Greta

[ron obvious 1,513]

56 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I think your first three paragraphs misunderstood his asymmetry argument, not to mention miss the fact that the notion of anti-natalism has been going around even in the Bible (Ecclesiastes 4:1 for starters and that's before we get to the Talmud, which Benatar quotes, Buddhism, Schopenhauer and Zapffe) - Benatar is not saying anything new there. Pain/suffering is, by definition, a bad thing to endure. Likewise, by definition, pleasure is a good thing to have. An absence of pain is, by definition, not a bad place to be. An absence of pleasure is, by definition, not a good place to be. It might not be particularly measurable/quantifiable as it boils down to how you feel things, but I don't think many people would intuitively disagree with much I put in italics, regardless of how much you can quantify the notion of good/bad or indeed not.

Agree that death and suffering should be an individual decision and I'll say, without going too far, that I'm a strong supporter of assisted suicide.

You're right that the Pollyanna approach is a key part in determining the balance. There is a lot of research showing that people naturally focus on the optimistic and less on the reverse, and it also looks like this becomes even more pronounced with advancing age. In other words, our perspective is naturally very askew and when looking back on everything in life, we will naturally have a much happier/unrealistic perspective by giving pleasure far more weight than suffering. Furthermore, people will adapt/rationalise bad things happening to them as a coping tool (Peterson heads off down this lane a bit saying it's where meaning is found). In other words, this isn't about "if" the Pollyanna principle is prevalent at all, but "to what extent".

Back to the primary point, namely your view that you thought Peterson had the better of it, I'd say people that have the better of arguments aren't reduced to reductio ad Hi-tlerum comparisons (as Peterson did around 49 minutes in) or engage in wild, attempted character slurs after the discussion like this one saying the mentality Benatar had was similar to school shooters. The fact Peterson is reduced to comparing the idea of attempting to quantify/intuit the balance with deliberate eradication means he's arguing from a position where he's misunderstood the whole premise, and at that point his arguments fail:

Maverick Philosopher: Jordan Peterson Throws a Wild Punch at David Benatar (typepad.com)

Where did I say Peterson had the 'better' of it? I'm just saying that he wasn't basing his arguments on some sort of quasi-scientific grounds, unlike Benatar, but in observations of many, many people he's come into contact with.

Actually, Benatar's arguments aptly demonstrate the stupidity of many intelligent people today. Science - proper, hard science - has been unbelievably successful in transforming people's material well-being since the Enlightenment; the temptation has been to apply the same principles to subjects to which it cannot be applied, notably highly complex systems, the most complex of which by far is humanity.

Now you can derive some statistical data about human behaviour in very limited sets of constrained circumstances but as a way of predicting individual behaviour in the real, chaotic world with all the myriad of variables acting, themselves complex, it becomes impossible to predict the course of events, which is what science attempts to do.

I would disagree with your statements in italics because they are meaningless without defining & quantifying pain & pleasure as it occurs in individuals, & this can vary wildly

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand 
And Eternity in an hour                      -Wm. Blake

Ultimately what Benatar is saying is that he knows better than you how you're feeling:  "but I mean are you happy? Are you really really happy? I mean, come on now, be honest, you can't be can you? I mean really happy? ............

Peterson is extremely concerned about the sort of mindset that gives rise to figures like Hitler & school shooters & I'm with him in that Benatar's arguments are essentially authoritarian, nihilistic & likely to increase the misery in the world by nurturing the beliefs of such people.

I would compare his attitude to someone like Stephen Fry, someone else like Peterson I don't always agree with but who seems genuinely undogmatic & concerned with a proper enquiry into the nature of humanity & the world. 

Incidentally I see someone further up the page tried to trash Peterson, saying he was an intellectual pygmy compared to Fry (or something like that); I doubt Fry himself would agree having seen conversations between them.

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by ron obvious

[ron obvious 1,513]

21 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Sorry but i'm pretty sure that I am not going to get time to respond to every point in your post.

If you think it's all hunky dory that's OK.  I think ambassadors for progressive causes can and should do better and take a different approach, you dont.

We dont have to agree but we should probably agree that it is utterly futile for either of us to waste out lives trying to prove the unprovable just to 'win' an online debate with an anonymous avatar. A 'win' that will have absolutely no impact on anyone else.

Ill leave it by saying that all we can do is ask ourselves if we are good ambassadors for our views.

 

 

Horsefly has all the hallmarks of City 1st, who I also blocked ages ago. He's articulate & intelligent but impossible to have a debate/discussion with due to his hubris, vanity & arrogance. A basket case.

[horsefly 4,309]

It seems that yet again you couldn't be bothered to read my post but still feel able to comment on what you haven't read. 

2 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

If you think it's all hunky dory that's OK.  I think ambassadors for progressive causes can and should do better and take a different approach, you dont.

I said absolutely NOTHING of the sort. Indeed I have said time again that there remains very much to do to ensure that the progressive principles guiding our institutions, working lives, and legal system, are put into actual effective practice. The debate about whether the progressive agenda of equality is right has long been won, because those articulating it did so with a clarity and vision that was overwhelmingly persuasive. The issues that remain for debate concern how equality and social justice can be achieved at every level of society, not whether it should be.

 

5 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

We dont have to agree but we should probably agree that it is utterly futile for either of us to waste out lives trying to prove the unprovable just to 'win' an online debate with an anonymous avatar.

The FACT that the progressive agenda for equality of treatment irrespective of Race, gender, sexuality, or class, is now enshrined in law, in working practice, and in our institutions IS precisely proof that those ideas have succeeded. I'm afraid you don't get some easy way out of admitting your arguments have failed by simply refusing to acknowledge blatant reality.

Perhaps you should do yourself and everybody else a favour by not responding to posts that you admit you can't be bothered to read in their entirety. No one forces you to post a response so at least have the decency to either read the post fully, or say nothing at all. 

[TheGunnShow 5,953]

2 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

Where did I say Peterson had the 'better' of it? I'm just saying that he wasn't basing his arguments on some sort of quasi-scientific grounds, unlike Benatar, but in observations of many, many people he's come into contact with.

Actually, Benatar's arguments aptly demonstrate the stupidity of many intelligent people today. Science - proper, hard science - has been unbelievably successful in transforming people's material well-being since the Enlightenment; the temptation has been to apply the same principles to subjects to which it cannot be applied, notably highly complex systems, the most complex of which by far is humanity.

Now you can derive some statistical data about human behaviour in very limited sets of constrained circumstances but as a way of predicting individual behaviour in the real, chaotic world with all the myriad of variables acting, themselves complex, it becomes impossible to predict the course of events, which is what science attempts to do.

I would disagree with your statements in italics because they are meaningless without defining & quantifying pain & pleasure as it occurs in individuals, & this can vary wildly

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand 
And Eternity in an hour                      -Wm. Blake

Ultimately what Benatar is saying is that he knows better than you how you're feeling:  "but I mean are you happy? Are you really really happy? I mean, come on now, be honest, you can't be can you? I mean really happy? ............

Peterson is extremely concerned about the sort of mindset that gives rise to figures like Hitler & school shooters & I'm with him in that Benatar's arguments are essentially authoritarian, nihilistic & likely to increase the misery in the world by nurturing the beliefs of such people.

I would compare his attitude to someone like Stephen Fry, someone else like Peterson I don't always agree with but who seems genuinely undogmatic & concerned with a proper enquiry into the nature of humanity & the world. 

Incidentally I see someone further up the page tried to trash Peterson, saying he was an intellectual pygmy compared to Fry (or something like that); I doubt Fry himself would agree having seen conversations between them.

 

You said yourself that you drew the opposite conclusion, and I quote: 

"Interesting. I've just listened to a 1hr. 32 min. discussion between Peterson & Benatar. I'm afraid I've come to the opposite conclusion."

Agree that obtaining statistical data on human behaviours is always very awkward. Tough enough even using Likert scales as one person's 6 out of 10 is another's 8 so whilst I agree they can vary wildly between people, most people will inevitably look to avoid pain and gain pleasure. That's the question I think needs to be asked. Do most people look to have pain for prolonged periods, or do they seek pleasure? 

Furthermore, how are Benatar's arguments nihilistic and likely to increase misery? He's an antinatalist, not a nihilist. I don't see how these nurture the beliefs of shooters and Hitler at all. In fact, I thought that was probably the biggest non sequitur Peterson had of the lot!
 

[sonyc 5,539]

3 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

Where did I say Peterson had the 'better' of it? I'm just saying that he wasn't basing his arguments on some sort of quasi-scientific grounds, unlike Benatar, but in observations of many, many people he's come into contact with.

Actually, Benatar's arguments aptly demonstrate the stupidity of many intelligent people today. Science - proper, hard science - has been unbelievably successful in transforming people's material well-being since the Enlightenment; the temptation has been to apply the same principles to subjects to which it cannot be applied, notably highly complex systems, the most complex of which by far is humanity.

Now you can derive some statistical data about human behaviour in very limited sets of constrained circumstances but as a way of predicting individual behaviour in the real, chaotic world with all the myriad of variables acting, themselves complex, it becomes impossible to predict the course of events, which is what science attempts to do.

I would disagree with your statements in italics because they are meaningless without defining & quantifying pain & pleasure as it occurs in individuals, & this can vary wildly

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand 
And Eternity in an hour                      -Wm. Blake

Ultimately what Benatar is saying is that he knows better than you how you're feeling:  "but I mean are you happy? Are you really really happy? I mean, come on now, be honest, you can't be can you? I mean really happy? ............

Peterson is extremely concerned about the sort of mindset that gives rise to figures like Hitler & school shooters & I'm with him in that Benatar's arguments are essentially authoritarian, nihilistic & likely to increase the misery in the world by nurturing the beliefs of such people.

I would compare his attitude to someone like Stephen Fry, someone else like Peterson I don't always agree with but who seems genuinely undogmatic & concerned with a proper enquiry into the nature of humanity & the world. 

Incidentally I see someone further up the page tried to trash Peterson, saying he was an intellectual pygmy compared to Fry (or something like that); I doubt Fry himself would agree having seen conversations between them.

 

Really interesting post Ron (and others above). I was a counsellor / therapist for a long time and I trained in many approaches to problems, situations and behaviours over the years. My approaches were subject to constant supervision, the type and style of which was very challenging, searching and necessarily reflective. Much was in a group setting too, another challenge but also a great learning opportunity.

Some interventions were deeply rooted in method (albeit perhaps based on hegemony or dominant ideologies) which claimed to have scientific bases. Others were more intuitive, speculative. 

After all.that time I still cannot say whether the work was more art or science. It was though a combination of the two in my view. When a method didn't fit for a client (or clients) then something else did. Trial and error you might say. After a while with experience you could call what approach was possibly going to work.

Above all, it required an empty mind, a blank page, a curiosity. In every session. Despite having seen someone for months. Every day could be different. And the fact of the matter is that every day WAS different. Out of the blue change would happen. A wonderful thing. Surprising all the same. I believe this is the point I wanted to make here mostly... Openness of mind... Uncertainty....these concepts. Not to become more fixed on positions.

My experience of a quarter of a century in that role, plus much reflection thrown in, has made me more William Blake than a statistician I think I might tentatively conclude.. Not that I ever eschewed the latter but I would never make the theory or try to make the scientific method fit the reality.

There is something still unexplained, something maybe ineffable (I'm not religious by the way), certainly something spiritual about the world and people in it.

You earlier stated you were guided by love but couldn't prove or explain it. There is something in that. Jung would speak of synchronicity too. I have had many such experiences like I'm sure we all have. Even then, a scientific grounded person can try and explain them away but those examinations themselves are not always convincing either.

I suppose we might even be able to get into realms of ideas about the circularity of time rather than the more understandable linear idea of time we all assume too🙂 but that's another topic.

But these debates here are all really interesting. Thank you.

[TheGunnShow 5,953]

Can I just say at this point @ron obvious - we don't agree, but I appreciate the civility in discussion. Thank you.

[ron obvious 1,513]

29 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Really interesting post Ron (and others above). I was a counsellor / therapist for a long time and I trained in many approaches to problems, situations and behaviours over the years. My approaches were subject to constant supervision, the type and style of which was very challenging, searching and necessarily reflective. Much was in a group setting too, another challenge but also a great learning opportunity.

Some interventions were deeply rooted in method (albeit perhaps based on hegemony or dominant ideologies) which claimed to have scientific bases. Others were more intuitive, speculative. 

After all.that time I still cannot say whether the work was more art or science. It was though a combination of the two in my view. When a method didn't fit for a client (or clients) then something else did. Trial and error you might say. After a while with experience you could call what approach was possibly going to work.

Above all, it required an empty mind, a blank page, a curiosity. In every session. Despite having seen someone for months. Every day could be different. And the fact of the matter is that every day WAS different. Out of the blue change would happen. A wonderful thing. Surprising all the same. I believe this is the point I wanted to make here mostly... Openness of mind... Uncertainty....these concepts. Not to become more fixed on positions.

My experience of a quarter of a century in that role, plus much reflection thrown in, has made me more William Blake than a statistician I think I might tentatively conclude.. Not that I ever eschewed the latter but I would never make the theory or try to make the scientific method fit the reality.

There is something still unexplained, something maybe ineffable (I'm not religious by the way), certainly something spiritual about the world and people in it.

You earlier stated you were guided by love but couldn't prove or explain it. There is something in that. Jung would speak of synchronicity too. I have had many such experiences like I'm sure we all have. Even then, a scientific grounded person can try and explain them away but those examinations themselves are not always convincing either.

I suppose we might even be able to get into realms of ideas about the circularity of time rather than the more understandable linear idea of time we all assume too🙂 but that's another topic.

But these debates here are all really interesting. Thank you.

That's a terrific post sonyc & the sort that makes me want to debate on here; too many times discussion degenerates into cat-calling & insults. Thank you for bolstering my faith in the common decency of most people!

Incidentally I'm rewatching the video I referenced above. It's utterly brilliant - particularly Fry. It's one of the joys of existence🙂.

Interesting what you say about art & science. I have this idea that art is the science of complexity. As human beings we - to varying degrees - learn how to understand other humans, mainly because because it's vital for individual survival.in society.

Science - scientific method, the formation of predictive models - can only properly deal with phenomena which have events which produce middling quantities of data. Thus you have ghosts & UFOs outside science at the bottom end & economics & the weather at the top end, although our vastly increasing computing power is proving helpful with something like the weather (although only for a week or do ahead at most- if you're lucky!). 

Anyway thanks again for a fascinating post. Isn't life wonderful? 😃.

 

Edit I originally erroneously thought I was replying to TGS! Apologies to both. Doh! Just shows how acute my powers of observation are 😳

 Still applies though. And I've just seen TGS' reply : thank you for being so gracious, it's very rewarding to have a proper discussion. Highly appreciated.

Edited January 4, 2023 by ron obvious

[Barbe bleu 829]

1 hour ago, ron obvious said:

 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Barbe bleu
Too personal

[horsefly 4,309]

1 hour ago, ron obvious said:

Horsefly has all the hallmarks of City 1st, who I also blocked ages ago. He's articulate & intelligent but impossible to have a debate/discussion with due to his hubris, vanity & arrogance. A basket case.

So just throw out some abuse rather than demonstrate the falsity of the arguments. By all means point out which of those points I have made demonstrate hubris, vanity, and arrogance. Brilliant way to demonstrate you are guilty of the very thing you accuse me of. Hilarious!

[horsefly 4,309]

6 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Yea.  You're right of course. Fascinating individual though, keen sense of justice and a passion for a good causes wrapped in one of the nastiest ans most difficy outer layers I have ever encountered.   I can't decide two years on if it's role playing taken to the nth degree or genuine. 

 

And that's exactly your problem. You're here to "stir up the pot" (that is your own description), and admit you can't be bothered to read through the posts you are still arrogant enough to comment upon. 

[Barbe bleu 829]

1 hour ago, sonyc said:

 

I suppose we might even be able to get into realms of ideas about the circularity of time rather than the more understandable linear idea of time we all assume too🙂 but that's another topic.

But these debates here are all really interesting. Thank you.

Blimey.  I've not even caught up with basic natalism  yet, let alone how this sort of philosophy dovetails with some very advanced quantum theory.

[horsefly 4,309]

47 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

That's a terrific post sonyc & the sort that makes me want to debate on here; too many times discussion degenerates into cat-calling & insults. Thank you for bolstering my faith in the common decency of most people!

This from the man who just threw out a stream of abuse at me without saying a word in response to the arguments I have actually put forward. And not even with a hint of irony or self-awareness. Truly hilarious!

[Tetteys Jig 830]

3 hours ago, GodlyOtsemobor said:

Always think that's abit of a cop out myself. I grew up around wrong people(was abit of a little shît) left school at 15 with nothing (I'm 30 now) so could have easily led a life that led down that path I guess ... BUT....  I CHOSE not to..... 

Starting working with my uncle painting and decorating at 16 and have only been out of work for a month total since, never joined a gang, never sold drugs, ditched everything and everyone that was wrong in my life and now live in a decent area with my Mrs and haven't looked back. 

Maybe I'm the abnormality in that situation. 🤷

While I understand that not everyone has a uncle to go work with, there's always a choice involved, you either strive to make something of yourself after not the best of starts (and trust me I didn't have the best of starts!!) Or you take the easy route and get sucked into it and let it take over you...

My brother in law is very much the same, grew up with wronguns in mile cross, could of easily gone down a very dark path etc. But pulled himself out of it and made a decent go for himself!.... It is possible, it's just how hard people are willing to fight for it.... 

Your opening of your 2nd paragraph answered your first. Having that uncle willing to mentor you and give you that chance is exactly why you were able to not go down that path. Not everyone has that option. It isn’t a binary conversation though, I’m sure plenty of people had an uncle like that and still messed up. The more positive role models you have the better and the same goes the other way as well.

[Barbe bleu 829]

7 minutes ago, horsefly said:

And that's exactly your problem. You're here to "stir up the pot" (that is your own description), and admit you can't be bothered to read through the posts you are still arrogant enough to comment upon. 

Sorry, I deleted that message as I thought on reflection it was a bit too personal.  You (and anyone else) shouldn't have seen it.

 Actually I came on this channel to make a simple and small point that I thought that progressive ideas were often let down by poor ambassadors. I didn't really come for a fight or to stir things up with you and I certianly didn't want to be discussing such a small and self contained thing days afterwards.

Our discussion had strayed so far from the original point, had become far too personal and had lost so much interest from everyone else that I had no wish to continue it any further.

Edited January 4, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[sonyc 5,539]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

Blimey.  I've not even caught up with basic natalism  yet, let alone how this sort of philosophy dovetails with some very advanced quantum theory.

It does. The observer does affect things by the very act of observation. There is an interaction with the observer.

There is somewhere (I think) some relation between the debate about art and science.

There is also a relationship (if we go in more deeply) between posters and the responses we get. For example, Horsefly can appear crabby at times but mostly (I believe) it's because of a movement away from the points made - (sorry to mention you in the third person H). Now, it's not my 'style' of posting (lots of challenge) because of the obvious ways it can be taken very personally but I like a lot of his content and world view. That world view is a constructive and caring one overall.

There are a few people who can be awkward but nothing I might worry about. It isn't a matter of life and death after all. And I might class myself as a sensitive person but I don't hold grudges if I'm slighted. They go out if the window quite quickly.

A quick reply to @Tetteys Jig and @GodlyOtsemobor I would refer the work of Steve Biddulph on Raising Boys. In a later chapter he speaks of the need for a wide community of good male role models for boys (esp. teenagers) in order to help them be good adult males. Great football coaches, uncles or whoever can provide that extra 'leadership'. In my other job I worked with many young men (and women) who ultimately needed good, honest and reliable mentors. A surrogate mother / father. I worked in a team who provided some of that stuff - albeit temporarily of course. I believe the Finns and Swedes have a strong idea too of lifelong mentorship. 

Back to those ideas of time! I would be interested in anyone's thoughts on circularity. I'm not holding my breath - and I'm no expert but read a  bit around the subject. Maybe others have read too or have interesting sources?

[horsefly 4,309]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

Sorry, I deleted that message as I thought on reflection it was a bit too personal.  You (and anyone else) shouldn't have seen it.

 Actually I came on this channel to make a simple and small point that I thought that progressive ideas were often let down by poor ambassadors. I didn't really come for a fight or to stir things up with you and I certianly didn't want to be discussing such a small and self contained thing days afterwards.

Our discussion had strayed so far from the original point, had become far too personal and had lost so much interest from everyone else that I had no wish to continue it any further.

No one forces you to respond to a single point I make on any thread, that is entirely a choice you make alone. You made the choice on this thread to make your comments while at the same time throwing in insults about not being bothered to read the posts I made beyond a couple of lines. I made the choice to respond to your comments. It's called free speech. You may not like the fact I disagree with your views but I always provide arguments and evidence for why I disagree with what you have said. The idea that I shouldn't respond because it might annoy you is frankly antithetical to everything that the right to free speech exists to defend. Had your "small point" merely been to point out that progressive ideas were sometimes let down by poor ambassadors then it would have indeed been a rather banal point that would hold true of the exponents of any ideas of any political or social viewpoint. But that wasn't what the debate was about. The claim being made was that under privileged white working class boys were being let down by the progressive left who were far more interested in privileging ethnic minority children at their expense. I disputed that claim and asked for evidence, of which none was forthcoming. You then doubled down on the claim that the progressives were poor at communication at which point I raised the very obvious point that the progressive agenda has in fact achieved a remarkable consensus at governmental level such that equality for women, ethnic minorities, people of different sexuality, etc, etc, is now enshrined in law, in all our institutions, and in the workplace. Hardly a sign that progressives failed in their communication of the progressive cause. 

Only the person posting is responsible for their post. And if you do post then you accept the right of others to respond to the post you make. If you don't like their response you are free not to reply. However, if you do reply then they free to respond to that too. It really is quite straightforward. 

[Yellow Fever 3,804]

4 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

If you think it's all hunky dory that's OK.  I think ambassadors for progressive causes can and should do better and take a different approach, you dont.

It was this point that I was questioning BB. I believe a few pages back you brought up Farage as an example.

The point was its easy for any fraudster, snake oil salesman call them what you will to sell people what they want to hear irrespective of any rational facts. It's the basis of most scams ! That doesn't make them good 'honest' salesmen. (80M Turks, £350M and so on)

Its far more difficult but necessary to sell to people what they don't want to hear especially if it goes against their 'native' prejudices.

As an obvious uncontentious example (as seen from the UK) would be better gun control in the USA. That would be the progressive argument but it always fails against the right wing 'right to bear' arms (open carry assault riffle).

In short right wing arguments are by their very nature often simplistic 'knee jerk' solutions whereas the more progressive arguments are the result of deeper and sometimes uncomfortable thought. They may go against the grain. Some people are open to them and others not. Nowt to do with quality or presentation of the argument in general 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[Barbe bleu 829]

2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Had your "small point" merely been to point out that progressive ideas were sometimes let down by poor ambassadors 

Give it a rest.   Yes, banal or otherwise that was my point.  Progressive ideas are often (I wouldnt say sometimes) let down by poor ambassadors.  And if these ideas had better ambassadors progress would be/might be just a bit quicker.  It really was that simple, like it said it was.

If you like we can continue in the now customary fashion and make it ever more personal and we could continue this overly long and frankly tedious argument for no purpose, but maybe we just...Stop?

[horsefly 4,309]

2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

It was this point that I was questioning BB. I believe a few pages back you brought up Farage as an example.

The point was its easy for any fraudster, snake oil salesman call them what you will to sell people what they want to hear irrespective of any rational facts. It's the basis of most scams ! That doesn't make them good 'honest' salesmen. (80M Turks, £350M and so on)

Its far more difficult but necessary to sell to people what they don't want to hear especially if it goes against their 'native' prejudices.

As an obvious uncontentious example (as seen from the UK) would be better gun control in the USA). That would be the progressive argument but it always fails against the right wing 'right to bear' arms (open carry assault riffle).

In short right wing arguments are by their very nature often simplistic 'knee jerk' solutions whereas the more progressive arguments are the result of deeper and sometimes uncomfortable thought. They may go against the grain. Some people are open to them and others not.

I've mentioned it before but I think you would really enjoy the documentary "The Reunited States" (available on Amazon Prime). In particular the journey of a former Trump Republican strategist is truly fascinating. His job was to pump out that simplistic divisive right-wing narrative and he did it well. However, he came to question what he had done and decided to tour every state in the US to talk to the people he had previously demonised. The transformation in his perspective is truly a joy to witness. He didn't become a Democrat, but he did become ashamed of what he had done. The other contributors to the documentary also bear witness to your point that the progressive message inevitably involves greater complexity than a simplistic message based on stoking up division and resentment.

[horsefly 4,309]

6 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Give it a rest.   Yes, banal or otherwise that was my point.  Progressive ideas are often (I wouldnt say sometimes) let down by poor ambassadors.  And if these ideas had better ambassadors progress would be/might be just a bit quicker.  It really was that simple, like it said it was.

If you like we can continue in the now customary fashion and make it ever more personal and we could continue this overly long and frankly tedious argument for no purpose, but maybe we just...Stop?

So why didn't you just ... stop, rather than reply with a post that began with yet another insult. Take a look in the mirror.

[Barbe bleu 829]

8 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

It was this point that I was questioning BB. I believe a few pages back you brought up Farage as an example.

The point was its easy for any fraudster, snake oil salesman call them what you will to sell people what they want to hear irrespective of any rational facts. 

You've over analysed it.   I Iaid out some top my my head ideas , but they didn't include any form of lying, spinning or misrepresentation. 

Yes, i completely agree that some ideas (right , left and centre) take careful thought and are not easily condensed into soundbites that can appeal to the heart as well as the head.  People who want to make such cases are at a disadvantage to those that can leap to a slogan.

Given this natural disadvantage I think it's even more important to be careful with how you make your case. Right or wrong likeable bloke with good slogan will always win out against an opponent that tries to combine a difficult concept with  arrogance, boastfulness, superiorness (if that is a word?)  and vindictiveness

[Barbe bleu 829]

6 minutes ago, horsefly said:

So why didn't you just ... stop, rather than reply with a post that began with yet another insult. Take a look in the mirror.

Because I'm not above proving again that you always want the last word?

I didn't say I was perfect and yes, i have started to stir 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[TheGunnShow 5,953]

2 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

You've over analysed it.   I Iaid out some top my my head ideas , but they didn't include any form of lying, spinning or misrepresentation. 

Yes, i completely agree that some ideas (right , left and centre) take careful thought and are not easily condensed into soundbites that can appeal to the heart as well as the head.  People who want to make such cases are at a disadvantage to those that can leap to a slogan.

Given this natural disadvantage I think it's even more important to be careful with how you make your case. Right or wrong likeable bloke with good slogan will always win out against an opponent that tries to combine a difficult concept with  arrogance, boastfulness, superiorness (if that is a word?)  and vindictiveness

Agree that there's a premium on good communication and that what you're saying does not include any form of lying or spin, but it still, IMO, boils down to a strong education readily available to all so that people can see through shaky shibboleths peddled by snake oil salesmen in the first place.

It also needs a media that's more willing to attack it.

Edited January 4, 2023 by TheGunnShow

[king canary 7,623]

11 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

n short right wing arguments are by their very nature often simplistic 'knee jerk' solutions whereas the more progressive arguments are the result of deeper and sometimes uncomfortable thought. They may go against the grain. Some people are open to them and others not. Nowt to do with quality or presentation of the argument in general 

I'm left wing but this feels exceedingly simplistic. There are plenty of left-wing arguments that are knee jerk and simplistic and plenty of right wing arguments that come from deeper and uncomfortable thought. There are plenty of snake oil salesmen on the left too.

[Yellow Fever 3,804]

2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I've mentioned it before but I think you would really enjoy the documentary "The Reunited States" (available on Amazon Prime). In particular the journey of a former Trump Republican strategist is truly fascinating. His job was to pump out that simplistic divisive right-wing narrative and he did it well. However, he came to question what he had done and decided to tour every state in the US to talk to the people he had previously demonised. The transformation in his perspective is truly a joy to witness. He didn't become a Democrat, but he did become ashamed of what he had done. The other contributors to the documentary also bear witness to your point that the progressive message inevitably involves greater complexity than a simplistic message based on stoking up division and resentment.

I would add that there are many of both the left and right that present poor arguments even when they are on factual ground. I can't stand Eddie Izzard for instance and frankly wished he would disappear on his otherwise correct Brexit arguments but in response I give you the equally absurd Rees-Mogg.

There are many on the progressive side that make and present good arguments (factually more than on the right) but some will only recall those such as Izzard.

What's the phrase - don't shoot the messenger.

[Yellow Fever 3,804]

3 minutes ago, king canary said:

I'm left wing but this feels exceedingly simplistic. There are plenty of left-wing arguments that are knee jerk and simplistic and plenty of right wing arguments that come from deeper and uncomfortable thought. There are plenty of snake oil salesmen on the left too.

Fair comment but it's  how I feel at present with our current politics and government. The knee jerk simplistic left-wingers and arguments are usually seen off and fully exposed though by our media well before they become 'accepted' or given a free pass as per Farage.

As per TGS all arguments for me go through the 'filter' of are they fact based, honest and even those I disagree with may have a kernel of truth in them. It's why I would defend Corbyn as honest even if on many (not all) issues I would disagree with him..

Sadly nuance as on here as elsewhere rapidly gets lost in any arguments. It's not (usually) black and white.   

[horsefly 4,309]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

Because I'm not above proving again that you always want the last word?

I didn't say I was perfect and yes, i have started to stir 

Hahahaha! Truly pathetic!  You post accusing me of trying to get the last word in order to make sure you get the last word. What a sad pompous bore you are. Always guilty of doing the very things of which you accuse others. Take our own advice and "just...stop"

[Barbe bleu 829]

5 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Hahahaha! Truly pathetic!  You post accusing me of trying to get the last word in order to make sure you get the last word. What a sad pompous bore you are. Always guilty of doing the very things of which you accuse others. Take our own advice and "just...stop"

What, this last word?

[horsefly 4,309]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

What, this last word?

No!

[Barbe bleu 829]

6 minutes ago, horsefly said:

No!

Yo be honest I'm glad we ended the discussion on a good note with a bit of a laugh