INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Al Swearegen on December 24, 2017, 11:42:54 PM
-
I give you Dinesh D'Soza
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol7OMGBDMao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9bu6CP318
Progressivism is Cultural Marxism. It is complete bullshit. The worms of Progressivism have dined well in the Liberal Left and now we, Liberals, are obliged to pander and scrape to the Progressives OR risk being called a bigot AT BEST or a Nazi/Alt-Right/Far Right/unintellectual/immoral dullard.
It is all bullshit.
-
I give you a rather devastating criticism of Mr D'Souza's debating style:
D'Souza has an aggressive and rhetorical speaking and debating style, which makes him sound forceful and convincing. He uses the Gish Gallop frequently and effectively, rebuffing his opponent for not addressing every point he makes.
He frequently employs caricatures and strawmen of atheist positions. He presents these positions so as to make them sound whimsical or silly, while presenting his own statements with an air of utmost gravity, no matter how lunatic or far-fetched they may be.
Every time Dinesh attempts to speak for, quote, or misquote his opponent, he adopts a buffoonish, mocking tone. It is a very unsubtle ad hominem attack fused into his prose.
He is a big fan of quote mining. Not content with simply taking his opponent's statements out of context, he will take a quote about a topic completely unrelated to the one under discussion and re-frame it to make it sound as if his opponent is uninformed or delusional.
A main weapon in his debating arsenal is the emotional appeal, where he paints his opponent's position as false because some of its implications may be distasteful to certain members of the audience.
He enjoys painting his opponents as vicious critics of innocuous policies and events, and himself as a paragon of intellectual virtue. While not going as far as character assassination (at least not in a face-to-face debate), he does subtly attack the character of his opponent.
He often says that an assertion by his opponent, or even the opponent's entire position, is invalid because it is not intuitively or obviously true. He paints this as a "common sense" argument, where he calls upon the audience to evaluate an assertion using their own intuition. In reality, this is a denial of the obvious fact that many things are counterintuitive and require expertise beyond the experience of the average person (but don't take our word for it; ask your neighbor about quantum mechanics or the economics of sub-Saharan Africa). This is a particularly effective tactic, as it shifts audience opinion to his side.
Thanks to his wide repertoire of tactics, he rarely is forced to allow a point by his opponent to pass unchallenged. This projects the illusion of competence, whereas most of his rebuttals are intellectually dishonest and completely invalid.
When all else fails, he will spout outright lies and half truths, pulling facts and statistics out of thin air to give his argument some credibility. This amounts to an argument from authority, which he seems to derive from his public "reputation" as a political commentator, academic and writer.
Lately, he appears to carry around a sizable library of books to debates, frequently flashing them at his opponent and at the audience, while stating that they completely prove his own, or disprove his opponent's, points. These are usually self-published works by fringe lunatics (which are not worth the paper they're printed on). This is argument from authority on steroids, since no one except him has read the book. Therefore, his opponent cannot call him out on it, and is forced to let the point go without comment.
-
Looks like an objective wiki page. Especially since it begins with "Dinesh D'Souza (born 1961) is a domestically violent (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Domestic_violence) mall ninja (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mall_ninja)
-
It is on par with the Youtube page, which is sort of my point.
-
Looks like an objective wiki page. Especially since it begins with "Dinesh D'Souza (born 1961) is a domestically violent (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Domestic_violence) mall ninja (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mall_ninja)
This would sell it for me.
-
Is it wrong?
-
All I know is that I wanna learn mall ninjutsu.
-
Is it wrong?
Yes, it is wrong. If Dinesh does anything wrong in his arguing approach, it is not being railroaded by minutiae and in presenting big picture and alternative and unconventional views to not back these things with much in the way of sources.
This is completely understandable. Why?
Because what happens is that there will be a belief and that belief is shared and aligned politically and gains power and bought to fit in with other beliefs and all further studies have this in-built belief factored to conform into their research. Now these studies give this believe more power and it is accepted as a truth to base other beliefs and researches on and to make attacks to others and such.
Then along comes Dinesh or someone like him and says something unbelievable and outrageous like "Its all bullshit, you know?"
Now someone doing this is not necessarily wrong. Their point may be really good BUT they are unlikely to have many (if any) studies to back them because all (or almost all) studies will be framed around some understood truths - some of which he will be exposing as bullshit. So to run to the incompleteness of his sourcing is completely stupid. But it is not to say he gets a free pass and can sell any old line. He needs to explain WHY it is all bullshit and how others before have got it so wrong and where their assumption were skewed? At what point in the process was the theory wrong and how did confirmation bias go alluded for so long?
Now if for nothing else Dinesh ought to allow a pause to reconsider some beliefs and wh we commonly hold them. For example, if we all know from history classes that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and he was a good guy fighting for slaves to be freed and he won the civil war against the Democrats in the South and now Democrats are the ones who have the black vote and malign the Republicans as being bigots.....what gives? I never really understood this but conventional wisdom was that Democrats became Republicans and Republicans became Democrats. But see that did not make much sense to me either. Swapping parties. Not changing party names but 100% of both parties changing sides? Changing values? Maybe but even were that so then still the crimes bad actions need to be owned by both parties (what is to be owned by the Democrats for their history and what is to be owned by Republicans for theirs). If Democrats are nice to minorities today, that is fantastic, when did they start and what blood is on their hands up to that point? If Republicans are terrible to minorities now, that is awful, when did that start and what blood is on their hands? What is their history?
Obviously, there is ample of information and enthusiasm for pointing out the understood Democrat is caring and kind and virtuous and look after people and Republicans are greedy and corrupt and look after themselves and are traditional and uncharitable. Gun-toting bigots who want to shove their bible down everyone's throat. What there is not clear information about is the questions above. So we don't question them. Not really. We don't need to either. We accept "what is, is" and understand that there must be good reason and may even make assumptions on these things or find enough "facts" or data points to confirm our understanding.
Then in comes someone like Dinesh and says "Here are some of the answers you were thinking about but could not find".
It is not just Dinesh too. Nor just Conservative viewpoints but there are a lot of Libertarians and a number of different Liberals that often come up with stuff which is really new and compelling and opens my eyes to alternatives I had not considered.
-
Now if for nothing else Dinesh ought to allow a pause to reconsider some beliefs and wh we commonly hold them. For example, if we all know from history classes that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and he was a good guy fighting for slaves to be freed and he won the civil war against the Democrats in the South and now Democrats are the ones who have the black vote and malign the Republicans as being bigots.....what gives? I never really understood this but conventional wisdom was that Democrats became Republicans and Republicans became Democrats. But see that did not make much sense to me either. Swapping parties. Not changing party names but 100% of both parties changing sides? Changing values? Maybe but even were that so then still the crimes bad actions need to be owned by both parties (what is to be owned by the Democrats for their history and what is to be owned by Republicans for theirs). If Democrats are nice to minorities today, that is fantastic, when did they start and what blood is on their hands up to that point? If Republicans are terrible to minorities now, that is awful, when did that start and what blood is on their hands? What is their history?
Yes, but he is too simplistic in his dismissal of the established view. Even considering the black movement to the dems,
prior to the Civil Rights Act. There is a reason for the later shift, which comes from a confluence of Johnson's pushing
the Dixiecrats away and the Goldwater nomination. See, Goldwater's state's rights (especially when made explicit on
racial matters) played right into both a chance to relieve the burden of the CRA, as well as to the Lost Cause feelings -
there is no greater state's right than nullification and secession. That the Republican party slowly started to embrace
those views made for an easier home than following the Wallace banner.
The earlier shift is not merely economic either. FDR's non-discrimination order; Truman's integration of the army; Humphrey's
strong support for civil rights all factored in. They were bringing the dems into the palatable realm - at least nationally.
Equally though, other views motivated fairly conservative southern populations away, as the parties began to diverge more
on many issues. Some cultural, some economic.
Then in comes someone like Dinesh and says "Here are some of the answers you were thinking about but could not find".
It is not just Dinesh too. Nor just Conservative viewpoints but there are a lot of Libertarians and a number of different Liberals that often come up with stuff which is really new and compelling and opens my eyes to alternatives I had not considered.
It's important not to be blinded by one ideological stance. But, he seems as unwilling to express the nuance of the reality
as do those hard on the other side of the issue.
-
He appears to have made a career out of conservative conspiracy theories, successful only in preaching to the choir.
-
Now if for nothing else Dinesh ought to allow a pause to reconsider some beliefs and wh we commonly hold them. For example, if we all know from history classes that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and he was a good guy fighting for slaves to be freed and he won the civil war against the Democrats in the South and now Democrats are the ones who have the black vote and malign the Republicans as being bigots.....what gives? I never really understood this but conventional wisdom was that Democrats became Republicans and Republicans became Democrats. But see that did not make much sense to me either. Swapping parties. Not changing party names but 100% of both parties changing sides? Changing values? Maybe but even were that so then still the crimes bad actions need to be owned by both parties (what is to be owned by the Democrats for their history and what is to be owned by Republicans for theirs). If Democrats are nice to minorities today, that is fantastic, when did they start and what blood is on their hands up to that point? If Republicans are terrible to minorities now, that is awful, when did that start and what blood is on their hands? What is their history?
Yes, but he is too simplistic in his dismissal of the established view. Even considering the black movement to the dems,
prior to the Civil Rights Act. There is a reason for the later shift, which comes from a confluence of Johnson's pushing
the Dixiecrats away and the Goldwater nomination. See, Goldwater's state's rights (especially when made explicit on
racial matters) played right into both a chance to relieve the burden of the CRA, as well as to the Lost Cause feelings -
there is no greater state's right than nullification and secession. That the Republican party slowly started to embrace
those views made for an easier home than following the Wallace banner.
The earlier shift is not merely economic either. FDR's non-discrimination order; Truman's integration of the army; Humphrey's
strong support for civil rights all factored in. They were bringing the dems into the palatable realm - at least nationally.
Equally though, other views motivated fairly conservative southern populations away, as the parties began to diverge more
on many issues. Some cultural, some economic.
Then in comes someone like Dinesh and says "Here are some of the answers you were thinking about but could not find".
It is not just Dinesh too. Nor just Conservative viewpoints but there are a lot of Libertarians and a number of different Liberals that often come up with stuff which is really new and compelling and opens my eyes to alternatives I had not considered.
It's important not to be blinded by one ideological stance. But, he seems as unwilling to express the nuance of the reality
as do those hard on the other side of the issue.
Absolutely right in a lot of what you say. The thing is though, for a lot of the reasons I have already alluded to, he HAS to come all out. If he comes out with a half-arsed notion and waters it down with exceptions and limits it with disclaimers it is very easily dismissed from the mind.
He puts it out there and we have an alternative position to consider. We do not have to buy it lock, stock and barrel but we can consider it. Pick out the things that sound interesting. Do our own research weigh them up against agreed knowledge.
I just see what he is doing in this respect. Not so much taking everything he says with a grain of salt but rather taking in what he says as a challenge to think upon.
-
He appears to have made a career out of conservative conspiracy theories, successful only in preaching to the choir.
He doesn't seem to have a lot more substance behind what he says than Milo Yiannopoulos.
I have to admit that I didn't watch all of the videos. I gave him a few minutes of my time and determined that he was full of shit and I gave up on him.
One example: as soon as someone starts talking about privilege he suggests that they go to the Dean's office and give up their place at the university to someone from a minority. That's not how affirmative action works. But it saves Dinesh D'Souza from having to come up with some actual arguments.
Another one: D'Souza says you can't have land rights for Native Americans because then you'd have to give back everything that anyone ever took from anyone else. Of course you can't undo all the wrongs of the world, nobody is claiming that. But when you have a portion of society who are dispossessed and disadvantaged by the past dishonest and murderous actions of your government and your ancestors, maybe making some small amends is a sign of the fairer society that you are becoming.
-
Absolutely right in a lot of what you say. The thing is though, for a lot of the reasons I have already alluded to, he HAS to come all out. If he comes out with a half-arsed notion and waters it down with exceptions and limits it with disclaimers it is very easily dismissed from the mind.
He doesn't HAVE to do anything. It's his credibility going down the drain if he goes all out with sensationalist claims that are easily proven to be wrong. Why waste time listening to someone like that?
-
I have to admit that I didn't watch all of the videos. I gave him a few minutes of my time and determined that he was full of shit and I gave up on him.
I gave up pretty soon, too. What did it for me was the fact that this is his Youtube channel, yet he chose a heading like "D'Souza absolutely DESTROYS leftist college student". He's not interested in a discussion, he's interested in boosting his ego.
-
Absolutely right in a lot of what you say. The thing is though, for a lot of the reasons I have already alluded to, he HAS to come all out. If he comes out with a half-arsed notion and waters it down with exceptions and limits it with disclaimers it is very easily dismissed from the mind.
He doesn't HAVE to do anything. It's his credibility going down the drain if he goes all out with sensationalist claims that are easily proven to be wrong. Why waste time listening to someone like that?
Except, of course, they are NOT being proven wrong. With many things like this you can make defences against things he says and indeed the professor who is asking the questions in one of the videos tries this.
A lot of what can be argued is perspective. It is like if I said that Gay marriage should be legal everywhere across the world because it is ultimately not hurting anyone and giving away something at no costs which give rights to people who have not traditionally been unable to have purely on the basing of them being gay.
That to me seems pretty cut and dried in my mind. However (I apologise for the weak argument - I am sure someone who is anti-marriage could do a much better job) if I was ultra-religious I could say something like "The whole purpose of marriage is to protect the family and the nuclear family is the bedrock of society. It is to bind families under God and to commit them in a holy bond with God. It also allows their children to be born into this contract with God and be recognised by God and allow them to join their parents in afterlife" and blah blah blah. Whatever.
Now both points can be argued against and we can get into the weeds over it. But that does not mean either one is "wrong" it is simply different perspective. Such are the points that can be thrown at Dinesh. Easy to get into the weeds but I believe the biggest problem is the different between something being seen as disagreeable and something being wrong.
It is like something being morally wrong or morally right can often simply be a difference of your own subjective values rather than something being wrong on facts.
-
I have to admit that I didn't watch all of the videos. I gave him a few minutes of my time and determined that he was full of shit and I gave up on him.
I gave up pretty soon, too. What did it for me was the fact that this is his Youtube channel, yet he chose a heading like "D'Souza absolutely DESTROYS leftist college student". He's not interested in a discussion, he's interested in boosting his ego.
He can't do both? I have no doubt that Dinesh is completely up himself. I think many Talking Heads are. Of course, no one ought to suggest that this somehow invalidates something he says, right?
-
He appears to have made a career out of conservative conspiracy theories, successful only in preaching to the choir.
He doesn't seem to have a lot more substance behind what he says than Milo Yiannopoulos.
I have to admit that I didn't watch all of the videos. I gave him a few minutes of my time and determined that he was full of shit and I gave up on him.
One example: as soon as someone starts talking about privilege he suggests that they go to the Dean's office and give up their place at the university to someone from a minority. That's not how affirmative action works. But it saves Dinesh D'Souza from having to come up with some actual arguments.
Another one: D'Souza says you can't have land rights for Native Americans because then you'd have to give back everything that anyone ever took from anyone else. Of course you can't undo all the wrongs of the world, nobody is claiming that. But when you have a portion of society who are dispossessed and disadvantaged by the past dishonest and murderous actions of your government and your ancestors, maybe making some small amends is a sign of the fairer society that you are becoming.
Milo, is a completely different creature as you probably know. Milo is very smart and very articulate and says a lot of very insightful and intelligent things. He also says a lot of outlandish bullshit, a lot of deliberate trollish provocation and a lot of stupid contradictory stuff. It is good to cut the wheat from the chaff. Again, not everything he says is gold but there is a heck of a lot of stuff he says that is.
Not agreeing with one statement he says means that the next statement is flawed and it would be silly to make that mistake. As I have shown time and time again, there are people I disagree with vehemently most of what they say that occasionally they say something really good and worthy of posting. It does not mean that I am a fan or that the next thing that falls out of their mouth I will pay homage to.
Dinesh though, made a great point about people who play the role of champion of the minorities and virtue signal whilst not actually doing anything but handwringing over their own internalised shame over their believed privilege. It looks very much like simply announcing I am enjoying the fruits of my privilege but I feel bad and so therefore, I am a good guy and fighting for you, the unwashed. They lose nothing, sacrifice nothing and feel warm and fuzzy. But it is worse than that, they direct others to make and change things and be demonised if they don't, all in an effort to appease those who may otherwise wake up to the fact that they are no better or worse than someone in their position who did not proclaim themselves a warrior for the cause. It is hypocrisy that he pointed out and I think did it rather well.
As to the land rights issue. I will ask you what dollar figure would make up for the atrocities you mentioned and who should be the beneficiaries? How much should each receive? Who should pay into this amount to raise this? What dollar amount will wash everything away?
Hard questions, huh? Maybe a different way to do things is to simply correct for history and allow for all people to have the same rights? Maybe if all people have the same rights and opportunities the playing field is leveled. If not what more would you suggest that is not already in existence in the US from where he was speaking (and importantly for how long)?
-
Milo the paedo apologist? No, I wouldn't characterise him as smart.
-
Absolutely right in a lot of what you say. The thing is though, for a lot of the reasons I have already alluded to, he HAS to come all out. If he comes out with a half-arsed notion and waters it down with exceptions and limits it with disclaimers it is very easily dismissed from the mind.
Principles matter. He has proven he is intellectually dishonest. That is enough for me.
I don't really care WHY he's avoiding the truth.
He puts it out there and we have an alternative position to consider. We do not have to buy it lock, stock and barrel but we can consider it. Pick out the things that sound interesting. Do our own research weigh them up against agreed knowledge.
I just see what he is doing in this respect. Not so much taking everything he says with a grain of salt but rather taking in what he says as a challenge to think upon.
Oh, I have no problem listening to what trope is being fed to the hogs. I do it all the time.
-
As to the land rights issue. I will ask you what dollar figure would make up for the atrocities you mentioned and who should be the beneficiaries? How much should each receive? Who should pay into this amount to raise this? What dollar amount will wash everything away?
Hard questions, huh? Maybe a different way to do things is to simply correct for history and allow for all people to have the same rights? Maybe if all people have the same rights and opportunities the playing field is leveled. If not what more would you suggest that is not already in existence in the US from where he was speaking (and importantly for how long)?
Yeah. But just because the sin cannot be made good, doesn't mean a partial return can't be made.
You know damned well if a corporation was wronged in such a manner, their rights would be upheld.
'Rights' isn't enough, when those include things like "the right to live in a community where you can receive decent
schooling if you can afford it," and "the right to be arrested for defending your water sources which support your
traditional life."
Since America clearly cannot afford to reimburse the slaves with an appropriate cash value, it is even less possible to do so with the natives.
These are higher costs than paying off the holocaust, due to the long time involved.
But, we damned well ought to stop having policies which keep the inheritors of this legacy down.
-
As to the land rights issue. I will ask you what dollar figure would make up for the atrocities you mentioned and who should be the beneficiaries? How much should each receive? Who should pay into this amount to raise this? What dollar amount will wash everything away?
Hard questions, huh? Maybe a different way to do things is to simply correct for history and allow for all people to have the same rights? Maybe if all people have the same rights and opportunities the playing field is leveled. If not what more would you suggest that is not already in existence in the US from where he was speaking (and importantly for how long)?
Yeah. But just because the sin cannot be made good, doesn't mean a partial return can't be made.
You know damned well if a corporation was wronged in such a manner, their rights would be upheld.
'Rights' isn't enough, when those include things like "the right to live in a community where you can receive decent
schooling if you can afford it," and "the right to be arrested for defending your water sources which support your
traditional life."
Since America clearly cannot afford to reimburse the slaves with an appropriate cash value, it is even less possible to do so with the natives.
These are higher costs than paying off the holocaust, due to the long time involved.
But, we damned well ought to stop having policies which keep the inheritors of this legacy down.
Again, give me something constructive and I will likely agree.
You mention water sources. I do not mind you educating me on this and from what little you have inferred it is certainly got the feel of something nefarious or untoward.
Same with differing schooling or what have you but then again IF there is a free option for schooling and a private option and most people go to public schooling then absolutely they should have that right BUT they ought not have the right that only the upper middle class who pay for it have because most people do not have THAT right. So IF you are saying that Native kids do not get the option to go to public school then I agree this should be remedied - perhaps they don't and you can educate me there too, Happy to learn.
As for paying off natives or whomever else, which Natives and at what point is a native considered a native and to whom do you take money off? Which people actually have wronged the Native people? Any of them still alive? If not then maybe their descendants should pay? But then not only did their descendants not do anything BUT you will find a lot of the descendants from older families who have ancestors that were around at the time of the massacre and removal of Native People also have Native blood themselves.
If you take the position that everyone but Native Americans should pay, what about people who immigrated or their parents immigrated after such times?
Maybe it should come from the Government, but then the government does not have it's own money, that money comes from people mainly by way of taxes and levies from the public which again is indifferently going to run into same issues as above.
-
Milo the paedo apologist? No, I wouldn't characterise him as smart.
He is a very smart guy. He is not a paedo apologist either.
-
Absolutely right in a lot of what you say. The thing is though, for a lot of the reasons I have already alluded to, he HAS to come all out. If he comes out with a half-arsed notion and waters it down with exceptions and limits it with disclaimers it is very easily dismissed from the mind.
Principles matter. He has proven he is intellectually dishonest. That is enough for me.
I don't really care WHY he's avoiding the truth.
He puts it out there and we have an alternative position to consider. We do not have to buy it lock, stock and barrel but we can consider it. Pick out the things that sound interesting. Do our own research weigh them up against agreed knowledge.
I just see what he is doing in this respect. Not so much taking everything he says with a grain of salt but rather taking in what he says as a challenge to think upon.
Oh, I have no problem listening to what trope is being fed to the hogs. I do it all the time.
When did he prove he was intellectually dishonest? Missed that?
-
Again, give me something constructive and I will likely agree.
You mention water sources. I do not mind you educating me on this and from what little you have inferred it is certainly got the feel of something nefarious or untoward.
XL Pipeline was a recent case. There have been many where native treaty-protected rights have been threatened by
large scale projects though. Dams and such.
Same with differing schooling or what have you but then again IF there is a free option for schooling and a private option and most people go to public schooling then absolutely they should have that right BUT they ought not have the right that only the upper middle class who pay for it have because most people do not have THAT right. So IF you are saying that Native kids do not get the option to go to public school then I agree this should be remedied - perhaps they don't and you can educate me there too, Happy to learn.
Public schooling is usually paid for largely by locality. Both money and overall quality is predicated upon the wealth
of the area. Disadvantaged groups tend to be clumped into areas where the schools are worse - and
unable to afford to live where they are better. Likewise though, if private schools are an advantage, we are
again favoring the 'haves' to continue to be in that position, by putting better schooling out of the reach
of the disadvantaged.
As for paying off natives or whomever else, which Natives and at what point is a native considered a native and to whom do you take money off? Which people actually have wronged the Native people? Any of them still alive?
Corporations are people too! Governments which facilitated the damage. It gets tougher with individuals.
If not then maybe their descendants should pay? But then not only did their descendants not do anything BUT you will find a lot of the descendants from older families who have ancestors that were around at the time of the massacre and removal of Native People also have Native blood themselves.
If such an individual payment were determined (unlikely), I guess they could transfer some of the gain their family
made off the improper actions to those harmed - including themselves. I'd imagine that there would be thresholds
for determining damage (both caused and suffered) which would preclude being in both camps at once though.
Maybe it should come from the Government, but then the government does not have it's own money, that money comes from people mainly by way of taxes and levies from the public which again is indifferently going to run into same issues as above.
Traditionally, this is how govt. wrongs are corrected.
But, if you read my last sentence again, you'd see that I'm not talking full reparations, or anything like them.
I'm suggesting that we ought to stop our currently oppressive policies which keep the poor that way. Things
like regressive taxes.
-
When did he prove he was intellectually dishonest? Missed that?
Oh, I took that from your description of how he ignores many of the salient facts, and only puts forth those which support
his argument. Which comported with the one topic (Southern Shift) that I paid attention to. In that example,
it qualifies as intellectual dishonesty.
-
LIke Dinesh, you give an alternative point of view certainly worth considering. Much can be argued either way on things and we can get into the weeds over things and question the minutiae but I think as food for thought it has merits.
-
When did he prove he was intellectually dishonest? Missed that?
Oh, I took that from your description of how he ignores many of the salient facts, and only puts forth those which support
his argument. Which comported with the one topic (Southern Shift) that I paid attention to. In that example,
it qualifies as intellectual dishonesty.
You see in the videos he ignore no contested claims. Rather his assertions he makes strongly and boldly. People have suggested he should be (paraphrased) meeker with his claims and disclaim and water them down a little. I don't think so. I think that making strong claims is good, it makes each of us think and question our knowledge and our principles and values. Makes us re-assess. I think that is good.
-
Milo the paedo apologist? No, I wouldn't characterise him as smart.
He is a very smart guy. He is not a paedo apologist either.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/milo-yiannopoulos-resigns-from-breitbart-following-paedophile-comments-a7592416.html
Not very bright, if you ask me.
-
Milo the paedo apologist? No, I wouldn't characterise him as smart.
He is a very smart guy. He is not a paedo apologist either.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/milo-yiannopoulos-resigns-from-breitbart-following-paedophile-comments-a7592416.html
Not very bright, if you ask me.
Oh I saw, saw the context, knew the hows and why.
-
When did he prove he was intellectually dishonest? Missed that?
Oh, I took that from your description of how he ignores many of the salient facts, and only puts forth those which support
his argument. Which comported with the one topic (Southern Shift) that I paid attention to. In that example,
it qualifies as intellectual dishonesty.
You see in the videos he ignore no contested claims. Rather his assertions he makes strongly and boldly. People have suggested he should be (paraphrased) meeker with his claims and disclaim and water them down a little. I don't think so. I think that making strong claims is good, it makes each of us think and question our knowledge and our principles and values. Makes us re-assess. I think that is good.
If you prefer the tools of the ideologue. Of course, those are precisely how we get to a situation
where neither side will listen when the other has valid points.
Certainly, in a learned colloquium, which the vid I watched appeared to be, the level of dismissal that I saw was unacceptable.
On the other hand, [size=78%]for popular consumption, he seems willing enough to entertain questions.[/size]
-
But, if you read my last sentence again, you'd see that I'm not talking full reparations, or anything like them.
I'm suggesting that we ought to stop our currently oppressive policies which keep the poor that way.
That's what the guy in the video says too. Establishing equality, rather than trying to correct history. Or maybe you've been agreeing with the video guy and I missed that. :dunno:
-
Milo Y is a troll, and I would never deny that he is very good at it. The purpose behind most of what he says is to get under people’s skin and gain notoriety, and through his notoriety he is able to make a substantial income. Good for him, he has a right to free speech and he uses that right to his own benefit. He is seen by some as a champion of the alt-right, but the reality is that they hate him as much as the progressive left hate him. Like most trolls, he is best ignored, unless you find his trolling entertaining (which I don't).
Dinesh D doesn’t, from what I’ve seen, seem worth the effort. Those videos are from his YouTube channel and he appears to see them as great examples of him pwning the progressives who oppose his points of view. As I said, I flicked through the video and watched two exchanges. In one he avoided addressing a student’s valid points about privilege by steering well away from what the student was saying and going to an apparently pre-canned ad hominem attack on the student, attempting to label him a hypocrite for not giving up his spot as a student to a less privileged person. An ad hominem attack is, of course, a logical fallacy. In the second exchange he employed a different logical fallacy, which could be variously described as a false dichotomy, an “all or nothing” logical fallacy, or a false dilemma, regarding the recognition of land rights for indigenous peoples. Recognizing one group’s rights to a piece of land does not require unravelling every single change of ownership that took place everywhere in the world, ever. Regarding Al’s question on how much it would cost to compensate Native Americans (or any other indigenous people) for the wrongs done to them and for the land stolen from them… the amount would, of course, be astronomical, and such a level of compensation would be impractical to implement. BUT if you can reach an agreement with a group of indigenous people that rights some of the wrongs of the past, an agreement that both parties are happy with, how is this precluded by the impossibility of righting every wrong ever?
I admire Al’s patience in wading through the output from people like Milo Y and Dinesh D for the gems of well supported and logically sound wisdom that they must serve up occasionally. I don’t have the patience for that, if people are presenting bollocks to me and claiming it as some pyrrhic victory over the progressives, then I’m going to move on and try to find someone to listen to who can do a little better.
-
Milo the paedo apologist? No, I wouldn't characterise him as smart.
He is a very smart guy. He is not a paedo apologist either.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/milo-yiannopoulos-resigns-from-breitbart-following-paedophile-comments-a7592416.html
Not very bright, if you ask me.
Oh I saw, saw the context, knew the hows and why.
If it's taken out of context and he is actually not a paedo apologist, by some miracle, then he is not very bright because he is feeding his opposition with enough ammo to have him removed, which a smarter person would know to avoid.
I'll go with MOSW's assertion that he is a troll.
-
What is not in dispute by anyone, including Milo, is Milo being an apologist for sexual relationships between adults and minors.
-
Milo Y is a troll, and I would never deny that he is very good at it. The purpose behind most of what he says is to get under people’s skin and gain notoriety, and through his notoriety he is able to make a substantial income. Good for him, he has a right to free speech and he uses that right to his own benefit. He is seen by some as a champion of the alt-right, but the reality is that they hate him as much as the progressive left hate him. Like most trolls, he is best ignored, unless you find his trolling entertaining (which I don't).
Dinesh D doesn’t, from what I’ve seen, seem worth the effort. Those videos are from his YouTube channel and he appears to see them as great examples of him pwning the progressives who oppose his points of view. As I said, I flicked through the video and watched two exchanges. In one he avoided addressing a student’s valid points about privilege by steering well away from what the student was saying and going to an apparently pre-canned ad hominem attack on the student, attempting to label him a hypocrite for not giving up his spot as a student to a less privileged person. An ad hominem attack is, of course, a logical fallacy. In the second exchange he employed a different logical fallacy, which could be variously described as a false dichotomy, an “all or nothing” logical fallacy, or a false dilemma, regarding the recognition of land rights for indigenous peoples. Recognizing one group’s rights to a piece of land does not require unravelling every single change of ownership that took place everywhere in the world, ever. Regarding Al’s question on how much it would cost to compensate Native Americans (or any other indigenous people) for the wrongs done to them and for the land stolen from them… the amount would, of course, be astronomical, and such a level of compensation would be impractical to implement. BUT if you can reach an agreement with a group of indigenous people that rights some of the wrongs of the past, an agreement that both parties are happy with, how is this precluded by the impossibility of righting every wrong ever?
I admire Al’s patience in wading through the output from people like Milo Y and Dinesh D for the gems of well supported and logically sound wisdom that they must serve up occasionally. I don’t have the patience for that, if people are presenting bollocks to me and claiming it as some pyrrhic victory over the progressives, then I’m going to move on and try to find someone to listen to who can do a little better.
I dunno. I don't see life as that simple. Black hats and white hats. Goodies and Baddies. Right and Wrong. It would be easier but not as interesting.
I am opinionated but I often hear things that I respect, for all I disagree with them.
Life is complicated and no one has the perfect answers to everything. Not even me. Some people can be contradictory and hypocritical and stupid and many other things and occasionally make great points. Some people are the opposite very smart most of the time BUT sometimes say the most stupid, mindly, wrong-headed, hypocritical and /or ontradictory things.
I sure as Hell do.
-
Milo the paedo apologist? No, I wouldn't characterise him as smart.
He is a very smart guy. He is not a paedo apologist either.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/milo-yiannopoulos-resigns-from-breitbart-following-paedophile-comments-a7592416.html
Not very bright, if you ask me.
Oh I saw, saw the context, knew the hows and why.
If it's taken out of context and he is actually not a paedo apologist, by some miracle, then he is not very bright because he is feeding his opposition with enough ammo to have him removed, which a smarter person would know to avoid.
I'll go with MOSW's assertion that he is a troll.
Quite simply there are two things to take into context. Milo was abused as a teenager and did not want to define himself as a victim and went to great lengths to distance himself. When he talked of himself and his abuse he downplayed and mocked himself. The second thing is he spoke openly about "young boys" and older men. No one questioned how old these "young boys" were or the older men and they jumped to the assumption that he was talking about paedophilia AND out of context it sounds like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGpzHVfwO4
-
http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/milo-yiannopolous-pedophilia-transcript-pederasty-video-full-sex-boys-men-catholic-priest-cpac-quotes/
Here is the actual transcript.
He is actually advocating relationships between adult men and post-pubescent boys in their early teens.
Technically it is pederasty rather than pedophilia that Milo is advocating.
I guess he was trying to be controversial, as usual, and for once his instincts (for not straying too far outside the boundaries of acceptability) failed him
-
Hebephilia would be the appropriate match to pedophilia.
-
Milo the paedo apologist? No, I wouldn't characterise him as smart.
He is a very smart guy. He is not a paedo apologist either.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/milo-yiannopoulos-resigns-from-breitbart-following-paedophile-comments-a7592416.html
Not very bright, if you ask me.
Oh I saw, saw the context, knew the hows and why.
If it's taken out of context and he is actually not a paedo apologist, by some miracle, then he is not very bright because he is feeding his opposition with enough ammo to have him removed, which a smarter person would know to avoid.
I'll go with MOSW's assertion that he is a troll.
Quite simply there are two things to take into context. Milo was abused as a teenager and did not want to define himself as a victim and went to great lengths to distance himself. When he talked of himself and his abuse he downplayed and mocked himself. The second thing is he spoke openly about "young boys" and older men. No one questioned how old these "young boys" were or the older men and they jumped to the assumption that he was talking about paedophilia AND out of context it sounds like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGpzHVfwO4
Why is it important to you to excuse this particular creep? There is little doubt over what he advocates.
-
Milo the paedo apologist? No, I wouldn't characterise him as smart.
He is a very smart guy. He is not a paedo apologist either.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/milo-yiannopoulos-resigns-from-breitbart-following-paedophile-comments-a7592416.html
Not very bright, if you ask me.
Oh I saw, saw the context, knew the hows and why.
If it's taken out of context and he is actually not a paedo apologist, by some miracle, then he is not very bright because he is feeding his opposition with enough ammo to have him removed, which a smarter person would know to avoid.
I'll go with MOSW's assertion that he is a troll.
Quite simply there are two things to take into context. Milo was abused as a teenager and did not want to define himself as a victim and went to great lengths to distance himself. When he talked of himself and his abuse he downplayed and mocked himself. The second thing is he spoke openly about "young boys" and older men. No one questioned how old these "young boys" were or the older men and they jumped to the assumption that he was talking about paedophilia AND out of context it sounds like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGpzHVfwO4
Why is it important to you to excuse this particular creep? There is little doubt over what he advocates.
No doubt to you. I can not say the same. I think the creeps of the world need no defence. Harvey Weinsteins of the world needs whatever is coming to them. See there is a real difference between saying something stupid one time for whatever reason, and talking that out of all context, exaggerating and reaching the worst conclusions you can, using that to basis for presenting you worldview and every motive of that person, then denounce every defence they make, apology, put pressure on them to suffer financially and such.
There is a difference between these two positions and even more than that, him having been a victim himself of pedophilia and yes he has been a champion against pedophiles (you guys remember when his exposee about Sarah Nyberg came out....no it was not politically advantageous for the narrative, but I do).
Yet one time he says something questionable and suddenly he is something he is not. It does not matter how many times previously he had denounced pedophiles. It does not matter how he had exposed them. It does not matter that nothing he has done is suggestive of him acting on or being attracted to children nor associating with those that do (the opposite is true).
Yet everything is "clear" to you? NO! It isn't.
The weight of all the above is enough to give any thinking person pause and if not dismiss one instance of saying something as like he said a mixture of tiredness, talking about himself and not wanting to sound like a victim and using young boy in the way that gays do to men young man.
Me? I think people can say some really dumb shit and I have nothing to pin the perceptioon on outside of this one incident. If he keeps saying stuff like this OR we see real creepy behaviour or we have something other than this one thing come up then I think the weight of a gotcha moment is lost on me.
-
I give you a rather devastating criticism of Mr D'Souza's debating style:
Derp derp derp derp derpity derp. ...
... Derp derp derp derpity derp.
Rational Wiki is a rabid, Left wing ideologue site. There isn't a single lick of objectivity there and all they do is smear pieces on people they don't like.
-
http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/milo-yiannopolous-pedophilia-transcript-pederasty-video-full-sex-boys-men-catholic-priest-cpac-quotes/
Here is the actual transcript.
He is actually advocating relationships between adult men and post-pubescent boys in their early teens.
Technically it is pederasty rather than pedophilia that Milo is advocating.
I guess he was trying to be controversial, as usual, and for once his instincts (for not straying too far outside the boundaries of acceptability) failed him
Milo is always pushing boundaries, when you do that you will cross lines from time to time.
-
Yet one time he says something questionable and suddenly he is something he is not. It does not matter how many times previously he had denounced pedophiles. It does not matter how he had exposed them. It does not matter that nothing he has done is suggestive of him acting on or being attracted to children nor associating with those that do (the opposite is true).
Nothing? He talked in his sleep? He misspoke? A slip of the tongue?
Yeah, right.
-
I give you a rather devastating criticism of Mr D'Souza's debating style:
Derp derp derp derp derpity derp. ...
... Derp derp derp derpity derp.
Rational Wiki is a rabid, Left wing ideologue site. There isn't a single lick of objectivity there and all they do is smear pieces on people they don't like.
OTOH, D'Souza is a rabid conservative without a single lick of objectivity. You just happen to approve of what he says.
-
Yet one time he says something questionable and suddenly he is something he is not. It does not matter how many times previously he had denounced pedophiles. It does not matter how he had exposed them. It does not matter that nothing he has done is suggestive of him acting on or being attracted to children nor associating with those that do (the opposite is true).
Nothing? He talked in his sleep? He misspoke? A slip of the tongue?
Yeah, right.
So, this is a tangent that will probably now piss everyone off in this thread, but I honestly remember at the time reading the *descriptions* of what he said vs the *transcript* of what he said and did feel like he got shredded because what he said sounded worse out of context than it did in context.
That said, on a re-read, I'm landing somewhere in the middle. It sounds like he's correct in distinguishing what pedophilia definitionally is vs isn't in terms of perpetrator psychology, but isn't correct in thinking about brain vs. body development when thinking about consent and power differentials in teens vs adults, which is extremely problematic. And it sounds like he did clarify that he wasn't just talking about may-december relationships (which are gross imo, but if they're between adults, whatevs), but was talking about teens whose bodies are developed but whose brains aren't.
Now, to be super-sure I'm pissing everyone off here, I'll add this: This is a good example of where culture and education play a role in social sexual mores, not just "intuitive morality." If you really don't understand (or believe) that the body can be developed as visually "sexually mature" long before the brain is developed enough to really give consent (particularly to an adult, where there's an incredible power differential), what does that do to how you think about adolescent sexuality, and what you deem as OK?
-
Well, i wasn't "in this thread" so I don't count , I guess.
But far from being pissed-off by El's post , I just had to plus her for for open-mindedly considering the issue from all angles.
Thanks for the breath of fresh air, El
-
Assuming an 80 year lifespan, May-December would be 33 and 80. If you wanted to push to an age where
most teens are not emotionally prepared, and a person of Milo's age, it would be more late February-May, no?
Weird terminology. And I can't even blame it on earlier lifespans, because, among those who lived past
childhood, the actual lifespan was not all that different from today's.
-
I looked up May-December relationships on Urban Dictionary, and it says May refers to spring, and December, winter. Spring as in youth, winter as in old.
-
From what I can see searching etymology sites, that is correct - originating in Chaucer with May-January.
Which makes more sense - January still has enough wood (as opposed to February - the very end of winter)
and May is late enough in Spring that it wouldn't be considered too young for maybe even a modern audience,
and certainly not in Middle English period.
So, Milo would be advocating more of an April-June/July relationship? :G
-
I have no idea. I thought spring started in May. January is usually more cold than December, even though December is considered the winter month.
-
I give you a rather devastating criticism of Mr D'Souza's debating style:
Derp derp derp derp derpity derp. ...
... Derp derp derp derpity derp.
Rational Wiki is a rabid, Left wing ideologue site. There isn't a single lick of objectivity there and all they do is smear pieces on people they don't like.
OTOH, D'Souza is a rabid conservative without a single lick of objectivity. You just happen to approve of what he says.
You have forgotten the posts I made about him several years ago, mocking his positions on religion.
Christopher Hitchens tore him a new asshole in those debates.
-
I have no idea. I thought spring started in May. January is usually more cold than December, even though December is considered the winter month.
March 21st is the equinox - which is considered the start of spring. By May, they should be fully legal, even if the flowers bloom
in early April. :orly:
-
Yes, you’re right. It’s well into spring by May. Why did I think May? :dunno:
-
I give you a rather devastating criticism of Mr D'Souza's debating style:
Derp derp derp derp derpity derp. ...
... Derp derp derp derpity derp.
Rational Wiki is a rabid, Left wing ideologue site. There isn't a single lick of objectivity there and all they do is smear pieces on people they don't like.
OTOH, D'Souza is a rabid conservative without a single lick of objectivity. You just happen to approve of what he says.
You have forgotten the posts I made about him several years ago, mocking his positions on religion.
Christopher Hitchens tore him a new asshole in those debates.
So you don't approve of what he says?
-
Yes, you’re right. It’s well into spring by May. Why did I think May? :dunno:
You gotta do your plowing well before that. >:D
-
I give you a rather devastating criticism of Mr D'Souza's debating style:
Derp derp derp derp derpity derp. ...
... Derp derp derp derpity derp.
Rational Wiki is a rabid, Left wing ideologue site. There isn't a single lick of objectivity there and all they do is smear pieces on people they don't like.
OTOH, D'Souza is a rabid conservative without a single lick of objectivity. You just happen to approve of what he says.
You have forgotten the posts I made about him several years ago, mocking his positions on religion.
Christopher Hitchens tore him a new asshole in those debates.
So you don't approve of what he says?
Does this even need to be said?? I judge what he says on a case by case basis because even though he has his biases, he puts effort into thinking out his positions and trying to square them with facts.
Rational Wiki, on the other hand, was taken over about a decade ago by SJW Puritans and turned into a propaganda site. They do have some good science articles but nothing that can't be found at Wikipedia or other science oriented sites. Any article they have about a person is based solely on ideology and whether or not they consider that person to be a heretic. Just look at the articles they have on Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins.
-
All right, my mistake.
I disagree with you re Rational Wiki's D'Souza appraisal, though. They pretty much nailed it.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpSl1LTGKyY
Milo loves to troll but he doesn't much like being held accountable for his words.
-
All right, my mistake.
I disagree with you re Rational Wiki's D'Souza appraisal, though. They pretty much nailed it.
So you think he's a Domestically violent Mall Ninja?? :rofl:
-
Yet one time he says something questionable and suddenly he is something he is not. It does not matter how many times previously he had denounced pedophiles. It does not matter how he had exposed them. It does not matter that nothing he has done is suggestive of him acting on or being attracted to children nor associating with those that do (the opposite is true).
Nothing? He talked in his sleep? He misspoke? A slip of the tongue?
Yeah, right.
So, this is a tangent that will probably now piss everyone off in this thread, but I honestly remember at the time reading the *descriptions* of what he said vs the *transcript* of what he said and did feel like he got shredded because what he said sounded worse out of context than it did in context.
That said, on a re-read, I'm landing somewhere in the middle. It sounds like he's correct in distinguishing what pedophilia definitionally is vs isn't in terms of perpetrator psychology, but isn't correct in thinking about brain vs. body development when thinking about consent and power differentials in teens vs adults, which is extremely problematic. And it sounds like he did clarify that he wasn't just talking about may-december relationships (which are gross imo, but if they're between adults, whatevs), but was talking about teens whose bodies are developed but whose brains aren't.
Now, to be super-sure I'm pissing everyone off here, I'll add this: This is a good example of where culture and education play a role in social sexual mores, not just "intuitive morality." If you really don't understand (or believe) that the body can be developed as visually "sexually mature" long before the brain is developed enough to really give consent (particularly to an adult, where there's an incredible power differential), what does that do to how you think about adolescent sexuality, and what you deem as OK?
Milo was sexually abused as a young teen. I think only someone either ignorant, stupid or immoral would not at least look at what he said and say "Who is he talking about as the teenager in this situation? Is he talking about himself and trying to justify what was done to him?"
Now a logical next step is to say "Well, maybe it is and maybe it is not. So let's examine what else we know of him, to put it into perspective. Was there any reason he may try to downplay his sexual abuse and the relationship he had? Why would he not wish to be seen as a victim? Has he done or said anything that may send a contrary or opposing message to the pedophilia apologist or pedophile label so easily stuck to him?"
Well to the first point - Absolutely! Part of Milo's schtick is to say "I am no one's whipping boy and I am not afraid of anything (threatened violence, death threats, bannings and so on)". He is not afraid of being Gay Jewish and Conservative. None of his persona lends it to admitting he was a victim.
To the second point, not only has he been a staunch critic of pedophilia but has written exposees of pedophiles at personal risk of defamation suits and the like and has been a staunch critique of pedophiles.
No one seems to wish to partake of this critical analysis because they do not like him and it is easier to hold to ideologically driven narrative without examining context there. Personally I think it intellectually dishonest but no matter. My opinion is my opinion.
-
All right, my mistake.
I disagree with you re Rational Wiki's D'Souza appraisal, though. They pretty much nailed it.
So you think he's a Domestically violent Mall Ninja?? :rofl:
I think the description was fairly accurate. :zoinks:
-
Yet one time he says something questionable and suddenly he is something he is not. It does not matter how many times previously he had denounced pedophiles. It does not matter how he had exposed them. It does not matter that nothing he has done is suggestive of him acting on or being attracted to children nor associating with those that do (the opposite is true).
Nothing? He talked in his sleep? He misspoke? A slip of the tongue?
Yeah, right.
So, this is a tangent that will probably now piss everyone off in this thread, but I honestly remember at the time reading the *descriptions* of what he said vs the *transcript* of what he said and did feel like he got shredded because what he said sounded worse out of context than it did in context.
That said, on a re-read, I'm landing somewhere in the middle. It sounds like he's correct in distinguishing what pedophilia definitionally is vs isn't in terms of perpetrator psychology, but isn't correct in thinking about brain vs. body development when thinking about consent and power differentials in teens vs adults, which is extremely problematic. And it sounds like he did clarify that he wasn't just talking about may-december relationships (which are gross imo, but if they're between adults, whatevs), but was talking about teens whose bodies are developed but whose brains aren't.
Now, to be super-sure I'm pissing everyone off here, I'll add this: This is a good example of where culture and education play a role in social sexual mores, not just "intuitive morality." If you really don't understand (or believe) that the body can be developed as visually "sexually mature" long before the brain is developed enough to really give consent (particularly to an adult, where there's an incredible power differential), what does that do to how you think about adolescent sexuality, and what you deem as OK?
Milo was sexually abused as a young teen. I think only someone either ignorant, stupid or immoral would not at least look at what he said and say "Who is he talking about as the teenager in this situation? Is he talking about himself and trying to justify what was done to him?"
Now a logical next step is to say "Well, maybe it is and maybe it is not. So let's examine what else we know of him, to put it into perspective. Was there any reason he may try to downplay his sexual abuse and the relationship he had? Why would he not wish to be seen as a victim? Has he done or said anything that may send a contrary or opposing message to the pedophilia apologist or pedophile label so easily stuck to him?"
Well to the first point - Absolutely! Part of Milo's schtick is to say "I am no one's whipping boy and I am not afraid of anything (threatened violence, death threats, bannings and so on)". He is not afraid of being Gay Jewish and Conservative. None of his persona lends it to admitting he was a victim.
To the second point, not only has he been a staunch critic of pedophilia but has written exposees of pedophiles at personal risk of defamation suits and the like and has been a staunch critique of pedophiles.
No one seems to wish to partake of this critical analysis because they do not like him and it is easier to hold to ideologically driven narrative without examining context there. Personally I think it intellectually dishonest but no matter. My opinion is my opinion.
I think only someone either ignorant, stupid or immoral would ignore Milo's words, regardless of context, because they lack consistency. :M
-
Milo was sexually abused as a young teen. I think only someone either ignorant, stupid or immoral would not at least look at what he said and say "Who is he talking about as the teenager in this situation? Is he talking about himself and trying to justify what was done to him?"
Well, duh.
But, without saying this is cause to condemn him as a terrible human being, his perspective can still be wrong, and still have the potential to promote terrible, harmful behavior. So, does what was done to him make his opinion correct, or moral, or OK?
-
Just to add, should Milo not be held accountable for his words because he sucked a priest's cock when he was 14, and claims it to have been a positive experience for him?
Holding Milo accountable for the shit that he says is a vital service to the public that might be influenced by his words and to Milo himself, as it might inspire him to engage his brain in future before speaking.
-
Just to add, should Milo not be held accountable for his words because he sucked a priest's cock when he was 14, and claims it to have been a positive experience for him?
Holding Milo accountable for the shit that he says is a vital service to the public that might be influenced by his words and to Milo himself, as it might inspire him to engage his brain in future before speaking.
So, the joke he makes about the priest having taught him how to give good head, while dark and horrible, is also his joke to make, IMO. I don't think that was supposed to be normalizing or actually saying it was OK, I think it was supposed to be dark humor about the shit he went through. (I think that might have been the main thing I was frustrated with the media condemning him for saying, iirc, but I'm not 100% sure.)
It's the normalizing of adults dating teenagers as relationships that I found problematic, because that wasn't a joke, that was an expressed worldview (at least, the way I read it). If the only controversial thing he said was that joke, I'd fall firmly on the side of he has the right to make dark jokes about his own trauma.
-
It's the normalizing of adults dating teenagers as relationships that I found problematic, because that wasn't a joke, that was an expressed worldview.
I'm troubled by many sides of this. While some teens may not be in a position to make this judgement, I really don't
like the idea of making a blanket removal of their right to determine their own future. In general, I'm disturbed by
actions a society takes to inhibit the liberty of the individual.
I don't think the difference (for me) between say 15 and 20 (when I finally dipped my doinker) would make much
difference internally. I'm not sure ANY age there would - I'd still be easily won over to love - only experience
that came directly from those engagements meant anything, and even that not too much. The small sampling of
females I've been close enough to really get a sense of this from seem to hold to the same stance.
If it's not the effect on the youth, then what do we base it on? Emotional age difference? I'm still a child there -
paralyzed by fears and weakness; that's never likely to change. Physical? Well, certainly by now I'm falling to
crap, but I was about as fit at 35 as at 18 - and better than at 15. Survivability? If so, why not frown just
as heavily on a ten year gap later in life?
The only difference that I see is actually the freedom that society allows at certain age barriers. Therein
may lie certain power differentials. So, if society wasn't fucking it all up for the young to begin with,
it shouldn't be an issue. :P
-
Just to add, should Milo not be held accountable for his words because he sucked a priest's cock when he was 14, and claims it to have been a positive experience for him?
Holding Milo accountable for the shit that he says is a vital service to the public that might be influenced by his words and to Milo himself, as it might inspire him to engage his brain in future before speaking.
So, the joke he makes about the priest having taught him how to give good head, while dark and horrible, is also his joke to make, IMO. I don't think that was supposed to be normalizing or actually saying it was OK, I think it was supposed to be dark humor about the shit he went through. (I think that might have been the main thing I was frustrated with the media condemning him for saying, iirc, but I'm not 100% sure.)
It's the normalizing of adults dating teenagers as relationships that I found problematic, because that wasn't a joke, that was an expressed worldview (at least, the way I read it). If the only controversial thing he said was that joke, I'd fall firmly on the side of he has the right to make dark jokes about his own trauma.
Yup it is gallows humour. Those who pretend that this is actually an ideological position of Milo's and that he is defending Pedophilia are not really genuine. What this actually amounts to is a gotcha moment that they have created and they will willfully hold to this narrative of him being a paedophile apologist (or paedophile himself) regardless of ANYTHING said or done to the contrary or regardless of ANYTHING to otherwise explain things.
They do not like him and so therefore he must have "...but he said once..." thrown back at him and out of context to explain EVERYTHING.
"But hang on, HE was a victim of sexual abuse, I hardly think he was honestly saying he supports that"
"But he said once..."
"Wasn't this gallows humour and him making light of something pretty painful from his past that HE did not want to feel a victim about?"
"But he said once..."
"But has he not placed himself at harm in exposing paedophiles himself?"
"But he said once..."
It is dishonest and you know why they do it? I will show you:
Holding Milo accountable for the shit that he says is a vital service to the public that might be influenced by his words and to Milo himself, as it might inspire him to engage his brain in future before speaking.
This pretty much lays it out. "He has to be accountable" and By God you all are going to keep him accountable and stick this to him and with righteous indignation, right? Doesn't matter if you have misunderstood, misconstrued or had to make any number of mental gymnastics to arrive to the point where the victim of paedophilia is now responsible for pedophilia...you do it with righteous conviction and you will "Make him accountable". Damn truth and honesty, damn logic and empathy. Fuck it all you are a moral steward and YOU will hold him accountable.....for being forced to have oral sex with a man as a kid and not following your specific view of how to normalise this experience.
What a moral champion!
-
Not sure who Al was ranting at, because (if I understood right) he was expressing same view as most everybody else.
But he said it with real passon, conviction and empathy. So I really liked that speech. Besides which, I do very much agree.
I happen to know people who were sexually abused as little kids (don't we all? but do we all know people who finally came out and talked about it?) and have heard the gallows humour before. It's so hard for people to talk about their own personal experiences at all , it's cruel and obstructive to expect them be PC abouut it.
One very , very awful and very common problem such people have is this: on some level (if only on a physical level) they experienced pleasure diring that abuse ; and then guilt, shame and confusion on acount of that pleasure. And that plagues them and plagues them til their dying day, if they don't ever learn to open up. From the victim's POV it's a complex experience and that complexity tears them apart. They don't feel they way they "ought" to feel able it, and that's a massive hurdle to get over. It's a crying shame if someone finally gets over that hurdle, only to find they're being judged by some uncomprehending idiot.
So :plus: to Al for that one.
That point really does need hammering home.
-
Someone I used to know was abused in their early teens by their uncle. The uncle used to offer money to her so he could do unspeakable things. She would take the money. It's because of this that she thought all the abuse that happened was her fault. I couldn't convince her otherwise. :(
-
Someone I used to know was abused in their early teens by their uncle. The uncle used to offer money to her so he could do unspeakable things. She would take the money. It's because of this that she thought all the abuse that happened was her fault. I couldn't convince her otherwise. :(
you have to try to explain it in terms that the child would understand, because it's as if that part of the person's pyche never grows up. It gets stuck inside the triauma. Often the adult understands pererfectly well that it wasn't their fault, but that doesn't stop them feeling las if it it was their fault. They become dissociated and it's not easy to reach accross that gulf between self and self.
Much easier said than done, of course. It needs time, much time and reassurance. Never give up ( But don't push it either, ofc)
That said, I guess it's too late now, by your usage of past tense?
Well :hug: to you both , in any case
-
Thank you, Walkie. Yes it is past tense. She used to be a very good friend. However her mental illnesses were starting to rub onto me so I severed ties. It was hard to do that but I had to protect myself.
-
Thank you, Walkie. Yes it is past tense. She used to be a very good friend. However her mental illnesses were starting to rub onto me so I severed ties. It was hard to do that but I had to protect myself.
Heck, i know what that's like too .
hope you're done with the self-reproaching :hug:
-
Thank you, Walkie. Yes it is past tense. She used to be a very good friend. However her mental illnesses were starting to rub onto me so I severed ties. It was hard to do that but I had to protect myself.
Heck, i know what that's like too .
hope you're done with the self-reproaching :hug:
Yeah I have for the most part. It was a long time ago.
-
Not sure who Al was ranting at, because (if I understood right) he was expressing same view as most everybody else.
But he said it with real passon, conviction and empathy. So I really liked that speech. Besides which, I do very much agree.
I happen to know people who were sexually abused as little kids (don't we all? but do we all know people who finally came out and talked about it?) and have heard the gallows humour before. It's so hard for people to talk about their own personal experiences at all , it's cruel and obstructive to expect them be PC abouut it.
One very , very awful and very common problem such people have is this: on some level (if only on a physical level) they experienced pleasure diring that abuse ; and then guilt, shame and confusion on acount of that pleasure. And that plagues them and plagues them til their dying day, if they don't ever learn to open up. From the victim's POV it's a complex experience and that complexity tears them apart. They don't feel they way they "ought" to feel able it, and that's a massive hurdle to get over. It's a crying shame if someone finally gets over that hurdle, only to find they're being judged by some uncomprehending idiot.
So :plus: to Al for that one.
That point really does need hammering home.
"Expressing the same views as everyone here?"
Milo the paedo apologist? No, I wouldn't characterise him as smart.
If it's taken out of context and he is actually not a paedo apologist, by some miracle, then he is not very bright because he is feeding his opposition with enough ammo to have him removed, which a smarter person would know to avoid.
What is not in dispute by anyone, including Milo, is Milo being an apologist for sexual relationships between adults and minors.
http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/milo-yiannopolous-pedophilia-transcript-pederasty-video-full-sex-boys-men-catholic-priest-cpac-quotes/
Here is the actual transcript.
He is actually advocating relationships between adult men and post-pubescent boys in their early teens.
Technically it is pederasty rather than pedophilia that Milo is advocating.
I guess he was trying to be controversial, as usual, and for once his instincts (for not straying too far outside the boundaries of acceptability) failed him
Why is it important to you to excuse this particular creep? There is little doubt over what he advocates.
Nothing? He talked in his sleep? He misspoke? A slip of the tongue?
Yeah, right.Nothing? He talked in his sleep? He misspoke? A slip of the tongue?
Yeah, right.
I think only someone either ignorant, stupid or immoral would ignore Milo's words, regardless of context, because they lack consistency.
Could you please re-read what I said and indeed what El has said about this and then contextualise that in respect to these quotes?
-
I'll have to admit that I, too, wondered how Walkie could possibly think that your opinion was the same as everyone else's here. My only explanation is that she fell asleep halfway through one of your longer posts. In which case I wouldn't blame her.
Rest assured that I, for one, do not share your views on Milo. :M
-
Is THAT what all those words in so many posts are for?
-
I'll have to admit that I, too, wondered how Walkie could possibly think that your opinion was the same as everyone else's here.
oops, well, I have to confess- I was skim-reading a lot of the conrtibutions cos it was coming across like a bit of a puch-and Judy argument, not exactly :
My only explanation is that she fell asleep halfway through one of your longer posts. In which case I wouldn't blame her.
:lol1: sorry to have to pass up that highly tempting get-out, but it was more like falling asleep partway down a somewhat tedious page. Can't put all of it on Al!
Anyway, in this instance ,I was going by a handful of preceding posts, and not reading those attentively enough, I guess. Or my brain was misfiring, or summat, because my
impression was that -iirrespective of their ovwerall opinion on Milo- most people here were defending his right, and the right of all victims of sexual abuse, to talk about their own trauma in any way they damned well chose.
I should note here : that was the only point of general agreement that I saw (or imagined I saw) though. Shoulda made that clear in my post.
Could you please re-read what I said and indeed what El has said about this and then contextualise that in respect to these quotes?
Might re-read El's post later . Actually I only came here for a quick catch up! But couln't decently pasd over this one. I already read your post 2-3 times before plussing, Al ,so I do believe I got the gist of it OK,...unless you tell me otherwise?
But given your reply Odeon's reply, and your quotes , I'm happy to stand corrected re. my reading of other people on those bases alone. And I do apologise to anyone who might have taken offense
-
I'll have to admit that I, too, wondered how Walkie could possibly think that your opinion was the same as everyone else's here.
oops, well, I have to confess- I was skim-reading a lot of the conrtibutions cos it was coming across like a bit of a puch-and Judy argument, not exactly :
My only explanation is that she fell asleep halfway through one of your longer posts. In which case I wouldn't blame her.
:lol1: sorry to have to pass up that highly tempting get-out, but it was more like falling asleep partway down a somewhat tedious page. Can't put all of it on Al!
Anyway, in this instance ,I was going by a handful of preceding posts, and not reading those attentively enough, I guess. Or my brain was misfiring, or summat, because my
impression was that -iirrespective of their ovwerall opinion on Milo- most people here were defending his right, and the right of all victims of sexual abuse, to talk about their own trauma in any way they damned well chose.
I should note here : that was the only point of general agreement that I saw (or imagined I saw) though. Shoulda made that clear in my post.
Could you please re-read what I said and indeed what El has said about this and then contextualise that in respect to these quotes?
Might re-read El's post later . Actually I only came here for a quick catch up! But couln't decently pasd over this one. I already read your post 2-3 times before plussing, Al ,so I do believe I got the gist of it OK,...unless you tell me otherwise?
But given your reply Odeon's reply, and your quotes , I'm happy to stand corrected re. my reading of other people on those bases alone. And I do apologise to anyone who might have taken offense
Well I disagree with the opinions of others here and their seeming want to stand on the moral soapbox of disgust in paedophile apologia to ironically blame the victim of paedophilia. It just grates on me a little. A lot of what Milo says is bloody stupid and a lot very apt an insightful and I more than suspect the only reason they choose to do these mental gymnastics is an ideological difference and a want to have a gotcha moment to tarnish him with paedophilia no matter how ridiculous and yes I believe immoral it is to do so. But that is only my opinion and in the grand scheme of things neither here nor there.
-
OTOH, it seems to me that you'd very much like to ignore his, um, cross-age relational remarks because you agree with other things he says.
-
OTOH, it seems to me that you'd very much like to ignore his, um, cross-age relational remarks because you agree with other things he says.
Ignore? I do not know how you could possibly say that? I have not let his remarks float on by. I have heard them, processed them, contextualised them and made defence of him saying them? That is like the complete opposite to ignoring it.
Whenever he said shit about Father Michael, I did not laugh. There was nothing to laugh about. It was cringy but more than cringy. It was sad. Proper kind of sad. I pitied him. You know that adult that laughs off physical abuse in their childhood and creates a narrative of that is how things were back then or that it was good for them because it toughened them up or that they were really naughty and deserved it? Or that little kid who has a group of friends that all treat him like absolutely shit all the time an dhe still hangs around them thinking wrongly that they are all mates and they care and respect him? Or perhaps the girl who screws any male that shows interest in hoping to form an emotional attachment and believing that these guys would see her as easy actually like her?
That is the kind of thing I see with Milo. Him laughing and trying to normalise NOT others experiences BUT his own experience. He is okay. He is NOT a victim. He wanted it and it was fine with him and he was not taken advantage of. He is fine. Sometimes it is okay. Because it was okay with him. It must be if he is not a victim. Have another laugh. Make another self-depreciating joke.
But he is a victim. I do not know what he was more scared of. Recognising it himself or other people to clue on to the fact that he was a victim. I suspect the latter. He was a victim. Always was. It does not detract from other stuff he says necessarily but in these things it is pretty easy for anyone to contextualise exactly what happened and be able to NOT accuse him of paedophila apologia. That would be ignorant at absolute best and immoral at worst.
So, no, I far from ignored what he said.
-
Or perhaps the girl who screws any male that shows interest in hoping to form an emotional attachment and believing that these guys would see her as easy actually like her?
An interesting take, and a construction certainly supported by the society which you and I grew up in,
but why single out the female?
What motivations should we attribute to the male who acts in the same manner?
-
OTOH, it seems to me that you'd very much like to ignore his, um, cross-age relational remarks because you agree with other things he says.
Ignore? I do not know how you could possibly say that? I have not let his remarks float on by. I have heard them, processed them, contextualised them and made defence of him saying them? That is like the complete opposite to ignoring it.
Whenever he said shit about Father Michael, I did not laugh. There was nothing to laugh about. It was cringy but more than cringy. It was sad. Proper kind of sad. I pitied him. You know that adult that laughs off physical abuse in their childhood and creates a narrative of that is how things were back then or that it was good for them because it toughened them up or that they were really naughty and deserved it? Or that little kid who has a group of friends that all treat him like absolutely shit all the time an dhe still hangs around them thinking wrongly that they are all mates and they care and respect him? Or perhaps the girl who screws any male that shows interest in hoping to form an emotional attachment and believing that these guys would see her as easy actually like her?
That is the kind of thing I see with Milo. Him laughing and trying to normalise NOT others experiences BUT his own experience. He is okay. He is NOT a victim. He wanted it and it was fine with him and he was not taken advantage of. He is fine. Sometimes it is okay. Because it was okay with him. It must be if he is not a victim. Have another laugh. Make another self-depreciating joke.
But he is a victim. I do not know what he was more scared of. Recognising it himself or other people to clue on to the fact that he was a victim. I suspect the latter. He was a victim. Always was. It does not detract from other stuff he says necessarily but in these things it is pretty easy for anyone to contextualise exactly what happened and be able to NOT accuse him of paedophila apologia. That would be ignorant at absolute best and immoral at worst.
So, no, I far from ignored what he said.
Reread what I wrote.
-
Or perhaps the girl who screws any male that shows interest in hoping to form an emotional attachment and believing that these guys would see her as easy actually like her?
An interesting take, and a construction certainly supported by the society which you and I grew up in,
but why single out the female?
What motivations should we attribute to the male who acts in the same manner?
Have understood the accepted motivation for men being sluts is to impress other males. Either that or it's excused as some uncontrollable innate evolutionary biological drive to produce as many offspring as possible.
-
Have understood the accepted motivation for men being sluts is to impress other males. Either that or it's excused as some uncontrollable innate evolutionary biological drive to produce as many offspring as possible.
Shallow generalizations are just that. Sometimes true, of course.
But, especially where societal effects are in play, they do not suffice even as generalizations
during times of change.
-
Have understood the accepted motivation for men being sluts is to impress other males. Either that or it's excused as some uncontrollable innate evolutionary biological drive to produce as many offspring as possible.
Shallow generalizations are just that. Sometimes true, of course.
But, especially where societal effects are in play, they do not suffice even as generalizations
during times of change.
How does the current understanding of reproductive instinct not suffice as a generalization? What makes evolutionary psychology credible is certain behaviors are universally prevalent in any society.
-
Biological behavior is not constant.
-
OTOH, it seems to me that you'd very much like to ignore his, um, cross-age relational remarks because you agree with other things he says.
Ignore? I do not know how you could possibly say that? I have not let his remarks float on by. I have heard them, processed them, contextualised them and made defence of him saying them? That is like the complete opposite to ignoring it.
Whenever he said shit about Father Michael, I did not laugh. There was nothing to laugh about. It was cringy but more than cringy. It was sad. Proper kind of sad. I pitied him. You know that adult that laughs off physical abuse in their childhood and creates a narrative of that is how things were back then or that it was good for them because it toughened them up or that they were really naughty and deserved it? Or that little kid who has a group of friends that all treat him like absolutely shit all the time an dhe still hangs around them thinking wrongly that they are all mates and they care and respect him? Or perhaps the girl who screws any male that shows interest in hoping to form an emotional attachment and believing that these guys would see her as easy actually like her?
That is the kind of thing I see with Milo. Him laughing and trying to normalise NOT others experiences BUT his own experience. He is okay. He is NOT a victim. He wanted it and it was fine with him and he was not taken advantage of. He is fine. Sometimes it is okay. Because it was okay with him. It must be if he is not a victim. Have another laugh. Make another self-depreciating joke.
But he is a victim. I do not know what he was more scared of. Recognising it himself or other people to clue on to the fact that he was a victim. I suspect the latter. He was a victim. Always was. It does not detract from other stuff he says necessarily but in these things it is pretty easy for anyone to contextualise exactly what happened and be able to NOT accuse him of paedophila apologia. That would be ignorant at absolute best and immoral at worst.
So, no, I far from ignored what he said.
Reread what I wrote.
I did
-
Biological behavior is not constant.
It can be accepted as constant in present tense, considering how long evolutionary changes take. It's also consistent enough to support generalizations. It's not believed biology controls psychology, but is accepted human psychology has a biological source. Some people lack appreciation for certain fields of study, because it's impossible to be an exact science. Is that where this is going? Or is this leading to a discussion of souls and free will?
-
What makes evolutionary psychology credible is certain behaviors are universally prevalent in any society.
The same observation is frequently cited in support of transpersonal pychology; and is consistent with most schools of psychology. . So , no, it doesn't "make evolutionary pychology credible" not unless you view through the lens of confirmation bias :green:
-
Biological behavior is not constant.
It can be accepted as constant in present tense, considering how long evolutionary changes take. It's also consistent enough to support generalizations. It's not believed biology controls psychology, but is accepted human psychology has a biological source. Some people lack appreciation for certain fields of study, because it's impossible to be an exact science. Is that where this is going? Or is this leading to a discussion of souls and free will?
Not evolution. Environmental impact. In particular, regarding breeding rates.
-
What makes evolutionary psychology credible is certain behaviors are universally prevalent in any society.
:indeed:
An old friend of mine is a professor of Evolutionary Psychology at UCLA.
One of the primary things they look at is behaviors and beliefs that are constant throughout cultures and time.
-
Biological behavior is not constant.
It can be accepted as constant in present tense, considering how long evolutionary changes take. It's also consistent enough to support generalizations. It's not believed biology controls psychology, but is accepted human psychology has a biological source. Some people lack appreciation for certain fields of study, because it's impossible to be an exact science. Is that where this is going? Or is this leading to a discussion of souls and free will?
Not evolution. Environmental impact. In particular, regarding breeding rates.
I see. Different discussions then. The advent of birth control probably complicates any theory on breeding, and population growth seems to be less about breeding and more about life expectancy.
-
What makes evolutionary psychology credible is certain behaviors are universally prevalent in any society.
The same observation is frequently cited in support of transpersonal pychology; and is consistent with most schools of psychology. . So , no, it doesn't "make evolutionary pychology credible" not unless you view through the lens of confirmation bias :green:
This is reminding me of a conversation with an old member here, who once asked the question if human intuition favored belief in god. Took the stance that the history of humans suggests it to be true. Spirituality/religion is a divided and debated area of evolutionary psychology and not fully accepted as innate, because it's difficult for some to reconcile spirituality as anything other than acquired knowledge. While transpersonal psychology appears to attempt at being a finer tuned subset field of evolutionary psychology, it only seems to stand out as different from the evolutionary psychology of religion by assigning truth to spiritual beliefs, rather than simply recognizing that humans as a whole have possibly always believed spiritual things.
-
Spirituality/religion is a divided and debated area of evolutionary psychology and not fully accepted as innate, because it's difficult for some to reconcile spirituality as anything other than acquired knowledge. While transpersonal psychology appears to attempt at being a finer tuned subset field of evolutionary psychology,
:scratchhead:
Evolutionary psychology is a branch that is closest tied to neuroscience and cognitive science.
From what I've seen of transpersonal psychology, it's mostly woo.
-
Spirituality/religion is a divided and debated area of evolutionary psychology and not fully accepted as innate, because it's difficult for some to reconcile spirituality as anything other than acquired knowledge. While transpersonal psychology appears to attempt at being a finer tuned subset field of evolutionary psychology,
:scratchhead:
Evolutionary psychology is a branch that is closest tied to neuroscience and cognitive science.
From what I've seen of transpersonal psychology, it's mostly woo.
While data from neuroscience is utilized, view it as more closely tied to psychology. It just maintains that certain human behaviors are so timeless and ubiquitous to be considered as evolutionary adaptations which have aided in the survival of the species. In essence, some human behaviors aren't learned behavior. Agreed on the woo. :laugh: Though religion is still a branch studied in evolutionary psychology; it's just a lot more objective due to focus on the behavior rather than the details of spirituality. Some might consider them both woo. Still, have a few times considered the likelihood that the human tendency for spirituality might not need to be taught.
-
Still, have a few times considered the likelihood that the human tendency for spirituality might not need to be taught.
The reason why it's so interesting some intellectuals maintain that religion is an evolutionary adaptation, is because it's also a fundamental concept in Christianity is that all people are born with knowledge of god. *shrugs*
-
Biological behavior is not constant.
It can be accepted as constant in present tense, considering how long evolutionary changes take. It's also consistent enough to support generalizations. It's not believed biology controls psychology, but is accepted human psychology has a biological source. Some people lack appreciation for certain fields of study, because it's impossible to be an exact science. Is that where this is going? Or is this leading to a discussion of souls and free will?
Not evolution. Environmental impact. In particular, regarding breeding rates.
I see. Different discussions then. The advent of birth control probably complicates any theory on breeding, and population growth seems to be less about breeding and more about life expectancy.
I don't think it's different. Even absent technological solutions, the breeding imperative has been historically
tampered with by behavioral changes. Homosexuality, asexuality, and other habits have arisen at key
points in societies. The core point being that there is no constant behavior.
-
I am very much an atheist (technically I'm a tooth-fairy atheist). But I'm pretty convinced that there is something going on in terms of an innate sense of spirituality in humans. The sense that we are interconnected somehow to something greater than ourselves could easily be explained in evolutionary terms.
-
OTOH, it seems to me that you'd very much like to ignore his, um, cross-age relational remarks because you agree with other things he says.
Ignore? I do not know how you could possibly say that? I have not let his remarks float on by. I have heard them, processed them, contextualised them and made defence of him saying them? That is like the complete opposite to ignoring it.
Whenever he said shit about Father Michael, I did not laugh. There was nothing to laugh about. It was cringy but more than cringy. It was sad. Proper kind of sad. I pitied him. You know that adult that laughs off physical abuse in their childhood and creates a narrative of that is how things were back then or that it was good for them because it toughened them up or that they were really naughty and deserved it? Or that little kid who has a group of friends that all treat him like absolutely shit all the time an dhe still hangs around them thinking wrongly that they are all mates and they care and respect him? Or perhaps the girl who screws any male that shows interest in hoping to form an emotional attachment and believing that these guys would see her as easy actually like her?
That is the kind of thing I see with Milo. Him laughing and trying to normalise NOT others experiences BUT his own experience. He is okay. He is NOT a victim. He wanted it and it was fine with him and he was not taken advantage of. He is fine. Sometimes it is okay. Because it was okay with him. It must be if he is not a victim. Have another laugh. Make another self-depreciating joke.
But he is a victim. I do not know what he was more scared of. Recognising it himself or other people to clue on to the fact that he was a victim. I suspect the latter. He was a victim. Always was. It does not detract from other stuff he says necessarily but in these things it is pretty easy for anyone to contextualise exactly what happened and be able to NOT accuse him of paedophila apologia. That would be ignorant at absolute best and immoral at worst.
So, no, I far from ignored what he said.
Reread what I wrote.
I did
I'm trying to be charitable here but if you insist: you really need to work on your reading comprehension.
-
I am very much an atheist (technically I'm a tooth-fairy atheist). But I'm pretty convinced that there is something going on in terms of an innate sense of spirituality in humans. The sense that we are interconnected somehow to something greater than ourselves could easily be explained in evolutionary terms.
Agreed. It's one of those constant behaviors.
-
I am very much an atheist (technically I'm a tooth-fairy atheist). But I'm pretty convinced that there is something going on in terms of an innate sense of spirituality in humans. The sense that we are interconnected somehow to something greater than ourselves could easily be explained in evolutionary terms.
Agreed. It's one of those constant behaviors.
Almost constant. There have apparently been rare instances of remote tribes whose people do not appear to believe in God/s and an afterlife.
It's funny how some people seem to think that because we have an innate tendency to believe in spiritual shit then that makes it more likely to be real. I would have thought it would lead to the opposite conclusion.
-
There have apparently been rare instances of remote tribes whose people do not appear to believe in God/s and an afterlife.
Can you cite any examples? It's my understanding that all of these remote tribes, at bare minimum, believe in some form of animism or pantheism.
It's funny how some people seem to think that because we have an innate tendency to believe in spiritual shit then that makes it more likely to be real. I would have thought it would lead to the opposite conclusion.
I agree, and nowhere is this more evident than in the SJW/PC wing of the atheist and skeptical movement. Social Justice Intersectionality has become their new dogmatic religion.
-
It's funny how some people seem to think that because we have an innate tendency to believe in spiritual shit then that makes it more likely to be real.
As Jung pointed out, that makes it a real psychological object, worthy of serious study as such. This was a big impovement on Freud's simplistic, ultra- reductionist notion that it was all about sublimated sexuality.
However, when you ask the question how objectively "real" these spritual objects such as God are? then you get into very murky waters; much the same murky waters that modern physicists find themselves in. eg, one's definition of objective reality inevitably shifts towards the "unreal" (or non-physical) . And there's and increasing difficulty with disentangling "objective" and "subjective"
Still, if just dip a toe into those murky waters , it quicky becomes evident that our beliefs about "God" and such are so highlly subjective as to reveal a great more about the believer than they do about this objective persence called God (if such exists) . A result that the atheist can reasonably crow about!
That kinda chimes with Jesus' oft-ignored declaration that the "kindom of Heaven is within you", methinks. That is: buried under so very much subjective rubbish, that you'd have to practicallypeel away your entire personality to find it. Though that wouldn't necessarilyy make it unreal . Could be super-real instead, couldn't it?
-
There have apparently been rare instances of remote tribes whose people do not appear to believe in God/s and an afterlife.
Can you cite any examples? It's my understanding that all of these remote tribes, at bare minimum, believe in some form of animism or pantheism.
There are the Pirahã people who apparently do not believe in God/s, but they do believe in spirits which can take on the form of animals. So there is some level of woo involved. I remember seeing a documentary on these people a few years ago, a white dude was trying to explain to a Pirahã man why he believed in Jesus and God and the Pirahã man just laughed at him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3
The following is interesting, it popped up when I was googling the Pirahã. I've got my doubts seeing as it is apparently based on a single source.
https://www.thoughtco.com/atheism-and-agnosticism-s2-248347
Will Durant has done a great service by preserving information about skeptical attitudes towards religion and theism from so-called "primitive," non-European cultures. I have not been able to find this information elsewhere and it runs contrary to common assumptions. If religion can be defined as the worship of supernatural forces — an inadequate definition, but one which serves for most purposes — then it must be admitted that some cultures have little or no religion at all.
As Durant explains, certain Pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no gods, no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers' reports.
-
It's funny how some people seem to think that because we have an innate tendency to believe in spiritual shit then that makes it more likely to be real. I would have thought it would lead to the opposite conclusion.
I agree, and nowhere is this more evident than in the SJW/PC wing of the atheist and skeptical movement. Social Justice Intersectionality has become their new dogmatic religion.
Go on, tell us how you really feel about SJWs. :evillaugh:
I can't really see how believing in social justice is a religion.
-
It's funny how some people seem to think that because we have an innate tendency to believe in spiritual shit then that makes it more likely to be real.
As Jung pointed out, that makes it a real psychological object, worthy of serious study as such. This was a big impovement on Freud's simplistic, ultra- reductionist notion that it was all about sublimated sexuality.
However, when you ask the question how objectively "real" these spritual objects such as God are? then you get into very murky waters; much the same murky waters that (1) modern physicists find themselves in. eg, one's definition of objective reality inevitably shifts towards the "unreal" (or non-physical) . And there's and increasing difficulty with disentangling "objective" and "subjective"
Still, if just dip a toe into those murky waters , it quicky becomes evident that our beliefs about "God" and such are so highlly subjective as to reveal a great more about the believer than they do about this objective persence called God (if such exists) . A result that the atheist can reasonably crow about!
(2) That kinda chimes with Jesus' oft-ignored declaration that the "kindom of Heaven is within you", methinks. That is: buried under so very much subjective rubbish, that you'd have to practicallypeel away your entire personality to find it. Though that wouldn't necessarilyy make it unreal . Could be super-real instead, couldn't it?
(1) Got a source for that? I'm not calling you out, I'm genuinely interested.
(2) Belief systems are a complicated entanglement of early social conditioning (beliefs about the nature and the existence of God was drummed into myself and almost everyone I know from the time they were a baby) and (probably) evolutionary psychology - an innate tendency to experience and believe in the spiritual, and toss in a healthy serve of wishful thinking (who doesn't want to live in paradise forever with their loved ones?).
I like to "tune out" my skeptical voice (that probably doesn't make much sense to most of you) when I go to a cathedral (I've been to a few of the world's great cathedrals) or a tribal religious ceremony or even sometimes a museum. And that "feeling" you sometimes get of the presence of God or spirits is possibly an innate part of what it is to be human, the result of millions of years of evolution, or at least it seems that way to me. But at the end of the day I'm still an empiricist, a tooth fairy atheist.
-
I can't really see how believing in social justice is a religion.
Because "Social Justice" is based on the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism and Marxism is a secular religion.
-
I like to "tune out" my skeptical voice (that probably doesn't make much sense to most of you) when I go to a cathedral (I've been to a few of the world's great cathedrals) or a tribal religious ceremony or even sometimes a museum. And that "feeling" you sometimes get of the presence of God or spirits is possibly an innate part of what it is to be human, the result of millions of years of evolution, or at least it seems that way to me. But at the end of the day I'm still an empiricist, a tooth fairy atheist.
As someone who walks the line between pure skepticism and mysticism, I do something similar,
but draw the power into myself for my own use.
-
I can't really see how believing in social justice is a religion.
Because "Social Justice" is based on the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism and Marxism is a secular religion.
Utter bullshit. This is wrong in so many ways that it doesn't actually deserve a serious response.
-
I can't really see how believing in social justice is a religion.
Because "Social Justice" is based on the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism and Marxism is a secular religion.
Utter bullshit. This is wrong in so many ways that it doesn't actually deserve a serious response.
I disagree with Marxism being a secular religion. The rest is spot on.
-
Social justice is based on human decency. Something that is often sadly lacks Ng in n its opponents.
-
Social justice is based on human decency. Something that is often sadly lacks Ng in n its opponents.
Naive
-
I can't really see how believing in social justice is a religion.
Because "Social Justice" is based on the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism and Marxism is a secular religion.
Utter bullshit. This is wrong in so many ways that it doesn't actually deserve a serious response.
I disagree with Marxism being a secular religion. The rest is spot on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice
:yawn:
-
Social justice is based on human decency. Something that is often sadly lacks Ng in n its opponents.
If you believe that, then you're what Social Justice leaders call a "useful idiot".
-
I can't really see how believing in social justice is a religion.
Because "Social Justice" is based on the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism and Marxism is a secular religion.
I disagree with Marxism being a secular religion. The rest is spot on.
Then you have to disagree with hundreds of scholars who have identified it as such.
It contains the basic ideas of Christianity; Sin (capitalism), Redemption (adherence to Marxist doctrine) and Heaven on Earth (the Marxist State).
This is especially true of North Korea which was described by Christopher Hitchens as the most religious country on earth, who worshiped the Kim family as gods. One of Hitchens famous quotes was (paraphrasing) "after reading the biblical description of Heaven, it struck me as little more than a celestial North Korea".
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice#Liberation_theology
:LMAO:
-
I disagree with Marxism being a secular religion.
It shows many of the same properties that a religion does. Then again, I hold that scientism is a secular religion.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice#Liberation_theology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice#Liberation_theology)
:LMAO:
There's nothing secular about liberation theology. It's directly drawn from the New Testament.
Interestingly, Marxist Economics are well in alignment with medieval, Aristotelian principles, insofar as they are formalized.
What's surprising is how far the Catholic Church (Protestants are more understandable here) from those views.
-
It's funny how some people seem to think that because we have an innate tendency to believe in spiritual shit then that makes it more likely to be real.
As Jung pointed out, that makes it a real psychological object, worthy of serious study as such. This was a big impovement on Freud's simplistic, ultra- reductionist notion that it was all about sublimated sexuality.
However, when you ask the question how objectively "real" these spritual objects such as God are? then you get into very murky waters; much the same murky waters that (1) modern physicists find themselves in. eg, one's definition of objective reality inevitably shifts towards the "unreal" (or non-physical) . And there's and increasing difficulty with disentangling "objective" and "subjective"
Still, if just dip a toe into those murky waters , it quicky becomes evident that our beliefs about "God" and such are so highlly subjective as to reveal a great more about the believer than they do about this objective persence called God (if such exists) . A result that the atheist can reasonably crow about!
(2) That kinda chimes with Jesus' oft-ignored declaration that the "kindom of Heaven is within you", methinks. That is: buried under so very much subjective rubbish, that you'd have to practicallypeel away your entire personality to find it. Though that wouldn't necessarilyy make it unreal . Could be super-real instead, couldn't it?
(1) Got a source for that? I'm not calling you out, I'm genuinely interested.
(2) Belief systems are a complicated entanglement of early social conditioning (beliefs about the nature and the existence of God was drummed into myself and almost everyone I know from the time they were a baby) and (probably) evolutionary psychology - an innate tendency to experience and believe in the spiritual, and toss in a healthy serve of wishful thinking (who doesn't want to live in paradise forever with their loved ones?).
I like to "tune out" my skeptical voice (that probably doesn't make much sense to most of you) when I go to a cathedral (I've been to a few of the world's great cathedrals) or a tribal religious ceremony or even sometimes a museum. And that "feeling" you sometimes get of the presence of God or spirits is possibly an innate part of what it is to be human, the result of millions of years of evolution, or at least it seems that way to me. But at the end of the day I'm still an empiricist, a tooth fairy atheist.
(1) Can't cite a source as such. It's an impression that's grown in my mind over the course of decades, finding confirmation in multiple souces of info. Already pretty well formed i my youth , when I was taking a big interest in Mathematics and Physics, in a quest to understand the Universe on a fundamental level. Later I drifted towards Psychology, because I felt (and still fel) that the processes of perception and cognition are more fundamental to our understanding of tbe Universe than "objective reality" is. I'm also attracted by the notion that matter may be the creation of mind, rather than vice-versa (though that would be to see "mind" as a sort of universal substance, in accordance with Buddhism, not to suppose that out indivdual minds have much impact on the whole) In any case , our perceptions of the material world (and other people especially ) are certainly a creation of our individual minds, and subject all to kinds of bias and intersting errors.
Oops, i'm rambling. I think that The Tao of Physics (Fritjof Kapra) had the biggest impact on me in terms of crystallising my own impressions re. Physics, and finding support for my vatious theories and opinions, That book was published way back in the seventies, but it still gets rave reviews , so that might actually be the best thing thing to cite as a "source" .
(2) I think our relationship with religion is actually a lot more complex and interesting than that. With reference to Jung again: the recurring mythological themes in religion (as well as ...umm... mythology ) are said to correspond to inborn psychological archetypes. Evolution is clearly implicated in providing our minds with these archetypes, but that's not to suppose that their purpose is purely biological. They become all the more intersting in the latter part of life, when ourr biological role is largely spent (yeah, you can call that sublimation, but that theory doesn't take you very far. You need to drop it, hypothetically, before you can really begin get to grips with this stuff). Anyway, most of this archetypal material is unconscious, of course. According to Jung (and according to my own observations) our unconscious minds are a damned sight bigger than our consciopus mind (or ego) and contain a lot of undeveloped potential, not merely repressed material.
When archetypal material impinges on the conscious mind , it tends to have a numinous feeling, as if one were in contact with something much greater than onself. Which indeed is the case . But to mistake it for the "voice of God" can have some nasty consequences, as we;'ve seen. It can also have sublime consequences, but best to leave God out of it.
The one thing we humans can say about God with any certainty is that our human brains (or our human mind-sets, more to the point) are far too small to encompass him, so the best we can do is create and recreate him in our own image. The idea that we can realistically describe , define and speak for him is sheer arrogance.
I see "spirituality " and "religion" as two opposite ends of a spectrum. "spiritualiy" represents that semnse of connection with something larger than oneself, together with a sincere attempt to comprehend it, whereas Religion results from the formalisation and ossification of spiritual experience, and is often utilised to destructive, primitive and/or egotistic ends. Any call for blind faith in some immutable doctrine is bound to run counter to the growth of understanding , isn't it? Looks to me (from the evidence of the Gospels) like Jesus was a highly spiritual sort of guy, but that Christianity has largely misappropriated that spirituality. That said Christianity works on a spiritual level , in a fashion, because the potency of its symbols can inspire that sense of connection, but then the various doctrines and institutions work to discourage the convert from developing his own understanding. Same goes for other religions, of course, even Buddhism. Siiddharta Gautama spoke out against the worship of graven images (as did Moses) and how do most his followers repond to his sage advice? By worshipping graven images of Siddharta Gautama :LOL:
Corrupt as heck, but a harmless response to a harmless human need , I should think. Not a problem, really, not until people start insisting that the everybody else adopt the exact same symbols and rituals . Then it becomes repressive. But those repressions are not promped by spirituality , but more by a drive to put a lid on spirituality , and reduce life down to a simple set of explit rules. Other non-religious docrines serve the same pupose and excite the same fervour as people on this board have often pointed out. It's all exceedingly human and natural (God help us! :LOL:)
-
^ P.S. actually there's one important practical reason for exploring this unconscious, archetypal material, that is: so long as it remains unconscious and unadmitted by the ego , it causes havoc, socially. We inevitably project it all onto other people , resiuting in witch-hunts, daft infatuations, mayhem, injustice and murder. (you name it!) .
I do believe he Buddhist emphass on compassion and the Chistain emphasis on brotherly love both reflect the fact that nothing short of true concern for his fellow man, and genuine regret for past failures can make your average human being turn and look himself inthe face. Our self-love would much sooner look away and create a comfortable illusion., because the truth looks pretty damned ugly at first sight . But that ugliness is just the result of being out-of-balance. It can be redeemed, though not by reciting catechisms, but rather by slowly and cautiously expanding the ego to integrate all the rejected material. (quickly and incautiously can literally drive you mad)
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice#Liberation_theology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice#Liberation_theology)
:LMAO:
There's nothing secular about liberation theology. It's directly drawn from the New Testament.
Interestingly, Marxist Economics are well in alignment with medieval, Aristotelian principles, insofar as they are formalized.
What's surprising is how far the Catholic Church (Protestants are more understandable here) from those views.
Well, technically, you're right but my point is the overlap between Frankfurt Marxism and certain types of Christian theology.
Frankfurt Marxism is arguably a mirror image of Christian Identity and Nazi propaganda, simply with the "good" races and "bad" races reversed.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice
:yawn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfizfy6wD54
-
(1) Can't cite a source as such. It's an impression that's grown in my mind over the course of decades, finding confirmation in multiple souces of info. Already pretty well formed i my youth , when I was taking a big interest in Mathematics and Physics, in a quest to understand the Universe on a fundamental level. Later I drifted towards Psychology, because I felt (and still fel) that the processes of perception and cognition are more fundamental to our understanding of tbe Universe than "objective reality" is. I'm also attracted by the notion that matter may be the creation of mind, rather than vice-versa (though that would be to see "mind" as a sort of universal substance, in accordance with Buddhism, not to suppose that out indivdual minds have much impact on the whole) In any case , our perceptions of the material world (and other people especially ) are certainly a creation of our individual minds, and subject all to kinds of bias and intersting errors.
The scientific method is IMO still, by far, the best way we have of understanding the universe. Of peeling back the layers of reality.
Every now and then we come across weird shit that makes no sense at all, but that tends to be where the biggest advances come from. If you are measuring the speed of light from a distant source, for example, you would expect that if the Earth were orbiting away from that light source the speed would appear slower than if the Earth were orbiting towards that light source. But once we were able to measure the speed of light accurately enough to make such observations we noticed.... it seemed to be hitting Earth at exactly the same speed. Of course that all made perfect sense once Einstein came up with the theory of relativity.
Quantum physics makes very little sense to me. A cat can be both alive and dead at the same time and it's not even a zombie cat or a vampire cat?
(http://mitrafarmand.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/schrodingers-cat.jpg)
And the double slit experiment we all did at school. The beams of light act like waves and interfere with each other, causing a wave pattern. But if you fire electrons one at a time at a double slit you still get an interference pattern, even though the electron can only travel through one slit. Turns out that the electron takes every possible path that it can take, not just the path that it appears to take. I still don't understand that shit, but there are valid theories that explain such phenomena.
-
Quantum mechanics is also widely misunderstood. You don't ever get to meet the two cats. :P
-
LOL'd at the Schrödinger's vet thing, tho. Brilliant.
-
As for discussing social justice, I doubt there is a meaningful discussion to be had with Scrap on that front. It's all cute pejoratives and name-dropping for him.
Physics is far more interesting.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice
:yawn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfizfy6wD54
As I said elsewhere
When your sewer break, how many times will you have a woman come to fix it? What about when you need your high rise window washed? What about when you someone to build your home? Now it MAY be that the reason you do not see many women is because they are pressured not to and the over-representation of males in this area is due to discrimination.
That is one theory BUT I would hazard a guess that it has FAR more to do with the fact that men and women are different and make different choices when it comes to work-life decisions. Look I will even go one step further I will say that MOST of the women that rail against over-representation both have NOT EVER seriously considered working in the roles they say are over-represented by men (or roles over-represented by men generally) AND were it to be mandatory that THEY take on these roles or ANY women HAVE to take on these roles to make up numbers on some enforced representation tally, they would baulk.
I think MY theories have far more legs than the Patriarchial over-representation theory.
Progressivism is bullshit virtue signalling. It is all about feelings and no substance. "It's about social justice!".....really? Isn't it a whine by people that cannot embrace realities? Isn't it a disingenuous to cherry pick their offences without having to back their commitments with any reasonable alternatives? See it all sounds nice and reasonable and righteous until It has to stand up to actual reality. The fact is IF anyone wants to allow choice then the outcomes are reflected by choices and the outcomes good or bad are a result of the choices made. If a lady wants to be a teacher or a nurse, that is a choice and she is free to make that choice BUT she cannot then gripe if her husband earns more than her because he chose a field that pays more. They both had choices. She also has no reasonable leg to stand on if she makes broad claims about her female friends and colleagues about their lack of earnings if they by and large make less pay-centric choices.
It is not about social justice or righting a wrong.......it is a whinge.
Society sure as shit should not pander to this kind of unfettered bullshit.
This is my humble opinion.
-
(1) Can't cite a source as such. It's an impression that's grown in my mind over the course of decades, finding confirmation in multiple souces of info. Already pretty well formed i my youth , when I was taking a big interest in Mathematics and Physics, in a quest to understand the Universe on a fundamental level. Later I drifted towards Psychology, because I felt (and still fel) that the processes of perception and cognition are more fundamental to our understanding of tbe Universe than "objective reality" is. I'm also attracted by the notion that matter may be the creation of mind, rather than vice-versa (though that would be to see "mind" as a sort of universal substance, in accordance with Buddhism, not to suppose that out indivdual minds have much impact on the whole) In any case , our perceptions of the material world (and other people especially ) are certainly a creation of our individual minds, and subject all to kinds of bias and intersting errors.
The scientific method is IMO still, by far, the best way we have of understanding the universe. Of peeling back the layers of reality.
'...
I'm not inclined to disagree with that... much, especially not in the light of the examples you gave, which displayed a much better understanding of the scientific method than most people have. (At the other extreme, I am heartily sick of people uncritically accepting the conclusions of badly -designed experiments, supported by dubious logic and unfounded assumptions, because that's scientific innit? The really scary thing is that many of those people call themselves "scientists " and have bits of paper to prove it)
I have every respect for proper science, conducted by intelligent and more-ir-less open -minded people. The increasing volume of empirical evidence for all these increasingly "woo" theoies is to our credit as a species, methinks. It shows that we can not only think outside the box (on occasion) but , little-by-little, expand the box . That said, even Einstein found quantum therory too counter-intuitive for his tastes. "God does not play dice" he declared. An interesting declation. Not only does it show that he reached his personal limit as regards expanding the box (no shame on him. We all have our limits, and out prejudices) ; it also demonstates that the supposed incompatibliity betwen religion and Science is a fiction., founded on low-grade reasoming and bias. Yeah, yeah, I know thaty's just one little bit of anecdotal evidence, but you can find a load more if you look for it. An awful lot of the ground-breaking scientists do profess a belief in God. And why not? A rigourous proof of the non-existence of God so elusive as to be unimaginable...if we honestly apply our reason to the issue.
You're certainly not alone , btw. I read somewhere (I forget where) that no physicist really feels that they "understand" Relativity, not on a gut level . They just can't argue with maths, and the growing weight of empical evidence. I do recall that observation came from a theoretical Physicist , mind, so I should think he had access to the opinions of fair number of the same.
Me, I think that what we accept as "common -sense" is bound to be profoundly influenced by the inconvenient fact that we're three-dimenionsal (or four , if you count time) massive objects (compared to say an electron) living at the bottom of a gravitational well. Even Newton's laws of Motion seem counter-intuitive from that perspective. I should think your average man would find them laughable, if not for the fact that the media have effectively made outer space into a part of our everyday consciousness. Accepting that those Laws are merely an approximation of something (Relativity) that drags even futher outside our everyday experience is , naturally enough , extremely difficult. But that's already to analyse the theory from a psychological perspective isn't it? which is something I've found myself increasingly fasinated by.
Part of my dissatisfaction with text-book physics was that it indulges in circular definitions and doesn't trouble to define it's axioms, doesn't even seem to notice that it has any axioms , as such. If that's supposed to make sense to the student (and it usually does make sense to student, much to my consternation ) then, heck, we're training people up to embrace a really shoddy way of thinking. IMO: a way of thinking that could easily allow all kinds of groundless bias to slop through as undisputed facts. That wouldn't happen in Pure Maths, (but then Pure Maths has no need to trouble itself with the nature of "reality") Oh! hang on, that actually does happen in Pure Maths, at School level, because most syllabi leave the fundamental stuff like Axiomatics to degree level. I was lucky enough to get a bit of sneak preview at 13-14, on account of rhe weirdy syllabus my school had adopted . However, 14-14 is still a biyt too old, IMO, cos most of my peers had lost their mental flexcibilty by then, and found all those new concepts pretty damned daunting, even though the maths wasn pretty simple) and expanded on that preview with private study, with the help of my wonderful Maths Mistress (who actually lent me some of her Uni. texbooks, and didn't care if they totally distracted me from logs) .
Later on , in Physics classes (which i did as a mature student, cos I'd flunked out of Physics pretty early on at school, through stuggling too hard to make sense of all the unsupported assertons. It gets a whole lot easier to understand those concepts at more advanced levels, because the theory is more thoroughly presented) I used to spot all the silly mistakes (and over-simplifications to the point of absurdity) in the textbooks, and not because I'm awsomely intelligent, but just because I was thinking everything through from first principles (as near as was feasible) and not blindlyttaking anybody's word for anything (Well, the exact same reasdon why I flunked out earlier, indeed :LOL: But it proved a considerabl;e advantage here). That nobody else, not even the tutor ever spotted said silly mistakes, but just wrote them down as if they were gospel really troubled me.
Yep, I have a bitch with the way kids are educated, you might have noticed? I think it's pretty anazing that somebody can get through all that without losing the requisite flexibility of mind tjhat it takes to be an Einstein. But oh! wait! wasn't Einstein thought to be retarded? Isn't Einstein though t to dave been autisic ? Didn't Einstein stuggle to keop up, like most of us spazzes.? So he had to learn to think for himself. That's what's missing in modern Western Education, by and large. We're mostly educuted to absorb information uncrutically, with a view to getting good grades in the exams. That question "what the fuck are we doing to our children's minds?" eventually became a damn sight more intersting and relevant to me that pondering the Theory of Everything. Well. that's one way to socialise a spazz :LOL:
Undfortunately, psychological theory is not , oir the most part, amenable to empirical investigation. A lot of it is, but more of it isn't . We cam't just discard the stuff that isn't , and patiently wait for Science to catch up. We can't because we're social animals, and we;re highly conscious animals; and we're actually applying our own half-baked theories all the time ,as we move about the world inteacting with each other. What's more, we're also applying a bunch of unconscious biases to our inderstanding of scientific research. We can't afford to wait for Science to catch up. And Science is not even gonna have a fair chance to catch up, at that rate
Your average human being is so far deficient in understanding that he thinks it's man's innate intelligence that's responsible for all this "sientific progress" and likes basks in the resplected glory . Ofc it isn't, It;s communication and social organisation, together with occasional flashes of unusual intelligence that's responsible. Nobody needs to re-invent the wheel. or else we'd all be stuck in the stone age.
Another thing that disillusioned me withl Physics (much though it's concepts turned me on) is our utterly stupid misuse of every advance. The first thing the human race thought to do with the equivalence of matter and energy was to ba really terrifying weapon of Mass Destruction., wasn't it? And we've no way of stopping that kind of stupidiy taking overl. If the requisite infrastructure is there, then blind socio-econimic forces will see the job to compltrion, never mind how horror-struck most of us are. I simply don;t beieve that Modern Civilisation can survive unless we somehow develop sufficient psychologiical maturity to enable us predict and prevent such oucomes.
Well, I think it's probably to late to save Modern Civilisation, But at least we can improve our own minds, and improve our relationships with others by shifting the emhasis to psychological development, rather than technological development. That's worth doing. And the best place to start, IMO, is by getting some kind of handle on our own , personal subjective reality. Of course that won't have much in common with objective reality. The thing is to notice that fact (there are clues all over the place), accept ione's own limitations , and move on , undunted by one's own stupidity, towards an ever-closer approximation to the Truth. Well, actuality that's much the same as the Scientific Method, in spitit, isn't it? The big difference is that the most useful pychological theories (i.e, those that yield satisfactorty results) can't be rigotously "proved" . Psychology is more of an art than a science, but an art that's desperatel;y needed. IMO.
Oh ! and I just loved the apparent paradox of the double-slit experiment . To my mind, it shows how inadequate our concepts "wave" and "particle" are . I t shows that there's a much more fundamental underlying reality that we are failing to grasp. And now it seems that the underlying "substance" is no substance at all (as we think of it) , just the the endless interplay of a bunch of abtruse mathematical properties. Nothing there at all, in actuality, but a probability wave. Woo! I mean woot! I find that kind of thinking fun (and hey! we might as well have fun )
Well, hope it's evident from the above , that I'm far from being anti-science. More like over-sincere about this "understanding" lark . And pretty damned convinced that turning the lens of our intellects back on ourselves is the only realistic way forward. And that logic is not the only tool, nor even an especially reliable tool, at least not in the hands of our infinirely slippery human brains.
[edit: please excuse all the really gross typos. Am actually trying to fix 'em all, but spotting them in the first place is the trick :S]
-
Physics is far more interesting.
Certainly more contentious.
-
Physics is far more interesting.
Certainly more contentious.
you aiming for being contentious, Cal? :LOL: Nah, dammit , I will not argue with that proposition
-
Physics is far more interesting.
Certainly more contentious.
Than Scrap's SJWs?
Physics is far more objective.
-
Physics is far more interesting.
Certainly more contentious.
Than Scrap's SJWs?
Physics is far more objective.
See? Even you object.
-
LOL'd at the Schrödinger's vet thing, tho. Brilliant.
Agreed.
-
Physics is far more interesting.
Certainly more contentious.
Than Scrap's SJWs?
Physics is far more objective.
See? Even you object.
*groan*
-
Walkie, you touched on a lot of areas in your post about science etc, and I hope you don’t mind if I just respond in very general terms.
The following is an article regarding some comments by Richard Feynman regarding scientists and belief in God. I don’t find it surprising that educated people and scientists often believe in God – as Feynman says, belief in the possibility of God is not entirely incompatible with a knowledge of science:
http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/how-scientists-can-believe-in-god
And the following is an article about Einstein’s actual quotes regarding a personal God. I don’t find it surprising that a lot of people (theists, atheists, autistics, and so on) want to claim Einstein as one of their own, given his position in popular culture as “smartest person ever”.
https://www.thoughtco.com/albert-einstein-quotes-on-a-personal-god-249856
You will probably find the video at the bottom of the article interesting, it touches on the likelihood of him being on the autism spectrum as well as the widely repeated myth about Einstein’s poor results at school.
When it comes to belief in God, I’m pretty much a stickler for having an agreed definition of what God is. Otherwise you just waste your time going around in circles. What Einstein believed in was not “God” in any sort of traditional sense of the word. I call myself an atheist and, from what I’ve read, Einstein didn’t believe in God or Religion any more than I do.
At purely a layman’s level I never found the theory of relativity particularly difficult to get my head around (obviously I don’t understand all of the mathematics involved). I suspect that, when the theory of relativity was first put forward, quite a few members of the scientific community would have struggled with it because of an understanding of the universe that was largely defined, previously, by Newtonian physics.
Quantum physics is interesting. I find things like the potential implications of quantum entanglement particularly fascinating. I’ve been too lazy to try to get my head around the basics of quantum physics though, I really need to find a “quantum physics for dummies” type of book and read it cover to cover.
To anyone who is interested in the scientific method, the best resource (by far) that covers the subject in detail is “The Grand Theory” by Hawking and some other guy who is probably very smart as well. An example that really stuck with me was the conflicting theories over the nature of light, i.e. one theory said that light consisted of particles, and the alternative theory said that light consisted of waves. As it turned out, of course, both theories are valid. That is one of the big advantages of the scientific method, new advances are always possible because existing knowledge or beliefs about science have no bearing on the validity of a new hypothesis.
-
I'd highly recommend Quantum Physics: The Theoretical Minimum (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Quantum-Mechanics-Theoretical-Minimum/dp/0141977817/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1516007171&sr=8-1&keywords=Quantum+Mechanics) for a no-nonsense introduction to the subject.
You might also want to read his book on classical mechanics.
-
As for discussing social justice, I doubt there is a meaningful discussion to be had with Scrap on that front. It's all cute pejoratives and name-dropping for him.
An there's a very good reason for that. Social Justice movements have all been hijacked by ideological puritans who want to reform society along ideals of human nature that have been thoroughly discredited by most psychologists and evolutionary psychologists in particular.
Specifically, they believe in the notion of the human mind being a "blank slate" that is the formed entirely by society at large and there is no inherent biological difference between the brains of men and women. This is the point that James Damore made that got him fired from google.
They also buy into the false beliefs of racial identity movements that whites came to dominate the modern world because white people are somehow inherently pathological. They believe that all cultures are equally valid (except whites which they often deny even exist) despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that cultures have trajectories and at any given moment in history, some cultures will be vastly outperforming other cultures in terms if advancements in science, math and engineering.
Social Justice is ultimately an anti-intellectual movement that will destroy itself soon enough.
-
So guys apologies if this has already been brought up; I sorta skimmed the last couple of pages but not in-depth:
http://www.jessebering.com/publications/
This is bringing back a presentation I did in grad school on his article "The evolutionary history of an illusion: Religious causal beliefs in children and adults." It's cited on his page but not downloadable there; related articles (including ones he referenced) are. Points to someone who can find it in full (I can't seem to- google scholar in 2018 is still not as powerful as ebscohost was in 2008, apparently).
-
As for discussing social justice, I doubt there is a meaningful discussion to be had with Scrap on that front. It's all cute pejoratives and name-dropping for him.
An there's a very good reason for that. Social Justice movements have all been hijacked by ideological puritans who want to reform society along ideals of human nature that have been thoroughly discredited by most psychologists and evolutionary psychologists in particular.
Specifically, they believe in the notion of the human mind being a "blank slate" that is the formed entirely by society at large and there is no inherent biological difference between the brains of men and women. This is the point that James Damore made that got him fired from google.
They also buy into the false beliefs of racial identity movements that whites came to dominate the modern world because white people are somehow inherently pathological. They believe that all cultures are equally valid (except whites which they often deny even exist) despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that cultures have trajectories and at any given moment in history, some cultures will be vastly outperforming other cultures in terms if advancements in science, math and engineering.
Social Justice is ultimately an anti-intellectual movement that will destroy itself soon enough.
If you've met one person who believes in social justice, then you've met one person who believes in social justice.
All you've done there is to make a bunch of extreme generalizations based on some cherrypicked extreme views.
For example: I believe in social justice and guess what? I don't believe any of that shit that you claim I am supposed to believe in.
-
So guys apologies if this has already been brought up; I sorta skimmed the last couple of pages but not in-depth:
http://www.jessebering.com/publications/
This is bringing back a presentation I did in grad school on his article "The evolutionary history of an illusion: Religious causal beliefs in children and adults." It's cited on his page but not downloadable there; related articles (including ones he referenced) are. Points to someone who can find it in full (I can't seem to- google scholar in 2018 is still not as powerful as ebscohost was in 2008, apparently).
That particular article doesn't have a link.
-
If you've met one person who believes in social justice, then you've met one person who believes in social justice.
All you've done there is to make a bunch of extreme generalizations based on some cherrypicked extreme views.
For example: I believe in social justice and guess what? I don't believe any of that shit that you claim I am supposed to believe in.
It doesn't matter what you believe because you don't have any power within these movements.
The people who are the self-appointed leaders of these movements hold extremist views and advocate subversive tactics to achieve their goals. To them, you're just a useful idiot.
-
So guys apologies if this has already been brought up; I sorta skimmed the last couple of pages but not in-depth:
http://www.jessebering.com/publications/ (http://www.jessebering.com/publications/)
This is bringing back a presentation I did in grad school on his article "The evolutionary history of an illusion: Religious causal beliefs in children and adults." It's cited on his page but not downloadable there; related articles (including ones he referenced) are. Points to someone who can find it in full (I can't seem to- google scholar in 2018 is still not as powerful as ebscohost was in 2008, apparently).
It looks like full text can be accessed via https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232553857_The_Evolutionary_History_of_an_Illusion_Religious_Causal_Beliefs_in_Children_and_Adults (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232553857_The_Evolutionary_History_of_an_Illusion_Religious_Causal_Beliefs_in_Children_and_Adults)
I didn't want to give fb/linked in/whatever login, but if it's important....
-
Yeah, perhaps El can give us the cliff notes along with what her point is.
-
As for discussing social justice, I doubt there is a meaningful discussion to be had with Scrap on that front. It's all cute pejoratives and name-dropping for him.
An there's a very good reason for that. Social Justice movements have all been hijacked by ideological puritans who want to reform society along ideals of human nature that have been thoroughly discredited by most psychologists and evolutionary psychologists in particular.
Specifically, they believe in the notion of the human mind being a "blank slate" that is the formed entirely by society at large and there is no inherent biological difference between the brains of men and women. This is the point that James Damore made that got him fired from google.
They also buy into the false beliefs of racial identity movements that whites came to dominate the modern world because white people are somehow inherently pathological. They believe that all cultures are equally valid (except whites which they often deny even exist) despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that cultures have trajectories and at any given moment in history, some cultures will be vastly outperforming other cultures in terms if advancements in science, math and engineering.
Social Justice is ultimately an anti-intellectual movement that will destroy itself soon enough.
You present your argument as if itself was a belief system. Yours is a narrow world.
-
As for discussing social justice, I doubt there is a meaningful discussion to be had with Scrap on that front. It's all cute pejoratives and name-dropping for him.
An there's a very good reason for that. Social Justice movements have all been hijacked by ideological puritans who want to reform society along ideals of human nature that have been thoroughly discredited by most psychologists and evolutionary psychologists in particular.
Specifically, they believe in the notion of the human mind being a "blank slate" that is the formed entirely by society at large and there is no inherent biological difference between the brains of men and women. This is the point that James Damore made that got him fired from google.
They also buy into the false beliefs of racial identity movements that whites came to dominate the modern world because white people are somehow inherently pathological. They believe that all cultures are equally valid (except whites which they often deny even exist) despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that cultures have trajectories and at any given moment in history, some cultures will be vastly outperforming other cultures in terms if advancements in science, math and engineering.
Social Justice is ultimately an anti-intellectual movement that will destroy itself soon enough.
You present your argument as if itself was a belief system. Theirs is a narrow world.
FYP.
You're not going to get away with calling me the dogmatist, for pointing out dogmatism.
-
Yeah, perhaps El can give us the cliff notes along with what her point is.
Offering reading material for anyone who was interested. You seem not to be especially interested in reading.
So guys apologies if this has already been brought up; I sorta skimmed the last couple of pages but not in-depth:
http://www.jessebering.com/publications/
This is bringing back a presentation I did in grad school on his article "The evolutionary history of an illusion: Religious causal beliefs in children and adults." It's cited on his page but not downloadable there; related articles (including ones he referenced) are. Points to someone who can find it in full (I can't seem to- google scholar in 2018 is still not as powerful as ebscohost was in 2008, apparently).
That particular article doesn't have a link.
^no shit sherlock.
-
As for discussing social justice, I doubt there is a meaningful discussion to be had with Scrap on that front. It's all cute pejoratives and name-dropping for him.
An there's a very good reason for that. Social Justice movements have all been hijacked by ideological puritans who want to reform society along ideals of human nature that have been thoroughly discredited by most psychologists and evolutionary psychologists in particular.
Specifically, they believe in the notion of the human mind being a "blank slate" that is the formed entirely by society at large and there is no inherent biological difference between the brains of men and women. This is the point that James Damore made that got him fired from google.
They also buy into the false beliefs of racial identity movements that whites came to dominate the modern world because white people are somehow inherently pathological. They believe that all cultures are equally valid (except whites which they often deny even exist) despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that cultures have trajectories and at any given moment in history, some cultures will be vastly outperforming other cultures in terms if advancements in science, math and engineering.
Social Justice is ultimately an anti-intellectual movement that will destroy itself soon enough.
Well said Scrap.
Marxism created the divisive virtuous working class vs the evil aristocrat narrative and Cultural Marxism takes this to another level. The Progressive stack does not set divisive poor vs rich as much as concentrates on:
Men vs women
Straight vs gay
Cisgendered vs Trangendered
White vs Black
Able Bodied vs Disabled
and an intersectional clusterfuck of divisiveness. All with the virtuous underprivileged vs the ignoble or evil privileged.
It is a race to the bottom and proponents of the Social Justice mindset are not, I believe, religious but are cult-like. What binds them is the same moral righteousness and faux-intellectual mindset. The ideology is their god and on the altar of such no hypocrisy, lie or moral wrong is out of bounds. The ideology must be preserved and advanced at all costs and disputing it will brand you as a heathen (bigot). There is no room for reflection or self-critique because they are righteous and their cause is pure.
It is a load of shit.
The pervasiveness and brilliance of it is that it disguises itself well enough. This is why it has infested itself so well in the Liberal Left and take over the host. Liberalism used to be open, accepting, tolerant, and about sharing ideas and about non-rigidity to traditional norms. Also to oppose and push back on Authoritarianism and for freedom.
It was the perfect gateway for Cultural Marxists. They come in saying that they too support freedoms and want these poor underprivileged people to have a say and to have the rights denied them. But then they slowly change this angle to be we can't be open and accepting of others who are not either supporting everything we do to further our Progressive agenda no matter how disruptive, ignoble or unethical and IF you do you are actively against us and we will oppose you with Authoritarian rigour and call you, who believe yourself tolerant, intolerant and bigoted.
Most Liberals bought it and those that did not either were cowed or did not remain Liberals.
I hope that Scrap is right and the Progressives devour each other. My ONLY concern is that whilst I want things to move to the right massively from where the Progressive Left is now, I do not want it to swing completely to the right. I fear it may and we will be dealing with wacko Authoritarian Right Wing like we were 10 years ago. The Religious right doing similar bullshit with culture and society. Close to Centre on the Left is best. Even close to Centre on the Right would possibly be okay. Far Left or Far right is just crap for society.
-
As for discussing social justice, I doubt there is a meaningful discussion to be had with Scrap on that front. It's all cute pejoratives and name-dropping for him.
An there's a very good reason for that. Social Justice movements have all been hijacked by ideological puritans who want to reform society along ideals of human nature that have been thoroughly discredited by most psychologists and evolutionary psychologists in particular.
Specifically, they believe in the notion of the human mind being a "blank slate" that is the formed entirely by society at large and there is no inherent biological difference between the brains of men and women. This is the point that James Damore made that got him fired from google.
They also buy into the false beliefs of racial identity movements that whites came to dominate the modern world because white people are somehow inherently pathological. They believe that all cultures are equally valid (except whites which they often deny even exist) despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that cultures have trajectories and at any given moment in history, some cultures will be vastly outperforming other cultures in terms if advancements in science, math and engineering.
Social Justice is ultimately an anti-intellectual movement that will destroy itself soon enough.
You present your argument as if itself was a belief system. Theirs is a narrow world.
FYP.
You're not going to get away with calling me the dogmatist, for pointing out dogmatism.
It takes more than editing a reply. Stop acting like one and I will stop.
-
Yeah, perhaps El can give us the cliff notes along with what her point is.
Offering reading material for anyone who was interested. You seem not to be especially interested in reading.
I'm interested in reading it, if you can actually post a working link to it that doesn't require me to access it through facebook or some other data mining site like that.
-
Well said Scrap.
Marxism created the divisive virtuous working class vs the evil aristocrat narrative and Cultural Marxism takes this to another level. The Progressive stack does not set divisive poor vs rich as much as concentrates on:
Men vs women
Straight vs gay
Cisgendered vs Trangendered
White vs Black
Able Bodied vs Disabled
and an intersectional clusterfuck of divisiveness. All with the virtuous underprivileged vs the ignoble or evil privileged.
It is a race to the bottom and proponents of the Social Justice mindset are not, I believe, religious but are cult-like. What binds them is the same moral righteousness and faux-intellectual mindset. The ideology is their god and on the altar of such no hypocrisy, lie or moral wrong is out of bounds. The ideology must be preserved and advanced at all costs and disputing it will brand you as a heathen (bigot). There is no room for reflection or self-critique because they are righteous and their cause is pure.
It is a load of shit.
The pervasiveness and brilliance of it is that it disguises itself well enough. This is why it has infested itself so well in the Liberal Left and take over the host. Liberalism used to be open, accepting, tolerant, and about sharing ideas and about non-rigidity to traditional norms. Also to oppose and push back on Authoritarianism and for freedom.
It was the perfect gateway for Cultural Marxists. They come in saying that they too support freedoms and want these poor underprivileged people to have a say and to have the rights denied them. But then they slowly change this angle to be we can't be open and accepting of others who are not either supporting everything we do to further our Progressive agenda no matter how disruptive, ignoble or unethical and IF you do you are actively against us and we will oppose you with Authoritarian rigour and call you, who believe yourself tolerant, intolerant and bigoted.
Most Liberals bought it and those that did not either were cowed or did not remain Liberals.
I hope that Scrap is right and the Progressives devour each other. My ONLY concern is that whilst I want things to move to the right massively from where the Progressive Left is now, I do not want it to swing completely to the right. I fear it may and we will be dealing with wacko Authoritarian Right Wing like we were 10 years ago. The Religious right doing similar bullshit with culture and society. Close to Centre on the Left is best. Even close to Centre on the Right would possibly be okay. Far Left or Far right is just crap for society.
The now infamous biology professor from Evergreen State, Bret Weinstein, has a few things to add to what you said.
Keep in mind that he is a self-described Progressive Liberal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9osjKN5VWfM