Free speech debate. Dyson vs. Jordan Peterson

[panamaican]

Honest question, what are these "inclusionary economic policies" you are referring to? I am from Canada so I am not fully aware of all of the policies being debated and fought over in the USA. The only thing I see in Canada that appears to be something like inclusionary economic policies are some pushing for mandated diversity. This is essentially equality of outcome which is a bad idea for everyone. Equality of opportunity on the other hand is great for everyone. Governments should work to create high quality public education that is uniform across its nation. If there are areas where there is a lack of resources or quality educators then this is creating a meaningful disadvantage. The other thing governments can do is work to ensure that people aren't being discriminated against in regards to educational and employment opportunities. That if an individual fails to receive educational or employment opportunities that it was because there were superior candidates.

Can you elaborate on these inclusionary economic policies that you were referring to?

So, inclusionary economic policy includes something like making sure that everyone has a quality pre-college education to prepare them for the workforce. Or expanding the safety net to all Americans. Or ending discriminatory hiring practices. More union power. These are the types of policies that the left has spent decades pushing and promoting.

And they're the type of policies that nativists claim are the problem because they're rooted in identity politics and/or cost the nation more than they give back. But the policy effects that they're most upset about are the loss of middle class jobs, stagnant wages and a perceived lack of economic opportunity.

The causes of those effects are things like outsourcing, breaking down union protections for the average worker, cutting the social safety net, the cost of education and housing, etc. These things have their roots in the free trade direction of the last 40 years where the right has made it easier to offshore manufacturing, weakened union leverage in both the private and the public sector, given out massive numbers of work visas, limited banking regulation and frequently antitrust considerations as well.

So, the nativists criticize the type of policies that the left has historically supported but they point to the policy effects of the right's choices as proof. They know what's going wrong but they blame the wrong set of policies as the source.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

So, inclusionary economic policy includes something like making sure that everyone has a quality pre-college education to prepare them for the workforce. Or expanding the safety net to all Americans. Or ending discriminatory hiring practices. More union power. These are the types of policies that the left has spent decades pushing and promoting.

And they're the type of policies that nativists claim are the problem because they're rooted in identity politics and/or cost the nation more than they give back. But the policy effects that they're most upset about are the loss of middle class jobs, stagnant wages and a perceived lack of economic opportunity.

The causes of those effects are things like outsourcing, breaking down union protections for the average worker, cutting the social safety net, the cost of education and housing, etc. These things have their roots in the free trade direction of the last 40 years where the right has made it easier to offshore manufacturing, weakened union leverage in both the private and the public sector, given out massive numbers of work visas, limited banking regulation and frequently antitrust considerations as well.

So, the nativists criticize the type of policies that the left has historically supported but they point to the policy effects of the right's choices as proof. They know what's going wrong but they blame the wrong set of policies as the source.

These seem like very sensible policies or at least ones worth giving thorough discussion to. The education system is really key as it plays a huge role in future opportunities later in life. There is also evidence that there are major disparities in the quality of education, access to quality educators and educational resources. Thomas Sowell has discussed this impact thoroughly.

Globalization has certainly had an impact but it hasn't been the sole cause. I am not sure if you are familiar with the Austrian School of Economics as they offer some interesting insights into the relationship between government and economics. The Youtube channel Mises Media has soon good lectures.

Personally, I am in agreement with Dr. Peterson about the need to move away from ideological thinking. I think a problem with political discussions is that people can become dogmatic and not see the limits of their ideological position. There are topics and policies worth discussing on the right wing and left wing, and both the right wing and left wing are wrong in many ways.

For the record Dr. Peterson and many of his supporters are much more in line with the things you posted. They are against a more radical leftist position. One that is pushing for equality of outcome not equality of opportunity.

Personally I think one of the major issues is what is taught in the public education system. I think a lot more philosophy should be taught and at a younger age as philosophy integrates all elements of the world. Depending on how it was taught and if all of the great philosophers ideas were explored in some sense it could create more well rounded individuals. Socrates pointed out some major issues with democracy and we are running into them today. Democracy may still end up being the best option but it runs into problems if all citizens aren't properly educated.

 

[esotamoc]

It's not that I disagree with it as much as it doesn't make any sense. The people who voted against Trump are responsible for Trump winning? The people who opposed Brexit were responsible for it? I think it's something that kind of sounds deep but evaporates upon inspection.

Its the extreme positions the left have been taking recently that is suddenly making the right look not so bad and somewhat sensible. Also the left seems to have developed a contempt for the white working class who they used to champion.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

Its the extreme positions the left have been taking recently that is suddenly making the right look not so bad and somewhat sensible. Also the left seems to have developed a contempt for the white working class who they used to champion.

A good example of this is the ANTIFA groups. There have been a number of examples recently of them engaging in behavior that is similar to rioting, of making death threats and of causing harm to persons and property. There is certainly a threshold on the left where people go from being sensible and civilized to engaging in dangerous behavior. The right also has extremist but people seem much more aware of who they are and when the ideas they are espousing are dangerous. For some reason it is less clear which ideas on the left are dangerous and when asked about it some on the left don't seem to be aware of or think there are dangerous ideas on the left.

 

[panamaican]

These seem like very sensible policies or at least ones worth giving thorough discussion to. The education system is really key as it plays a huge role in future opportunities later in life. There is also evidence that there are major disparities in the quality of education, access to quality educators and educational resources. Thomas Sowell has discussed this impact thoroughly.

Globalization has certainly had an impact but it hasn't been the sole cause. I am not sure if you are familiar with the Austrian School of Economics as they offer some interesting insights into the relationship between government and economics. The Youtube channel Mises Media has soon good lectures.

Personally, I am in agreement with Dr. Peterson about the need to move away from ideological thinking. I think a problem with political discussions is that people can become dogmatic and not see the limits of their ideological position. There are topics and policies worth discussing on the right wing and left wing, and both the right wing and left wing are wrong in many ways.

For the record Dr. Peterson and many of his supporters are much more in line with the things you posted. They are against a more radical leftist position. One that is pushing for equality of outcome not equality of opportunity.

Personally I think one of the major issues is what is taught in the public education system. I think a lot more philosophy should be taught and at a younger age as philosophy integrates all elements of the world. Depending on how it was taught and if all of the great philosophers ideas were explored in some sense it could create more well rounded individuals. Socrates pointed out some major issues with democracy and we are running into them today. Democracy may still end up being the best option but it runs into problems if all citizens aren't properly educated.

I'm sorry but my post wasn't about Dr. Peterson or his positions on this subject. It wasn't even his statement that I was discussing.

Also, I'm generally disinterested in the videos on Mises Media so if you have a specific video that you think is relevant to my post, I'll watch it.

Globalization as a concept is as old as business. It has not had an impact, it is the inexorable driving force of commerce.

I will disagree on Dr. Peterson and his supporters being in line with what I posted though. My posting had nothing to do with radical leftist positions. It had to do with nativists assigning blame to social policies they disagree with when the blame lies in the economic policies they didn't disagree with.

Also, several pages back I posted what I consider 2 significant inconsistencies in the things assigned to Peterson. I say assigned because I'm not sure they're Peterson's inconsistencies or those of his supporters. One of those things is about equality of opportunity vs. outcome as it applies to single men and finding mates.

 

[m52nickerson]

Dyson is an even bigger faux-intellectual can than Peterson. He wins the word-salad tossing contest.

If you think Peterson is a faux-intellecutal you need to go back to watching cartoons. They are much more your speed.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

It's not that I disagree with it as much as it doesn't make any sense. The people who voted against Trump are responsible for Trump winning? The people who opposed Brexit were responsible for it? I think it's something that kind of sounds deep but evaporates upon inspection.

@LogicalInsanity, since you've been posting better lately, I'd like to see an attempt to explain your takeaway from the comment.

Pan's posts were really good, but I also see that from either leftists who are trying to be magnanimous but end up looking condescending (implying that Trump voters are children who are throwing an electoral tantrum in response to not being pandered to enough) or never-Trumper right-wingers who are trying to shift blame. But, again, it's more of a mood being expressed than a concrete thought.

With regard to Trump specifically, I see it as a culmination of a longer-term trend of growing anti-intellectualism on the right that previously produced VP nominees Palin and Quayle, and president W. And a big enabler of that is the creation of an alternate-reality media system, which in turn turns the GOP into a con. We don't see, for example, disagreements about who should bear the burden of funding gov't--we see Republicans pass deeply regressive cuts that shift wealth upward while claiming that they're passing middle-class cuts. We don't see arguments about the tradeoffs of addressing climate change--we see Republicans pretend it isn't happening or that nothing can be done. That kind of thing makes the party ripe to be taken over by a pure conman.

Excuse the delay my friend. Work has been busy AF. And I'm writing this on my cell phone, so please forgive me for the auto corrects as well.

Believe it or not, I'm a pretty liberal guy...most of my friends and liberal, and I even have a few leftist friends.
I honestly believe that you, @HomerThompson , @Strychnine , @KONG-D'SNT-TAP would be able to kick back, and enjoy beers together and have a civil conversation and all around good time..

That being said, I think we (you, @panamaican And I ) are interpreting the comment regarding "catastrophic failure by the left " differently.

What I mean by failure by the left, is the lefts new policies and causes they are championing that have failed to attract new voters, moderates , independents and simultaneously repelling many other voters....and in many cases, having voters switch sides completely. ( @IngaVovchanchyn alluded to this earlier)

And this is for a host of reasons, which I can/Will further expand on....and I
know you and I are going to disagree on this...but i look forward to your responses...

 

[panamaican]

That being said, I think we (you, @panamaican And I ) are interpreting the comment regarding "catastrophic failure by the left " differently.

What I mean by failure by the left, is the lefts new policies and causes they are championing that have failed to attract new voters, moderates , independents and simultaneously repelling many other voters....and in many cases, having voters switch sides completely. ( @IngaVovchanchyn alluded to this earlier)

I think that's an interesting position considering that they still hold approximately half of the electorate on their side (48:44, Dems over GOP).

Claiming the left has failed doesn't make sense when the left still holds the overall numerical advantages. The raw truth is that the one area where the left lags the right is in white voters, particularly white male voters, especially older white male voters that don't have a college degree. More importantly, most of that gain came during Obama's first term.

Shall we address the elephant in the room? The Left didn't fail. Following the election of Barack Obama, low education, older, white male voters left the Democrats for the GOP for no discernible reason except racial animus.

The "nativists" can spend all day talking about leftist policy but it's far simpler than that. They blame the Dems for identity issues (primarily putting a minority in the Oval Office) instead of blaming the GOP for destroying their economic way of life.

It's ugly but it's what the numbers suggest.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

I think that's an interesting position considering that they still hold approximately half of the electorate on their side (48:44, Dems over GOP).

Claiming the left has failed doesn't make sense when the left still holds the overall numerical advantages. The raw truth is that the one area where the left lags the right is in white voters, particularly white male voters, especially older white male voters that don't have a college degree. More importantly, most of that gain came during Obama's first term.

Shall we address the elephant in the room? The Left didn't fail. Following the election of Barack Obama, low education, older, white male voters left the Democrats for the GOP for no discernible reason except racial animus.

The "nativists" can spend all day talking about leftist policy but it's far simpler than that. They blame the Dems for identity issues (primarily putting a minority in the Oval Office) instead of blaming the GOP for destroying their economic way of life.

It's ugly but it's what the numbers suggest.

Racial animus? Do you believe that to be the primary reason for the voter migration?

 

[panamaican]

Racial animus? Do you believe that to be the primary reason for the voter migration?

I cannot think of another reason for why there was such a significant shift in such a specific demographic over such a short period of time. A 15 pt. gain over Obama's entire term, 11 in the first half. A 15 point gain in white voters for the GOP but only 5 point gain for the GOP overall. And the GOP is still lagging Dems overall.

I am of course always open to alternative explanations but they should match the numbers.

Even the minimal gain that the GOP made in black voters came in Obama's 2nd term, not the 1st. So why did older white male voters with the lowest education levels respond so differently from everyone else during Obama's first term?

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

I cannot think of another reason for why there was such a significant shift in such a specific demographic over such a short period of time. A 15 pt. gain over Obama's entire term, 11 in the first half. A 15 point gain in white voters for the GOP but only 5 point gain for the GOP overall. And the GOP is still lagging Dems overall.

I am of course always open to alternative explanations but they should match the numbers.

Even the minimal gain that the GOP made in black voters came in Obama's 2nd term, not the 1st. So why did older white male voters with the lowest education levels respond so differently from everyone else during Obama's first term?

I'm not sure to be honest...
I am also open to hear other explanations ...

Maybe these.voters disagreed with the policies of obama, or didn't like the course of which he was leading this country ...

Perhaps some of the white republican/conservatives can chime in.

 

[panamaican]

I'm not sure to be honest...
I am also open to hear other explanations ...

Maybe these.voters disagreed with the policies of obama, or didn't like the course of which he was leading this country ...

Perhaps some of the white republican/conservatives can chime in.

I considered that. If it was policy, why did primarily whites see it that way? And among whites, why did the older whites see the policies differently than older minorities or younger whites? Why double the white men than white women?

Those are the numbers but when you include things like "Our way of life is changing..." or "We're feeling ignored..." or a variety of other statements related to a perception of the changing world, I don't reach another conclusion.

I'm not even saying it's a conscious thing. I'm 95% certain that it wasn't a conscious decision but just a general sense that "something" was wrong and thus an increased willingness to try something new/different. But the timing can't be accidental. Well, it could but it would be a helluva coincidence.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

Given that this Political Correctness debate explored elements of free speech and oppression some people may find the following videos worthwhile.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Steven Fry stole the show. .one of his greatest quotes in this debate was, "the election of Trump, brexit, and successes of nativists all across Europe isn't bevause of triumphs of the right, it is the catastrophic failure of the left."

Fry's point on this perfectly exemplified why so many moderates, liberals and other sane minded folk are distancing themselves from the radical left ...

I thought his chess move analogy was absolutely brilliant.

 

[Islam Imamate]

@LogicalInsanity, since you've been posting better lately, I'd like to see an attempt to explain your takeaway from the comment.

Pan's posts were really good, but I also see that from either leftists who are trying to be magnanimous but end up looking condescending (implying that Trump voters are children who are throwing an electoral tantrum in response to not being pandered to enough) or never-Trumper right-wingers who are trying to shift blame. But, again, it's more of a mood being expressed than a concrete thought.

With regard to Trump specifically, I see it as a culmination of a longer-term trend of growing anti-intellectualism on the right that previously produced VP nominees Palin and Quayle, and president W. And a big enabler of that is the creation of an alternate-reality media system, which in turn turns the GOP into a con. We don't see, for example, disagreements about who should bear the burden of funding gov't--we see Republicans pass deeply regressive cuts that shift wealth upward while claiming that they're passing middle-class cuts. We don't see arguments about the tradeoffs of addressing climate change--we see Republicans pretend it isn't happening or that nothing can be done. That kind of thing makes the party ripe to be taken over by a pure conman.

I also think its a culmination of the reactionary politics of the GOP under Obama. Dog-whistle politics crept slowly from the fringe to towards the center and the GOP committed itself to unprincipled reactionary obstructionism to resist Obama. That paved the way for Trump's unprecedented brand of politics.

Shall we address the elephant in the room? The Left didn't fail. Following the election of Barack Obama, low education, older, white male voters left the Democrats for the GOP for no discernible reason except racial animus.

The "nativists" can spend all day talking about leftist policy but it's far simpler than that. They blame the Dems for identity issues (primarily putting a minority in the Oval Office) instead of blaming the GOP for destroying their economic way of life.

It's ugly but it's what the numbers suggest.

Racial animus? Do you believe that to be the primary reason for the voter migration?

I know of an individual who switched from Dem to GOP because of racial animus in response to Obama's nomination and he does fit the profile that Pan is talking about here; older, white male with no education beyond high school.

Of course, anecdotal evidence needs to be taken with a grain of salt and this is merely one individual. But my point is I suspect there's truth to the idea pan is suggesting here

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Excuse the delay my friend. Work has been busy AF. And I'm writing this on my cell phone, so please forgive me for the auto corrects as well.

Believe it or not, I'm a pretty liberal guy...most of my friends and liberal, and I even have a few leftist friends.
I honestly believe that you, @HomerThompson , @Strychnine , @KONG-D'SNT-TAP would be able to kick back, and enjoy beers together and have a civil conversation and all around good time..

That being said, I think we (you, @panamaican And I ) are interpreting the comment regarding "catastrophic failure by the left " differently.

What I mean by failure by the left, is the lefts new policies and causes they are championing that have failed to attract new voters, moderates , independents and simultaneously repelling many other voters....and in many cases, having voters switch sides completely. ( @IngaVovchanchyn alluded to this earlier)

And this is for a host of reasons, which I can/Will further expand on....and I
know you and I are going to disagree on this...but i look forward to your responses...

There are lots of posters I would have drinks with and maybe share a weed pen with. Probably have some laughs and a few good convos mixed in.

I might have to wipe the weed pen off though. I see some of your Mayberry posts you sickos lol

 

[ryan3434]

Thought this was a good debate between 4 people. 2 on the pro side of free speech vs 2 on the con side

Waste of time imo
They all agree on political correctness being wrong . The black dude just kept bringing up past racism and the chick just attacked Peterson and Trump lol

 

[MPD-Psycho]

So... free speech wins right?

That’s why they can have a debate to criticize it and all.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

I also think its a culmination of the reactionary politics of the GOP under Obama. Dog-whistle politics crept slowly from the fringe to towards the center and the GOP committed itself to unprincipled reactionary obstructionism to resist Obama. That paved the way for Trump's unprecedented brand of politics.


I know of an individual who switched from Dem to GOP because of racial animus in response to Obama's nomination and he does fit the profile that Pan is talking about here; older, white male with no education beyond high school.

Of course, anecdotal evidence needs to be taken with a grain of salt and this is merely one individual. But my point is I suspect there's truth to the idea pan is suggesting here

I feel ya dude...

Yea, a lot of my conservative friends went full retard when Obama was elected and then re-elected.

Posting and reposting debunked articles on Facebook, and not giving a fuck when I pointed out that these stories were patently false.

I however , see a similar mindset with many of my lib and leftist friends on FB who have also gone full retard due to this recent election.

All anecdotal of course...

What I've learned is that politics can make seemingly smart people, dumb AF.

 

[nac386]

I feel ya dude...

Yea, a lot of my conservative friends went full retard when Obama was elected and then re-elected.

Posting and reposting debunked articles on Facebook, and not giving a fuck when I pointed out that these stories were patently false.

Sounds like the meme thread.