michael Dyson who comes off as a poseur- a snippy passive-aggressive one at that.

This clown represents Georgetown University, and I'm sure no one there feels the slightest bit of shame about that.

-----

What really sets them off is how comfortable he is with himself. It's amazing.

you nailed it. Dyson is a self-flaggelating, self-loathing tortured soul who can't get past his "blackness." His existential threat is not white people, not even racist white people, but fellow humans of color who don't buy into his weltanschauung.

Find the non-white person who is comfortable enough in their own skin, to not identify as a victim of humanity (both current and historical), and Dyson's ilk will dislike that "Uncle Tom" or "House Nigger" more than he dislikes a white oppressor. Dyson needs the white oppressor like the KKK needs black people. "How dare they act white? Don't they know what is in the self-interest of the tribe?"

But Dyson is articulate, and is not doubt making a pretty darn good living. He reminds me think of a bully who uses a self-imposed sense of victimhood to justify his bullying.

Kinda ironic to compare Dyson to the old time huckster traveling from town to town in a fancy wagon selling bottles of "Dr. Feelgood." Except the label on Dyson's bottle is "Dr. Historical Victim."

To those adults who buy into his schtick, well, that's what they call self-forged chains my sweetie. Cosmic justice is a cruel mistress. Damn shame this culture of self-limitation and self-hatred has been fostered upon so many young people by adults seeking power and money.

JBP nailed it in his early comments. If one wants to discuss the validity of group identity, one needs to establish the concept of group responsibility first.

My personal experience is that whenever one discusses personal responsibility, the person who brings race into the conversation is the person who is self-enslaved to the idea of tribal identity. Difficult to have a conversation with a person who is not willing to assume the burden of a concept of self and the resultant responsibility that entails. The lights are on, but no one is home.

[Mr. Perfect]

My approach to Tyson types is to ask the following:

1. What do you want done
2. Why didnt obama/Democrats do it in 2009-2010 when they had 60% of the government

And then say nothing.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

They would argue it's not a spoils-game they are seeking [leaving aside many cunning people who do get involve and take advantage of the agitation as such].

So it's not getting something but being someone.

The whole of the argument rests in very classical liberalism. They- women and minorities of ever granular distinctions- are denied their individuality by irrational forces, powers and functions out in the world. Most of these are around the bonds people form with each other, which are not contractual. Think parents and children, neighbors, congregations....even bonds formed around more aesthetic judgements- say you are a southeast asian guy and you prefer to date southeast asian women- that attraction is, accordingly, a prejudice which de-individualizes every other possible mate you can pursue.

That is not an exaggeration, though it is certainly an argument of marginal popularity among the broad population. But it is certainly among the more ensconced in studies departments. Similarly the idea that by combating "toxic masculinity" [as defined by them, natch] it will free men to be the bisexuals that they actually are and pretend not to be because of all the prejudice and hate of heterosexual supremacy.

The group dynamics in all these instances are of a very superficial arrangement of interest; as an instrument to achieve the goal of complete autonomy of individuals.

Which is why, paradoxically, the more individualism you push for and the weaker social arrangements are, the more identity politics you will have to deal with.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

It's not really that far away from the racialist-types who believe that only in homogenous conditions they can truly express themselves as individuals.

All these yappers going on about their need for an ethnostate don't attach any duties to it, divisions of labor, hierarchies....only quantifiable traits to act as a criteria of boundaries in another leveller dream.
=====

But you see why the former appeals to the Dyson types. People with high verbal abilities would love to live in a world where everything can be put to contract, and therefore, argued. There are so, so many language games that can be played over and over again.

In the land of total contract, the humanities teacher is king!

And probably explains why these ideas are spreading like wildfire through anglophone outlets: business schools, law, poly-sci, sociology/anthropology (adulterated with the latent Marxism of course), literature, philosophy....

all talk, all the time!

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

It's not really that far away from the racialist-types who believe that only in homogenous conditions they can truly express themselves as individuals.

All these yappers going on about their need for an ethnostate don't attach any duties to it, divisions of labor, hierarchies....only quantifiable traits to act as a criteria of boundaries in another leveller dream.
=====

But you see why the former appeals to the Dyson types. People with high verbal abilities would love to live in a world where everything can be put to contract, and therefore, argued. There are so, so many language games that can be played over and over again.

In the land of total contract, the humanities teacher is king!

And probably explains why these ideas are spreading like wildfire through anglophone outlets: business schools, law, poly-sci, sociology/anthropology (adulterated with the latent Marxism of course), literature, philosophy....

all talk, all the time!

If you use this approach there is something to consider. If anything can be applied to anything, the one rule that remains after rational argument and speaking truth is discounted, is context. Erm...... hey, name check.....;>.........

[Mr. Perfect]

Thats quite a bit over my head. It's always just looked to me like liberal guilt politics.

1. Tell blacks it's not their fault
2. The man is holding you down
3. We'll protect you from the man
4. Never get around to it.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Thats quite a bit over my head. It's always just looked to me like liberal guilt politics.

1. Tell blacks it's not their fault
2. The man is holding you down
3. We'll protect you from the man
4. Never get around to it.

That's what it ultimately shakes down to a lot of the time, at a practical concrete level. You have lots of patron-client relations set up, and then they hand out goodies to their favorites.

I was talking more about the Ivy Tower types wasting paper on this stuff- the ideologues going from the classroom to a clerk position writing the laws and statues; the boardroom dweller with business-speak jargon at the ready, to impose it down the corporate ladder or in a high school near you.

The average man in the street doesn't live like this, but the man writing his paycheck is prepared to apply what he learned to make sure that he does. He doesn't even have to successfully implement it because the point is predictability for lower orders, while those who can get their language games. Organizational success and organizational predictability are two exclusive things.

That's how you get a situation like in California where there is no guarantee that the cops will show up if you are robbed or assaulted but you sure as heck will be audited and fined to the drop if you are a farmer and they see a 2" puddle on your lawn. [h/t to Victor Davis Hanson on that example.]

To live in this world by contract is exhausting and not a world that has room for much love or mercy or grace.

That's what we're up against.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

It's not really that far away from the racialist-types who believe that only in homogenous conditions they can truly express themselves as individuals.

All these yappers going on about their need for an ethnostate don't attach any duties to it, divisions of labor, hierarchies....only quantifiable traits to act as a criteria of boundaries in another leveller dream.
=====

But you see why the former appeals to the Dyson types. People with high verbal abilities would love to live in a world where everything can be put to contract, and therefore, argued. There are so, so many language games that can be played over and over again.

In the land of total contract, the humanities teacher is king!

And probably explains why these ideas are spreading like wildfire through anglophone outlets: business schools, law, poly-sci, sociology/anthropology (adulterated with the latent Marxism of course), literature, philosophy....

all talk, all the time!

If you use this approach there is something to consider. If anything can be applied to anything, the one rule that remains after rational argument and speaking truth is discounted, is context. Erm...... hey, name check.....;>.........

Use what approach?

Not caricaturing the argument?

However vacuous or passive-aggressive Dyson may be, he's conveying exactly what is intended- not an argument but a witness to way of life in conflict with Mr.Peterson's witness. And in that context, they are both wrong when speaking for their purposes.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

ew..... sorry about that. That's a joke that apparently remains homeless. I was simultaneously composing an email to a co-worker and I think I got that right.....'>........

However vacuous or passive-aggressive Dyson may be, he's conveying exactly what is intended- not an argument but a witness to way of life in conflict with Mr.Peterson's witness. And in that context, they are both wrong when speaking for their purposes.

That must have been the part where Jordan was asking the panel what percentage of his 'privilege' he has to give up in order to make it clean from the perspective of the panel. Taken on its face, that was kinda clueless though the point was to reveal witness to a way of life. The problem is that the witness is un-moored from context and either unwilling or unable to break the 'fourth wall' that would make a social or a political solution possible. This was the first 'tube I watched on the debate and I'm still on the impression that Michael Eric Dyson is far more dangerous than we jordanites like to give him credit for. He thinks at a higher frame rate than Peterson (and Fry?.......) and anybody that thinks he's EZ meat after that Munk debate will sadly find out different......

mPSKvdJ9uMk

At the five minute mark, David Doel states the case for the prosecution with precision (Dyson's clip after this is brutal). For the defense; equality is a problematic concept, group identity is suspect, conflict is normal business and the prosecution deals in bad faith, and this shuts down the conversation for the defense......'>.......

[Mr. Perfect]

The difference is Dyson is cynical and Peterson is genuine. As the GOP did by adopting Trump, Peterson will have to change tactics or be destroyed.

[noddy]

ew..... sorry about that. That's a joke that apparently remains homeless. I was simultaneously composing an email to a co-worker and I think I got that right.....'>........
.

patented super sucker ?

[Simple Minded]

ew..... sorry about that. That's a joke that apparently remains homeless. I was simultaneously composing an email to a co-worker and I think I got that right.....'>........

However vacuous or passive-aggressive Dyson may be, he's conveying exactly what is intended- not an argument but a witness to way of life in conflict with Mr.Peterson's witness. And in that context, they are both wrong when speaking for their purposes.

That must have been the part where Jordan was asking the panel what percentage of his 'privilege' he has to give up in order to make it clean from the perspective of the panel. Taken on its face, that was kinda clueless though the point was to reveal witness to a way of life. The problem is that the witness is un-moored from context and either unwilling or unable to break the 'fourth wall' that would make a social or a political solution possible. This was the first 'tube I watched on the debate and I'm still on the impression that Michael Eric Dyson is far more dangerous than we jordanites like to give him credit for. He thinks at a higher frame rate than Peterson (and Fry?.......) and anybody that thinks he's EZ meat after that Munk debate will sadly find out different......

mPSKvdJ9uMk

At the five minute mark, David Doel states the case for the prosecution with precision (Dyson's clip after this is brutal). For the defense; equality is a problematic concept, group identity is suspect, conflict is normal business and the prosecution deals in bad faith, and this shuts down the conversation for the defense......'>.......

JBP screwed up by buying into the concept of black group identity and white group identity as valid, even if only in a hypothetical sense for the sake of an immediate discussion of potential solutions. That mired him in Dyson's Tribal Identity Swamp.

I get a kick out of Dyson's verbal harassment of saying "Mmmmmmm." or repeating a word Peterson used "Mmmmm, precisely." Very effective in rattling your opponent. Probably devastates any student who wish to enter into a discussion during his lectures.

[Parodite]

JBP did very well countering Dyson in the eyes of those who already know JBPs thinking very well. A decent job. However, as also the case when JBP is debating atheists, he is less effective then he could be because he refuses to play their game. Dyson is a free wrestler pounding his chest and throwing insults. Me thinks if JBP did the same in addition to his civil and masterful articulations, he would be 4 times as effective. If he could also add some of the rhetorical skills of late Christopher Hitchens he would be 10 times as lethal and do away with Dyson in a first round KO.

Hard to tell what in the long run works best. Maybe remaining civilized at all costs works better still. Like putting his enemies on a painful, humiliating track of assured self-destruction. Also more Schadenfreude to enjoy Like the Trump Derangement Syndrome it is fun to watch!

[Mr. Perfect]

he would be 4 times as effective. If he could also add some of the rhetorical skills of late Christopher Hitchens he would be 10 times as lethal and do away with Dyson in a first round KO.

Yeah. As some of you may have noticed I often shelve civil discourse when appropriate because it often doesn't get results. Today is yesterdays long run and Democrats didn't get where they did by being civil.

[Parodite]

he would be 4 times as effective. If he could also add some of the rhetorical skills of late Christopher Hitchens he would be 10 times as lethal and do away with Dyson in a first round KO.

Yeah. As some of you may have noticed I often shelve civil discourse when appropriate because it often doesn't get results. Today is yesterdays long run and Democrats didn't get where they did by being civil.

Fortunately there is Trump.

[Parodite]

Did Messiah JBP find his Judas?

I was Jordan Peterson’s strongest supporter. Now I think he’s dangerous

[Simple Minded]

JBP did very well countering Dyson in the eyes of those who already know JBPs thinking very well. A decent job. However, as also the case when JBP is debating atheists, he is less effective then he could be because he refuses to play their game. Dyson is a free wrestler pounding his chest and throwing insults. Me thinks if JBP did the same in addition to his civil and masterful articulations, he would be 4 times as effective. If he could also add some of the rhetorical skills of late Christopher Hitchens he would be 10 times as lethal and do away with Dyson in a first round KO.

Hard to tell what in the long run works best. Maybe remaining civilized at all costs works better still. Like putting his enemies on a painful, humiliating track of assured self-destruction. Also more Schadenfreude to enjoy Like the Trump Derangement Syndrome it is fun to watch!

Well said. I think JBP finds the status bestowed upon him as all-knowing, by his some of his adoring fans, to be very burdensome.

Thinking that someone who is skilled in helping individuals deal with their existential problems will be good as helping humanity en masse confront their group identity demons...... where the hell did that line of thinking originate?

I think a good analogy is an expert boxer or martial artist going up against one who is a proficient street fighter or thug. Those trained in a specific discipline will always be hampered by rules of engagement.

When one person desires mutual understanding, and the other person desires unilateral destruction of his opponent, it is not a debate.

Dyson is obviously extremely intelligent and a very good verbal street fighter. His ideology reminds me of a Nazi executioner or a KKK member. As long as he self-identifies as a Nazi executioner or KKK member, there is no point in talking to him about finding common ground with Jews or blacks. By the definition one has applied to one's self, common ground is not a goal. There is no common ground, by definition. Mutual solutions are not a goal. Black people can't be black and white people can't be white....... by definition.

It is like a religion. There are very specific tenets of faith in our church, and if you don't abide by them as true by definition, you can't belong to our church.

[noddy]

the reason i think he has peaked and will be stuck in his echo chamber from now on is simple.

he is advocating a worldview which several generations (2? 3?) have been taught resulted in horror on earth - the 1950's or worse.

its not about the words that come out of his mouth, its not about winning or losing arguments, its about the fruit of the tree and its "common knowledge" that the fruit was sour.

having said that - i do love how much the lefties froth and lather over it all, he truly does get a visceral rise out of them so thats worth something.

---

on an unrelated but related note - I watched a documentary on james brown the other day and was surprised to learn he was a republican voting conservative his entire life despite being surrounded by al sharpton and crew.

this aspect of him got brownwashed constantly in the documentary, it was intellectually impossible for the film makers or the commentating figures to comprehend his beliefs, they ignored it or they justified it like a type of alcholism.

most amusing.

[Simple Minded]

a classic mismatch. JBP is a problem solver. Dyson is a rable rouser.

Those who strive to build bridges and those who strive to blow them up do share a bit of common knowledge about bridges, but to expect any agreement is unreasonable.

[Simple Minded]

the reason i think he has peaked and will be stuck in his echo chamber from now on is simple.

he is advocating a worldview which several generations (2? 3?) have been taught resulted in horror on earth - the 1950's or worse.

its not about the words that come out of his mouth, its not about winning or losing arguments, its about the fruit of the tree and its "common knowledge" that the fruit was sour.

having said that - i do love how much the lefties froth and lather over it all, he truly does get a visceral rise out of them so thats worth something.

---

on an unrelated but related note - I watched a documentary on james brown the other day and was surprised to learn he was a republican voting conservative his entire life despite being surrounded by al sharpton and crew.

this aspect of him got brownwashed constantly in the documentary, it was intellectually impossible for the film makers or the commentating figures to comprehend his beliefs, they ignored it or they justified it like a type of alcholism.

most amusing.

no surprise here, there is the professed "us," then there is the actual "me."

never met even one person in my life who professes to be selfless who spends as much of their income on others as the do on themselves. left wing selfish bastards are everywhere. they have a lot in common with the religious hypocrites that they hate so much.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

The Body Language Lady on the Munk Debates

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

I'm still on the impression that Michael Eric Dyson is far more dangerous than we jordanites like to give him credit for. He thinks at a higher frame rate than Peterson (and Fry?.......) and anybody that thinks he's EZ meat after that Munk debate will sadly find out different.....

When I first read this, my initial reaction was to agree with you.

But I'm not sure I do. And it was something I had to reflect on a bit because Dyson is a man of certain accomplishments, ones which take some sorts of smarts&dedication to achieve. Yet, I don't think he is respectable in the slightest; less so because by his lot in life, he should be.

At best, he's a demagogue- he is well practiced in facile, rhetorical games he knows he can get away with, with crowds. He's the guy who went in the paint and the refs aren't looking, will not hesitate to throw a quick elbow.

I don't think that's it though. He really buys what he's selling, and it's no deeper or expansive or interested (or interesting) than that. And when he doesn't get his way, or is confronted by others, he turns into an effeminate bully.

No one calls him out on his racialism because he is an American black man, and to unpack that is like touching a third rail during a thunderstorm dressed in a metal suit, right after telling your wife that she's both fat&old and tellin' your boss that he sucks.

So no one calls him out on his games- and they're such dull and dumb ones. He's a failure.

===========

That stage was populated by fuddy-duddy Peterson, the contemptible Dyson, the tedious dilattante Fry, and Goldburg, the token dud- what was she even doing on that stage? Fry and Dyson have some sort of rhetorical chops, Peterson speaks to large audiences all the time...she could barely get her words out and was a chore to sit through- she didn't belong up there.

And yes, pointing fingers at others and calling them stupid doesn't reflect all that well on me and my glass house.

So I'm a lousy person, it's true, but please, enough dunce caps.

[Parodite]

From fact to value with JBP and SH

I decided to mention this to Mama Nature and have a chat.

MN: "Will say it right away son, take this type of stuff up first with your Dad! He is a typical facts and values man. He also believes he is an expert and loves to be consulted!"

Me: "Ok, but I know to where that usually leads. A lot of do's and dont's where I have to take his word for it. Solutions for problems but without much why or how. Don't ask questions, just do it. I'm at an age where I need more than that. Not even sure he speaks from personal experience. No been-there-done-that in his case. Might as well he pulls his wisdom from a magic hat. Or read it on the internet somewhere. I just don't trust him Ma. That's why I came to you."

MN: "Ok, son. What's up with this "from facts to values" thing. I have heard so much philosophical chewing gum over the years, so please keep it short."

Me: "Well, SH and JBP seem to have a disagreement about which types of facts are most relevant, true and useful for a moral value system to be derived from those facts. SH likes keeping it simple with the least amount of meta-physical excess baggage being added to the mix. Just basic human experience, of well being versus pain, mental and/or physical. Which is also open to scientific investigation. That is enough to create a robust moral value system.

JBP is skeptical about this approach because there is an infinite amount of combinations of facts available to choose from and as a consequence an equally vast amount of different possible values. Moreover the complexity of facts is enormous; biological, evolutional, neuro-physiological, social, cultural, historical.

As a consequence, JBP concludes that humans need an intermediary tool to derive values from the complexity of these facts. It turned out to that stories are best suited for that purpose, also given the fact that we don't know all the relevant facts and only have a course grained understanding of all the complexities involved. There simply is no time to wait for all empirical data to come in because there are way too many! And then there always is uncertainty, the fundamental inability to predict the future in full detail. That is why stories, with archetype and myth, allowed human societies to generate and uphold value systems to navigate forward. A life without meaning is a life without direction and goal, floating aimlessly on a sea of ignorance without rudder and no wind. Simple, rationalist approaches won't give you the needed meaning to go anywhere. You need a narrative that goes beyond the facts.

This is at least how I understand their disagreement."

MN: "So SH says we should get rid of excess bullshit and JBP says we actually need it, can't do without it even if we tried? "

Me: "Sort of, yes! Ridding ourselves of stories/myths with a moral code brings disaster, JBP believes. The Nazis were extroardinary scientists and engineers, Stalin also was very rational in serving his own interest."

MN: "As expected all this is same old hat. More often than not, the sought for solution creates the problem. Remember "the final solution" as envisioned and executed by Adolf H. and his friends? This "solution" created a hell of a lot of problems don't you think? For millions of people, also for those who thought they found a "solution" for a problem they believed having. "

Me: "Are you saying SH and JBP create problems by looking for solutions?? That sounds way off Ma."

MN: "SH is harmless. There is no blood or power in his ideas. No love no hate. He just says it is better to be happy than to be miserable. It is very important that this message is being repeated. SH is for intellectuals who can't believe in simple truths that are stated simply. They need layers of hubris and word salad, then peel them all off again to arrive at something very simple that even their neighbor's little girl already knew.

JBP is harmless in as far as he urges people to clean up their own room for starters and build from there. But he should take note from his own warnings against post-modernist/marxist groupthink; an ideological meme can spread very fast and set the world on fire.

I say what I always say to my children before they go, especially when I sense might see them for the very last time: beware of those who scream solutions because it usually means trouble!

Now go and hurry. Life is calling you. And learn to trust!"

I left a bit bewildered and suprised. My mother spoke with deep conviction, with worry and a care for me personally I hadn't felt for a long time. The sort of things that don't need an explanation. Like every mother she probably just wants me to stay out of trouble. In a world full of solutions.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

A major topic of this conversation is the light opposed to darkness:

GNywzm2oDrI

Two and a quarter hours of it......'>.......