Greta

[Worthy Nigelton 1,066]

Anyone else having a problem quoting a post where it keeps highlighting all the text and not letting you type?

Anyway, Peterson is the stupidest intelligent man out there. He is occasionally interesting to listen to, but any half decent academic would, and does, take his arguments apart. He gets owned every time he opens his mouth nowadays. He's basically living off of a 10 minute clip with Cathy Newman from five years ago that his fanboys repeatedly w*nk over ignoring his own depression and drug abuse problems as it doesnt suit his narratibe. He is not someone to be quoted as being in any way informed on social issues. Out of date, out of touch, in denial, lazy and deliberately ignorant... but hey it sells so fair play to him.

[Yellow Fever 3,834]

3 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

That's fine, but we're still fundamentally missing these answers from the previous because, to quote you verbatim (and not to have three quotes at once, which gets messy), you said "Without becoming too bogged down in the meanings and turning the thread into a sociology debate, I think the old industries which were traditionally seen as masculine were much more hierarchical in nature as opposed to the more feminised collaborative approach."

The crux of the matter really is "what makes it masculine / feminine?" We're basically going to need that sociology debate. And that's before we even look at if these workspaces are really all that useful in the modern arena.

I'd propose the Barry Goldwater quote of "vices are only virtues taken to excess" as a starting point for defining a point where traits can become toxic, using this notion of stoicism or, more colloquially "man up" as a prime example, especially considering our propensity compared to women to bottle stuff up and then do regrettable things, most tragically being suicide, which has disproportionately hit men for a very long time.

On top of that, I certainly don't consider myself "attacked" due to gender and such notions as I am very confident I behave well around women. I get bemused at social pressures to follow the nuclear model (and I'm sure women get this far worse) and would argue dismantling that would be great progress for both men and women.

I actually think we need to be pretty honest with our-selves.

'Laddish' behaviour (or even Laddette) is bad behaviour and not excusable because of 'masculinity' or 'femininity'. It's simply bad behaviour full stop that sadly some of lesser morals/control/intellect fall into.

Historically, both sexes would work and toil together - in the fields, even the mills and yes offices (topically think Ebenezer) with each pulling their weight in various tasks so I think the much more more recent 'excuses' for poor male behaviour in 'closed' largely all-male groups (heavy industry, royal navy) is exactly that. An excuse and and not 'natural' or native to our species.

Edited January 2, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[TheGunnShow 6,002]

31 minutes ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

Anyone else having a problem quoting a post where it keeps highlighting all the text and not letting you type?

Anyway, Peterson is the stupidest intelligent man out there. He is occasionally interesting to listen to, but any half decent academic would, and does, take his arguments apart. He gets owned every time he opens his mouth nowadays. He's basically living off of a 10 minute clip with Cathy Newman from five years ago that his fanboys repeatedly w*nk over ignoring his own depression and drug abuse problems as it doesnt suit his narratibe. He is not someone to be quoted as being in any way informed on social issues. Out of date, out of touch, in denial, lazy and deliberately ignorant... but hey it sells so fair play to him.

David Benatar most certainly did.

[horsefly 4,314]

20 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

I actually think we need to be pretty honest with our-selves.

'Laddish' behaviour (or even Laddette) is bad behaviour and not excusable because of 'masculinity' or 'femininity'. It's simply bad behaviour full stop that sadly some of lesser morals/control/intellect fall into.

Historically, both sexes would work and toil together - in the fields, even the mills and yes offices (topically think Ebenezer) with each pulling their weight in various tasks so I think the much more more recent 'excuses' for poor male behaviour in 'closed' largely all-male groups (heavy industry, royal navy) is exactly that. An excuse and and not 'natural' or native to our species.

Spot on YF!

As an additional anecdote: When my mother worked in the fields, it was almost exclusively women that worked alongside her picking potatoes, although it was usually a man doing the less physically demanding job of driving the tractor that pulled their trailer. I think people like Fen prefer to ignore what happened on the home front during the 1914-18 war, and the subsequent history.

[Yellow Fever 3,834]

3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Spot on YF!

As an additional anecdote: When my mother worked in the fields, it was almost exclusively women that worked alongside her picking potatoes, although it was usually a man doing the less physically demanding job of driving the tractor that pulled their trailer. I think people like Fen prefer to ignore what happened on the home front during the 1914-18 war, and the subsequent history.

Yes- that was my realization - women and men have always done together hard physical labour - read any historical novel. It's actually a relatively recent (heavy industrial) invention that saw 'same sex' work places. Of course there were differences - mainly to do with child rearing.

[king canary 7,678]

On 01/01/2023 at 21:22, horsefly said:

Which is precisely why honest people will endeavour to understand what is meant by the terms being used. The sad thing is that far from seeking such an understanding some prefer to exploit ignorance for the purpose of perverting meaning to serve malign ends. It really isn't difficult to understand that "toxic masculinity" is used by progressive people as a way to distinguish between misogynistic forms of male behaviour from those "non-toxic" expressions that recognise the equal rights of women. It's meaning is perfectly clear enough and isn't simply open to any interpretation someone decides they want to put on it. Language and meaning is a social practice governed by social rules of application, otherwise no word or expression would have any genuine meaning. Clearly there are cases of vagueness and complexity etc that require clarification, but the present case is not one of them; there is no difficulty whatsoever in distinguishing between describing some forms of masculinity as expressing a toxic form of  masculinity and claiming that all masculinity is toxic. Anyone conflating those two is clearly in error or more likely engaged in purposeful manipulation.

If we're talking about the likes of Tate and (to a lesser extent) Peterson, then yes I agree those people are being deliberately dishonest in how they present these things.

However the average follower of these people I don't think is engaging in dishonesty and this is where @Barbe bleu point about communication comes in. If terms like white privilege, toxic masculinity etc are misunderstood by a sizable chunk of the population then we need to think about how we better communicate those theories so that it can be understood by all.

I'm reminded of the situation in America where the 'defund the police' movement had a moment. No matter how many nuanced think pieces, blogs and videos were created explaining what it meant in detail, a large section of the population saw it as meaning cutting back on police or even abolishing them entirely and thus it never got the support it really needed. The issue wasn't the actual cause itself- there was reasonably widespread support for channelling money away from some of the more aggressive policing and into social and community programmes to try and help prevent crime- it was that the messaging was turning people off before they could be convinced by the meat of the argument. 

[Yellow Fever 3,834]

24 minutes ago, king canary said:

If we're talking about the likes of Tate and (to a lesser extent) Peterson, then yes I agree those people are being deliberately dishonest in how they present these things.

However the average follower of these people I don't think is engaging in dishonesty and this is where @Barbe bleu point about communication comes in. If terms like white privilege, toxic masculinity etc are misunderstood by a sizable chunk of the population then we need to think about how we better communicate those theories so that it can be understood by all.

I'm reminded of the situation in America where the 'defund the police' movement had a moment. No matter how many nuanced think pieces, blogs and videos were created explaining what it meant in detail, a large section of the population saw it as meaning cutting back on police or even abolishing them entirely and thus it never got the support it really needed. The issue wasn't the actual cause itself- there was reasonably widespread support for channelling money away from some of the more aggressive policing and into social and community programmes to try and help prevent crime- it was that the messaging was turning people off before they could be convinced by the meat of the argument. 

You are of course correct KC - however lack of understanding or intellect isn't really an excuse when people leap to uninformed conclusions. However @Barbe was I think was actually saying that the 'right' made more persuasive arguments than the left - but that is moot if such arguments are actually demonstrably false - and those susceptible to it lack the tools to simply dismiss such arguments as intrinsically false (and playing in reality on deep seated prejudice) .

I've always thought the underlying difference between those that may be described as 'progressives' and the right was exactly that - a willingness to look beyond the simple knee jerk solution to the deeper facts and be open minded. The recent boat crossings being a case in point - such immigration is simply more visible by this route as to the previous (larger?) but unseen in lorry trailers.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[Herman 9,825]

A good debate trying to explain Tate on LBC. Worth a listen. 

[TheGunnShow 6,002]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

If we're talking about the likes of Tate and (to a lesser extent) Peterson, then yes I agree those people are being deliberately dishonest in how they present these things.

However the average follower of these people I don't think is engaging in dishonesty and this is where @Barbe bleu point about communication comes in. If terms like white privilege, toxic masculinity etc are misunderstood by a sizable chunk of the population then we need to think about how we better communicate those theories so that it can be understood by all.

I'm reminded of the situation in America where the 'defund the police' movement had a moment. No matter how many nuanced think pieces, blogs and videos were created explaining what it meant in detail, a large section of the population saw it as meaning cutting back on police or even abolishing them entirely and thus it never got the support it really needed. The issue wasn't the actual cause itself- there was reasonably widespread support for channelling money away from some of the more aggressive policing and into social and community programmes to try and help prevent crime- it was that the messaging was turning people off before they could be convinced by the meat of the argument. 

Agree that the average follower is not engaging in deliberate dishonesty, but this comes back to my point re. education and the ability to analyse/critique/engage with often dubious material and see why it's bovine excrement, not to mention acquire the ability to understand concepts which aren't all that difficult.

[king canary 7,678]

There is an interesting, slightly overlapping conversation happening at the moment after a good FT article highlighted that Millennials are bucking a well established trend and not becoming more conservative as they age.

I do think there is an interesting trend in that young people on the right aren't becoming right wing in the traditional sense- ie low taxes, small government, family values etc etc. Instead they are being increasingly drawn into alt-right populism with a focus on social issues over economic. Hence why the Tories, especially under Johnson, were so keen to fight on culture war issues rather than their traditional strengths of economic competency. 

How this will develop moving forward will be really interesting to see- how do traditional right/center-right parties adapt? Do they do what the GOP has done in America and lurch towards the modern alt right, do they change their arguments or do they phase out.

[TheGunnShow 6,002]

13 minutes ago, king canary said:

There is an interesting, slightly overlapping conversation happening at the moment after a good FT article highlighted that Millennials are bucking a well established trend and not becoming more conservative as they age.

I do think there is an interesting trend in that young people on the right aren't becoming right wing in the traditional sense- ie low taxes, small government, family values etc etc. Instead they are being increasingly drawn into alt-right populism with a focus on social issues over economic. Hence why the Tories, especially under Johnson, were so keen to fight on culture war issues rather than their traditional strengths of economic competency. 

How this will develop moving forward will be really interesting to see- how do traditional right/center-right parties adapt? Do they do what the GOP has done in America and lurch towards the modern alt right, do they change their arguments or do they phase out.

Sounds like they're becoming more socially conservative whilst remaining economically centrist or maybe even centre-left.

[horsefly 4,314]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

If we're talking about the likes of Tate and (to a lesser extent) Peterson, then yes I agree those people are being deliberately dishonest in how they present these things.

However the average follower of these people I don't think is engaging in dishonesty and this is where @Barbe bleu point about communication comes in. If terms like white privilege, toxic masculinity etc are misunderstood by a sizable chunk of the population then we need to think about how we better communicate those theories so that it can be understood by all.

I'm reminded of the situation in America where the 'defund the police' movement had a moment. No matter how many nuanced think pieces, blogs and videos were created explaining what it meant in detail, a large section of the population saw it as meaning cutting back on police or even abolishing them entirely and thus it never got the support it really needed. The issue wasn't the actual cause itself- there was reasonably widespread support for channelling money away from some of the more aggressive policing and into social and community programmes to try and help prevent crime- it was that the messaging was turning people off before they could be convinced by the meat of the argument. 

Not much more to add than what has already been said in YF's excellent answer. If you grasp what YF is saying then BB's point about communication is fundamentally mistaken. It's not that the messages are being badly explained by the progressive left, it's that their messages are being distorted and outgunned by a massively more powerful right-wing dominated press with an anti-progressive agenda. 

Interestingly, there is not a major organisation in the country that has failed to understand the progressive message about changes that need to be made in their organisations to address issues like racial equality, sexual equality, bullying, sexism, class equality etc, etc. Some of us might think that some of those organisations have much work to do in actual practice, but what is irrefutable is that the principles of equality progressives have supported are embodied in the objectives and HR guidance of all major bodies. Indeed, a large number of those progressive ideas have been so well and persuasively explained that they are now enshrined in equality and human rights legislation. These facts alone demonstrate that it is nonsense to say the progressive left has not communicated or explained its position clearly enough. 

None of that alters the fact that there is a powerful right-wing lobby represented by a dominant right-wing media that will do all it can to lie about and distort the progressive narrative. The main target for such unscrupulous manipulators are those at the margins of society who remain in an under privileged position and are rightly resentful at being victims of social injustice. Thus, for example, they tell under privileged white working class boys that when "lefty do-gooders" campaign for racial equality what they are really campaigning for is to give unfair advantages to children from the ethnic minorities at their expense. The progressives can do little more than counter this with rational argument, and that is precisely what they do. However, those espousing the right-wing narrative know full well that emotional manipulation is often far more persuasive than reason, and that tapping into feelings of resentment is one of the most persuasive emotions of all. It was an art perfected by the likes of Goebbels, and any number of "successful" propagandists who seek to rule through spreading division and hate. 

You were right KC when you said earlier that the most fundamental issue that needs resolving is to improve the lot of the underprivileged in material terms. And of course that is precisely what the progressive equality agenda seeks to achieve by giving every child access to same opportunities to fulfil their potential. But the same cannot be said of the right-wing agenda which actually requires the permanent existence of an under privileged class to perpetuate a phony war among its different constituents. I think it was Gunny who said earlier on the thread that it relies on getting them to kick down at those sharing their plight rather than upwards at those in power who are responsible for the social injustice they continue to endure.

 

[king canary 7,678]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

Sounds like they're becoming more socially conservative whilst remaining economically centrist or maybe even centre-left.

The piece of research I always found fascinating is that, in the UK, the average voter is economically somewhere near the average Labour MP but socially the average voter sits to the right of the average Tory MP. 

I think what is notable is younger people on the right seem to lean much more authoritarian these days. You can see it in the number of younger people voting Le Pen in France, Meloni in Italy and Trump in the states. There is increasing support for strongman type leaders from the younger generation. 

[horsefly 4,314]

52 minutes ago, Herman said:

A good debate trying to explain Tate on LBC. Worth a listen. 

Yep! have had it on and O'Brien was pretty much saying the same as I have tried to get across on here about the false narratives being spread by those seeking to exploit feelings of social injustice for divisive political ends.

[king canary 7,678]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

Not much more to add than what has already been said in YF's excellent answer. If you grasp what YF is saying then BB's point about communication is fundamentally mistaken. It's not that the messages are being badly explained by the progressive left, it's that their messages are being distorted and outgunned by a massively more powerful right-wing dominated press with an anti-progressive agenda. 

Interestingly, there is not a major organisation in the country that has failed to understand the progressive message about changes that need to be made in their organisations to address issues like racial equality, sexual equality, bullying, sexism, class equality etc, etc. Some of us might think that some of those organisations have much work to do in actual practice, but what is irrefutable is that the principles of equality progressives have supported are embodied in the objectives and HR guidance of all major bodies. Indeed, a large number of those progressive ideas have been so well and persuasively explained that they are now enshrined in equality and human rights legislation. These facts alone demonstrate that it is nonsense to say the progressive left has not communicated or explained its position clearly enough. 

None of that alters the fact that there is a powerful right-wing lobby represented by a dominant right-wing media that will do all it can to lie about and distort the progressive narrative. The main target for such unscrupulous manipulators are those at the margins of society who remain in an under privileged position and are rightly resentful at being victims of social injustice. Thus, for example, they tell under privileged white working class boys that when "lefty do-gooders" campaign for racial equality what they are really campaigning for is to give unfair advantages to children from the ethnic minorities at their expense. The progressives can do little more than counter this with rational argument, and that is precisely what they do. However, those espousing the right-wing narrative know full well that emotional manipulation is often far more persuasive than reason, and that tapping into feelings of resentment is one of the most persuasive emotions of all. It was an art perfected by the likes of Goebbels, and any number of "successful" propagandists who seek to rule through spreading division and hate. 

You were right KC when you said earlier that the most fundamental issue that needs resolving is to improve the lot of the underprivileged in material terms. And of course that is precisely what the progressive equality agenda seeks to achieve by giving every child access to same opportunities to fulfil their potential. But the same cannot be said of the right-wing agenda which actually requires the permanent existence of an under privileged class to perpetuate a phony war among its different constituents. I think it was Gunny who said earlier on the thread that it relies on getting them to kick down at those sharing their plight rather than upwards at those in power who are responsible for the social injustice they continue to endure.

 

The only thing I'd say is I think you're somewhat overplaying the hand of the 'right wing media' in things like Tate. The Express and the Mail have very little to do with how young people the world over consume their info, same with Fox in the US. Those explain some of the older generations issues with what they see as 'woke' but your average Andrew Tate fan isn't getting their info from Richard Littlejohn.

The much more pernicious issue is that social media feeds of engagement and the best way to create engagement is outrage, which Tate gives them in spades. 

[horsefly 4,314]

9 minutes ago, king canary said:

The only thing I'd say is I think you're somewhat overplaying the hand of the 'right wing media' in things like Tate. The Express and the Mail have very little to do with how young people the world over consume their info, same with Fox in the US. Those explain some of the older generations issues with what they see as 'woke' but your average Andrew Tate fan isn't getting their info from Richard Littlejohn.

The much more pernicious issue is that social media feeds of engagement and the best way to create engagement is outrage, which Tate gives them in spades. 

Perhaps I should have been clearer that I consider the likes of Tate to be very much a part of the "right-wing anti-progressive narrative" that I have been seeking to describe. By "right-wing media" I don't just include the newspapers but all forms of media expression in which those thoughts are reproduced. However, it would be difficult to deny that certain aspects of that right-wing agenda have very much been lead by the traditional right-wing press in this country. Attacks on "woke culture", and the BBC for example.

Edited January 3, 2023 by horsefly

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

I'm just gretaful that she called out this online criminal for what he is. A bad influence on a younger generation and a fraudster galore.

[Barbe bleu 832]

2 hours ago, horsefly said:

If you grasp what YF is saying then BB's point about communication is fundamentally mistaken. It's not that the messages are being badly explained by the progressive left, it's that their messages are being distorted and outgunned 

You may be misunderstanding my point (which was actually a very small and self contained one)  It is not about the message itself, more in how it it is delivered.  Its not about product its about sales technique. 

I actually came across an example the other day on twatter.  It involves the modern day saint/evil fox batter (delete to your preference)

I can't find fault with the essence of what is being said, but I think it could have been said in a better way.

1) this message is from a  divisive figure. Instantly it becomes associated with a number of other highly toxic issues and people will be drawn to their 'tribe' on it as they have been the others.  If you want broad support dont have the messenger be a controversial figure.

2) this is primarily a personal attack. It doesn't help anyone understand the concept of 'white privilege' any better  but it does draw the reader's attention to an article they probably wouldn't have been exposed to otherwise.

3) mr maugham runs the risk of allowing himself to be cast as oppressor and Mr yound as the oppressed.  This is not the way you want things to be if you are looking for support.  

4) within the newspaper text the writer feels the need to tell his readers what a clever and industrious person they are. Why have they done this? Why have they brought a Nobel laureate into the discussion? All this unnecessary boasting achieves is to make a column about Toby Young into one about the author and to alienate readers who might think BBC at A level is actually pretty good.

5) what they appear to be describing (perhaps indirectly or by implication) isn't 'white privilege' but 'class privilege'.   Misuse/overuse of the former just serves to confuse its meaning and to undermine the case for its existence.

 Obviously this is just a tweet I saw the other day. There will be better a d clearer examples if one cares to look.

 

[horsefly 4,314]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

You may be misunderstanding my point (which was actually a very small and self contained one)  It is not about the message itself, more in how it it is delivered.  Its not about product its about sales technique. 

I actually came across an example the other day on twatter.  It involves the modern day saint/evil fox batter (delete to your preference)

I can't find fault with the essence of what is being said, but I think it could have been said in a better way.

1) this message is from a  divisive figure. Instantly it becomes associated with a number of other highly toxic issues and people will be drawn to their 'tribe' on it as they have been the others.  If you want broad support dont have the messenger be a controversial figure.

2) this is primarily a personal attack. It doesn't help anyone understand the concept of 'white privilege' any better  but it does draw the reader's attention to an article they probably wouldn't have been exposed to otherwise.

3) mr maugham runs the risk of allowing himself to be cast as oppressor and Mr yound as the oppressed.  This is not the way you want things to be if you are looking for support.  

4) within the newspaper text the writer feels the need to tell his readers what a clever and industrious person they are. Why have they done this? Why have they brought a Nobel laureate into the discussion? All this unnecessary boasting achieves is to make a column about Toby Young into one about the author and to alienate readers who might think BBC at A level is actually pretty good.

5) what they appear to be describing (perhaps indirectly or by implication) isn't 'white privilege' but 'class privilege'.   Misuse/overuse of the former just serves to confuse its meaning and to undermine the case for its existence.

 Obviously this is just a tweet I saw the other day. There will be better a d clearer examples if one cares to look.

 

For the sake of argument let's just assume you're right about Maugham, and right that there will obviously be other examples of people who don't always communicate the progressive message effectively. None of that implies that the message isn't communicated effectively by the movement as a whole. Indeed, as I mentioned above, it is hard to explain just why progressive equality policies have managed to become institutionalised in all our major organisations, workplaces, and legal system, if the progressive agenda has been so poorly communicated in the way you suggest. How do you explain these facts?

[TheGunnShow 6,002]

Speaking of Tate....this amusing meme went around FB. Apparently Novak Djokovic was asked "We asked 100 people to name something you can get in Australia, you said 'deported', our survey says....".

Edited January 3, 2023 by TheGunnShow

[Barbe bleu 832]

4 hours ago, horsefly said:

For the sake of argument let's just assume you're right about Maugham, and right that there will obviously be other examples of people who don't always communicate the progressive message effectively. None of that implies that the message isn't communicated effectively by the movement as a whole. Indeed, as I mentioned above, it is hard to explain just why progressive equality policies have managed to become institutionalised in all our major organisations, workplaces, and legal system, if the progressive agenda has been so poorly communicated in the way you suggest. How do you explain these facts?

That's a very complacent view point and I'm not sure it's really particularly relevant at an individual level rather than institutional level, which is after all what this discussions (was) about. 

At this level i could equally say:

'if  progressive/left ideas were so persuasively communicated why has every single UK referendum and election  since the dawn of twitter/facebook/Instagram been won by right wing parties or reactionary elements?'

Or

'why is it that everytime I look at any social media site or forum i see a massive fight breakout rather than a consensus being built?'

 

Give it a go I say.  Try being...nice...it might work. 

Edited January 3, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[ron obvious 1,514]

On 02/01/2023 at 13:37, TheGunnShow said:

David Benatar most certainly did.

Interesting. I've just listened to a 1hr. 32 min. discussion between Peterson & Benatar.

I'm afraid I've come to the opposite conclusion. Benatar seems to be indulging in pseudo science in that he is ascribing some sort of objective justification for his axioms. I think this is nonsense.

To try & quantitatively address 'good' & 'bad' in an individual life & use this as a justification or not for existence is simply absurd. He starts off using pleasure & pain as a metric;  pain you may be able to measure, but even that is beset with difficulty. People have an enormous variation in pain toleration & pain perception which can depend on circumstances as much as the actual pain suffered.

As for pleasure ... that defies calibration. It really depends entirely on the individual; personally I have had moments of near ecstasy in mundane circumstances, once falling to my knees during a summer evening walk in the fields behind my house. Music, literature, art, can move me immeasurably. Sometimes I feel like the narrator of Finzi's Dies Natalis (though not so much lately). How do I balance this against the world of pain I experienced when I flipped over the handlebars of my bike & stopped the road with my face? Months of nagging pain when I slipped a disc?

Benatar's attempts to broaden the argument to include concepts such as knowledge vs. ignorance seemed equally specious, eventually trying to subsume everything to a balancing of some conception of overall good vs. overall bad which is even more difficult to quantify by definition - including more parameters in an already complex equation can only increase the possibility for error.

So the argument that you cannot bring another being into the world because there's some sort of inevitable net suffering occurring is simply not true. It may be so for some unfortunates (The Elephant Man perhaps?) & I see nothing wrong with someone in such a position choosing to end their suffering. I also accept that there's probably a point where that may well be the best decision in old age. But that's not what I observe to be the case for most people - perhaps especially little children who are capable of taking enormous delight in the world & their existence in it - but the balance of joy & suffering in individual lives will vary hugely & will also be inaccessible to me, just as mine is to others.

As far as Peterson's case is concerned I don't think he is trying to lay down scientifically justifiable axioms for his view, but rather drawing conclusions from his observations of human behaviour & making subjective judgements about the desirability of sentient consciousness. 

I have my own criterion about such matters, which is love, but I cannot justify it scientifically. Nevertheless it alone is my guiding star.

Edited January 3, 2023 by ron obvious

[TheGunnShow 6,002]

47 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

Interesting. I've just listened to a 1hr. 32 min. discussion between Peterson & Benatar.

I'm afraid I've come to the opposite conclusion. Benatar seems to be indulging in pseudo science in that he is ascribing some sort of objective justification for his axioms. I think this is nonsense.

To try & quantitatively address 'good' & 'bad' in an individual life & use this as a justification or not for existence is simply absurd. He starts off using pleasure & pain as a metric;  pain you may be able to measure, but even that is beset with difficulty. People have an enormous variation in pain toleration & pain perception which can depend on circumstances as much as the actual pain suffered.

As for pleasure ... that defies calibration. It really depends entirely on the individual; personally I have had moments of near ecstasy in mundane circumstances, once falling to my knees during a summer evening walk in the fields behind my house. Music, literature, art, can move me immeasurably. Sometimes I feel like the narrator of Finzi's Dies Natalis (though not so much lately. How do I balance this against the world of pain I experienced when I flipped over the handlebars of my bike & stopped the road with my face? Months of nagging pain when I slipped a disc?

Benatar's attempts to broaden the argument to include concepts such as knowledge vs. ignorance seemed equally specious, eventually trying to subsume everything to a balancing of some conception of overall good vs. overall bad which is even more difficult to quantify by definition - including more parameters in an already complex equation can only increase the possibility for error.

So the argument that you cannot bring another being into the world because there's some sort of inevitable net suffering occurring is simply not true. It may be so for some unfortunates (The Elephant Man perhaps?) & I see nothing wrong with someone in such a position choosing to end their suffering. I also accept that there's probably a point where that may well be the best decision in old age. But that's not what I observe to be the case for most people - perhaps especially little children who are capable of taking enormous delight in the world & their existence in it - but the balance of joy & suffering in individual lives will vary hugely & will also be inaccessible to me, just as mine is to others.

As far as Peterson's case is concerned I don't think he is trying to lay down scientifically justifiable axioms for his view, but rather drawing conclusions from his observations of human behaviour & making subjective judgements about the desirability of sentient consciousness. 

I have my own criterion about such matters, which is love, but I cannot justify it scientifically. Nevertheless it alone is my guiding star.

That's the thing, I saw it the complete opposite as I don't see Benatar's stance as pseudo-science at all, but simply an attempt at defining the balance of pain and pleasure, indeed the word he generally uses for this is "asymmetry". He's not trying to be scientific, he's trying to philosophise. No-one says it can be exactly defined, but looking at your post, I think you've missed the element of death and suffering in later life out, or clipped it all too briefly with your comment re. assisted suicide. The problem with that middle paragraph is whilst you're noting individual stages of life and yes, you'd expect kids to be able to find great delight - we really need to look at the whole life in general and particularly what we will be putting hypothetical future children into. They both fundamentally agree that suffering is prevalent, but I think Benatar's view that humans are naturally hard-wired to have a somewhat Pollyanna-like approach to relentlessly have a rather positive stance may somewhat distort realities somewhat. There also seems, slowly but surely, to be more evidence that pessimists and realists are closer aligned.

Also, Benatar doesn't really say you cannot bring another being into the world, he merely says it isn't a particularly moral thing to do if you believe in preventing unnecessary suffering. A common failing a lot have with Benatar (although to be fair, you've not really said it) is that they think he's saying "if life's that bad, why not commit suicide". As he's said before, the problem there is the pain it inflicts on friends and acquaintances, even if it relieves the pain of the person committing suicide pain is caused elsewhere.

Lastly, Peterson will reasonably and invariably draw conclusions from experience, but remember what he'll mainly draw from. It won't be anywhere near representative by definition as he'll mainly be speaking in depth to those who are in some state of mental unease. That, in all likelihood, will be far more restricted and less representative than a philosopher.

EDIT: Good diversion from the thread, @ron obvious, I must say!

EDIT 2: Actually, your stance essentially means you'd be pretty much rejecting Schopenhauer en masse. Benatar's thought processes aren't that radical if you look at Schopenhauer first, the difference is that Schopenhauer tended to wander towards the lack of character/misanthropic perspective, whereas Benatar looks at it from an almost humanitarian perspective, about the gradual cessation of total suffering.

Edited January 3, 2023 by TheGunnShow

[littleyellowbirdie 2,595]

On 02/01/2023 at 14:14, Yellow Fever said:

I actually think we need to be pretty honest with our-selves.

'Laddish' behaviour (or even Laddette) is bad behaviour and not excusable because of 'masculinity' or 'femininity'. It's simply bad behaviour full stop that sadly some of lesser morals/control/intellect fall into.

Historically, both sexes would work and toil together - in the fields, even the mills and yes offices (topically think Ebenezer) with each pulling their weight in various tasks so I think the much more more recent 'excuses' for poor male behaviour in 'closed' largely all-male groups (heavy industry, royal navy) is exactly that. An excuse and and not 'natural' or native to our species.

Toiling together in the fields was simply a necessity for survival rather than an indication of some enlightened views lost in the midsts of time.

The entry of women into the workforce in significant numbers was driven by the necessities of global war with widespread conscription of men. That's where women had their eyes opened to the possibilities, some got an appetite, and have fought to push the boundaries ever since.

But they've had to fight all the way. Historically, misogyny has been prevalent throughout human history. Today, 90% of the global population, both men and women, hold views prejudicial against women. It's easy to forget these things in our cosy little liberal region of the world.

https://www.france24.com/en/20200306-nearly-90-percent-of-world-population-biased-against-women-un-study-finds

[ron obvious 1,514]

10 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

That's the thing, I saw it the complete opposite as I don't see Benatar's stance as pseudo-science at all, but simply an attempt at defining the balance of pain and pleasure, indeed the word he generally uses for this is "asymmetry". He's not trying to be scientific, he's trying to philosophise. No-one says it can be exactly defined, but looking at your post, I think you've missed the element of death and suffering in later life out, or clipped it all too briefly with your comment re. assisted suicide. The problem with that middle paragraph is whilst you're noting individual stages of life and yes, you'd expect kids to be able to find great delight - we really need to look at the whole life in general and particularly what we will be putting hypothetical future children into. They both fundamentally agree that suffering is prevalent, but I think Benatar's view that humans are naturally hard-wired to have a somewhat Pollyanna-like approach to relentlessly have a rather positive stance may somewhat distort realities somewhat. There also seems, slowly but surely, to be more evidence that pessimists and realists are closer aligned.

Also, Benatar doesn't really say you cannot bring another being into the world, he merely says it isn't a particularly moral thing to do if you believe in preventing unnecessary suffering. A common failing a lot have with Benatar (although to be fair, you've not really said it) is that they think he's saying "if life's that bad, why not commit suicide". As he's said before, the problem there is the pain it inflicts on friends and acquaintances, even if it relieves the pain of the person committing suicide pain is caused elsewhere.

Lastly, Peterson will reasonably and invariably draw conclusions from experience, but remember what he'll mainly draw from. It won't be anywhere near representative by definition as he'll mainly be speaking in depth to those who are in some state of mental unease. That, in all likelihood, will be far more restricted and less representative than a philosopher.

EDIT: Good diversion from the thread, @ron obvious, I must say!

I'm sorry but if he's not trying to be scientific - applying scientific method to the evidence - then by his own logic he is doing nothing of any value. It is merely his opinion & he is trying to dress it up to be something more meaningful.

Any sort of philosophy worthy of the name has to have a logical base, otherwise it becomes self-contradictory.

He is trying to quantify & balance 'good' vs, 'bad' in individual lives. This is impossible, as I have attempted to demonstrate, & you are welcome to refute my arguments if you wish. 

I did not dismiss the problem of death & suffering by the possibility of suicide I just don't think there's much more to say. It has to be a purely individual decision but one I believe should be open to everyone - albeit hedged round with huge precautionary & safety measures - but that's really a different discussion.

Again, having a 'Pollyanna-like' approach to the world is another factor determining the good'bad balance in that person's particular life, so how does that feed into Benatar's equation? If prevalent, it must make quite a contribution presumably?

I'm afraid Benatar strikes me as just another example of a highly intelligent individual who thinks he has been able to use his intellect to reduce the human condition to a few simple parameters. The world is an unbelievably complex place & this sort of reductionism does not wash with me.

[horsefly 4,314]

10 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

That's a very complacent view point and I'm not sure it's really particularly relevant at an individual level rather than institutional level, which is after all what this discussions (was) about. 

At this level i could equally say:

'if  progressive/left ideas were so persuasively communicated why has every single UK referendum and election  since the dawn of twitter/facebook/Instagram been won by right wing parties or reactionary elements?'

Or

'why is it that everytime I look at any social media site or forum i see a massive fight breakout rather than a consensus being built?'

 

Give it a go I say.  Try being...nice...it might work. 

Not remotely complacent. You are confusing party political issues and events with arguments that are not bound by party political lines. The FACTS are that progressive views about equality for women, races, sexuality, classes etc have overwhelmingly won in precisely the areas that matter most to how the country is run. Do you think for one minute the Tories would dream of trying to reverse legislation on equality for women, or racial, or sexual equality? That's the extent to which the progressive agenda has won the debate. Does that mean there isn't still more to do to ensure that these ideas are perfected in practice, of course not. There will always be those with a far right-wing agenda who will do their best to undermine progressive ideas by provoking hate and division where they can (hence their tactic of trying to exploit the resentment of those who are victims of social injustice).

What do you actually mean by "I'm not sure it's really particularly relevant at an individual level rather than institutional level, which is after all what this discussions (was) about."? Firstly, without winning the argument in the minds of individuals in the first place there would have been no winning the arguments at an institutional level (unless you have some bizarre belief that institutions are not made up of actual individual people). Secondly, you surely can't be claiming that an argument is only successful if every single individual is persuaded to agree. If so there has never been a single successful argument in the history of any aspect of human existence. The FACT remains that these progressive ideas are enshrined in our everyday lives in the most significant ways they can possibly be, so much so that you can find yourself deprived of your liberty if you breach them.

Re your claim: "'if  progressive/left ideas were so persuasively communicated why has every single UK referendum and election  since the dawn of twitter/facebook/Instagram been won by right wing parties or reactionary elements?". What on earth is supposed to be the relevance of this vague and inaccurate comment?

Firstly, you mix up party politics with the actual progressive agenda that has been under discussion. The Tories have won successive general elections since 2010, but do feel free to point out to me where in their manifestos they campaigned for reversal of legislation regarding the equality agenda of progressive thinking. Also feel free to point out any legislation that the Tories have actually passed since 2010 reversing  such legislation. If anything they have strengthened such legislation. Just because the agenda of those seeking to attack progressive thinking comes from a far right-wing perspective, it doesn't follow at all that all people on the right support that attack. Indeed, a very obvious consensus has been built across all the main parties in parliament when it comes to issues regarding the fundamental rights supported by the progressive agenda (equality for women, race, sexuality etc). 

Secondly, I presume the referendum you are referring to must be Brexit (as it is the only one). Do explain how that has anything to do with this debate. People voted for Brexit for all sorts of reasons, and from across all party political perspectives. In my view people foolishly fell for the Brexit supporters' lie that restricting immigration would boost the economy, but that lie was a purely economic claim. It did not make any mention of repealing race equality legislation, indeed Brexiteers were at pains to deny any possible racist motive for their arguments. So much has the progressive agenda become established that it would have been suicidal for the Brexit cause to have questioned its key aspects, and indeed there was nothing in the Brexit propaganda that referred to anything about reversing changes in any of the progressive agenda. 

Re your comment: "why is it that everytime I look at any social media site or forum i see a massive fight breakout rather than a consensus being built?'. On what planet would you expect it to be any different? On what planet would even desire it to be different? If you're looking for something close to that you need to move to a country run as a dictatorship which bans any social media that conflicts with the party line. It's one thing to hope for a social media environment that encourages genuine inclusive and tolerant debate, it's something else entirely to think that its aim should be to seek some kind of meek consensus. Social media sites are not proto governments, they are fundamentally environments in which free thought should be given maximal opportunity for ideas to be explored insofar as it is consistent with the rights of others likewise to participate. Robust disagreement is the very life blood of free speech. Moving to the level of government is a very different thing, then we can expect those introducing legislation to seek for consensus in governing the country for an entire population. And indeed that is precisely what we have found in the recent political history of the UK in which we have found cross-party consensus over the fundamental progressive agenda recognising the equal rights of all UK citizens irrespective of race, sex, gender, class, and sexuality.

Give it a go I say! Try to respond honestly rather than resort to your usual (self described) desire "just to stir the pot". Try being... serious...it might work.

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by horsefly

[GodlyOtsemobor 2,386]

On 02/01/2023 at 10:47, Tetteys Jig said:

Yup, same story you hear of why people get into gangs and drug dealing, lack of a better alternative.

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.... 

Edited January 4, 2023 by GodlyOtsemobor

[Yellow Fever 3,834]

9 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Toiling together in the fields was simply a necessity for survival rather than an indication of some enlightened views lost in the midsts of time.

The entry of women into the workforce in significant numbers was driven by the necessities of global war with widespread conscription of men. That's where women had their eyes opened to the possibilities, some got an appetite, and have fought to push the boundaries ever since.

But they've had to fight all the way. Historically, misogyny has been prevalent throughout human history. Today, 90% of the global population, both men and women, hold views prejudicial against women. It's easy to forget these things in our cosy little liberal region of the world.

https://www.france24.com/en/20200306-nearly-90-percent-of-world-population-biased-against-women-un-study-finds

Undoubtedly true LYB but that isn't the point I was trying to make (really in response to Fens reasoning for 'laddish' behaviour I guess on construction sites).

As you yourself note, 'feminisation' of the workplace is as old as the hills through the industrial revolution - notably again in WW1 and of course the WW2 'land girls' as HF recalls. Returning demobbed soldiers after WW1 I seem I seem to recall were particularly miffed to find their jobs taken by women.

The point is exactly that such feminisation is nothing new, nobody rational these days thinks that a women can't do as good a job a man (I extend that to religions too - when are we going to have (another) female pope!) and simply can't be used as an excuse for bad behaviour. Of course there are slowly changing cultural 'norms' but these tend to be of the polite/protection 'type' (I recall an acquaintance (woman) telling me of an incident (decades ago) while she was working on an offshore rig - gas leak - full muster, survival suit on, feet dangling over the 100 foot drop to the sea just waiting for the command to jump. Equally terrified male colleague sat beside her said - don't worry - I'll push you if we have to go!) 

[TheGunnShow 6,002]

9 hours ago, ron obvious said:

I'm sorry but if he's not trying to be scientific - applying scientific method to the evidence - then by his own logic he is doing nothing of any value. It is merely his opinion & he is trying to dress it up to be something more meaningful.

Any sort of philosophy worthy of the name has to have a logical base, otherwise it becomes self-contradictory.

He is trying to quantify & balance 'good' vs, 'bad' in individual lives. This is impossible, as I have attempted to demonstrate, & you are welcome to refute my arguments if you wish. 

I did not dismiss the problem of death & suffering by the possibility of suicide I just don't think there's much more to say. It has to be a purely individual decision but one I believe should be open to everyone - albeit hedged round with huge precautionary & safety measures - but that's really a different discussion.

Again, having a 'Pollyanna-like' approach to the world is another factor determining the good'bad balance in that person's particular life, so how does that feed into Benatar's equation? If prevalent, it must make quite a contribution presumably?

I'm afraid Benatar strikes me as just another example of a highly intelligent individual who thinks he has been able to use his intellect to reduce the human condition to a few simple parameters. The world is an unbelievably complex place & this sort of reductionism does not wash with me.

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)

[Barbe bleu 832]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

Not remotely complacent. You are confusing party political issues and events with arguments that are not bound by party political lines. The FACTS are that progressive views about equality for women, races, sexuality, classes etc have overwhelmingly won in precisely the areas that matter most to how the country is run. Do you think for one minute the Tories would dream of trying to reverse legislation on equality for women, or racial, or sexual equality? That's the extent to which the progressive agenda has won the debate. 

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.