A campus infected with hostility: A professor says he's been targeted for being a con

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Can you name a single example of communism not leading to a dictatorship?

Communal religious orders. People have been able to live communally, holding property in common, for centuries. But it probably helps when the participants are all dedicated to a belief system that doesn't value material possessions!

[qayak]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Communal religious orders. People have been able to live communally, holding property in common, for centuries. But it probably helps when the participants are all dedicated to a belief system that doesn't value material possessions!

I think it also helps that the groups are small. Most communal groups fail due to infighting.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by catsmate

I have yet to see evidence of Paterson "destroying" any argument.

It's been posted before so I suspect you just refused to watch it. Of course refusal to observe is not evidence of non-existence so you might like to have a look this time around:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54&t=1391s

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Communal religious orders. People have been able to live communally, holding property in common, for centuries. But it probably helps when the participants are all dedicated to a belief system that doesn't value material possessions!

If by communism you mean something entirely voluntary, like joining a commune, or a religious commune, I have no problem with that. As long as nobody is forced to participate against their will, and nobody's private property is taken from them against their will (without due process of law of course). I am a believer in individual rights including the right to own private property. Not an extreme libertarian who thinks the right to private property and individual autonomy is absolute, but there needs to be a reasonable space for them, as well as a reasonable space for the government to provide for the common good as well. We need a compromise that allows for some sharing and redistribution of wealth but also allows for individual freedom and private property.

Somehow though, I got the feeling that The Norseman wasn't taking about communal religious orders or voluntary communes.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Can you name a single example of communism not leading to a dictatorship?

There aren't many left but we still do have a few hunter gatherer societies left. I suppose you could argue that agriculture is what ended communism in all societies.

To consider the societies that have in recent times promoted the concept of communism or claimed to be communist, I don't think it is difficult to very quickly show that those societies were never communist in the first place.

Of course communism large scale cannot work, it is like all ideologies, I. E. a flawed model that fails to accurately model human behaviours.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

I assumed it meant ex-convict.

No con man, like all great conservative educational institutions like the great Trump University. Now there is the ideal conservative school.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Definitions of class are to some degree subjective. I consider working class to be those who work in a factory, mine, or farm all day. Not those who have time and money to attend college, even community ones, although I don't think the college in question is a community college. From that perspective I consider attending college, even community college, as movement into the middle class.

Eta: oh, I see it is a community college. For some reason I thought this was a SUNY campus. My mistake.

In NY all community colleges are part of the SUNY system. Well except those that are part of the CUNY system.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Class has as much to do with formal education and outlook as with money. The average journeyman plumber or electrician makes much more than the local high school English teacher who's still paying off his grad school loans, but the former would generally be considered working class and the teacher (struggling) middle class. On the other hand, if the plumber or electrician sent their kids to good schools where they did well, the kids would be middle class. Someone who grew up with college-educated professional parents will generally be considered middle-class, even if his current employment is unskilled labor. I would say social class is more a result of childhood and upbringing than your current bank balance. Again, a college degree might be a ticket into the middle class, at least historically; but someone who grew up in poverty and is able to sign up for a few classes doesn't suddenly jump up the social ladder.

This seems to be confusing white collar vs blue collar jobs with class with is generally broken up in terms of pure income.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

This seems to be confusing white collar vs blue collar jobs with class with is generally broken up in terms of pure income.

In the US, anyway. Some countries still have weird class issues. Like the UK, where accent and vocabulary are class indicators and affect your entire life. Unlike the US, where even our billionaires and presidents can sound like backwoods yokels. Which is, uh, a great triumph of democracy?

[luchog]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

The working class people who go to college are not doing it to stay in the working class.

That is increasingly not true. In fact, an increasing number of blue-collar jobs require some college education and training, even if it's just a technical/vocational program. Jobs that used to be "right out of high-school" level now require up to two years of training and certification, and adjusted for inflation and other economic factors don't pay any better than they did when they were jobs anyone could just walk into.

Of course, the gap between working class and middle class has also been dramatically increased since those days. Once upon a time it was actually possible to own a home and live a relatively comfortable, if not exactly luxurious, existence on a working-class salary.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by luchog

That is increasingly not true. In fact, an increasing number of blue-collar jobs require some college education and training, even if it's just a technical/vocational program. Jobs that used to be "right out of high-school" level now require up to two years of training and certification, and adjusted for inflation and other economic factors don't pay any better than they did when they were jobs anyone could just walk into.

Of course, the gap between working class and middle class has also been dramatically increased since those days. Once upon a time it was actually possible to own a home and live a relatively comfortable, if not exactly luxurious, existence on a working-class salary.

I agree, except that I don't conflate 'college' and 'technical school'. A four year B.A. in liberal arts is not the same as an tech school certification. The former is a middle class thing, where the latter isn't (but will more likely lead to decent earnings).

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by luchog

That is increasingly not true. In fact, an increasing number of blue-collar jobs require some college education and training, even if it's just a technical/vocational program. Jobs that used to be "right out of high-school" level now require up to two years of training and certification, and adjusted for inflation and other economic factors don't pay any better than they did when they were jobs anyone could just walk into.

Of course, the gap between working class and middle class has also been dramatically increased since those days. Once upon a time it was actually possible to own a home and live a relatively comfortable, if not exactly luxurious, existence on a working-class salary.

I don't see the gap between the middle class and the working class widening, the middle class seem to be closer and closer to losing everything at the drop of a hat now. The idea the middle class equals any kind of financial security is so 1950's.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I don't see the gap between the middle class and the working class widening, the middle class seem to be closer and closer to losing everything at the drop of a hat now. The idea the middle class equals any kind of financial security is so 1950's.

Agreed. The majority of the American middle class is one bad medical event away from ruin, whether they realize it or not. So many are surprised when it happens to them.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I agree, except that I don't conflate 'college' and 'technical school'. A four year B.A. in liberal arts is not the same as an tech school certification. The former is a middle class thing, where the latter isn't (but will more likely lead to decent earnings).

By that measure, you're excluding community colleges as well, where the majority of college students in lower economic brackets gain their secondary education, and which only offer two year Associates degrees. Verging on a redefinition fallacy here.

And the four year university is increasingly less a middle-class thing and more an upper-class thing.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Can you name a single example of communism not leading to a dictatorship?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Puppycow

As long as nobody is forced to participate against their will, and nobody's private property is taken from them against their will (without due process of law of course). I am a believer in individual rights including the right to own private property. Not an extreme libertarian who thinks the right to private property and individual autonomy is absolute, but there needs to be a reasonable space for them, as well as a reasonable space for the government to provide for the common good as well. We need a compromise that allows for some sharing and redistribution of wealth but also allows for individual freedom and private property.

Property is theft.

[Lambchops]

Originally Posted by qayak

For someone you claim is a con, SJWs sure have trouble showing any evidence of it. It is especially satisfying to watch videos of them trying and Peterson just destroying their childish logic.

Yeah, let me know when he grows a spine and actually "debates" someone who is not a random TV show host or a teenaged student.

There is a reason why he won't debate people who are actual well-read academics. Have you ever questioned what that reason might be?

[Lambchops]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I wouldn't call it that, but I'm not surprised that a hardcore Zionist would see it that way. I bet white nationalists also think of white nationalism as a civil rights movement for white people. I agree that it's silly, but fervent believers in these ideologies probably think that way. It makes it easier to be righteously indignant in the face of criticism.

On the other side though, you have people who say they want "a communist paradise on earth". I trust that I don't have to explain how insane that is. Communism is an Orwellian dystopia. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kim dynasty all show what communism really is in practice.

You are aware that Orwell was a socialist, right?

[Lambchops]

Originally Posted by qayak

It's been posted before so I suspect you just refused to watch it. Of course refusal to observe is not evidence of non-existence so you might like to have a look this time around:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54&t=1391s

Oh damn, that's funny.

[ginjawarrior]

Originally Posted by Lambchops

Yeah, let me know when he grows a spine and actually "debates" someone who is not a random TV show host or a teenaged student.

There is a reason why he won't debate people who are actual well-read academics. Have you ever questioned what that reason might be?

I wasn't aware that Peterson was hiding from debates..

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

He's always seemed quite willing to talk even if people are combative.

Who has he turned down debates with?

[Lambchops]

Originally Posted by ginjawarrior

Who has he turned down debates with?

Anyone who knows anything about Marxism, history, post-modernism, sociology, biology, evo-psych, need I go on?

The guy is a grifter and a hack. That much is obvious to anyone but his devoted incel fanboys.

To be honest, I am absolutely amazed that someone even tries to defend Peterson on a forum for so-called "skeptics".

[ginjawarrior]

Originally Posted by Lambchops

Anyone who knows anything about Marxism, history, post-modernism, sociology, biology, evo-psych, need I go on?

Actual evidence might go a bit further than barefaced assertion...

Pretty sure I just posted a video of him in a debate

[Lambchops]

Originally Posted by ginjawarrior

Actual evidence might go a bit further than barefaced assertion...

Pretty sure I just posted a video of him in a debate

For some reason my crappy browser won't let me see the vid you posted.

Who was he "debating"?

[ProBonoShill]

Originally Posted by Lambchops

Anyone who knows anything about Marxism, history, post-modernism, sociology, biology, evo-psych, need I go on?

The guy is a grifter and a hack. That much is obvious to anyone but his devoted incel fanboys.

To be honest, I am absolutely amazed that someone even tries to defend Peterson on a forum for so-called "skeptics".

Instead of spewing idiotic drivel how about posting some evidence.

Better yet, why don't you step up to the plate, I'm sure Jordan wouldn't turn you down.

[ProBonoShill]

Originally Posted by Lambchops

For some reason my crappy browser won't let me see the vid you posted.

Who was he "debating"?

LOL, the lame crappy browser excuse. Try Google champ you might learn something.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Lambchops

For some reason my crappy browser won't let me see the vid you posted.

Who was he "debating"?

Stephen Fry and Jordan Peterson -vs- Michael Dyson and Michelle Goldberg on political correctness.

[Lambchops]

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill

LOL, the lame crappy browser excuse. Try Google champ you might learn something.

You could have simply told me what the video was called and I would have found it.

Was that too hard for you?

[Lambchops]

Originally Posted by qayak

Stephen Fry and Jordan Peterson -vs- Michael Dyson and Michelle Goldberg on political correctness.

Thank you for giving me a proper answer. I'll have a look at it.

[ginjawarrior]

Originally Posted by Lambchops

For some reason my crappy browser won't let me see the vid you posted.

Who was he "debating"?

https://www.munkdebates.com/The-Deba...al-Correctness

Link to the debate and bios of all involved

[ProBonoShill]

Originally Posted by Lambchops

You could have simply told me what the video was called and I would have found it.

Was that too hard for you?

You could've simply copy and pasted the link into a search engine, was that too hard for you?

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Lambchops

The guy is a grifter and a hack. That much is obvious to anyone but his devoted incel fanboys.

Actually, he is a tenured professor at the University of Toronto . . . if that makes him a grifter, **** I wish I was a grifter!

Quote:

To be honest, I am absolutely amazed that someone even tries to defend Peterson on a forum for so-called "skeptics".

What is more amazing is that you provide zero evidence for your claims on a skeptic's forum. Apparently you just don't have the "chops" for this discussion.

[ProBonoShill]

Originally Posted by Lambchops

Thank you for giving me a proper answer. I'll have a look at it.

Great, now give us a detailed explanation on why you think he's wrong.

[pharphis]

Originally Posted by Lambchops

Anyone who knows anything about Marxism, history, post-modernism, sociology, biology, evo-psych, need I go on?

The guy is a grifter and a hack. That much is obvious to anyone but his devoted incel fanboys.

To be honest, I am absolutely amazed that someone even tries to defend Peterson on a forum for so-called "skeptics".

I'm specifically interested in people who are knowledgeable about these topics (ie not merely sociologists, or scientists in completely unrelated fields who happen to fear biology and evo-psych). I know he's spoken to Gad Saad many times but that's an evo psychologist, someone knowledgeable about the field who doesn't disagree with any of his claims about the literature.

The only person i'm aware of who SHOULD be educated on the topic who disagreed with him AND debated on public television was that trans person who claimed quite literally that sex is not a real thing.


I don't care much about the others, personally. Way fewer things are concrete regarding those.


BTW on the topic of religion (in case you think he's afraid to discuss that) he did have the debate/discussion with Matt Dillahunty, where Peterson looked quite poor

[Lambchops]

Originally Posted by pharphis

BTW on the topic of religion (in case you think he's afraid to discuss that) he did have the debate/discussion with Matt Dillahunty, where Peterson looked quite poor

I've seen that, and calling Petersons performance there "quite poor" is a massive understatement.

It was absolutely bizzare.

[Lambchops]

Originally Posted by qayak

Actually, he is a tenured professor at the University of Toronto . . . if that makes him a grifter, **** I wish I was a grifter!



What is more amazing is that you provide zero evidence for your claims on a skeptic's forum. Apparently you just don't have the "chops" for this discussion.

Being a professor of psychology makes you an expert in completely unrelated fields?

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Lambchops

Being a professor of psychology makes you an expert in completely unrelated fields?

Moreso than it makes one a "grifter" for sure. My disagreeing with Peterson on religion does not disqualify his opinion, expert or otherwise, on other topics like political correctness, or gender.

[Lambchops]

Originally Posted by qayak

Moreso than it makes one a "grifter" for sure. My disagreeing with Peterson on religion does not disqualify his opinion, expert or otherwise, on other topics like political correctness, or gender.

Petersons ramblings go far beyond that though. Is there anything that precludes a psych prof from being a grifter?

And if I told you I was a philosopy prof, would you attend my talk on orbital mechanics?

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Lambchops

Petersons ramblings go far beyond that though. Is there anything that precludes a psych prof from being a grifter?

And if I told you I was a philosopy prof, would you attend my talk on orbital mechanics?

If I were interested in the subject I might.

Throughout this you still haven't managed to explain your dislike of Peterson, or explain your issues with what he says. It appears that you actually don't know what subjects he speaks on or his argument in support of his position. Your argument appears to be "I'm a good person and I've been told good people shouldn't like Peterson, so I don't because I am a really, really good person, even better than the people who say I shouldn't like him, in fact, I am so much better because I hate him!"