Activism versus Discussion thread

Wibbs

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You're obviously an intelligent guy. There should be no need to resort to these tactics.

Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer... He does seem obsessed with this Peterson yahoo and his room cleaning thang. TBH I personally don't get the Peterson obsession on either "side". Maybe it's the shock for both of someone who has a position kinda against the "mainstream" who isn't a foaming at the mouth loony? There's enough of the latter to be going around so a change is as good as a rest I suppose. Though the foaming at the corner of the mouth types are more fatiguing to deal with. Though easier to dismiss, so they have that going for them.

No, what you say isn't accurate.

Say it isn't so?? :eek:

I'd give you the benefit of the doubt except you have proved yourself to be one of the most consistently dishonest posters on the site.

Well... kinda yeah. Moves goalposts more quickly than a Croke park GAA/Rubgy/gig weekend. Though to be fair it's egregiously apparent. I would consider that an unconscious courtesy. Of sorts.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is anyone coming to see that the Peterson stuff is grand, but is also complete beside the point when it comes to causing societal change?

I don't necessarily agree that it's beside the point.

Cultural and external influences change how people think, maybe not immediately but slowly.

A socially left wing type of thinking has begun to emerge in certain aspects of society, recently. This has manifested in laws which give additional rights to particular groups of people. Travellers are now a protected group. It is not yet known where this protected status will lead. Because of the structure of political funding, gender quotas exist in relation to political nominations for election. The purchase but not the sale of sex is a criminal offence, per the (left wing) Swedish model of dealing with prostitution.

These are not rights which have been called for by the electorate at large. In my view, these changes in law and society stem from socially left wing ideas which have become more prevalent in politics these days. Activism may have played a part in such change but I think that cultural influences such as ideas from other countries, ideas from newspapers and discussion sites also serve to plant and/or change points of view.

In my view, discussion on this site could have some impact on the views that others could express. Such views might translate into votes in elections or referenda.

Much of the mainstream media seem leftist in their outlook to varying degrees. Few social commentators seem to argue plausibly from a more socially conservative standpoint. In a way, Jordan Peterson proposes to fill that void.

He has ideas. He spreads those ideas. He influences certain people.

Perhaps he will influence the thinking of some people, to the extent that societal change may occur. I wouldn't rule it out.

I think you’re banding a lot of things together under ‘the left’. I think you could be conflating activist that you don’t support with the left.

Travellers, abortion, gender politics, sex work, all have politically active lobbying and campaigning. They’re in the ear of politicians. They interact with media. ‘Men’ as a group, don’t do any of those things to anything like the same extent.

Last year I watched a uk parliamentary (home affairs maybe but I’m not sure) committee hearing about sex work. They got evidence from sex workers, sex work charities and health professionals but they couldn’t get any customers to give evidence. So those politicians go away and make recommendations for legal reform and change to practices based in part on those testimonies.

That’s how change happens. And men were absent from that part of the process. Change only happens when people make it happen for themselves.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You're obviously an intelligent guy. There should be no need to resort to these tactics.

Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer... He does seem obsessed with this Peterson yahoo and his room cleaning thang. TBH I personally don't get the Peterson obsession on either "side". Maybe it's the shock for both of someone who has a position kinda against the "mainstream" who isn't a foaming at the mouth loony? There's enough of the latter to be going around so a change is as good as a rest I suppose. Though the foaming at the corner of the mouth types are more fatiguing to deal with. Though easier to dismiss, so they have that going for them.

No, what you say isn't accurate.

Say it isn't so?? :eek:

I'd give you the benefit of the doubt except you have proved yourself to be one of the most consistently dishonest posters on the site.

Well... kinda yeah. Moves goalposts more quickly than a Croke park GAA/Rubgy/gig weekend. Though to be fair it's egregiously apparent. I would consider that an unconscious courtesy. Of sorts.

I would have thought this sort of sniping was beneath you, Wibbs.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That’s how change happens. And men were absent from that part of the process. Change only happens when people make it happen for themselves.

You went off on a bit of a tangent there. Let me remind you that you put the question as to whether Jordan Peterson could effect societal change. I think that it is possible that he could.

My reply to you was a reflection of my own opinions, put in response to your question. Whether I am banding a number of issues under the umbrella of the left or not is beside the point. These were simply illustrative of the major point that I was trying to make.

I think that societal change can come about because of ideas. I think that ideas can gain traction with populations, which can translate into votes and policies to be implemented by governments and the various organs of government.

What I am saying is that activism is just one form of propagating an idea. There are other means.

This site may very well be one of those means. Maybe Jordan Peterson is too.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That’s how change happens. And men were absent from that part of the process. Change only happens when people make it happen for themselves.

You went off on a bit of a tangent there. Let me remind you that you put the question as to whether Jordan Peterson could effect societal change. I think that it is possible that he could.

My reply to you was a reflection of my own opinions, put in response to your question. Whether I am banding a number of issues under the umbrella of the left or not is beside the point. These were simply illustrative of the major point that I was trying to make.

I think that societal change can come about because of ideas. I think that ideas can gain traction with populations, which can translate into votes and policies to be implemented by governments and the various organs of government.

What I am saying is that activism is just one form of propagating an idea. There are other means.

This site may very well be one of those means. Maybe Jordan Peterson is too.

On what way might Peterson be one?

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

On what way might Peterson be one?

See above

Pat Mustard wrote: »

He has ideas. He spreads those ideas. He influences certain people.

Perhaps he will influence the thinking of some people, to the extent that societal change may occur. I wouldn't rule it out.

Zulu

Warning: goalpost maneuver imminent.

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote: »

Warning: goalpost maneuver imminent.

Theres no way even I could attempt to move a goalposts a broad as this “Perhaps he will influence the thinking of some people, to the extent that societal change may occur. I wouldn't rule it out”.

Why bother to move the goalposts? The same could be said of Auntie Nora. She might cause societal change to occur. I wouldn’t rule it out, but I wouldn’t hold my breath either.

All this to avoid the notion that organising and campaigning are the clear and obvious way to achieve change.

Rory28

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

All this to avoid the notion that organising and campaigning are the clear and obvious way to achieve change.

This is true only if the people campaigning are of sound mind. If its just a bunch of emotional 20 somethings screaming whatever catch phrase (patriarchy, BLM, Keep your hate speech off my campus etc) over and over to disrupt a conference, lecture, debate then you can see why Peterson says get your own **** together before trying to change other ****.

The only thing people like that can change is the minds of people already on the left.

El_Duderino 09

Rory28 wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

All this to avoid the notion that organising and campaigning are the clear and obvious way to achieve change.

This is true only if the people campaigning are of sound mind. If its just a bunch of emotional 20 somethings screaming whatever catch phrase (patriarchy, BLM, Keep your hate speech off my campus etc) over and over to disrupt a conference, lecture, debate then you can see why Peterson says get your own **** together before trying to change other ****.

The only thing people like that can change is the minds of people already on the left.

So would you say you need to gave your sh1t together to have a successful campaign? Do all the repeal campaigners have their sh1t together? Have all the abortion campaigners over the last 40 odd years hard their sh1t together?

Or is having the sh1t together a completely different issue from being part of a successful campaign?

Zulu

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

All this to avoid the notion that organising and campaigning are the clear and obvious way to achieve change.

Goalpost maneuver cofirmed.

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

All this to avoid the notion that organising and campaigning are the clear and obvious way to achieve change.

Goalpost maneuver cofirmed.

If we’re willing to go with an explanation as weak and generic as this, then the world is your goalposts. “Perhaps he will influence the thinking of some people, to the extent that societal change may occur. I wouldn't rule it out”.

I wouldn’t rule it out. Lol.

Is ignoring me going well for you, Zulu? For all your talk, you just can’t quit me.

iptba

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think you’re banding a lot of things together under ‘the left’. I think you could be conflating activist that you don’t support with the left.

Travellers, abortion, gender politics, sex work, all have politically active lobbying and campaigning. They’re in the ear of politicians. They interact with media. ‘Men’ as a group, don’t do any of those things to anything like the same extent.

Last year I watched a uk parliamentary (home affairs maybe but I’m not sure) committee hearing about sex work. They got evidence from sex workers, sex work charities and health professionals but they couldn’t get any customers to give evidence. So those politicians go away and make recommendations for legal reform and change to practices based in part on those testimonies.

That’s how change happens. And men were absent from that part of the process. Change only happens when people make it happen for themselves.

I think it is asking a lot for somebody to come out as a customer publicly.

There was a consultation in Ireland on prostitution. Although I have never used a sex worker and doubt I ever will I wrote in mainly to object to the Swedish model. I think some other people did too. But it looks like such feedback was largely ignored. An investigating committee went to Sweden but as I recall only consulted with those who said the system was good, not those who said it caused problems. It looked like Ivana Bacik was largely in charge. I could see how politicians could be wary about challenging her and the Swedish model.

It reminded me of gender quotas in politics: Ivana Bacik drove the idea and politicians particularly male politicians were scared to challenge her and the idea for fear of being excoriated for not supporting women.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If we’re willing to go with an explanation as weak and generic as this, then the world is your goalposts. “Perhaps he will influence the thinking of some people, to the extent that societal change may occur. I wouldn't rule it out”.

I wouldn’t rule it out. Lol.

Ideas change society.

This is the overarching point which you continue to pretend to ignore.

Rory28

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So would you say you need to gave your sh1t together to have a successful campaign? Do all the repeal campaigners have their sh1t together? Have all the abortion campaigners over the last 40 odd years hard their sh1t together?

Or is having the sh1t together a completely different issue from being part of a successful campaign?

Yes you would need sh1t together if only so you can hold an actual argument without looking like an emotional wreck.

You keep going on about how feminists worked for 40 years to abolish abortion and you are right in that they worked towards it but I would not compare the feminists of 40 years ago to what we are seeing today. How many times have the new 3rd wave turned on the women who came before them?

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote: »

I think it is asking a lot for somebody to come out as a customer publicly.

There was a consultation in Ireland on prostitution. Although I have never used a sex worker and doubt I ever will I wrote in mainly to object to the Swedish model. I think some other people did too. But it looks like such feedback was largely ignored. An investigating committee went to Sweden but as I recall only consulted with those who said the system was good, not those who said it caused problems. It looked like Ivana Bacik was largely in charge. I could see how politicians could be wary about challenging her and the Swedish model.

It reminded me of gender quotas in politics: Ivana Bacik drove the idea and politicians particularly male politicians were scared to challenge her and the idea for fear of being excoriated for not supporting women.

I’ve no doubt that it would be difficult to find sex customers. But that doesn’t change the point that those who spoke were heard and those who didn’t speak, weren’t heard.

The system is imperfect for sure. But I think you might be surprised by how influential in person testimony is to politicians.

On a side note, fair play for responding to the consultation. Not even nearly enough people are aware of the consultation process and fewer take an active part.

On Ivan’s Bacik, how do you think she became to influential? I’d say it’s her long history of activism and organised campaigning. Do you think she has her own house in Perfect order? Do you think she has achieved equilibrium in her personal life? Does that matter to how successful she is at pushing causes?

El_Duderino 09

Rory28 wrote: »

Yes you would need sh1t together if only so you can hold an actual argument without looking like an emotional wreck.

You keep going on about how feminists worked for 40 years to abolish abortion and you are right in that they worked towards it but I would not compare the feminists of 40 years ago to what we are seeing today. How many times have the new 3rd wave turned on the women who came before them?

I was expecting someone to say it was the good feminists of the past who pushed abortion, not the bad feminists of today.

Anyway, whoever you attribute the success of abortion referendum to over the past few decades right up to last week, do you consider they have their sh1t together?

Rory28

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I was expecting someone to say it was the good feminists of the past who pushed abortion, not the bad feminists of today.

Anyway, whoever you attribute the success of abortion referendum to over the past few decades right up to last week, do you consider they have their sh1t together?

Sure look. one of us was bound to trigger one of your traps.

You dont care what my answer is.

El_Duderino 09

Rory28 wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I was expecting someone to say it was the good feminists of the past who pushed abortion, not the bad feminists of today.

Anyway, whoever you attribute the success of abortion referendum to over the past few decades right up to last week, do you consider they have their sh1t together?

Sure look. one of us was bound to trigger one of your traps.

You dont care what my answer is.

I’m asking a fairly specific question and I’d love to hear the answer.

The abortion campaign is decades old and ended in success last week. Do you think the people involved in it have their sh1t together? In other words is having your sh1t together actually necessary to achieve change?

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Ideas change society.

Now now. You pulled me up for an over simplistic view earlier. You’d never sink to the same diabolical depths as El D, would you?

Ideas are necessary, but they’re nothing if they aren’t pushed into action through campaigning and activism. Ideas without action are like farts in the wind.

Rory28

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’m asking a fairly specific question and I’d love to hear the answer.

The abortion campaign is decades old and ended in success last week. Do you think the people involved in it have their sh1t together? In other words is having your sh1t together actually necessary to achieve change?

I think we should all be striving to have it together. Yes I do believe the majority of people who were originally involved in this referendum were socially adjusted level headed people.

You are asking loads of questions to try and "catch" people. You do this in every thread i see you post in. Is it satisfying when you can finally go "ha. got you!"

El_Duderino 09

Rory28 wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’m asking a fairly specific question and I’d love to hear the answer.

The abortion campaign is decades old and ended in success last week. Do you think the people involved in it have their sh1t together? In other words is having your sh1t together actually necessary to achieve change?

I think we should all be striving to have it together. Yes I do believe the majority of people who were originally involved in this referendum were socially adjusted level headed people.

You qualify the answer by saying ‘the majority who were originally involved’ had their sh1t together. What do you mean by that?

I’m asking because PM wanted to focus on the electorate who turned out last week because they weren’t feminists and he wanted to avoid giving too much credit to the activists who worked hard over the last decades. And you seem to want to focus on the old school activists, Who were well adjusted in your estimation.

I think it’s plain as day that someone doesn’t need to have their house in perfect order before they campaign to change something in the world.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’m asking a fairly specific question and I’d love to hear the answer.

The abortion campaign is decades old and ended in success last week. Do you think the people involved in it have their sh1t together? In other words is having your sh1t together actually necessary to achieve change?

That’s an interesting view. Do you think the abortion campaign has ended? Do you think that the push both to reign back and indeed extend the outcome from last week will disappear? Do you think that the differences within the yes camp as to what “acceptable” legislation is will disappear? Could the middle ground readily move their position on abortion if legislation offers to little or too much down the line? Do you think the no camp won’t continue to campaign to roll things back and indeed will be watching closely what evidence emerges of how the legislation actually works?

The US model would seem to indicate that (I) for the vast majority of no voters there this isn’t seen as a. Woman’s rights issue so much as a human rights issue and (ii) there’s a significant and consistent anti abortion movement that isn’t disappearing as generational moves happen. Or to use your expression, they’ve very much got their **** together

Do you think Ireland will progress differently?

The Bishop Basher

Rory28 wrote: »

Is it satisfying when you can finally go "ha. got you!"

I've yet to see him find that moment..

Best not to engage..

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Now now. You pulled me up for an over simplistic view earlier. You’d never sink to the same diabolical depths as El D, would you?

That's because you came up with one of your typical strawman arguments, where you try to argue against some issue that is not the point. You are now going off on one of your other tangents. The usual shenanigans, for which you are notorious.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ideas are necessary, but they’re nothing if they aren’t pushed into action through campaigning and activism.

The point that you have been pushing the entire time is that ideas cannot be realised without campaigning and activism. I say that it is possible that they can. I say that if someone takes a particular view based upon an idea, they could vote one way or another or they could take a particular course of action, without the necessity for campaigning or activism.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Now now. You pulled me up for an over simplistic view earlier. You’d never sink to the same diabolical depths as El D, would you?

Ideas are necessary, but they’re nothing if they aren’t pushed into action through campaigning and activism. Ideas without action are like farts in the wind.

You're missing Pat's point that ideas aren't just spread through campaigning and activism. They can be spread through an exchange of dialogue, without all the campaigning and activism. Attributing social change solely to campaigning and activism is taking a rather simplistic view as it ignores other cultural and social changes that happened in the same period which influenced the outcome of the referendum.

It doesn't follow that the people who voted to repeal the 8th amendment necessarily agreed with those activists who campaigned for the changes in legislation that they wanted. Ideas are indeed like farts, the more deadly ones take a while to fester before anyone notices that something stinks.

El_Duderino 09

Rennaws wrote: »

Rory28 wrote: »

Is it satisfying when you can finally go "ha. got you!"

I've yet to see him find that moment..

Best not to engage..

Because that’s not actually what I’m doing?

Look. I think the way to change things is to actively campaign and advocate for those changes. This mad notion has been proposed that you need to have your house on Perfect order before you try to change anything in society. I think that’s complete guff.

Societal change happens all the time. Groups who actively seek change are the ones who have the greatest chance of achieving change. The state of those people’s bedrooms or personal lives is completely irrelevant to the societal change they can achieve. That stands regardless of what self help book is in vogue at the moment.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Now now. You pulled me up for an over simplistic view earlier. You’d never sink to the same diabolical depths as El D, would you?

That's because you came up with one of your typical strawman arguments, where you try to argue against some issue that is not the point. You are now going off on one of your other tangents. The usual shenanigans, for which you are notorious.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ideas are necessary, but they’re nothing if they aren’t pushed into action through campaigning and activism.

The point that you have been pushing the entire time is that ideas cannot be realised without campaigning and activism. I say that it is possible that they can. I say that if someone takes a particular view based upon an idea, they could vote one way or another or they could take a particular course of action, without the necessity for campaigning or activism.

I’ll leave the personal stuff from your response aside.

Ha! Now you’re trying to claim voting isn’t a form of activism? Ah here. Do you want me to remind you of your positions? You’re supposedly arguing that activism ISN’T necessary to achieve societal change. Member?

Campaigning, raising awareness, pushing the issues to the public consciousness, those activities are specifically designed to affect the attitudes people hold and change the way politicians behave to get those people’s votes.

There’s s good example of what I’m talking about from last week. I wonder if you’ve noticed me mention it. Lol.

Pat Mustard

I disagree.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’m asking a fairly specific question and I’d love to hear the answer.

The abortion campaign is decades old and ended in success last week. Do you think the people involved in it have their sh1t together? In other words is having your sh1t together actually necessary to achieve change?

That’s an interesting view. Do you think the abortion campaign has ended? Do you think that the push both to reign back and indeed extend the outcome from last week will disappear? Do you think that the differences within the yes camp as to what “acceptable” legislation is will disappear? Could the middle ground readily move their position on abortion if legislation offers to little or too much down the line? Do you think the no camp won’t continue to campaign to roll things back and indeed will be watching closely what evidence emerges of how the legislation actually works?

The US model would seem to indicate that (I) for the vast majority of no voters there this isn’t seen as a. Woman’s rights issue so much as a human rights issue and (ii) there’s a significant and consistent anti abortion movement that isn’t disappearing as generational moves happen. Or to use your expression, they’ve very much got their **** together

Do you think Ireland will progress differently?

I don’t think the discussion is over. Political issues are never over, as such But there was a big win/loss last week. Naturally it’s politicians job to argue and form the legislation. Likewise the campaigners will continue campaigning as the issue moves on.

Have your sh1t together isn’t my expression. It’s how another poster summed up Peterson’s ‘clean your room’ and ‘get your house in perfect order before you criticise the world’ and achieve equilibrium in your life’ before trying to change society. Get your sh1t together seemed to sum it up nicely so I went with it, but it’s not my expression.

Now, would you try to answer the question I keep asking. Do you think the people involved in the winning side of the recent referendum have their sh1t together? In other words is having your sh1t together actually necessary to achieve change?