Jordan Peterson interview on C4

16-02-2020 11:56am

Akrasia wrote: »

Just for the laugh, here’s a link to a RWA test if you’re interested in your own score

https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/RWAS/

(My score was 9.66%)

"Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us."

Right. Edit: 30.68%.

Akrasia · 16-02-2020 11:56am

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

The left's definition of "diversity" is restricted to race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.

Meanwhile, society is becoming ever more closed to diverse beliefs. It has become a monoculture filled with hectoring sycophants, whose purpose in life is to lecture everyone else on what is and isn't "acceptable."

Someone who identifies as a pro-life Catholic knows how exactly how "accepting" this left-liberal monoculture will be.

You are perfectly entitled to be a pro life catholic and anyone else is entitled to disagree with you. Do you want others to be prevented from voicing an opinion critical of your beliefs?

How should that be enforced?

People object to pro life catholic beliefs when they want to back them up with legislation forcing others to live according to that belief structure

xckjoo · 16-02-2020 11:57am

Akrasia wrote: »

No it doesn’t. The vast majority of people will accept nuanced views. There are some sh1t stirrers on social media who will ‘call people out’ but you have to go actively looking for these people to even know they exist and likes of JP and the rest of the MRA people on social media feed into their own sense of self importance in a sad little exchange between a bunch of nobodies thinking they’re at the forefront of a global culture war

I think you're right about people accepting nuanced views, but mainly face to face and less so online. Online everything seems to be binary and everyone is seen as completely right or completely wrong. I actually think Peterson is a good example of this. He (IMO) has some very good points that he discusses well, but he's not some kind of messiah, nor is he the devil incarnate. You'll see it in this thread where it repeatedly descends into a couple of posters "shouting" out the moderates and only wanting to ram their "extreme" opinions on the guy down everyones throats.
I think it's all probably a teething effect of this new form of communication but it does make me worry about future generations and if they'll lose their ability for nuanced evaluations of people. I'm an optimist though so wouldn't be surprised if they handle it better than we do

Akrasia wrote: »

There is a good book called ‘The Authoritarians’ by Robert Altemeyer

https://theauthoritarians.org/Downloads/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

which talks about people with personality types that are high on the Right Wing Authoritarian’ (RWA) scale https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

Even though a lot of these SJWs claim to be liberal or left leaning, many of them are High RWA personality types, and so are many of the Men’s Rights or JP fans. There are two tribes who are clashing because they both want to force everyone else to behave a certain way

Both the SJW and MRA groups have language and codes and modes of thought that they use to signal amongst themselves that they are in the same group and can therefore be trusted and identify members of opposing groups and target them.

With high RWA people, they’re typically very loyal and trusting of their authority figures they choose to follow, they congregate under a ‘Double high’ RWA Individual who becomes their leader and he feeds off their support and can direct them to do his will.

Yup. You only have to spend a bit of time with people claiming to be hardcore liberals to know this is true. They're some of the most closed minded and exclusionary people I've ever met. I know a lot of people in the gay community that feel ostracised for being different by the very groups that were started to give them a place to feel accepted.
Some people will just use whatever they can to try and exert control over others. They just dress it up differently

xckjoo · 16-02-2020 12:10pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Bill c-16 just added gender identity to the list of protected classes in Canadian anti discrimination law.
It was no more compelled speech than forcing someone in authority at a university to not refer to black students with the N word

It was a well intentioned harmless piece of legislation that became politicized by Peterson such that he used it to gather a large support base and a platform from where to launch his very conservative agenda

There's that messiah or agent of evil classification coming out again Akrasia

You're looking at how things ended up and assigning an intent. If the guy managed to plan all this from day 1 then he's an absolute genius. More likely that he expressed his opinions and then took advantage of opportunities that arose.
Regarding the bill, Peterson saw some stuff in it that worried him and he felt compelled to express this worry. He seems to do a lot of study on extremist regimes (maybe just personally I dunno) so maybe it was foresight or maybe it was paranoia. Most likely somewhere in the middle and hopefully on the paranoia side. He was only a university lecturer when this all happened so it's not like he was playing to his audience. Again, if he sat at home and planned all this then he must be some kind of genius and should move into some kind of advertising field. He'd make a fortune.

Akrasia · 16-02-2020 12:23pm

silverharp wrote: »

im not sure your analogy works, or is c-16 only to stop using possibly insulting terms like trannies?

It made it an offense for someone in authority to intentionally misgender somebody. For example, a transgender student who wants to be referred to as female, and her teacher spends the entire year deliberately calling her by male pronouns just to be a dick

Akrasia · 16-02-2020 12:37pm

Calculon6000 wrote: »

Shall we legalise theft, let people choose themselves if they want to thiever?

Your response to this will be that the theft and abortion are not comparable. My response to this is that they are comparable. The key difference is that people disagree that the victim should be protected, the victim in each case being the person who has been robbed and the unborn child.

Saying that I am pro-choice and agree with abortion being legal. However I also think it is reasonable to believe that abortion is legal and people should not be persecuted for having such a belief, which ultimately is subjective.

What do you mean by persecution though?

People who are extremely anti abortion see the world through a very narrow lens where they cannot accept any circumstances where an abortion becomes lesser of two evils

Everyone else accepts at least some circumstances where abortion is necessary and when you arrive at this position, then the question is how to legislate for abortion.

Pro life people still have an input into our abortion legislation and how it is implemented in Ireland. I trust we will find a balance where everyone except the extremists on both sides can feel is acceptable

I don’t think abortions are a good thing, but I think they are necessary for a variety of reasons

Tony EH · 16-02-2020 1:09pm

Tony EH wrote: »

^

The problem is this all or nothing approach that takes a lot of people today. Your needle has to be buried in one direction or the other, or else your some sort of "ist" or an "SJW", depending on who's condemning you.

Akrasia wrote: »

No it doesn’t.

No, it doesn't what?

Akrasia wrote: »

The vast majority of people will accept nuanced views.

What part of my comment makes you think I disagree with this?

Akrasia wrote: »

There are some sh1t stirrers on social media who will ‘call people out’ but you have to go actively looking for these people to even know they exist and likes of JP and the rest of the MRA people on social media feed into their own sense of self importance in a sad little exchange between a bunch of nobodies thinking they’re at the forefront of a global culture war

And it's these people who think that they're in some "global culture war" that want others to bury their needle one way or the other, depending on which persuasion they hold themselves.

But, sure, as you say "the vast majority of people will accept nuanced views" and meeting the screamers is pretty rare in the real world, especially this side of the Atlantic. They're certainly in the minority in my interactions, but I have met several, who will simply see no other argument but their own and will accept nothing but full agreement with their position and not doing so results in a plethora of pejorative labels being thrust at you.

Akrasia · 16-02-2020 1:43pm

xckjoo wrote: »

28%
I feel like some of those questions need updating. Some of the groupings seem odd to me

The test was developed in the 80s and 90s in Canada and the US. There have been different versions with slightly different questions

Believe it or not but the test is deliberately blunt because high RWA types are drawn to those particular answers and tend to be proud of these kinds of positions

Akrasia · 16-02-2020 1:56pm

Calculon6000 wrote: »

Persecution in the form of harassment and personal abuse.

Morality is subjective, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to think that abortion should be illegal as they believe it is the lesser of two evils. I believe that abortion is the lesser of two evils, it's just a different opinion. Neither are objectively wrong, therefore pro life people are perfectly reasonable in campaigning for laws to reflect their view of morality.

Harassment and personal abuse should not be tolerated as part of any sensible discussion and I have taken part in a lot of discussions with people of wildly different beliefs to mine and they usually go fine without either party harassing or abusing the other

Some people take offense much more easily than others though, (on both sides of most debates) and can feel like they are being persecuted just for being challenged on their beliefs

I find the people who happily accuse others of being easily offended tend to be very thin skinned themselves

In real life I don’t engage with people on topics that are sensitive unless I feel they are open to a frank discussion. On a discussion forum where frank discussion is the point, I assume that people are up for it

Zubeneschamali · 16-02-2020 2:27pm

xckjoo wrote: »

You only have to spend a bit of time with people claiming to be hardcore liberals to know this is true.

Nobody in Ireland claims to be a hardcore liberal. Liberalism got a bad name here during the Famine.

take everything · 16-02-2020 2:55pm

Brian? wrote: »

Can you quote a nasty post? Can you quote a post that isn’t wishing him a full recovery? If they exist, I’ve missed them.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Perfectly put. Well except for the last line.

This post (thanked by El Duderino) where the last line referred to is a well-wishing sentiment.

Dunno why you couldn't have checked that yourself.

Brian? · 16-02-2020 2:55pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Just for the laugh, here’s a link to a RWA test if you’re interested in your own score

https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/RWAS/

(My score was 9.66%)

Mine was 0%. I’m 100% a woke liberal.

Brian? · 16-02-2020 2:58pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nobody in Ireland claims to be a hardcore liberal. Liberalism got a bad name here during the Famine.

Liberal doesn’t mean anything anymore. People regularly call anarchists and communists liberals on here r. It’s hilarious.

Dr Peterson refers to himself as a classic liberal.

Brian? · 16-02-2020 3:00pm

take everything wrote: »

This post (thanked by El Duderino) where the last line referred to is a well-wishing sentiment.

Dunno why you couldn't have checked that yourself.

Because I wasn’t the one accusing posters of being nasty.

It’s poor taste to wish the man ill.

take everything · 16-02-2020 3:11pm

Brian? wrote: »

Because I wasn’t the one accusing posters of being nasty.

Which we have just shown.
And which you cast doubt on.

Wibbs · 16-02-2020 3:19pm

Brian? wrote: »

Mine was 0%. I’m 100% a woke liberal.

Mine was also 0%, mainly because I'm not an American. That "test" is so culturally based it's mad Ted.

Brian? · 16-02-2020 3:20pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Mine was also 0%, mainly because I'm not an American. That "test" is so culturally based it's mad Ted.

It’s genuinely he worst test of its kind I’ve ever seen.

Brian? · 16-02-2020 3:21pm

take everything wrote: »

Which we have just shown.
And which you cast doubt on.

I cast doubt on it because I didn’t see it. I asked you to produce evidence to support your accusation. This is super simple stuff.

I agreed that the post you quoted was in poor taste.

take everything · 16-02-2020 3:27pm

Brian? wrote: »

I cast doubt on it because I didn’t see it. I asked you to produce evidence to support your accusation. This is super simple stuff.

I agreed that the post you quoted was in poor taste.

So maybe read the thread more carefully in future and not be getting people to check things for you.

El_Duderino 09 · 16-02-2020 3:36pm

xckjoo wrote: »

There's that messiah or agent of evil classification coming out again Akrasia
You're looking at how things ended up and assigning an intent. If the guy managed to plan all this from day 1 then he's an absolute genius. More likely that he expressed his opinions and then took advantage of opportunities that arose.
Regarding the bill, Peterson saw some stuff in it that worried him and he felt compelled to express this worry. He seems to do a lot of study on extremist regimes (maybe just personally I dunno) so maybe it was foresight or maybe it was paranoia. Most likely somewhere in the middle and hopefully on the paranoia side. He was only a university lecturer when this all happened so it's not like he was playing to his audience. Again, if he sat at home and planned all this then he must be some kind of genius and should move into some kind of advertising field. He'd make a fortune.

I've no idea whether or not he intended to become a Conservative icon but he's certainly leaned into it. He definitely tailors the message to his audience. I remember watching him go on and on about Marxists and feminists and the left and how dangerous they all are. He was asked if he sees any of this on the right and he said of course he would say the same when he sees it on the right. He said white supremacist terrorists are also bad and he'd also call them out. And then he went back to going on and on and on about the feminists and Marxists and the left.

I really think it would be foolish to pretend his message is an honest assessment of events. It's an intellectual sounding version of Fox News.

Throw in some conservative talking points, add some big words and name drop a few philosophers and be sure to always blame the left, feminist and Marxists for everything. If asked directly about the right, pick an extreme example of white supremacist terrorists to create the idea that the left are equal to that level of extremism and there you have it. A complete package to sell to a Conservative American audience

Brian? · 16-02-2020 3:39pm

take everything wrote: »

So maybe read the thread more carefully in future and not be getting people to check things for you.

You have a problem with being asked to support your accusations? I suggest boards may not be for you.

take everything · 16-02-2020 3:44pm

Brian? wrote: »

You have a problem with being asked to support your accusations? I suggest boards may not be for you.

I have a problem with people asking the obvious.

Inability to read threads would suggest to me boards may not be for you.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 16-02-2020 3:49pm

Brian? wrote: »

It’s genuinely he worst test of its kind I’ve ever seen.

It's a silly test.

How about this: Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy "traditional family values."

If I say they should be praised, does that make me more or less of a right-wing authoritarian?

El_Duderino 09 · 16-02-2020 4:28pm

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

It's a silly test.

How about this: Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy "traditional family values."

If I say they should be praised, does that make me more or less of a right-wing authoritarian?

The test was designed in the wake or ww2. So back then gays and women expecting to be treated equally was obviously the opposite to a right wing view.

Test is both American centric and out of date.

Tony EH · 16-02-2020 5:10pm

Brian? wrote: »

Liberal doesn’t mean anything anymore. People regularly call anarchists and communists liberals on here r. It’s hilarious.

Dr Peterson refers to himself as a classic liberal.

"Liberal" has become bastardised by its silly American usage. Unfortunately it filters through to online yap across the globe.

The thing is I find none of these American shouty people "Liberal" or "left wing" either. They are usually folk who've attached themselves to a single cause and go gangbusters for it, often with the wildest of results. But there is nothing really left wing about them in any kind of real sense. There are just as many people on the Left that look at these so called "Liberals" and just as bemused and appalled as Conservatives - not these Alt-Right monkeys now, just actual Conservatives.

This side of the Atlantic a Liberal is a very different kind of animal indeed, which you probably already know. But in the States, because there is no real left wing, their so called "Liberals" become "Left wing" figures of hate for the Right. But, to actual Left wing people they remain unrecognisable.

The arguments around speech illustrates this perfectly, in that it was the Left that fought for free speech throughout its existence against efforts on the Right to shut it down. Traditionally, in Western Europe, is was Socialists and Left wingers of various hues that had freedom of speech as a basic tenet and it was Right wing Conservative elements that were in favour of shutting down, banning and censoring things.

In America, however, because there never was a Left wing, their so called "Liberal" elements (which is really just a lighter version of their Right wing) adopt censorship platforms to silence free speech, which to the Western European Left looks off.

We live in a bizarre time and it's largely down to shitty American political/cultural divisions creeping into the younger generation through the web.

Brian? · 16-02-2020 5:49pm

Tony EH wrote: »

"Liberal" has become bastardised by its silly American usage. Unfortunately it filters through to online yap across the globe.

The thing is I find none of these American shouty people "Liberal" or "left wing" either. They are usually folk who've attached themselves to a single cause and go gangbusters for it, often with the wildest of results. But there is nothing really left wing about them in any kind of real sense. There are just as many people on the Left that look at these so called "Liberals" and just as bemused and appalled as Conservatives - not these Alt-Right monkeys now, just actual Conservatives.

This side of the Atlantic a Liberal is a very different kind of animal indeed, which you probably already know. But in the States, because there is no real left wing, their so called "Liberals" become "Left wing" figures of hate for the Right. But, to actual Left wing people they remain unrecognisable.

The arguments around speech illustrates this perfectly, in that it was the Left that fought for free speech throughout its existence against efforts on the Right to shut it down. Traditionally, in Western Europe, is was Socialists and Left wingers of various hues that had freedom of speech as a basic tenet and it was Right wing Conservative elements that were in favour of shutting down, banning and censoring things.

In America, however, because there never was a Left wing, their so called "Liberal" elements (which is really just a lighter version of their Right wing) adopt censorship platforms to silence free speech, which to the Western European Left looks off.

We live in a bizarre time and it's largely down to shitty American political/cultural divisions creeping into the younger generation through the web.

I’d like to thank that twice. I find it genuinely hilarious when an Irish person calls me a liberal lefty.

But on a more serious note, it’s a symptom of the dumbing down of political discourse. Like people who quote Orwell as an argument against socialism or people who tell you what’s wrong with Marxism having never Marx, but listened to someone telling them what’s wrong with Marxism.

I’m sure there are confused people on the left who do the same, but I don’t come across them here.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 16-02-2020 6:21pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Bill c-16 just added gender identity to the list of protected classes in Canadian anti discrimination law.
It was no more compelled speech than forcing someone in authority at a university to not refer to black students with the N word

It was a well intentioned harmless piece of legislation that became politicized by Peterson such that he used it to gather a large support base and a platform from where to launch his very conservative agenda

In England a few years ago, a woman was told by a judge during a court case to refer to her accused attacker as she and her. Think about that for a second. She was asked to accommodate her attacker (the person was convicted). As far as she was concerned her attacker being a biological male mattered as it was an assault and she also felt it amounted to making her lie under oath. I would use somebody’s preferred pronouns if they asked me generally but an instance like the above makes me deeply uncomfortable. I think that it’s an incredibly complex topic, nothing like referring to somebody by a racial epithet.

Tony EH · 16-02-2020 6:29pm

Brian? wrote: »

I’d like to thank that twice. I find it genuinely hilarious when an Irish person calls me a liberal lefty.

But on a more serious note, it’s a symptom of the dumbing down of political discourse. Like people who quote Orwell as an argument against socialism or people who tell you what’s wrong with Marxism having never Marx, but listened to someone telling them what’s wrong with Marxism.

I’m sure there are confused people on the left who do the same, but I don’t come across them here.

Orwell was a committed Socialist until the day he died. Gobshites like to talk about him and they've neither read about the man or why he wrote what he wrote. Orwell's cautionary tales were about totalitarianism, which can raise it's ugly head not matter which wing of politics is in place.

As for Marx, there's never been a man in existence who's had so much said about him by people who have absolutely zero understanding of what he said, did or wrote.

20Cent · 16-02-2020 6:30pm

Oldest grift in the book.

Make a big deal out of something that isn't a big deal.
Get on tv, radio etc talking about it.
Write some books cash in big time.
Make money whatever way possible.

Then the detox from drugs in a Russian clinic.

Brian? · 16-02-2020 6:36pm

Calculon6000 wrote: »

It should obvious to most what is wrong with socialism.

Thanks for reinforcing the point I made in the post you quoted.

16-02-2020 7:20pm

Calculon6000 wrote: »

It should obvious to most what is wrong with socialism.

The same could be said for any political, moral, social (or however you want to categorize it) system to extremes. There's plenty of good within socialism. Just as there's plenty of good in capitalism. Or even Marxism. It depends though on how it's applied and the extreme that it reaches over time. This is something I find a lot of people not thinking through on. Just because something is initially introduced in a certain way, doesn't mean that it's going to be that way, in twenty years time. Most founding "fathers" of nations had great intentions with the laws, or ideas they implemented but most of those laws/ideas were changed/corrupted within a decade or two of being implemented. Nothing remains pure and sterile, except for some peoples ideas.. and even then.. different interpretations cause conflict.

Akrasia · 16-02-2020 7:50pm

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

It's a silly test.

How about this: Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy "traditional family values."

If I say they should be praised, does that make me more or less of a right-wing authoritarian?

Less Authoritarian according to Altemeyers explanation in his book.

Akrasia · 16-02-2020 8:06pm

Tony EH wrote: »

As for Marx, there's never been a man in existence who's had so much said about him by people who have absolutely zero understanding of what he said, did or wrote.

People including Jordan Peterson

Brian? · 16-02-2020 8:59pm

Akrasia wrote: »

People including Jordan Peterson

It was glaringly obvious he wasn’t well versed in socialist theory when he debated Zizek

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 17-02-2020 2:02am

Akrasia wrote: »

Less Authoritarian according to Altemeyers explanation in his book.

I don't think there's much praise owed to feminists and homosexuals who defy traditional family values. It's not the 1950s anymore. It takes more bravery nowadays to state publicly the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, or that a child needs a mother and father living under the same roof, than it does to call for abortion on demand or acceptance of gay marriage.

ILoveYourVibes · 17-02-2020 2:34am

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

I don't think there's much praise owed to feminists and homosexuals who defy traditional family values. It's not the 1950s anymore. It takes more bravery nowadays to state publicly the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, or that a child needs a mother and father living under the same roof, than it does to call for abortion on demand or acceptance of gay marriage.

I think you are missing the point.

It takes a lot of bravery to live as a single mother facing that alone.

It takes a lot of bravery to get yourself an abortion.

It takes a lot of bravery to life in a minority kind of family such as two dads.

Stating something doesn't take bravery. Its just a sentence. People have a reaction end of. That's not a thing.

sbsquarepants · 17-02-2020 9:01am

Akrasia wrote: »

Just for the laugh, here’s a link to a RWA test if you’re interested in your own score

https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/RWAS/

(My score was 9.66%)

Wibbs wrote: »

Mine was also 0%, mainly because I'm not an American. That "test" is so culturally based it's mad Ted.

I got 10%

I feel dirty now!

Questions are a bit bizarre to say the least, some of them are like something you'd be asked if you were applying to join ISIS!

17-02-2020 9:04am

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

It takes a lot of bravery to live as a single mother facing that alone.

It's a result of making a mistake and living with that mistake. Hardly a case of bravery when you have no choice. If she chose to be a single mother right from before getting pregnant, then it's not really bravery either.. unless she's in a traditional country with narrow morals. In the west? It's become so commonplace, nobody raises an eyebrow.

It takes a lot of bravery to get yourself an abortion.

Not in China, or many other countries. I've had students who unashamedly admitted in class to having 3 abortions before they were 20.. and the class wasn't terribly shocked. It depends entirely on the person, and what they consider life to value. You seem to think all females think the same. They don't.

It takes a lot of bravery to life in a minority kind of family such as two dads.

Again, it's dealing with life, not bravery. Unless they're of an age to leave, then they're simply stuck with it until they decide for themselves whether it's right or wrong.. and that's where the bravery kicks in. When they have a choice.

Stating something doesn't take bravery. Its just a sentence.

Yup. Agreed. As you have just done.

It's dealing with the consequences of that statement, and the awareness of those consequences (before committing yourself), that takes bravery.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 17-02-2020 9:28am

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I think you are missing the point.

No, I think it's you who are missing the point.

People who will openly stand up for traditional family values are now a minority in Irish society, especially among the under 40s.

It's much easier nowadays to defy the Catholic Church (how many young people even bother going to mass?) than it is to defy vocal feminist/LGBT campaigners.

The moral police in today's society are no longer the priests and bishops. They are the politically correct left, and one defies them at one's peril.

Woke Hogan · 17-02-2020 10:17am

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

No, I think it's you who are missing the point.

People who will openly stand up for traditional family values are now a minority in Irish society, especially among the under 40s.

It's much easier nowadays to defy the Catholic Church (how many young people even bother going to mass?) than it is to defy vocal feminist/LGBT campaigners.

The moral police in today's society are no longer the priests and bishops. They are the politically correct left, and one defies them at one's peril.

It’s literally laugh out loud funny when I read so-called “right wingers” whinging about being suppressed by “the left” after advocating suppressing homosexuals, single mothers etc. Yes, the ones who disagree with you are the bad guys.

xckjoo · 17-02-2020 10:22am

Woke Hogan wrote: »

It’s literally laugh out loud funny when I read so-called “right wingers” whinging about being suppressed by “the left” after advocating suppressing homosexuals, single mothers etc. Yes, the ones who disagree with you are the bad guys.

It's both to be honest. The extremes on the "left" and "right" shut down all difference of opinion with cries of discrimination and use of intimidation. There's a lot of sh1tty people in the world that just want to force people to think like them. The ideological side they sign up to if often irrelevant.

Woke Hogan · 17-02-2020 10:28am

xckjoo wrote: »

It's both to be honest. The extremes on the "left" and "right" shut down all difference of opinion with cries of discrimination and use of intimidation. There's a lot of sh1tty people in the world that just want to force people to think like them. The ideological side they sign up to if often irrelevant.

“Both sides are bad” is a cod. “The Left” in this particular case are advocating the breaking of barriers for single mother, homosexual couples and “The Right” want to suppress that. In my view crypto-fascists have no right to civility.

17-02-2020 10:31am

Woke Hogan wrote: »

It’s literally laugh out loud funny when I read so-called “right wingers” whinging about being suppressed by “the left” after advocating suppressing homosexuals, single mothers etc. Yes, the ones who disagree with you are the bad guys.

And we're back to the extremes. The funny thing is that few of those who are against the left (apart from the far right) have advocated suppressing homosexuals, single mothers, etc because of who they are. There might be some consideration for the circumstances regarding how they came to be that way, in the case of single mothers.... but society has moved a long way in the last 20 years (although those on the left seem very selective in recognizing that)

You see, I'm in the middle on most things, although I'd swing left or right on a variety of issues. Traditionally speaking (following the older model) I'd be conservative, with some liberal tendencies (being bisexual would prevent me from being a true conservative). But in this day and age (along with people like yourself), I'm being pushed into the right. I couldn't be left because I can't agree with their dreamy outlook of life without responsibility, so I'm now on the right.. although I wouldn't be a traditional right.

Yes, it's hilarious, how fcuked up the whole thing has become. And here's the rub. It's not that they disagree that's the problem. It's that they're unwilling to justify themselves beyond emotional morality (their morality, naturally, which is the only acceptable morality allowed). Every justification is aimed to tug at the heart, rather than deal with the specifics and use facts. When they do use facts, they often win quite handily but instead, there's a push to insult/demean the opposition, or label them as the right so as to diminish their value.

Those who disagree aren't the bad guys. Those unwilling to tolerate others opinions and refuse to engage in a mature attempt to find common ground are the bad guys. It's this all or nothing attitude that is bad.

Wanderer78 · 17-02-2020 10:32am

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote:

It's much easier nowadays to defy the Catholic Church (how many young people even bother going to mass?) than it is to defy vocal feminist/LGBT campaigners.

What's the problem with not going to mass?

17-02-2020 10:34am

Woke Hogan wrote: »

“Both sides are bad” is a cod. “The Left” in this particular case are advocating the breaking of barriers for single mother, homosexual couples and “The Right” want to suppress that. In my view crypto-fascists have no right to civility.

Time for some specifics. "in this particular case are advocating the breaking of barriers for single mother, homosexual couples and “The Right” want to suppress that." expand on that. I actually went back a few pages, and couldn't see what you were referring to. And what exactly do the supposed right want to suppress?

So....?

20Cent · 17-02-2020 10:44am

Deleted User wrote: »

Time for some specifics. "in this particular case are advocating the breaking of barriers for single mother, homosexual couples and “The Right” want to suppress that." expand on that. I actually went back a few pages, and couldn't see what you were referring to. And what exactly do the supposed right want to suppress?

So....?

The right and the Catholic church were against same sex marriage, abortion laws, and even sex outside of marriage. The fought against contraception even. There are real things that affect peoples lives. The worst that happens from the "left" is some tweets criticizing them. Making them out to be equivalent is not true.

17-02-2020 10:57am

20Cent wrote: »

The right and the Catholic church were against same sex marriage, abortion laws, and even sex outside of marriage. The fought against contraception even.

Ahh we're going to lump a hundred years of social change all together for convenience sake then?

The RC is a religious body with political leanings run by a foreign group. As for "The fought against contraception even", they still do... and female priests... and priests that can marry.. and a host of other changes. They're a bastion of retarded thinking. Not really sure why you're referring to them in the context of this thread.

There are real things that affect peoples lives.

Err.. most things affect peoples lives... what's your point? No, seriously, I'm trying to understand your pov but it seems rather simplistic and yet, I'm not quite getting it. Surely, you're not dumbing down social issues this much?

The worst that happens from the "left" is some tweets criticizing them. Making them out to be equivalent is not true.

The equivalent of whom? The far left and the far right are rather similar in their intolerance of other peoples opinions. The "left" and "right" are different but I'd be hard pressed to really identify zones of interest anymore. Although, I'd definitely include SJW/Feminism in the left. They tend to go hand in hand these days.

For me, it's more about leftist/right principles on different topics. It's not the case anymore of always being on the left or right.

Leftist attitudes on Trans issues, for example, say "lets bring it all in regardless of the negatives because everyone has their individual rights except for the people who don't agree with us. Because they're bigots. Talking about consequences is bigoted because you're being negative. Let's all be positive! All the time!".

The right says "Trans are messed up, physically, morally and psychologically. Why are we pandering to a minority? There should be laws to regulate the behavior of these oddballs, beyond what they do to themselves."

Fair?

Gynoid · 17-02-2020 10:58am

Woke Hogan wrote: »

“Both sides are bad” is a cod. “The Left” in this particular case are advocating the breaking of barriers for single mother, homosexual couples and “The Right” want to suppress that. In my view crypto-fascists have no right to civility.

I so fèel like saying LOL but I am honour bound never to use that word
You would swear the way some people talk and think that tis the yuff socialist activists of today who are inventing social justice for all of us crypto-fascist gombeens that have been around the block a few times before.

Having never voted for any party (always Independents) I at least know that the Social Welfare Act of 1990 which brought in the Lone Parents Allowance and improved circumstances very significantly for single mothers was brought in by the famous crypto fascist Charlie Haughey's government, with SS Officer Brian Kenihan as his Tanaiste and the bould nazi Michael Woods as Minister for Social Welfare.

How have we managed to get to where we are with all these right wing authoritarians oppressing us for so long?!

LineOfBeauty · 17-02-2020 10:59am

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

No, I think it's you who are missing the point.

People who will openly stand up for traditional family values are now a minority in Irish society, especially among the under 40s.

It's much easier nowadays to defy the Catholic Church (how many young people even bother going to mass?) than it is to defy vocal feminist/LGBT campaigners.

The moral police in today's society are no longer the priests and bishops. They are the politically correct left, and one defies them at one's peril.

Maybe one should live life how one wants to live life and one shouldn't judge other ones for living their life openly and freely.

17-02-2020 11:07am

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Maybe one should live life how one wants to live life and one shouldn't judge other ones for living their life openly and freely.

Insofar that living their own lives does not require the (forced/unwilling) support of other people to exist.. or that their free life is not detrimental to other people who have no choice about it.

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Comments