Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Activism versus Discussion thread
Options
Comments
-
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »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?
So many questions from you, so little else. Do you actually have no opinions of your own or is it just you hide them well....
At the core of something like that (both sides) I’d almost guarantee there’s a group of people who have their **** together- you cant run a campaign on that scale and with that mental requirement (both sides again) unless you’re pretty congruent. I’m sure that’s not true for everyone involved, but for the most effective lights in both campaigns I’d be inclined to say yes they have
Would you disagree?0 -
So many questions from you, so little else. Do you actually have no opinions of your own or is it just you hide them well....
At the core of something like that (both sides) I’d almost guarantee there’s a group of people who have their **** together- you cant run a campaign on that scale and with that mental requirement (both sides again) unless you’re pretty congruent. I’m sure that’s not true for everyone involved, but for the most effective lights in both campaigns I’d be inclined to say yes they have
Would you disagree?
You know you've just trigger some sort of trap, right?0 -
I’ve made my opinion clear a number of times. I think self improvement is grand but it’s not necessary to achieve cultural change.So many questions from you, so little else. Do you actually have no opinions of your own or is it just you hide them well....
At the core of something like that (both sides) I’d almost guarantee there’s a group of people who have their **** together- you cant run a campaign on that scale and with that mental requirement (both sides again) unless you’re pretty congruent. I’m sure that’s not true for everyone involved, but for the most effective lights in both campaigns I’d be inclined to say yes they have
Would you disagree?
If you want to know something specific, just ask.
So you suppose the core of the movements has their sh1t together or else the movement wouldn’t work. And the having together of the sh1t is not necessary/irrelevant for the rest of the group. Now we’re narrowing it down a bit.
Given how successfully the feminists have been at achieving cultural change in society Over the last decades (for good or ill), do you consider the core of the feminist movement to have their sh1t together?
Do you consider the bulk of the feminist movement to have their sh1t together?0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »I’ve made my opinion clear a number of times. I think self improvement is grand but it’s not necessary to achieve cultural change.
If you want to know something specific, just ask.
So you suppose the core of the movements has their sh1t together or else the movement wouldn’t work. And the having together of the sh1t is not necessary/irrelevant for the rest of the group. Now we’re narrowing it down a bit.
Given how successfully the feminists have been at achieving cultural change in society Over the last decades (for good or ill), do you consider the core of the feminist movement to have their sh1t together?
Do you consider the bulk of the feminist movement to have their sh1t together?
I’m not sure what you think you’re narrowing down a bit? The opinions of one poster on a message board? It would be easier just to state the premise you’re trying to get to and asking me which bits of it I do or don’t agree with. Actually, why don’t you just try that?
In terms of the rest of your post: Bulk of? Hell no, I’ve no idea where you’d get that idea from. Very few ideological groups can claim to have a bulk of enlightened folks with their **** together, it doesn’t tend to work well because people with their **** together won’t typically comply with or just accept an ideology so readily,: whether it’s putting boots on the street or sending kids out to walk into machine guns, folks with their **** together tend to need lots more folks without their **** together if they want to push an agenda. Feminism is no different there. If you look at the age profile of who gets conscripted, who appears on protests, where radical thought is disseminated and grows, it’s amongst young people, whose views are still impressionable- there’s a reason for that
Some key figures within feminism? absolutely they have their **** together, and absolutely part of the reason they’ve been successful. People like Janice Raymond for example very clearly have a clear sense of self. That’s not to say they’re congruent with wider society. That’s not to say that Raymond’s views on transexuality for example aren’t something I find repulsive and evil. However my view would be that you don’t get the degree of influence someone like that has without a being internally aware to a strong degree. It’s not a compliment or a curse by the way. Gandhi probably had his **** together, but so did Stalin.0 -
I’m not sure what you think you’re narrowing down a bit? The opinions of one poster on a message board? It would be easier just to state the premise you’re trying to get to and asking me which bits of it I do or don’t agree with. Actually, why don’t you just try that?
In terms of the rest of your post: Bulk of? Hell no, I’ve no idea where you’d get that idea from. Very few ideological groups can claim to have a bulk of enlightened folks with their **** together, it doesn’t tend to work well because people with their **** together won’t typically comply with or just accept an ideology so readily,: whether it’s putting boots on the street or sending kids out to walk into machine guns, folks with their **** together tend to need lots more folks without their **** together if they want to push an agenda. Feminism is no different there. If you look at the age profile of who gets conscripted, who appears on protests, where radical thought is disseminated and grows, it’s amongst young people, whose views are still impressionable- there’s a reason for that
Some key figures within feminism? absolutely they have their **** together, and absolutely part of the reason they’ve been successful. People like Janice Raymond for example very clearly have a clear sense of self. That’s not to say they’re congruent with wider society. That’s not to say that Raymond’s views on transexuality for example aren’t something I find repulsive and evil. However my view would be that you don’t get the degree of influence someone like that has without a being internally aware to a strong degree. It’s not a compliment or a curse by the way. Gandhi probably had his **** together, but so did Stalin.
Oh you missed my point? I’ll repeat it for you: I’ve made my opinion clear a number of times. I think self improvement is grand but it’s not necessary to achieve cultural change.if you want to achieve change you organise, campaign, lobby, raise awareness and push the issue into the public consciousness.
Believe it or not, we’re getting somewhere. In your last post you mention that only the key figures in feminism have their sh1t together, and the bulk of the movement doesn’t have their sh1t together. And you say that Gandhi and Stalin both probably had their sh1t together.
So it’s fair to say that having your Sh1t together isn’t a guarantee of having good impact on society (Stalin) nor is it necessary to have your sh1t t together to achieve cultural change (as long as the key figures have their sh1t together)
So what exactly is the need for everyone to have their sh1t together? If you have an issue that’s important to you such as the family court system or support for men’s domestic violence victims, then just go out and get active.
The notion that you need to clean your room and get your house in perfect order before you criticise the world, is nonsense. It’s a recipe for interminable navel gazing, not cultural change.
I’m sure nobody here will deny the successes the dreaded feminists have had from gender quotas to female physical requirements for fire fighters and female centric health screenings and domestic violence support. And I’m sure nobody is willing to say the bulk of dreadful feminists have their own house in Perfect order before they criticised the world.
So why do supposed men’s rights supporters think they need to have their own house in Perfect order before they try to achieve societal change?
It’s not necessary. You acknowledge that all you need is some key figures with their sh1t together. The rest can be as terrible as the bulk of the dreaded feminists and still achieve societal change.0 -
Advertisement
-
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »I’m sure nobody here will deny the successes the dreaded feminists have had from gender quotas to female physical requirements for fire fighters and female centric health screenings and domestic violence support. And I’m sure nobody is willing to say the bulk of dreadful feminists have their own house in Perfect order before they criticised the world.
You're right there, anyone who thinks physical standards for fire fighters should be reduced to employ more women is fairly unhinged :pac: , it would have been better for society if they tidied their rooms and focused on getting their mental health and other personal issues in order firstA belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Oh you missed my point? I’ll repeat it for you: I’ve made my opinion clear a number of times. I think self improvement is grand but it’s not necessary to achieve cultural change.if you want to achieve change you organise, campaign, lobby, raise awareness and push the issue into the public consciousness.
Believe it or not, we’re getting somewhere. In your last post you mention that only the key figures in feminism have their sh1t together, and the bulk of the movement doesn’t have their sh1t together. And you say that Gandhi and Stalin both probably had their sh1t together.
So it’s fair to say that having your Sh1t together isn’t a guarantee of having good impact on society (Stalin) nor is it necessary to have your sh1t t together to achieve cultural change (as long as the key figures have their sh1t together)
So what exactly is the need for everyone to have their sh1t together? If you have an issue that’s important to you such as the family court system or support for men’s domestic violence victims, then just go out and get active.
The notion that you need to clean your room and get your house in perfect order before you criticise the world, is nonsense. It’s a recipe for interminable navel gazing, not cultural change.
I’m sure nobody here will deny the successes the dreaded feminists have had from gender quotas to female physical requirements for fire fighters and female centric health screenings and domestic violence support. And I’m sure nobody is willing to say the bulk of dreadful feminists have their own house in Perfect order before they criticised the world.
So why do supposed men’s rights supporters think they need to have their own house in Perfect order before they try to achieve societal change?
It’s not necessary. You acknowledge that all you need is some key figures with their sh1t together. The rest can be as terrible as the bulk of the dreaded feminists and still achieve societal change.
Except you’ve completely, utterly, totally missed the point
If your goal is to be part of the mindless collective by all means don’t get your **** together. The mindless collective are very useful. Lots of them were needed at places like passchendale and the Somme. Some people sometimes refer to them as sheep.
Sheep don’t actually question things for themselves very much. They do what they’re told or theyrepeat the collective argument but their value in moving society forward is in terms of quantity rather than quality. In pre democratic times they were called cannon fodder, today they just run along to protest on behalf of people who have their **** together.
It’s ok for you to be a sheep by the way. It’s actually rather safe. You have the support of your collective, you have your tribal links, you have “us” and more importantly “them”. And of course your group of sheep is “different” to every other group of sheep - this time it’s different!
The bulk of the dreaded feminists as you put it are pretty much normal people. They get up, they work, they ask inane “why, why, but why” questions on the internet, they puff their chests out with the fire of self belief as they go out to bat against “the others”. They typically try to contribute to social change by showing up with the bigger herd.
But sheep don’t act as individuals. Yes they’re useful, but they never act as a catalyst for anything. Individuals do that. Social change is realized usually by the collective but social change is initiated by individuals. If someone is happy to continue just following the herd then by all means don’t do anything with yourself. You’re absolutely fine as you are. A body, legs arms, brain is optional. But if you want to use your potential as an individual, if you believe change is something you can help initiate rather than being just being swept obediently along by it, then hell yes get your **** together0 -
silverharp wrote: »You're right there, anyone who thinks physical standards for fire fighters should be reduced to employ more women is fairly unhinged :pac: , it would have been better for society if they tidied their rooms and focused on getting their mental health and other personal issues in order first
Surely it shows that you don’t need to have a tidy room or a house in Perfect order before you criticise the world. Those things aren’t necessary to achieve change.
So if you pick an issue that you know is solid like domestic violence support for men or the family court system. Then the state of your room is irrelevant. The state of your activism is all that’s in play and at the moment men’s activism is all but absent. Are they all sitting in their pristine bedrooms contemplating their navels?0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Surely it shows that you don’t need to have a tidy room or a house in Perfect order before you criticise the world. Those things aren’t necessary to achieve change.
So if you pick an issue that you know is solid like domestic violence support for men or the family court system. Then the state of your room is irrelevant. The state of your activism is all that’s in play and at the moment men’s activism is all but absent. Are they all sitting in their pristine bedrooms contemplating their navels?
Just to clear it up for myself as I'm sure I am just reading you wrong. You know the room is just a metaphor right? He isn't telling people to actually clean their rooms. It is a good place to start tho.0 -
Except you’ve completely, utterly, totally missed the point
If your goal is to be part of the mindless collective by all means don’t get your **** together. The mindless collective are very useful. Lots of them were needed at places like passchendale and the Somme. Some people sometimes refer to them as sheep.
Sheep don’t actually question things for themselves very much. They do what they’re told or theyrepeat the collective argument but their value in moving society forward is in terms of quantity rather than quality. In pre democratic times they were called cannon fodder, today they just run along to protest on behalf of people who have their **** together.
It’s ok for you to be a sheep by the way. It’s actually rather safe. You have the support of your collective, you have your tribal links, you have “us” and more importantly “them”. And of course your group of sheep is “different” to every other group of sheep - this time it’s different!
The bulk of the dreaded feminists as you put it are pretty much normal people. They get up, they work, they ask inane “why, why, but why” questions on the internet, they puff their chests out with the fire of self belief as they go out to bat against “the others”. They typically try to contribute to social change by showing up with the bigger herd.
But sheep don’t act as individuals. Yes they’re useful, but they never act as a catalyst for anything. Individuals do that. Social change is realized usually by the collective but social change is initiated by individuals. If someone is happy to continue just following the herd then by all means don’t do anything with yourself. You’re absolutely fine as you are. A body, legs arms, brain is optional. But if you want to use your potential as an individual, if you believe change is something you can help initiate rather than being just being swept obediently along by it, then hell yes get your **** together
Yes yes, let’s assume I registered the sheep jibes. You see me as sheep, brain optional etc. Let’s not torture the sheep analogy any further or we’ll have to deal with the ISPCA.
You see, you’re contradicting yourself above. You say sheep are rarely the catalyst for change. But you also think the majority of feminists don’t have their Sh1t together. Assuming the ones without their sh1t together are the sheep, then I think you’re dead wrong. The sheep are integral to achieve critical mass in any movement.
I’ve read so much criticism of young people and their clicktivism etc, but they’re a big part of the recent referendum result. They’re a big part of the feminist movement (I’m sure you’ll relish the opportunity to call the bulk of the feminists, sheep).
The sheep march, they campaign, they provide the bulk of the movement, the momentum. Nobody ever discourages a sheep from voting for them.
You’re using all the cliches to sneer at sheep, safe, herds, brain optional, them and us, but you’re missing the point that even a dreadful brainless sheep like me gets a vote.
So while yourself and all the terribly self aware supposed men’s rights supporters are busily beautifying your room and practicing walking with your back straight and shoulders back, the brainless feminists and other herds of sheep (as you call them) are out there actively changing the culture.
Baaah0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes I got that. A chapter in his latest self help book is called get your house in perfect order before you criticise the world. Another poster rolled it together into ‘get your sh1t together’. So whenever I say ‘sh1t together’ let’s assume I’m talking about the whole self improvement vibe.Just to clear it up for myself as I'm sure I am just reading you wrong. You know the room is just a metaphor right? He isn't telling people to actually clean their rooms. It is a good place to start tho.
And I don’t think it’s necessary for a group to have it’s sh1t together to achieve societal change.
It’s like Louise o Neill says; It depends on how open your eyes are... In a transcendent state you can see infinity in the finite. You could say you can see infinity in what you have within your grasp”0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Yes yes, let’s assume I registered the sheep jibes. You see me as sheep, brain optional etc. Let’s not torture the sheep analogy any further or we’ll have to deal with the ISPCA.
I didn’t actually aim a dig at you at all. I quite deliberately rephrased parts of my post to avoid that. However if you want to feel persecuted that’s your choice.
You’re absolutely entitled to think I’m wrong, again that’s your choice. However you’re telling me I’m contradicting myself then pointing out how I’m not actually contradicting myself. Reread my post again perhaps and see that it actually aligns perfectly with the point you’re making above....
You see, you’re contradicting yourself above. You say sheep are rarely the catalyst for change. But you also think the majority of feminists don’t have their Sh1t together. Assuming the ones without their sh1t together are the sheep, then I think you’re dead wrong. The sheep are integral to achieve critical mass in any movement.
I’ve read so much criticism of young people and their clicktivism etc, but they’re a big part of the recent referendum result. They’re a big part of the feminist movement (I’m sure you’ll relish the opportunity to call the bulk of the feminists, sheep).
Young people are a big part of all movements. I already indicated that. They absolutely played a part in the recent referendum result. They were integral for both sides in their campaigns. I’m sure you wouldn’t try to argue that with 2/3 of the country voting yes that’s just young people?
I’m not really sure why you need to tell me they’re part of the feminist movement. Do you think feminism is vastly over represented with young people compared to other movements for example? What’s the relative breakdown across different movements and ideologies?The sheep march, they campaign, they provide the bulk of the movement, the momentum. Nobody ever discourages a sheep from voting for them.
Yes, that agreeing with pretty much everything I said. Thank you for your endorsement
You’re using all the cliches to sneer at sheep, safe, herds, brain optional, them and us, but you’re missing the point that even a dreadful brainless sheep like me gets a vote.
Yes I believe you’re still endorsing everything I said. Thank you for that. To be clear, are you now acknowledging your a sheep or do you just still think I’ve ascribed that to you?
Just to be clear though, I sneered at nobody. Sheep or not sheep is a choice. I happen to prefer not to be a sheep but I can see the appeal of both options. If you feel it’s a perjorative that’s really down to your own perceptions
So while yourself and all the terribly self aware supposed men’s rights supporters are busily beautifying your room and practicing walking with your back straight and shoulders back, the brainless feminists and other herds of sheep (as you call them) are out there actively changing the culture.
Baaah
And then you manage to miss the point again. You were doing so well for a while there. Your endorsement of everything I had said gave me hope. And then you manage to somehow completely misrepresent the whole point again. A pity, you seemed to be almost there.....0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Yes yes, let’s assume I registered the sheep jibes. You see me as sheep, brain optional etc. Let’s not torture the sheep analogy any further or we’ll have to deal with the ISPCA.
I didn’t actually aim a dig at you at all. I quite deliberately rephrased parts of my post to avoid that. However if you want to feel persecuted that’s your choice.
You’re absolutely entitled to think I’m wrong, again that’s your choice. However you’re telling me I’m contradicting myself then pointing out how I’m not actually contradicting myself. Reread my post again perhaps and see that it actually aligns perfectly with the point you’re making above....
You see, you’re contradicting yourself above. You say sheep are rarely the catalyst for change. But you also think the majority of feminists don’t have their Sh1t together. Assuming the ones without their sh1t together are the sheep, then I think you’re dead wrong. The sheep are integral to achieve critical mass in any movement.
I’ve read so much criticism of young people and their clicktivism etc, but they’re a big part of the recent referendum result. They’re a big part of the feminist movement (I’m sure you’ll relish the opportunity to call the bulk of the feminists, sheep).
Young people are a big part of all movements. I already indicated that. They absolutely played a part in the recent referendum result. They were integral for both sides in their campaigns. I’m sure you wouldn’t try to argue that with 2/3 of the country voting yes that’s just young people?
I’m not really sure why you need to tell me they’re part of the feminist movement. Do you think feminism is vastly over represented with young people compared to other movements for example? What’s the relative breakdown across different movements and ideologies?The sheep march, they campaign, they provide the bulk of the movement, the momentum. Nobody ever discourages a sheep from voting for them.
Yes, that agreeing with pretty much everything I said. Thank you for your endorsement
You’re using all the cliches to sneer at sheep, safe, herds, brain optional, them and us, but you’re missing the point that even a dreadful brainless sheep like me gets a vote.
Yes I believe you’re still endorsing everything I said. Thank you for that. To be clear, are you now acknowledging your a sheep or do you just still think I’ve ascribed that to you?
Just to be clear though, I sneered at nobody. Sheep or not sheep is a choice. I happen to prefer not to be a sheep but I can see the appeal of both options. If you feel it’s a perjorative that’s really down to your own perceptions
So while yourself and all the terribly self aware supposed men’s rights supporters are busily beautifying your room and practicing walking with your back straight and shoulders back, the brainless feminists and other herds of sheep (as you call them) are out there actively changing the culture.
Baaah
And then you manage to miss the point again. You were doing so well for a while there. Your endorsement of everything I had said gave me hope. And then you manage to somehow completely misrepresent the whole point again. A pity, you seemed to be almost there.....
Lol. You do t think ‘brain optional’ is a pejorative? Okey dokey
Sheep, as you call them, The sheep march, they campaign, they provide the bulk of the movement, the momentum. They’re the ones who carry the ball over the line. You acknowledge all that and still need to oppose my point that campaigning etc. achieves change.
All you need is a few people with their sh1t together and a load of sheep, to use your phrase, and you can achieve change. But Peterson says you need to set your house in perfect order before you criticise the world. So now you need to pretend the way to achieve societal change is tidy your room etc. first.
Look, the feminists, dreadful creatures that they are, campaign and achieve all sorts of change. The men are t doing likewise and don’t achieve anything like the same social change.
I think you’ve come around to the idea that a movement only needs key people with their sh1t together and the bulk can be as bad as one can describe the feminists to be. They get things done. Maybe all the men who are in opposition to the idea that campaigning is the main thing that causes change, have tidy, beautiful rooms. Maybe they’re still beavering away, setting their own house in perfect order before they criticise the world. But I doubt it.
I think they’re just being lazy. Sitting around criticising the fact that there aren’t men’s shelters for domestic violence, criticising the medical screening for female diseases and lack of analogous men’s services, criticising the family court system, criticising the dreaded feminists who haven’t even got their own house in order but they’re causing societal change.
The sooner Peterson writes a campaigning manual the better.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Lol. You do t think ‘brain optional’ is a pejorative? Okey dokey
Sheep, as you call them, The sheep march, they campaign, they provide the bulk of the movement, the momentum. They’re the ones who carry the ball over the line. You acknowledge all that and still need to oppose my point that campaigning etc. achieves change.
All you need is a few people with their sh1t together and a load of sheep, to use your phrase, and you can achieve change. But Peterson says you need to set your house in perfect order before you criticise the world. So now you need to pretend the way to achieve societal change is tidy your room etc. first.
Look, the feminists, dreadful creatures that they are, campaign and achieve all sorts of change. The men are t doing likewise and don’t achieve anything like the same social change.
I think you’ve come around to the idea that a movement only needs key people with their sh1t together and the bulk can be as bad as one can describe the feminists to be. They get things done. Maybe all the men who are in opposition to the idea that campaigning is the main thing that causes change, have tidy, beautiful rooms. Maybe they’re still beavering away, setting their own house in perfect order before they criticise the world. But I doubt it.
I think they’re just being lazy. Sitting around criticising the fact that there aren’t men’s shelters for domestic violence, criticising the medical screening for female diseases and lack of analogous men’s services, criticising the family court system, criticising the dreaded feminists who haven’t even got their own house in order but they’re causing societal change.
The sooner Peterson writes a campaigning manual the better.
For some reason this is the second time you’ve endorsed large chunks of what I’ve said while assuring me I’m wrong. I assume there is some logic there but if so it’s pretty deeply buried.
I haven’t actually ‘come around’ to any idea, my position hasn’t changed. What appears to be difficult for you to understand is I actually understand the point I’m arguing. In particular I understand the difference between my position and what you’d like to represent my position as.
Let’s try this from a different angle shall we? What do you see as the thing that marks out say a Hillary Clinton from the majority of people campaigning for the same things that Hilary campaigns for?0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Surely it shows that you don’t need to have a tidy room or a house in Perfect order before you criticise the world. Those things aren’t necessary to achieve change.
no one ever suggested you couldn't , but insane people change the world everyday (for the worse) , well balanced people would more likely have well balanced goalsA belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
RTE2 had a documentary on domestic violence yesterday but it only covered domestic violence against women from what I've read0
-
silverharp wrote: »no one ever suggested you couldn't , but insane people change the world everyday (for the worse) , well balanced people would more likely have well balanced goals
And if people don’t campaign and work for their objective, then nothing happens. It won’t matter how well balanced or how tidy your room is if you don’t campaign for your objectives.
And above all, there’s absolutely nothing about Peterson’s self help regime that cant be gotten from Deepak Chopra or The Secret or the 100 steps to realising your goal.
Well at lest the secret is focused on a goal.
Look, if you think you can achieve change without campaigning for it, tell us how you would achieve it.0 -
For some reason this is the second time you’ve endorsed large chunks of what I’ve said while assuring me I’m wrong. I assume there is some logic there but if so it’s pretty deeply buried.
I haven’t actually ‘come around’ to any idea, my position hasn’t changed. What appears to be difficult for you to understand is I actually understand the point I’m arguing. In particular I understand the difference between my position and what you’d like to represent my position as.
Let’s try this from a different angle shall we? What do you see as the thing that marks out say a Hillary Clinton from the majority of people campaigning for the same things that Hilary campaigns for?
You’re right sheep can get the heavy lifting done. You’re wrong that you need to have your sh1t together to achieve change.
I think you keep restating that you don’t want to be a sheep and you want to have your sh1t together. That’s beside the point that if people don’t campaign, nothing changes.
If you want to follow Peterson’s 12 steps and then do something to change society, that’s grand. If you never get involved in any kind of campaigning, you’ll never effect change no matter how balanced your chakras or tidy your room is.
Re Hillary Clinton. There are dozens of ways to answer that question. She has a fairly unique set of experience between being first lads, a senator, a democratic powerbroker. She’s also extremely rich compared to most people campaigning for the same things as her.
Why don’t you tell me what you think?0 -
fly_agaric wrote: »
Hmm, wonder what groups will get to run all the incoming special classes for boys
I know who has the best chance of influencing the course content. The ones who make an effort to shape it will be most likely to shape it. I wonder will it be mostly men’s interest groups or female interest groups?
Secondly, I listened to a ppdcast with Richie Saflier who delivers one of these courses to transition year students. It actually sounded brilliant. Dealt with consent and expectations and how to discuss what you want to do.
https://m.soundcloud.com/secondcaptains/bonus-episode-1124-the-belfast-rape-trial-sexual-consent-dressingroom-culture0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »You’re right sheep can get the heavy lifting done. You’re wrong that you need to have your sh1t together to achieve change.
I think you keep restating that you don’t want to be a sheep and you want to have your sh1t together. That’s beside the point that if people don’t campaign, nothing changes.
If you want to follow Peterson’s 12 steps and then do something to change society, that’s grand. If you never get involved in any kind of campaigning, you’ll never effect change no matter how balanced your chakras or tidy your room is.
Re Hillary Clinton. There are dozens of ways to answer that question. She has a fairly unique set of experience between being first lads, a senator, a democratic powerbroker. She’s also extremely rich compared to most people campaigning for the same things as her.
Why don’t you tell me what you think?
You still keep dodging the point. Let’s try again so: where do you think the intellectual capital behind activism comes from? Do you think the leaders of these campaigns have their **** together? Or does it just “happen” organically somehow?0 -
Advertisement
-
You still keep dodging the point. Let’s try again so: where do you think the intellectual capital behind activism comes from? Do you think the leaders of these campaigns have their **** together? Or does it just “happen” organically somehow?
Where does he intellectual capital come from? The people with he ideas I suppose. Its a bit of a circular question tbh. Hard to say if the leaders he leaders need to have their sh1t together in order to cause change. Leaders need leadership qualities or else they're unlikely to be able to lead. Is that what we're talking about? Leadership qualities?
Why don't you tell us what you think? Was that Hillary Clinton question supposed to be rhetorical or something?0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Where does he intellectual capital come from? The people with he ideas I suppose. Its a bit of a circular question tbh. Hard to say if the leaders he leaders need to have their sh1t together in order to cause change. Leaders need leadership qualities or else they're unlikely to be able to lead. Is that what we're talking about? Leadership qualities?
Why don't you tell us what you think? Was that Hillary Clinton question supposed to be rhetorical or something?
I already told you what I think
It’s the bit you’ve been struggling to accurately represent for the last number of posts
Hence why I’ve taken this tack
Do you think you can lead effectively if you don’t have your **** together?
What do you think the characteristics of leadership are?
Is clarity of purpose necessary to come up with such ideas and then effectively lead people towards that goal?0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Where does he intellectual capital come from? The people with he ideas I suppose. Its a bit of a circular question tbh. Hard to say if the leaders he leaders need to have their sh1t together in order to cause change. Leaders need leadership qualities or else they're unlikely to be able to lead. Is that what we're talking about? Leadership qualities?
Why don't you tell us what you think? Was that Hillary Clinton question supposed to be rhetorical or something?
I already told you what I think
It’s the bit you’ve been struggling to accurately represent for the last number of posts
Hence why I’ve taken this tack
Do you think you can lead effectively if you don’t have your **** together?
What do you think the characteristics of leadership are?
Is clarity of purpose necessary to come up with such ideas and then effectively lead people towards that goal?
I'd say they couldn't lead effectively if they don't have leadership skills whether learned or innate. clarity of purpose
Its like you said earlier, Stalin had this sh1t together.
Leadership characteristics? There are so many leadership styles and circumstances that it's very hard to answer. You tell me if you you have an answer. Was there any point to the Hillary Clinton question?
Is clarity of purpose necessary to come up with an idea and lead people effectively towards a goal? Its probably not necessary for either but would probably help with both.
Its like silverharp keeps saying, feminists have dreadful ideas but they manage to achieve a fair bit of progress towards those goals. Either they have their sh1t together enough to achieve a fair amount, or else you only need to have your **** together to same degree as the dreaded feminists.
If you have the idea such as support for male domestic violence, you're already half way there. Now all you need to do is act on it by raising public awareness and gaining support etc, or tidy your room until it sorts itself out.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »I'd say they couldn't lead effectively if they don't have leadership skills whether learned or innate. clarity of purpose
Its like you said earlier, Stalin had this sh1t together.
Leadership characteristics? There are so many leadership styles and circumstances that it's very hard to answer. You tell me if you you have an answer. Was there any point to the Hillary Clinton question?
Is clarity of purpose necessary to come up with an idea and lead people effectively towards a goal? Its probably not necessary for either but would probably help with both.
Its like silverharp keeps saying, feminists have dreadful ideas but they manage to achieve a fair bit of progress towards those goals. Either they have their sh1t together enough to achieve a fair amount, or else you only need to have your **** together to same degree as the dreaded feminists.
If you have the idea such as support for male domestic violence, you're already half way there. Now all you need to do is act on it by raising public awareness and gaining support etc, or tidy your room until it sorts itself out.
But you’ve already told us that all you need is activism?0 -
But you’ve already told us that all you need is activism?
I said nothing happens without activism. Zulu will be along to spot your goalpost shift maneuver if he was interested in spotting them for you. Lol.
Having your sh1t together will probably help alright. The feminists are dreadful creatures, desperately in need of Peterson's teachings, if you believe the things you read in this forum. But they also get things done because they push their issues. So you need to have your sh1t together to the same degree as them to achieve as much as them. That's a low barfor having your sh1t together, right? But a relatively high bar for getting things done.
Feminist issues are moving along. The have their issues in the public consciousness. Men's issues aren't being pushed and aren't being changed. And you're telling me the thing that needs to be addressed first is the self improvement part and not the activism part?
Christ on a bike, if I told you the sky was blue you probably would have spent the same number of posts telling me it's not.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »I said nothing happens without activism. Zulu will be along to spot your goalpost shift maneuver if he was interested in spotting them for you. Lol.
Having your sh1t together will probably help alright. The feminists are dreadful creatures, desperately in need of Peterson's teachings, if you believe the things you read in this forum. But they also get things done because they push their issues. So you need to have your sh1t together to the same degree as them to achieve as much as them. That's a low barfor having your sh1t together, right? But a relatively high bar for getting things done.
Feminist issues are moving along. The have their issues in the public consciousness. Men's issues aren't being pushed and aren't being changed. And you're telling me the thing that needs to be addressed first is the self improvement part and not the activism part?
Christ on a bike, if I told you the sky was blue you probably would have spent the same number of posts telling me it's not.
You see if I was a particular kind of poster, the kind who twists and misrepresents and deliberately misstates the position of others to poison debate I’d gleefully start picking apart posts like these:El_Duderino 09 wrote: »You’re right sheep can get the heavy lifting done. You’re wrong that you need to have your sh1t together to achieve change.El_Duderino 09 wrote: »I’ve made my opinion clear a number of times. I think self improvement is grand but it’s not necessary to achieve cultural change.
Fortunately I’m not that kind of poster. They do exist on here apparently, my mom Zulu warned me about them- something about traps: how am I doing Zulu?
Instead I’ll actually address the point you keep missing- that’s what honest discussion and debate does
You see no one said you don’t need activism and indeed activists. Both side on the debate of recent weeks had both in spades. But that’s not all you need. You actually need the thought process, the debate, the evolution, the whingers as you’ve so delicately put it. You need the discussion around what the issue is and how people see it affecting them and wider society. And self awareness is important to drive that discussion.
You see the thing you’ve missed throughout is the concept of individual responsibility vs collective action. Someone like Peterson doesn’t say we all collectively need to be self improved, he says that as an individual - no group, no ism (I’m unsure btw why you need to bring Peterson into every debate, it’s a bit pathological tbh and I do wonder if there is a part of you that isn’t desperately fighting your deep admiration for the man)
Collective action is great by the way. A critical mass of humanity is one way to change the world. It’s not the only way though. When Janice Raymond was enabling discrimination against transsexuals there was no mob cheering her on, her own ideology was enough (though I’d say there was a few in the background). Likewise Luther argueably lit the fire of social change before he had the critical mass, just enough support to keep things in the road. But collective action isn’t capable of individual conscience. Naziism was swept to power on collective action, but gandhi freed India on it too. It’s a blunt instrument. Sure, it’s great if you’re in the mob, no accountability, just blame the zeitgeist. If you’re lucky the social acceptance only goes after you die so you die a righteous person. Salem witch trials, McCarthyism, both were activism and collective action.
That collectivism historically suits a hell of a lot of people by the way. When I said “brain optional” earlier it wasn’t a perjorative, it was a statement of reality. Do you really think the critically thinking part of people’s brains is heavily engaged in sending their neighbors to concentration camps? In taking glee in seeing someone punished for the circumstances of their birth? That’s not to say we can’t achieve wonderful things collectively, but it’s worth on an individual level every now and then asking if the picture looks as wonderful on the outside as everyone on the inside is telling you. Thats what, imho, getting your house in order means (go ask Jordan If he agrees, i homestly couldn’t tell you)
Btw, something to consider on activism. It’s taken the left (let’s use the moniker for simplicity’s sake, it’s not a perjorative) roughly 40 years to build their critical mass in universities. Their activism has been manufactured over a very long time. They did it in colleges that were traditionally extremely conservative. Do you think the right (again let’s just use the moniker) haven’t learned from that? Trump and Farage at the extremes show that they have. Be careful what you wish for in terms of activism, because the whingers you decry here will over time become active.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »I said nothing happens without activism. Zulu will be along to spot your goalpost shift maneuver if he was interested in spotting them for you. Lol.
Having your sh1t together will probably help alright. The feminists are dreadful creatures, desperately in need of Peterson's teachings, if you believe the things you read in this forum. But they also get things done because they push their issues. So you need to have your sh1t together to the same degree as them to achieve as much as them. That's a low barfor having your sh1t together, right? But a relatively high bar for getting things done.
Feminist issues are moving along. The have their issues in the public consciousness. Men's issues aren't being pushed and aren't being changed. And you're telling me the thing that needs to be addressed first is the self improvement part and not the activism part?
Christ on a bike, if I told you the sky was blue you probably would have spent the same number of posts telling me it's not.
You see if I was a particular kind of poster, the kind who twists and misrepresents and deliberately misstates the position of others to poison debate I’d gleefully start picking apart posts like these:El_Duderino 09 wrote: »You’re right sheep can get the heavy lifting done. You’re wrong that you need to have your sh1t together to achieve change.El_Duderino 09 wrote: »I’ve made my opinion clear a number of times. I think self improvement is grand but it’s not necessary to achieve cultural change.
Fortunately I’m not that kind of poster. They do exist on here apparently, my mom Zulu warned me about them- something about traps: how am I doing Zulu?
Instead I’ll actually address the point you keep missing- that’s what honest discussion and debate does
You see no one said you don’t need activism and indeed activists. Both side on the debate of recent weeks had both in spades. But that’s not all you need. You actually need the thought process, the debate, the evolution, the whingers as you’ve so delicately put it. You need the discussion around what the issue is and how people see it affecting them and wider society. And self awareness is important to drive that discussion.
You see the thing you’ve missed throughout is the concept of individual responsibility vs collective action. Someone like Peterson doesn’t say we all collectively need to be self improved, he says that as an individual - no group, no ism (I’m unsure btw why you need to bring Peterson into every debate, it’s a bit pathological tbh and I do wonder if there is a part of you that isn’t desperately fighting your deep admiration for the man)
Collective action is great by the way. A critical mass of humanity is one way to change the world. It’s not the only way though. When Janice Raymond was denying needed healthcare to transsexuals there was no mob cheering her on, her own ideology was enough (though I’d say there was a few in the background). Likewise Luther argueably lit the fire of social change before he had the critical mass, just enough support to keep things in the road. But collective action isn’t capable of individual conscience. Naziism was swept to power on collective action, but gandhi freed India on it too. It’s a blunt instrument.
Look. If you think you can achieve change in things like getting support services for men’s domestic violence victims, or changes to the family court system, by cleaning your room etc, then do please explain how.
Action will get the issue noticed, not introspection or self improvement. Those things are grand but they’re nothing without campaigning. Even the feminists (as unhinged as they supposedly are) get things done.
They must have done the Peterson 12 step programme or else how could they achieve so much success?0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,111 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59040
He's currently the enemy/savour[delete as applicable] de jour. Too many are obsessed by him on both the pro and con side, hence the constant references here. While I have all sorts of questions and issues around the guy, both supporters and detractors tend to reduce whatever he says to soundbites. IE the "clean your room" stuff we're seeing repeated ad nauseam here. He winds up both sides in a similar way. His supporters are impressed by his apparent and usually measured eloquence on matters not heard too often in the mainstream, his detractors freaked out by same. He's not so easy to dismiss as he questions the accepted narrative with facts(with his own slant of course). Hence the attempt to make light of it. In basic terms it's when BroScience™ debates with ChickThink™.I’m unsure btw why you need to bring Peterson into every debate, it’s a bit pathological tbh and I do wonder if there is a part of you that isn’t desperately fighting your deep admiration for the man
Aye. That can be a politically charged distinction too. In very basic terms the modern "left" is very much of the collectivist bent, the modern "right" of the individualistic. The "progressives" are very collectivist in nature. Especially when it comes to apportioning blame and looking for those to blame.You see the thing you’ve missed throughout is the concept of individual responsibility vs collective action.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Look. If you think you can achieve change in things like getting support services for men’s domestic violence victims, or changes to the family court system, by cleaning your room etc, then do please explain how.
Action will get the issue noticed, not introspection or self improvement. Those things are grand but they’re nothing without campaigning. Even the feminists (as unhinged as they supposedly are) get things done.
They must have done the Peterson 12 step programme or else how could they achieve so much success?
A pity, I thought we’d being doing so well. You almost seemed to have it. Ah well my fault, mustn’t assume people get the tricky bits
Ok, do you believe activism is fundamentally a good thing?
What’s the major non ideological difference between an activist for feminism and say a far right extreme group?0 -
Advertisement
-
A pity, I thought we’d being doing so well. You almost seemed to have it. Ah well my fault, mustn’t assume people get the tricky bits
Ok, do you believe activism is fundamentally a good thing?
What’s the major non ideological difference between an activist for feminism and say a far right extreme group?
Ok. I’ll answer your questions, but do you think you could do it without the snarky comments?
I asked you a couple of questions in that last post. Snarky comments about how I can’t get the tricky bits, don’t address those questions.
So if you please, If you think you can achieve change in things like getting support services for men’s domestic violence victims, or changes to the family court system, by cleaning your room etc, then do please explain how.
To answer your questions, I think activism is powerful and has huge potential for good or bad.
I’ve no idea how to differentiate the non-ideological differences between feminists or far right or men’s domestic violence support services activists or repeal the 8th activists. I’d say the primary difference is that the men’s domestic violence support services activists are virtually non existent. What do you think the differences are?
Is this going to be like the questions about Hillary Clinton and leadership characteristics? We’ll see if you ever get back to this or if you focus your next response on another withering put down, yawn. Only time will tell.0
Advertisement