Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

Oh, OK. Your line of thinking is that only a white supremacist can only be fascists, therefore no one else is a fascist but these skin heads. Ah, such a nice simple world to live in. Black, white, good, evil, left wing, right wing. The ladybird outlook on the world.

No. My line of thinking is that the term fascist should only be used for actual fascists. Crazy eh?

Yet, you have never heard of the term Islamo-fascism? You are either naive, deliberately obtuse or just cant make yourself concede point.

I’ve heard the term. But am not committed either way on its correctness right now.

You didn't win anything, apart from may the post count on this thread. The only person who agrees with you is a troll, who wont be here all that long.

I think you’ll find plenty of posters agree with me. But that’s unimportant to me.

OK, lets break this down to simple principles.

What is your terms of reference for a fascist and do you believe anyone else apart from a Nazi/White supremacist can be a fascist?

A fascist is someone who believes in an authoritarian ethnically homogeneous state, run by a central power. Fascists are ultra nationalists who believe in the supremacy of their race. Fascists want to violently expel or kill anyone who doesn’t fit their narrow definition. They don’t necessarily have to be white.

Wibbs

Brian? wrote: »

Yep. It’s quite common, but as you say below it’s also incorrect.

Oh I agree, but as language shows over time the common and incorrect often becomes the correct. I can see "fascism" going a similar direction. It already has to a large degree. It became the be all and end all most horrible political boogyman tag since sh1t went down in the 1930's(communism coming in second), so gets applied to any authoritarian ideology, like the example above of Islamo-fascism which has gone somewhat mainstream though is just as incorrect. IIRC Churchill or was it Orwell said that the word facist has become almost meaningless these days and for most its just another word for bully.

Now we can go full Sheldon Cooper over this kinda thing and lord knows people on the interwebs will, but I have found when it gets down to essentially pointscoring over such things debate grinds to a halt. Look at the last few pages. Then again, welcome to politics...

Havockk

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I agree, but as language shows over time the common and incorrect often becomes the correct. I can see "fascism" going a similar direction. It already has to a large degree. It became the be all and end all most horrible political boogyman tag since sh1t went down in the 1930's(communism coming in second), so gets applied to any authoritarian ideology, like the example above of Islamo-fascism which has gone somewhat mainstream though is just as incorrect. Now we can go full Sheldon Cooper over this kinda thing and lord knows people on the interwebs will, but I have found when it gets down to essentially pointscoring over such things debate grinds to a halt. Look at the last few pages. Then again, welcome to politics...

See, now your doing the same thing. Implying that because someone uses the term in the correct manner, they are somehow a a bit odd or weird, like Sheldon.

We wonder where is all went wrong in the West. Jesus, wonder no more, the answer is in this thread.

Wibbs

Havockk wrote: »

See, now your doing the same thing. Implying that because someone uses the term in the correct manner, they are somehow a a bit odd or weird, like Sheldon.

Nope. I said when someone becomes anal to the point of pointscoring they've gone Sheldon Cooper. As I said look at the last few pages of this thread. Arguing over the use of the word(and a common if incorrect usage) and having a mutual back patting exercise over it. It's like watching equally tiresome grammar nazis(Pun intended) going Sheldon because of a missed apostrophe but avoiding the subject.

We wonder where is all went wrong in the West. Jesus, wonder no more, the answer is in this thread.

The "West" is doing fine, better than fine, only the zealots and the extremists of all stripes are convinced an end is nigh. It was always thus since the end of the war. The commies/liberals/alt-right/fascists[delete as applicable] are coming!! Oh noes!! It came back with a vengeance on the interwebs where the zealots and the extremists of all stripes appear to have a larger voice than they do and shout louder oh noes!!, with neither side seeing much of the irony within. This thread does show that alright.

Havockk

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope. I said when someone becomes anal to the point of pointscoring they've gone Sheldon Cooper. As I said look at the last few pages of this thread. Arguing over the use of the word(and a common if incorrect usage) and having a mutual back pat over it.

The "West" is doing fine, better than fine, only the zealots and the extremists of all stripes are convinced an end is nigh. It was always thus since the end of the war. The commies/liberals/alt-right/fascists[delete as applicable] are coming!! Oh noes!! It came back with a vengeance on the interwebs where the zealots and the extremists of all stripes appear to have a larger voice than they do and shout louder oh noes!!, with nether side seeing much of the irony within. This thread does show that alright.

The West is doing fine? Really?

Brian?

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I agree, but as language shows over time the common and incorrect often becomes the correct. I can see "fascism" going a similar direction. It already has to a large degree. It became the be all and end all most horrible political boogyman tag since sh1t went down in the 1930's(communism coming in second), so gets applied to any authoritarian ideology, like the example above of Islamo-fascism which has gone somewhat mainstream though is just as incorrect. IIRC Churchill or was it Orwell said that the word facist has become almost meaningless these days and for most its just another word for bully.

Now we can go full Sheldon Cooper over this kinda thing and lord knows people on the interwebs will, but I have found when it gets down to essentially pointscoring over such things debate grinds to a halt. Look at the last few pages. Then again, welcome to politics...

I understand what you’re saying and I somewhat agree. Any actual debate has been stifled over the use of the term fascist. I can’t let it lie though. It hurts my brain too much when the same poster criticizes Antifa for overusing fascist, he’s correct, then goes and labels antifa fascists. It’s the hypocrisy I can’t stand.

Havockk

Havockk wrote: »

The West is doing fine? Really?

I'm going to rescind this, although not delete. For I can understand where someone on the right may actually believe that.

Wibbs

Havockk wrote: »

The West is doing fine? Really?

Yep. I hate to break it you but it is. What other political and social paradise do you see out there doing better? The average person living in the West, even in the pretty wealth divided US of A is living a healthier better life with more opportunity than in human history. Put another way; look at those outside the west, which way is the flow of people going? Are people lining up looking for visas to non Western nations?

Havockk

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep. I hate to break it you but it is. What other political and social paradise do you see out there doing better? The average person living in the West, even in the pretty wealth divided US of A is living a healthier better life with more opportunity than in human history. Put another way; look at those outside the west, which way is the flow of people going? Are people lining up looking for visas to non Western nations?

See above.

Wibbs

Havockk wrote: »

I'm going to rescind this, although not delete. For I can understand where someone on the right may actually believe that.

Brilliant assumption on your part. I would describe myself as an old style Liberal, centre left in the majority of issues, but maybe anything beyond People Before Profit is "Right Wing" in your world?

Havockk wrote: »

See above.

I have and it explains little.

Havockk

Wibbs wrote: »

Brilliant assumption on your part. I would describe myself as an old style Liberal, centre left in the majority of issues, but maybe anything beyond People Before Profit is "Right Wing" in your world?



I have and it explains little.

A classic liberal IS on the right.

Wibbs

Havockk wrote: »

A classic liberal IS on the right.

And you take issue with others on their definitions of politics? M'kay.. Take the wiki definition for fun.

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation.

Yeah clearly right wing there. Never mind that I defined myself further as more centre left, so would add in social safety nets for all as one example.

Like I reckoned it seems if one is not a People before Profit pie in the sky merchant you're cozying up to Mussolini.

Havockk

Wibbs wrote: »

And you take issue with others on their definitions of politics? M'kay.. Take the wiki definition for fun.



Yeah clearly right wing there. Never mind that I defined myself further as more centre left, so would add in social safety nets for all as one example).

Like I reckoned it seems if one is not a People before Profit pie in the sky merchant you're cozying up to Mussolini.

But it's true. It's certainly a legitimate political position, but I'm afraid it's always been opposed to socialism even though it shares some common ground. I do find it interesting that you appear to be offended at that.

I have no time for PbP. They really are not Marxist enough for my tastes.

Mussolini? Really, is that an educated riposte?

Malayalam

Havockk wrote: »

But it's true. It's certainly a legitimate political position, but I'm afraid it's always been opposed to socialism even though it shares some common ground. I do find it interesting that you appear to be offended at that.

I have no time for PbP. They really are not Marxist enough for my tastes.

Mussolini? Really, is that an educated riposte?

Why do we all have to go into boxes? why can we not investigate each issue as it arises and come to a position that seems rational to us on that issue (which can change if otherwise persuaded)? If one is a Marxist, one has to buy into every position held by Marxist thought? If one is a Liberal, one has to sing only from that hymn sheet? It's this segretation of people - division - that is making people both afraid to voice opinions, in case it turns out they are politically incorrect and therefore likely to be cast out of the in-crowd, and also unable to investigate issues for themselves and make personal moral and reasoned enquiry, because they educate themselves in echo chambers.

Havockk

Malayalam wrote: »

Why do we all have to go into boxes? why can we not investigate each issue as it arises and come to a position that seems rational to us on that issue (which can change if otherwise persuaded)? If one is a Marxist, one has to buy into every position held by Marxist thought? If one is a Liberal, one has to sing only from that hymn sheet? It's this segretation of people - division - that is making people both afraid to voice opinions, in case it turns out they are politically incorrect and therefore likely to be cast out of the in-crowd, and also unable to investigate issues for themselves and make personal moral and reasoned enquiry, because they educate themselves in echo chambers.

I've no issue with taking each issue as it arises. I also have no objection to being attacked for holding Marxist points of view.

I think part of the problem is, and I'm not levelling this at you but it has somehow become acceptable for ignorance to be held as equal to knowledge. Wibbs there seems to be offended that I consider him/her to be on the right, why? Check the spectrum for yourself if you doubt that. I also don't dispute that I would share a lot of values with liberals, hell I'm a liberal myself, but one on the far left of the spectrum.

Malayalam

Havockk wrote: »

I've no issue with taking each issue as it arises. I also have no objection to being attacked for holding Marxist points of view.

I think part of the problem is, and I'm not levelling this at you but it has somehow become acceptable for ignorance to be held as equal to knowledge. Wibbs there seems to be offended that I consider him/her to be on the right, why? Check the spectrum for yourself if you doubt that. I also don't dispute that I would share a lot of values with liberals, hell I'm a liberal myself, but one on the far left of the spectrum.

Political theory is an art not a science, therefore one really cannot say absolutely what is ignorance and what is knowledge. A Marxist and a Liberal (as examples) will have very different basic foundational precepts, regarding a great many things. One mans ignorance in the political schema is another man's foundational theory, and that's not even to go near other arenas such as culture, religion, etc.. Even look at the shift from economic theories of surplus to economic theories of scarcity - neither exactly correct, but either having profound effects on how states operate. As individuals we lean towards what suits us personally, which is influenced by many things - our conditioning and experiences, personality types and so on. The lazy division of people into left and right - especially as grounds for insult, these days - is just so tedious.

Havockk

Malayalam wrote: »

Political theory is an art not a science, therefore one really cannot say absolutely what is ignorance and what is knowledge. A Marxist and a Liberal (as examples) will have very different basic foundational precepts, regarding a great many things. One mans ignorance in the political schema is another man's foundational theory, and that's not even to go near other arenas such as culture, religion, etc.. Even look at the shift from economic theories of surplus to economic theories of scarcity - neither exactly correct, but either having profound effects on how states operate. As individuals we lean towards what suits us personally, which is influenced by many things - our conditioning and experiences, personality types and so on. The lazy division of people into left and right - especially as grounds for insult, these days - is just so tedious.

I disagree. Check this thread out, a surprising number of posters appear to have no idea what a fascist even is, that is flat out ignorance and it's important it's combated. If someone understands what a fascist is and still identifies as such, I have no issue with, dammit I'd even admire the honesty. I also don't think I have been lazy when I identify people left/right, I would argue I have been very careful and correct in my placements.

Havockk

I also have a question for Wibbs. As an old school or classic liberal, how do you square the circle that the 'West has never had it better' considering the centre ground has all but crumbled, especially in the Anglo-American sphere?

Malayalam

Havockk wrote: »

I disagree. Check this thread out, a surprising number of posters appear to have no idea what a fascist even is, that is flat out ignorance and it's important it's combated. If someone understands what a fascist is and still identifies as such, I have no issue with, dammit I'd even admire the honesty. I also don't think I have been lazy when I identify people left/right, I would argue I have been very careful and correct in my placements.

Words are interesting things, they change over time.

You are seeking to have the word 'fascism' applied solely in its limited historical context - to have it considered in its narrowest definition. Sure, it conjures images, histories. Chiefly of pre-world war two political theories. But before the word existed - only since 1921 - the sentiment or foundations of such political activity has always existed. Ie authoritarianism in many various forms - it is not a monolith. The word fascism comes from fasces meaning a ''bundle of rods'' tied around an axe, and it was used because of its association with authoritarian methods. Groups which unite to impose their political viewpoints. It just so happened to be picked on by Mussolini et al to signify their brand.

I think it is in a perhaps contorted, perhaps expanded, sense that the word fascism is used so freely today. The Antifa consider anyone who speaks against extreme social justice and identity politics as fascists - this is quite an expanded interpretation of the word. It is designed to be emotionally provocative. Similarly the people against whom the Antifa protest describe Antifa as fascist, because they see Antifa mobs seeking to enforce ideology upon others, grouping to silence dissent, even advocating violence. Therefore really both and neither are correct.

Havockk

Malayalam wrote: »

Words are interesting things, they change over time.

You are seeking to have the word 'fascism' applied solely in its limited historical context - to have it considered in its narrowest definition. Sure, it conjures images, histories. Chiefly of pre-world war two political theories. But before the word existed - only since 1921 - the sentiment or foundations of such political activity has always existed. Ie authoritarianism in many various forms - it is not a monolith. The word fascism comes from fasces meaning a ''bundle of rods'' tied around an axe, and it was used because of its association with authoritarian methods. Groups which unite to impose their political viewpoints. It just so happened to be picked on by Mussolini et al to signify their brand.

I think it is in a perhaps contorted, perhaps expanded, sense that the word fascism is used so freely today. The Antifa consider anyone who speaks against extreme social justice and identity politics as fascists - this is quite an expanded interpretation of the word. It is designed to be emotionally provocative. Similarly the people against whom the Antifa protest describe Antifa as fascist, because they see Antifa mobs seeking to enforce ideology upon others, grouping to silence dissent, even advocating violence. Therefore really both and neither are correct.

I think you have a really good argument here. You are absolutely correct, antifa are not always right and not everyone they attack are fascist. I also cannot argue that fascism labels are overused. Even so, this does not make them fascist, they are still diametrically opposed ideologies, which is the point I'm trying to get across.

Brian?

Wibbs wrote: »

And you take issue with others on their definitions of politics? M'kay.. Take the wiki definition for fun.



Yeah clearly right wing there. Never mind that I defined myself further as more centre left, so would add in social safety nets for all as one example.

Like I reckoned it seems if one is not a People before Profit pie in the sky merchant you're cozying up to Mussolini.

Classic liberals were economically right wing. Believers in laissez faire capitalism etc. . But they were also socially liberal.

Modern liberals are economically centerist and socially progressive.

Neoliberals are closer to classic liberals than anything from what I can work out.

Liberal means nothing anymore. Especially when described as liberal loony left, which has become very popular. It means nothing, but similar to calling everyone fascists it’s a lazy smear. Do we accept that too?

It’s a perfect example of why the left/right paradigm doesn’t work and I’m a disbeliever of the horseshoe theory. I actually have more in common with an anti authoritarian anarcho capitalist in a lot of circumstances than I do with a Stalinist.

Brian?

Malayalam wrote: »

Words are interesting things, they change over time.

You are seeking to have the word 'fascism' applied solely in its limited historical context - to have it considered in its narrowest definition. Sure, it conjures images, histories. Chiefly of pre-world war two political theories. But before the word existed - only since 1921 - the sentiment or foundations of such political activity has always existed. Ie authoritarianism in many various forms - it is not a monolith. The word fascism comes from fasces meaning a ''bundle of rods'' tied around an axe, and it was used because of its association with authoritarian methods. Groups which unite to impose their political viewpoints. It just so happened to be picked on by Mussolini et al to signify their brand.

I think it is in a perhaps contorted, perhaps expanded, sense that the word fascism is used so freely today. The Antifa consider anyone who speaks against extreme social justice and identity politics as fascists - this is quite an expanded interpretation of the word. It is designed to be emotionally provocative. Similarly the people against whom the Antifa protest describe Antifa as fascist, because they see Antifa mobs seeking to enforce ideology upon others, grouping to silence dissent, even advocating violence. Therefore really both and neither are correct.

This is an excellent post.

Wibbs

Havockk wrote: »

But it's true. It's certainly a legitimate political position, but I'm afraid it's always been opposed to socialism even though it shares some common ground. I do find it interesting that you appear to be offended at that.

I have no idea where you get "offence" from any of that. For future ref if the text isn't clear, work on the basis I'm bemused, with the odd WTF with added chortle.

I have no time for PbP. They really are not Marxist enough for my tastes.

Mussolini? Really, is that an educated riposte?

I dunno how "educated" and "riposte" comes into it TBH? Might sound like a comeback but it isn't and your first sentence above pretty much illustrates when I said; maybe anything beyond People Before Profit is "Right Wing" in your world? Hence the Mussolini reference. Should be clear enough.

Havockk wrote: »

I also have a question for Wibbs. As an old school or classic liberal, how do you square the circle that the 'West has never had it better' considering the centre ground has all but crumbled, especially in the Anglo-American sphere?

No it hasn't. Beyond occasional lurches like Trump(who only got half the vote) and Brexit and a few more nationalist parties in Europe getting more votes the west is more centrist overall than it's ever been. Then again I suppose to a full on Marxist anything less than that ideal is a lurch to the Right.

Depending on whom one talks too and the position they take the West is either going too Right wing or too Left/Liberal, which almost inevitably means it's going in neither direction overall. In microcosm Boards is regularly described as too Left/Right again depending on viewpoint. In reality it averages out Centre Left. Though that itself depends on viewpoint. Many Americans might consider Boards and Ireland to be as "looney Left".

Brian? wrote: »

This is an excellent post.

It is and it's what I pointed out earlier. The word has changed meaning in common use, so little point in arguing it back and forth forever.

Wibbs

Brian? wrote: »

Classic liberals were economically right wing. Believers in laissez faire capitalism etc. . But they were also socially liberal.

Modern liberals are economically centerist and socially progressive.

Neoliberals are closer to classic liberals than anything from what I can work out.

Liberal means nothing anymore.

Then I suppose if I were to be more precise I'm an old style liberal save for the laissez faire capitalism part. I'm no libertarian that's for sure. Always found that a sociopathy masked as a politic. However I'm not against capitalism. I am against it being unregulated and I'm increasingly against consumerism because of the damage it's doing to people and the planet. I'd be socially liberal, but not progressive. Whatever floats your boat and good luck to you, but I'm not going to try/pay to engineer society for floating your boat kinda thing.

Havockk

Wibbs wrote: »

I have no idea where you get "offence" from any of that. For future ref if the text isn't clear, work on the basis I'm bemused, with the odd WTF with added chortle.

I dunno how "educated" and "riposte" comes into it TBH? Might sound like a comeback but it isn't and your first sentence above pretty much illustrates when I said; maybe anything beyond People Before Profit is "Right Wing" in your world? Hence the Mussolini reference. Should be clear enough.

No it hasn't. Beyond occasional lurches like Trump(who only got half the vote) and Brexit and a few more nationalist parties in Europe getting more votes the west is more centrist overall than it's ever been. Then again I suppose to a full on Marxist anything less than that ideal is a lurch to the Right.

We'll have to agree to disagree. On a lot of things.

Havockk

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm no libertarian that's for sure. Always found that a sociopathy masked as a politic.

Except this. On this I'm with you 100%.

Brian?

Wibbs wrote: »

It is and it's what I pointed out earlier. The word has changed meaning in common use, so little point in arguing it back and forth forever.

I know. But your post was a little too straight forward, aesthetically speaking. Malayalam's post had a beautiful timbre that won me over.

Brian?

Wibbs wrote: »

Then I suppose if I were to be more precise I'm an old style liberal save for the laissez faire capitalism part. I'm no libertarian that's for sure. Always found that a sociopathy masked as a politic. However I'm not against capitalism. I am against it being unregulated and I'm increasingly against consumerism because of the damage it's doing to people and the planet. I'd be socially liberal, but not progressive. Whatever floats your boat and good luck to you, but I'm not going to try/pay to engineer society for floating your boat kinda thing.

You're pretty much the middle ground so. I don't think we need a name for it.

Wibbs

Brian? wrote: »

I know. But your post was a little too straight forward, aesthetically speaking. Malayalam's post had a beautiful timbre that won me over.

Sh1t! *taps BS Generator to check if it's working*

Brian?

Havockk wrote: »

Except this. On this I'm with you 100%.

I'm a libertarian socialist. Am I a psychopath?


This is a joke.