******Official politics thread ******

[Wonkie]

pwned

[Wonkie]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Ahldagor]

Fuck yeah, Holiday in Cambodia.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by Wonkie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

AS YOU CAN WELL IMAGINE

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by holesum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sorry guys ill set u a decent context soon

could you hold off? id like to rattle his cage some more

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by skarlorn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

prove it

as far as i can tell, his political message is it's time to operate on the basis that there is a hierarchy. Meaning you can objectively say some things are better and others are worse, and that it's better to not be an ethnocentric ideologue who operates in group identity politics. This is supported by empirical evidence dating back 350 million years that proves hierarchies exist in nature and are not a function of a desire to oppress. Ken Wilber's most recent book outlines how developed hierarchical structures are actually LESS oppressive than ones in an earlier stage of development. he also does an excellent job of breaking down the development of an individual and how it is reflected by societies through time. If you read this you will gain an understanding of how the worldcentric green party was corroded by postmodern paradigms of post-truth bullshit and have led us to this point. It's worth a read for sure. In short, postmodern academics have twisted marxism into the left 'green' movement and created a hypocritical paradigm that serves only to create nihilism, destruction, and polarization under the guise of inclusive egalitarianism.

Here's Peterson's entire political stance AFAIK:

It is superior to operate out of a functional framework that creates useful, productive humans who support each other and create healthy societies, rather than pathological ones. The leftists are currently pathological and need to be checked.

That's really about all I've heard him say in terms of politics in about 5 hours of content I have listened to while traveling recently.

So until you can come back with a much more coherent argument than an offhand remark i'm going to have to continue operating under the pretense that you are an individual who is prone to making rather stupid remarks which are often wrong.

Theft exists in nature. Murder exists in nature. Rape exists in nature. WTF is your point? Hierarchies are a good thing because we naturally tend to rank people depending on how threatening they are to us?

This dumbass compared the feminist movement to Maoism...You know those dumbasses wearing pussy hats and tramping around in mini skirts -- same thing as guys wearing army uniforms, smashing shit, beating people, and shutting down anything except the army/factories (schools, churches etc). His argument was "herp a durr their both collectivist and thus Stalinist/Maoist/Obama supporter.

You have to be kind of an idiot to compare those too things. He has that same glazed look all those drilled in Anti-Marxist propaganda have when the subject of "liberalism" comes up. The very fact he thinks someone like Hilary Clinton or the stupid #Metoo movement is at all similar to something Bernie or Chomsky is talking about -- or Stalin or Lenin for that matter -- means he's way out of his depth.

Sometimes I say stupid things on this forum for fun. Particularly when it comes to defending Stalin or Mao or anything totalitarian like that. In reality. I don't think those systems of government are anything but fascist. I don't really see a ton of difference in how the Nazi party operated and how the bolsheviks operated. They have different philosophical roots -- but their methods are identical.

Marx -- who do think has quite a few good points -- described a government ran by things like worker co-ops. These actually work really well -- better than our current corporate governance system. That would be a Marxist policy. Women having equal rights to men -- that is a Marxist policy. Less war and no Imperialism would be a Marxist policy.

None of these types of governance are addressed head on by the childish right. It's all straw man "look at Stalin" arguments. Can't have equal rights without opening up the gulags. Can't look at corporate governance without Maoist riots destroying society.

Its pretty embarrassing on an intellectual level. Just like all the pro slavery arguments were in this country until finally people acknowledged this was mostly about Plantation owners and Textile factories.

[JurisDictum]

Here's fundamentally why any educated person should never consider Communist regimes --- as they existed in the world -- to theoretical Marxism:

None of those regimes trusted the workers to run corporations or "the means of production." Lenin overthrew the worker co-ops early on so "the party" could control everything in a top down totalitarian fashion -- similar to how corporations are ran in this country.

In general. Workers were to be silent pawns for the ruling party to use to quickly industrialize their nations. Which means -- they were essentially arguing "we need to be temporarily fascist to catch up to the other nations." Stalin accomplished what he did by terrorizing everyone into submission. Especially the class that is most corrupt -- the upper classes.

Marx never said 1 ruling party will temporarily become fascist and lead the people into a socialist utopia. He said "the workers" would spontaneously rise up and seize the means of production in a developed economy...probably because of machines reducing the need for labor.

Marx is not a god psychic. But he has a point on how unsustainable it is in the long run to have such a small number lording over everyone else via property laws. It's like born like any other animal...except some tiny group of gorillas you never meet get to plan your life more-or-less from cradle to grave without you or anyone else ever getting any say on how this operation works.

It's just probably not going to maintain itself indefinitely. Wealth concentrates. Wealth concentrates. Wealth concentrates and no one on the right has ever addressed that issue head on.

You know they did an experiment with Monopoly where they had 1 person cheating the whole time and then asked them if they deserved to win...most thought they deserved to win despite the cheating because they played better/

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by skarlorn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

hierarchies are a good thing because they form an objective basis of truth upon which humans can operate, develop, and improve.

that's my point. It's really Peterson's point, and other people's as ewll. I was very clear in my previous post, which you quoted. I am sorry you have bad reading comprehension. It is clear to me now that you do not have a developed level of thought in this regard. You do not understand the impact of post-modern thought on what was once a very liberal and progressive cultural movement, "the green party."

It has regressed them to ethnocentric group identity politics, whicht hey are supposedly fighting against.

This is what mick has been talking about all along.


I can see by your post here that you have a very shallow understanding of the philosophical tenets which lead to totalitarian regimes such as Maoism. Your statement that Nazis and Bolsheviks have identical methods is patently false.

You say that Marxist governments work really well. Prove it (you cant)

I now wash my hands of your frail, weed addled, criminal mind bye bye

30 years was a fast amount of time to industrialize for Russia. China has also been uniquely successful at industrializing as a backward nation...There is plenty of prof that those totalitarian/authoritarian systems were good at bringing their nations into the industrial era. Most people would agree they would not have liked to been in those countries during this period of time, however.

Chomsky on Postmodernism*

The green party is really not a postmodern party...I have no idea where that accusation comes from. They have a narrative of truth based on science. That is a modernist -- not post modernist -- notion.

Chomsky's big idea is that those in power need to justify their power....you must be the other guy that thinks those in power are justified because they have power. Either that or you should stop listening to grey haired rightwing psychologists explaining what the green party is all about and just ask them.

Hierarchy of ideas -- as in which ideas are more persuasive than others...that really is not what most people mean by hierarchy -- but I grant you that there is room for that.

*They are pretty short videos but for those of you too lazy to watch. Chomsky thinks that postmodernism is BS invented by professors to get promotions. He really isn't the first leftwinger to say this...this goes way back to the new atheists who saw postmodernism as the stupid part of the left....not to mention pretty much any serious Marxist. It's worth noting that postmodernism serves to justify religious belief on the right -- and for that reason alone I dislike it...

Basically Postmodernist took a good point -- that we need to be skeptical of narratives explaining objective reality because we all see things subjectively -- and then ran wild with it claiming that none of us can know what is more likely to be true so its all a 50/50 push....Muslims have "their truth" and we have ours as Capitalists, and some have theirs as Marxists.....this is stupid because some or all of those groups are actuality wrong. There is an objective reality and its stupid to give up trying to figure it out.

[Wonkie]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[JurisDictum]

He does understand psychology very well though. The problem with psychologists in my experience, is they understand people on a individual level so by extension they think they understand systems of government better than those that actually study systems of government.

Like this idea that Trump is going to be a massive warmonger because he has a short fuse and is vain....that's not how it works. No one just gets to decide in a moment of anger the entire U.S. goes to war. Hence -- Syria...he got pissed and talked tough...but there was no U.S. invasion of Syria...you don't just decide that in a flash.