Jordan Peterson interview on C4

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

I am not arguing with the above. Terrible things were done by people who professed to believe in Marxism, but acted completely contrary to it's basic philosophy.

A large part of Anitfa are made up of anarchists. Are you accusing them of being authoritarian?

People can call themselves what they like, they are judged by their actions.
People can call themselves Muslims or Christians yet if their actions are anything but, they can be rightfully judged on this.

kumate_champ07

Brian? wrote: »

It's violent thuggery.

You can't be authoritarian if you don't believe in a central government authority. Which anarchists don't.

I'll wait for someone to argue that authoritarian doesn't mean what is used to mean anymore.

its not the end result that is authoritarian , its the method of getting there

if you were fat and i was worried about your health and i state 'you are fat and need to lose weight', my intentions are not rude, but the action of showing my concern for your health can be considered to be rude

Brian?

silverharp wrote: »

the poster i was responding to compared them to the allies , it forced my contrast. i cant really debate with a bunch of malcontents who wear masks and who seem to have a strange hatred of dumpsters, i dont find anything interesting about them

Nothing forced you to use a random insult.

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

People can call themselves what they like, they are judged by their actions.
People can call themselves Muslims or Christians yet if their actions are anything but, they can be rightfully judged on this.

Absolutely agree. What's your point?

Brian?

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

its not the end result that is authoritarian , its the method of getting there

I see your point. I am not sure I agree in this case. Let me mull it.

if you were fat and i was worried about your health and i state 'you are fat and need to lose weight', my intentions are not rude, but the action of showing my concern for your health can be considered to be rude

Agreed.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

"The left" are not some homogeneous group who get together and decide tactics.

Lazy insults and slurs are used by both sides to stifle debate. Wouldn't it be better if everyone stopped? Surely you can't argue with that?

Or maybe you can indulge in more whataboutery and drag the debate down even further. We all have a choice here.

That is true, and neither are "the right", yet the media would have you believe that "the right" are some how out there, threatening society. Look at the hysteria over Trump. Its never ending and people are beginning to wake up to it. The boy who cried wolf indeed. Fear sells I suppose.

I agree that people should be able to debate things openly. Perhaps you should ask your side-kick Havockk to stop with theirs?

Havockk

markodaly wrote: »

I agree that people should be able to debate things openly. Perhaps you should ask your side-kick Havockk to stop with theirs?

I could be your secret besty left-wing friend that you are ashamed to introduce to your family.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

Absolutely agree. What's your point?

If you call yourself an Anarchist, yet turn up, uninvited at a meeting, wearing a mask and with a bat, with the intention of stopping the meeting with coercion and violence, then the label of being authoritarian is very very apt.

authoritarian
ɔːˌθɒrɪˈtɛːrɪən/Submit
adjective
adjective: authoritarian
1.
favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
"the transition from an authoritarian to a democratic regime"
synonyms: autocratic, dictatorial, totalitarian, despotic, tyrannical, autarchic, draconian, absolute, arbitrary, oppressive, repressive, illiberal, undemocratic, anti-democratic; More
antonyms: democratic, liberal, lenient, permissive
showing a lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others; dictatorial.
"he had an authoritarian and at times belligerent manner"
noun
noun: authoritarian; plural noun: authoritarians
1.
an authoritarian person.
synonyms: autocrat, despot, dictator, tyrant, absolutist; More
antonyms: liberal

markodaly

Havockk wrote: »

I could be your secret besty left-wing friend that you are ashamed to introduce to your family.

Do you have anything of worth to say in this thread, or do you just want to troll the $hit out of it?

Havockk

markodaly wrote: »

Do you have anything of worth to say in this thread, or do you just want to troll the $hit out of it?

Suit yourself. Not gonna lie, that's an oul blow to the feels.

kumate_champ07

if we look to our own history and the catholic church and compare their teachings with their actions, it could be argued that they are the opposite to what they portray, and that political labels are like uniforms/costumes that people use to disguise their true intentions

markodaly

Havockk wrote: »

Suit yourself. Not gonna lie, that's an oul blow to the feels.

So, you openly admit that you are just trolling this thread?
I guess your ashamed of your own ideology so much so, you cant even have the courage to even discuss it here. The classic hurler on the ditch.

freshpopcorn

MOD NOTE I've being made aware of a few issues going on in this thread. Cut back on the trolling guys and remember don't feed the trolls either.

kumate_champ07

perhaps anarchism can only be justified if its a route taken by a majority. until that happens it can only be considered an idea, or possible inclusion in a political theory with a more broad range of ideals.

we seem to be under the impression we have to choose from historical theorys with set definitions. we currently use a broken form of democracy which has a fix available to make it what its supposed to be, but that would take away the ability to control how citizens choose their future

kumate_champ07

there is an illusion of choice. the various styles of politics have definitions applied to them that are designed to influence a final decision, when all of them in theory share the same end result, a happy fulfilled citizen

it would seem that western democracy thrives from its ability to sabotage its rival theories, while restricting itself from offering people true control over their lives, in order to maintain all the spoils for a small percentage

Havockk

It's really funny that those who so vehemently oppose authority aren't long running to it LOL

kumate_champ07

Havockk wrote: »

It's really funny that those who so vehemently oppose authority aren't long running to it LOL

there are different levels of authority

parents can be considered authority, just because someone is against a government doesn't mean they are against all levels of authority

a mod is an extension to a user, they allow higher level action to be taken when a valid concern is raised, such as disruptive trolling

Havockk

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

there are different levels of authority

parents can be considered authority, just because someone is against a government doesn't mean they are against all levels of authority

a mod is an extension to a user, they allow higher level action to be taken when a valid concern is raised, such as disruptive trolling

I'm not the one on that side of the debate, I just really appreciate the irony.

kumate_champ07

i suppose it could be considered ironic

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

That is true, and neither are "the right", yet the media would have you believe that "the right" are some how out there, threatening society. Look at the hysteria over Trump. Its never ending and people are beginning to wake up to it. The boy who cried wolf indeed. Fear sells I suppose.

I agree that people should be able to debate things openly. Perhaps you should ask your side-kick Havockk to stop with theirs?

I don't have a side kick. That's just being facetious.

You're indulging in some more whataboutery. Why not admit it's wrong when it's wrong?

kumate_champ07

Nerve Gas Attack wrote: »

Excellent videos which brings awareness to the underlying competing dynamic which often takes place between people. I notice on boards it seems quite common to pretend or actually think such underlying dynamics don't exist, or that it is somehow "childish" to recognise and actively compete in such dynamics.

An excellent scenario to hone one's social skills is to compete with other men ( ideally skilled men) for attractive women in environments such as pubs and clubs.

When competing for women typical strategies men deploy include dominance and social violation. If a man can demonstrate his dominance over his rival any attraction the woman has for the rival typically transfers from the rival to the more dominant man. It's fascinating and a lot of fun to witness and participate in such duels, also quite educational if you can learn from men who are more skilled for future duels.

Now, how do men display that they are more dominant. In my opinion the cornerstone is the battle of "flow state". The key underlying dynamic is which man can knock the other out of flow state, or more out of flow state, it's not necessarily binary.

If you can put your opponent "in their head" the woman can see this, it's attraction is lost for the opponent. Mocking your opponent in a funny way ( ie "just banter", but at your opponent's expense) whilst not overstepping into social violator territory (ie rude). The key to defending such an attack is staying in flow state. If you can make a witty rebuttal whilst staying in flow state that's great. Do not however cross the line into social violator territory, it signals that you ate emotionally affected by your opponent.

Ive been in Coppers on 3 different occasions, Im 6ft 3.5 so Im usually the tallest in most places. there seemed to be a higher percentage of tall males there then anywhere else ive been, and they all acted very hostile. believe it or not i was there for a late pint, not to 'score'. i bet you could get some video footage of a night out there, and easily line up some David Attenborough that fits perfectly

it also sounds like you are talking about PUA techniques, which i despise, tho its ok to be confident and be aware of your enviornment, i draw the line at using psychology on females to seek out weakness

conorhal

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

there is an illusion of choice. the various styles of politics have definitions applied to them that are designed to influence a final decision, when all of them in theory share the same end result, a happy fulfilled citizen

it would seem that western democracy thrives from its ability to sabotage its rival theories, while restricting itself from offering people true control over their lives, in order to maintain all the spoils for a small percentage

When I look at the way political actors across the board are behaving these days, from our own shower of gob****es to the EU and beyond, I'd say they've pretty much dropped the pretense.... which is probably why they're getting a populist backlash.

kumate_champ07

nice short little video on democracy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJBzhcSWTk

kumate_champ07

(bit of irony at the end of the video, we have a doctor as our leader, tho he wasnt elected directly by the people)

Pa ElGrande

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwdYpMS8s28

Jordan Peterson - The Rising Tide of Compelled Speech

Pepefrogok

Brian? wrote: »

Germany? We’re not back to the “Nazis were socialists” codology are we?

Yes, the national socialists were socialists..

Stephen crowder done a good piece on it.

"Actually, Yes, Hitler Was a Socialist Liberal"

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/myth-busted-actually-yes-hitler-was-a-socialist-liberal/

Brian?

Pepefrogok wrote: »

Yes, the national socialists were socialists..

Stephen crowder done a good piece on it.

"Actually, Yes, Hitler Was a Socialist Liberal"

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/myth-busted-actually-yes-hitler-was-a-socialist-liberal/

Absolute and complete codswallop. Revisionist nonsense. Complete and total BS.

Whoever Stephen Crowder is, he's a complete idiot to support this absolute nonsense.

WinnyThePoo

Brian? wrote: »

Absolute and complete codswallop. Revisionist nonsense. Complete and total BS.

Whoever Stephen Crowder is, he's a complete idiot to support this absolute nonsense.

I'd say anyone taking that crap in is an idiot.

Professor Moriarty

Pepefrogok wrote: »

Yes, the national socialists were socialists..

Stephen crowder done a good piece on it.

"Actually, Yes, Hitler Was a Socialist Liberal"

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/myth-busted-actually-yes-hitler-was-a-socialist-liberal/

A Liberal who murdered Jews, homosexual people, disabled people, Roma and various other Untermenschen. I don't think you actually understand what you write.

Ulysses Gaze

Brian? wrote: »

Absolute and complete codswallop. Revisionist nonsense. Complete and total BS.

Whoever Stephen Crowder is, he's a complete idiot to support this absolute nonsense.

Agree on this.

It's like the Huff Post trying to posit that Muhammad was a feminist.

Pure unadulterated revisionist bull****.