Jordan Peterson interview on C4

markodaly

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Here you go, so yeah I don't think you should be giving out about the misuse of the word



Christ the full desktop site is so much better than mobile, advanced search actually works.

The internet never lies!

Brian?

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Here you go, so yeah I don't think you should be giving out about the misuse of the word



Christ the full desktop site is so much better than mobile, advanced search actually works.

Hmmm. I don’t remember that. I may have been particularly annoyed by something Bannon did. When is that from?

Did you search through my posting history to find that? I admire your commitment.

Is Steve Bannon a fascist? He’s certainly right wing enough. He’s an ultra nationalist. He’s made plenty of anti Semitic comments. He certainly likes a good strongman leader. He fits the bill in a lot of ways. I’ll give him. 3/5 swastikas on the fasci scale.

Sure we’re calling everyone fascists now anyway. Did you not see the memo?

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

Everyone’s a fascist, brilliant.

No, but I would call those who advocate violence to achieve a political goal a fascist.

pumpkin4life

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

Person 1: I want to have Utopia, a world free from hunger, poverty and free Netflix for all.
Person 2: Sure, that sounds nice, how do we get there?
Person 1: Socialist Libertarianism!
Person 2: Hmm,not sure what that is. Can you explain?
Person 1: It is a set of aspirations where there will be no state, no coercion, where everyone will be socialist and there will exist, Utopia for all.
Person 2: Yea, cool story bro, but how will that cure hunger and poverty. Also free Netflix! You had me at free Netflix!
Person 1: Socialist Libertarianism. Don't you think its a nice aspiration?
Person 2: Yeah sure but how do I get free Netflix!
Person 1: In my world, you won't need Netflix
Person 2: But I love me Netflix (sobs). How about curing poverty so, how does that work.
Person 1: Eh... Socialist Libertarianism. Its really an aspiration, not really a roadmap but its a nice thought no?
Person 2: So, its like religion or ideas like heaven.
Person 1: Yes, but more real.
Person 2: So how do we get there?
Person 1: Em, Socialist Libertarianism, its really an aspiration.
Person 2: You said that already. Give me the details on the how, like how do we get rid of the state and stop people from killing each other.
Person 1: Socialism. Everyone will be a socialist by consent and people will just be nice to each.
Person 2: So, you have no idea how I will get my free Netflix
Person 1: Sure I do, Socialist Liberta...
Person 2: I'm off for a drink.

That wasn’t worth the effort.

Like calling someone horse? Pot meet Kettle.

Horse is a friendly term like mate or pal. You were being nasty. Big difference. Huge.

Wibbs

markodaly wrote: »

Like calling someone horse? Pot meet Kettle.

Just a heads up MoD "Horse" is a colloquial term of usually endearment(Dublin IIRC). It's certainly not an insult.

RDM_83 again

Brian? wrote: »

Hmmm. I don’t remember that. I may have been particularly annoyed by something Bannon did. When is that from?

Did you search through my posting history to find that? I admire your commitment.

Is Steve Bannon a fascist? He’s certainly right wing enough. He’s an ultra nationalist. He’s made plenty of anti Semitic comments. He certainly likes a good strongman leader. He fits the bill in a lot of ways. I’ll give him. 3/5 swastikas on the fasci scale.

Sure we’re calling everyone fascists now anyway. Did you not see the memo?

1- Follow the link, one of the big politics mega threads last year

2- Not really, you might have said it elsewhere too more recently but it took literally one minute to find that, your a mod here you know how the proper search function works and I had an idea you would be throwing the label around.

3- He might be a nasty racist but he isn't a fascist, my issue is that your arguing for a greater accuracy about the use of political labels not because it brings greater clarity but because its an easy nitpick, when its politicians you deeply oppose this regard for greater clarity goes out the window and you do exactly the same thing as the poster who your being super patronizing too about needing to read more and so on

edit: Just to be clear I'm not defending Steve Bannon, and Fascism itself was described by some of its key participants as a vague system, its the patronizing attitude to the other poster that motivated highlighting the double standard

Havockk

markodaly wrote: »

Person 1: I want to have Utopia, a world free from hunger, poverty and free Netflix for all.
Person 2: Sure, that sounds nice, how do we get there?
Person 1: Socialist Libertarianism!
Person 2: Hmm,not sure what that is. Can you explain?
Person 1: It is a set of aspirations where there will be no state, no coercion, where everyone will be socialist and there will exist, Utopia for all.
Person 2: Yea, cool story bro, but how will that cure hunger and poverty. Also free Netflix! You had me at free Netflix!
Person 1: Socialist Libertarianism. Don't you think its a nice aspiration?
Person 2: Yeah sure but how do I get free Netflix!
Person 1: In my world, you won't need Netflix
Person 2: But I love me Netflix (sobs). How about curing poverty so, how does that work.
Person 1: Eh... Socialist Libertarianism. Its really an aspiration, not really a roadmap but its a nice thought no?
Person 2: So, its like religion or ideas like heaven.
Person 1: Yes, but more real.
Person 2: So how do we get there?
Person 1: Em, Socialist Libertarianism, its really an aspiration.
Person 2: You said that already. Give me the details on the how, like how do we get rid of the state and stop people from killing each other.
Person 1: Socialism. Everyone will be a socialist by consent and people will just be nice to each.
Person 2: So, you have no idea how I will get my free Netflix
Person 1: Sure I do, Socialist Liberta...
Person 2: I'm off for a drink.




Like calling someone horse? Pot meet Kettle.

I actually feel sorry for you now.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

That wasn’t worth the effort.

Neither was your explanation of what Socialist Libertarianism is.

Horse is a friendly term like mate or pal. You were being nasty. Big difference. Huge.

Overusing a term like that is generally done to by snide and annoying. Don't act all surprised, you know what you were doing.

markodaly

Wibbs wrote: »

Just a heads up MoD "Horse" is a colloquial term of usually endearment(Dublin IIRC). It's certainly not an insult.

Been living in Dublin a long time and not something I have heard used. Then again im a Culchie originally. Calling someone a horse or any other farm animal would certainly not be a term of endearment.

markodaly

RDM_83 again wrote: »

3- He might be a nasty racist but he isn't a fascist, my issue is that your arguing for a greater accuracy about the use of political labels not because it brings greater clarity but because its an easy nitpick, when its politicians you deeply oppose this regard for greater clarity goes out the window and you do exactly the same thing as the poster who your being super patronizing too about needing to read more and so on

Do, what I say not what I do.

Standard method of debate from Brian?.

Havockk

markodaly wrote: »

Do, what I say not what I do.

Standard method of debate from Brian?.

The cool thing about displaying this level of ignorance online mark is that we can always come back again for an oul laugh anytime we want

Isn't that right horse. Anyway what about dem lobsters?

Wibbs

Brian? wrote: »

You don’t understand how a socialist society would work. That’s ok.

Much of the problem with both socialism, and especially socialism without some level of "state" control and this goes triple for libertarianism, is that both ignore the fundamentals of human nature and how that would play out across the board. They're aspirational and philosophical. The reality would almost be a guarantee of descent into authoritarianism. The only difference would be it wouldn't be an obvious "state" that would be in charge. It would be whomever garnered the most control. Likely corporate entities.

And that would happen pretty quickly. Some people are simply just better at gathering resources and power than others and once it reaches a tipping point in that trajectory without some oversight then that grows exponentially. Their offspring won't have to be better as they'll already have the resources which tend to grow themselves, especially in such a system. Look at the aristocrats who sprang from feudalism, they gathered all the land early on and even though most of their progeny were inbred chinless wonders they hung on to it for generations. Many still hang on to it. The later emerging merchant class essentially followed the same plan. The only thing that reduced their influence to any degree was government.

The usual response to that is the Rule of Law would prevent all that, but this is naive beyond belief. Money and power buys better lawyers and better law. As Plutarch(IIRC) all those centuries ago noted: Laws are like cobwebs, they catch the little flies, but the big ones crash right through them.

Don't get me wrong B, I'd love an ideal "socialist libertarian" society(with caveats), but until we sort out the sticky problem of human nature I'm enough of a realist to know it'll be a pipe dream until then.

Ditto for Marxism in the naivety stakes, though I would love that a lot less. Marx and Engels were in fairness trying to figure out how to stop that trajectory I describe above to again try and limit human nature. Outside of student digs and coffee houses it won't work, though at least they acknowledged a state would be required to try and force it to work.



*Aside* I have often found it interesting that socialism, fascism and liberalism all took much succour and referenced Darwin and his theories(ditto for Nietzsche and other philosophers). Just goes to show how the same books and theories on an entirely non political subject can be read so differently to come to very different conclusions politically and philosophically. Indeed the subject of this thread references the oul evolutionary biology thang too. T'is very popular these days.

Sweetemotion

Wibbs wrote: »

Just a heads up MoD "Horse" is a colloquial term of usually endearment(Dublin IIRC). It's certainly not an insult.

The only people, I've heard using horse a term of endearment are travellers and people from Bray.

Havockk

Sweetemotion wrote: »

The only people, I've heard using horse a term of endearment are travellers and people from Bray.

Common expression in the North here.

Sweetemotion

Havockk wrote: »

Common expression in the North here.

You must have a lot of travellers and people from Bray up there so.

circadian

Havockk wrote: »

Common expression in the North here.

Yes horse! Bout ye?

Havockk

circadian wrote: »

Yes horse! Bout ye?

Craic mucker

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

Neither was your explanation of what Socialist Libertarianism is.



Overusing a term like that is generally done to by snide and annoying. Don't act all surprised, you know what you were doing.

I wasn’t being snide at all. I call everyone horse in real life.

SeanW

buried wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that's a voice actor trying (and failing) to use J.P.s speech tones.

Brian? wrote: »

There are plenty of groups doing that without being fascists. If you think that defines fascism, you need to do some book learning. Or Wikipedia fascism.

Calling antifa fascists is a lazy smear. One which i guess was started by the people Antifa were protesting against.

I do not agree with Antifas methods. They are not fascists.

You're right. Antifa are not fascist. Fascism is a specific ideology, which antifa does not adhere to.

Stalinist is more appropriate term for Antifa. Along with Terrorist.

Wibbs

markodaly wrote: »

Been living in Dublin a long time and not something I have heard used. Then again im a Culchie originally.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

The only people, I've heard using horse a term of endearment are travellers and people from Bray.

Bloody blow ins the pair of ye.

circadian

Havockk wrote: »

Craic mucker

Nahin hi. Yer mans a wile rocket gettin wound up over bein called horse. Pure scunnered for him.

Wibbs

SeanW wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that's a voice actor trying (and failing) to use J.P.s speech tones.

Sounds like a bad Kermit the frog impression.

Havockk

SeanW wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that's a voice actor trying (and failing) to use J.P.s speech tones.


You're right. Antifa are not fascist. Fascism is a specific ideology, which antifa does not adhere to.

Stalinist is more appropriate term for Antifa. Along with Terrorist.

You were doing so well. Then you threw the baby out with the bath water..... ahhh well

Brian?

RDM_83 again wrote: »

1- Follow the link, one of the big politics mega threads last year

2- Not really, you might have said it elsewhere too more recently but it took literally one minute to find that, your a mod here you know how the proper search function works and I had an idea you would be throwing the label around.

3- He might be a nasty racist but he isn't a fascist, my issue is that your arguing for a greater accuracy about the use of political labels not because it brings greater clarity but because its an easy nitpick, when its politicians you deeply oppose this regard for greater clarity goes out the window and you do exactly the same thing as the poster who your being super patronizing too about needing to read more and so on

edit: Just to be clear I'm not defending Steve Bannon, and Fascism itself was described by some of its key participants as a vague system, its the patronizing attitude to the other poster that motivated highlighting the double standard

I was wrong to call Bannon a fascist. You are correct. I don’t know how the search works. I never use it.

I actually didn’t realise I was being patronising. Thanks. I’m out of this debate. I’ve reacted too many times.

Havockk

Brian? wrote: »

I was wrong to call Bannon a fascist. You are correct. I don’t know how the search works. I never use it.

I actually didn’t realise I was being patronising. Thanks. I’m out of this debate. I’ve reacted too many times.

You are not at all wrong about Bannon, no matter what anyone here says. Bannon is the closest anyone's got to fascism in the West in recent times. Fervent Nationalist, militaristic, rejects modernism, callback to great times past,

Not to mention he is heavily inspired by fascist thinkers like Julius Evola and Aleksander Dugin (a complete fascist). So don't roll back in the face of this criticism, it doesn't make them right.

Havockk

National Bolshevism is the term I was searching for.

Pa ElGrande

markodaly wrote: »

Person 1: I want to have Utopia, a world free from hunger, poverty and free Netflix for all.
Person 2: Sure, that sounds nice, how do we get there?
Person 1: Socialist Libertarianism!
Person 2: Hmm,not sure what that is. Can you explain?
Person 1: It is a set of aspirations where there will be no state, no coercion, where everyone will be socialist and there will exist, Utopia for all.

Ah, the fabled new socialist man who will ride into town on the back of a unicorn. People have tried it before and as usual its quickly abandoned.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Ditto for Marxism in the naivety stakes, though I would love that a lot less. Marx and Engels were in fairness trying to figure out how to stop that trajectory I describe above to again try and limit human nature. Outside of student digs and coffee houses it won't work, though at least they acknowledged a state would be required to try and force it to work.

But again it comes down to size and population. While the world was fairly well known/explored at that time, the average person had little understanding of numbers of people around them beyond the horizon. They were confined to their immediate surroundings by culture, tradition, education or economic considerations. They might head to their capital, or see a few other countries but they were still European countries with relatively low populations. They weren't considering the epic population sizes of China or Africa.

I keep being reminded of the invasions into Russia and each time the reports/biographies remark on the vastness of the land. The sheer diversity of ethnic backgrounds.

It's a very different world now. Populations are much larger, but also the Internet has changed so much. Many of the political systems described here have their foundations in ignorance. That the power rises from those who knew so little of the world and have so limited choice in how their lives would develop.

Which is part of my problem with most of these political theories. Many of them are still theoretical considering the extremely short lifespans of the countries or systems that took them into the practical world. Fascism? 6-7 years? Franco's Spain being the next closest, and even then, it took a different approach to the general theme of fascism. Socialism? Um... Soviet Russia may have started with socialism but pretty much corrupted it into something else rather quickly. Etc. Etc.

Oh, you can get small groups of hippies or nutjobs applying these theories to their communities, but... nothing seems to last very long when it's brought to the national level.

Admittedly, I'm just familiar with history. I've read the various Manifestos or Mao's red book... but I'm not well read with this political science malarky. Most of the terminology makes my eyes cross and cloud over.

Still... I'd be interested in hearing about all of its practical application, and the results.

Havockk

Deleted User wrote: »

But again it comes down to size and population. While the world was fairly well known/explored at that time, the average person had little understanding of numbers of people around them beyond the horizon. They were confined to their immediate surroundings by culture, tradition, education or economic considerations. They might head to their capital, or see a few other countries but they were still European countries with relatively low populations. They weren't considering the epic population sizes of China or Africa.

I keep being reminded of the invasions into Russia and each time the reports/biographies remark on the vastness of the land. The sheer diversity of ethnic backgrounds.

It's a very different world now. Populations are much larger, but also the Internet has changed so much. Many of the political systems described here have their foundations in ignorance. That the power rises from those who knew so little of the world and have so limited choice in how their lives would develop.

Which is part of my problem with most of these political theories. Many of them are still theoretical considering the extremely short lifespans of the countries or systems that took them into the practical world. Fascism? 6-7 years? Franco's Spain being the next closest, and even then, it took a different approach to the general theme of fascism. Socialism? Um... Soviet Russia may have started with socialism but pretty much corrupted it into something else rather quickly. Etc. Etc.

Oh, you can get small groups of hippies or nutjobs applying these theories to their communities, but... nothing seems to last very long when it's brought to the national level.

Admittedly, I'm just familiar with history. I've read the various Manifestos or Mao's red book... but I'm not well read with this political science malarky. Most of the terminology makes my eyes cross and cloud over.

Still... I'd be interested in hearing about all of its practical application, and the results.

On Marx?
If so...

I'd tell ye to read Capital, but jesus it's a slog. I suggest maybe looking on youtube for Prof. David Harvey. He has a number of lectures available which he succeeds in making very accessible. Anyway he's a civil lad and even if it's not for ye it will give ya the gist.