All-Purpose Smartypants Thread

[auxien]

I was referring to it being useless and it being morning minshit spilled onto a keyboard

 

a good description of the watmms

That's sort of the problem tho innit

 

If David Brooks was one of you dingbats running around here who was way into early BoC and also liked to sit on the left side of the political spectrum and blabber about it, cool. There's still a blog section of watmm he could post shit like that all day in and we would all laugh about it or go 'yeah David Is A Balloon, the right is crazy lol.' My entire point was this motherfucker is getting paid to do that shit: someone thinks opinions like that are worth cold hard cash, and that in and of itself elevates his opinion above the rest, at least in terms of exposure if not his sphere of influence, or whatever else. It's the spread of weakness, of mediocrity, of laziness, whatever.

 

Yeah, we're all spilling shit onto keyboards, that's fine, that's what a forum is literally designed for. NYT can pay and publish whatever they want of course too, that's their thing, cool. But also more people visit them than WATMM (until the new site goes live YEAH) so it's disheartening to me to see those sorts of wasted words spitting out on the NYT Opinion page. 

[auxien]

embracing accelerationist neoliberal economics completely derail those very social structures.

Smartypants :)

 

Everything you said on this page is spot on tho.

[YangYing]

 

 

mixl2 you need to stop repeating yourself as if other people that have opinions different from you are uneducated and can't see the other side. you repeat it over and over again but you never explain what sides you are even talking about. it's sophomoric and petty.

I see how u can derive that I imply that other people different from me are uneducated and can't see the other side, there's an important distinction tho all people myself included are uneducated and can't see the other side

This is the ultimate discussion stopper. It's also a rhetorical fallacy known as argumentum ad temperantiam (aka balance fallacy) When you shrug and post your smiley face and say shit like "there's probably something right on both sides" you are shutting down the discussion by making the provability of statements irrelevant. You did this over and over again for 57 pages in the JBP thread. People presented coherent arguments and explanations to back up their assertions and instead of continuing the discussion you tended to go "hmm yeah maybe you're right" and or even worse respond with this tangential non-argument:

 

we must learn to not do horrible things because of what we believe

Do you not understand that this is just a truism and adds nothing to the discussion?

Id say I did it at most for 37 pages, I think I got in around page 20..

 

The context of me saying "there's something to both sides" is generally in response to people saying "there's nothing at all to see on this other side" which imo is simply an unreasonable way of discussing things which was why I started discussing this in the first place..

 

Also yes! it's a truism, good! now we finally agree on something and can start building up, how do we solve the issue of people being willing to kill each other for what they believe? that was the main thesis of the maps of meaning book by jbp.. but I guess that horse is very dead (is rlly unfortunate cuz the jbp thread kept devolving into the politics of everything and missed the main issue which is this particular question, and imo the only interesting bit rlly)

 

@auxien, aye but that's a different argument.. what I found useful about that particular article is it points out that people don't really care about facts so much as they care about the overarching narrative. This is useful to know ex when trying to explain that 50% of the population supported trump despite whatever facts, is not that they are stupid (altough some are) is that they bought whatever story he was selling.

 

edit: and so how do you solve this polarization problem? you sell the people you're trying to convince a better story! but simply dismissing, insulting, deplataforimg etc solves nothing (as I layed out a couple of pages ago)

[chenGOD]

A frog in a well cannot conceive of the ocean.

[YangYing]

I mean that's essentially what I have been saying all the time..

and since no one is omniscient this is always the case

 

edit: nwae I'll probs leave at that, go outside.. talk to some people that should b good

[dingformung]

 

 "there's something to both sides"

MIXL2, so you basically think that if you sit at a table with someone saying it's good to separate immigrant families at the borders or that we should just let those people drown that are trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea you should go: "Hmm, I see it differently, but your opinion on this is as valid as mine." and call it a successful discussion?

[YangYing]

 

"there's something to both sides"

MIXL2, so you basically think that if you sit at a table with someone saying it's good to separate immigrant families at the borders or that we should just let those people drown that are trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea you should go: "Hmm, I see it differently, but your opinion on this is as valid as mine." and call it a successful discussion?

jeez no, but i dont go "youre a racist bigot and your worldview is trash" and end it there either

 

edit: (or try not to, I mean if someone literally says those people are better off dead then that's another thing, I have never met anyone who reasonably holds such a twisted position tho)

[chenGOD]

I mean that's essentially what I have been saying all the time..

 

and since no one is omniscient this is always the case

 

edit: nwae I'll probs leave at that, go outside.. talk to some people that should b good

What I mean is you can’t combat stories with people who have no worldview cause they’re stuck at the bottom of a well.

[YangYing]

As in that they are immovable?/arent willing to see the world any other way?

 

I reckon thats very few people.. social media and modern journalism aren't helping in that front tho, much easier to get stuck in bubbles nowadays def (altough is also much easier to find disagreeing opinions!)... also all of the anonymity that comes w it I think makes it look like most people are unwilling to look outside of their well, talking to people irl id say thats mostly not the case (not that I have talked to that many people irl rlly about all of this,  but u kno..)

 

It better not b the case cuz dialogue is what we got! is either that or bloodshed.. aim at peace imo

[dingformung]

What do you wanna discuss?

[chenGOD]

As in that they are immovable?/arent willing to see the world any other way?

 

I reckon thats very few people.. social media and modern journalism aren't helping in that front tho, much easier to get stuck in bubbles nowadays def (altough is also much easier to find disagreeing opinions!)... also all of the anonymity that comes w it I think makes it look like most people are unwilling to look outside of their well, talking to people irl id say thats mostly not the case (not that I have talked to that many people irl rlly about all of this,  but u kno..)

 

It better not b the case cuz dialogue is what we got! is either that or bloodshed.. aim at peace imo

 

They can't conceive of anything outside their world view. It's like people I meet who for example, won't eat raw fish. Or won't try acupuncture. Or wonder why I would have traveled to North Korea.

If they can't understand simple things like that, how are they going to address topics like international trade, systemic oppression of people considered "other", refugees, religious differences etc. in a way that's meaningful and has support to their position.

 

Sometimes, the other side really has nothing to argue against, hence the quote from good ol' Zhuangzi.

[YangYing]

 

 

 

As in that they are immovable?/arent willing to see the world any other way?

 

I reckon thats very few people.. social media and modern journalism aren't helping in that front tho, much easier to get stuck in bubbles nowadays def (altough is also much easier to find disagreeing opinions!)... also all of the anonymity that comes w it I think makes it look like most people are unwilling to look outside of their well, talking to people irl id say thats mostly not the case (not that I have talked to that many people irl rlly about all of this, but u kno..)

 

It better not b the case cuz dialogue is what we got! is either that or bloodshed.. aim at peace imo

They can't conceive of anything outside their world view. It's like people I meet who for example, won't eat raw fish. Or won't try acupuncture. Or wonder why I would have traveled to North Korea.

If they can't understand simple things like that, how are they going to address topics like international trade, systemic oppression of people considered "other", refugees, religious differences etc. in a way that's meaningful and has support to their position.

 

Sometimes, the other side really has nothing to argue against, hence the quote from good ol' Zhuangzi.

I'm not sure man.. like, people refuse to eat raw fish because of whatever small argument they have in they head

 

to me that doesn't signify that they can't have something worthwhile to tell u about something else.. u can't assume ure smarter than anyone imo

[chenGOD]

 

 

As in that they are immovable?/arent willing to see the world any other way?

 

I reckon thats very few people.. social media and modern journalism aren't helping in that front tho, much easier to get stuck in bubbles nowadays def (altough is also much easier to find disagreeing opinions!)... also all of the anonymity that comes w it I think makes it look like most people are unwilling to look outside of their well, talking to people irl id say thats mostly not the case (not that I have talked to that many people irl rlly about all of this, but u kno..)

 

It better not b the case cuz dialogue is what we got! is either that or bloodshed.. aim at peace imo

They can't conceive of anything outside their world view. It's like people I meet who for example, won't eat raw fish. Or won't try acupuncture. Or wonder why I would have traveled to North Korea.

If they can't understand simple things like that, how are they going to address topics like international trade, systemic oppression of people considered "other", refugees, religious differences etc. in a way that's meaningful and has support to their position.

 

Sometimes, the other side really has nothing to argue against, hence the quote from good ol' Zhuangzi.

I'm not sure man.. like, people refuse to eat raw fish because of whatever small argument they have in they head

 

to me that doesn't signify that they can't have something worthwhile to tell u about something else.. u can't assume ure smarter than anyone imo

 

 

You have just created a lovely strawman.

They might very well have something worthwhile to say about something else, that's in their worldview. But because their worldview is extremely limited, that's all they can speak to.

I'll go back to your boy J. Pizzle. His book Maps of Meaning - he argues (based on Jung) that myths are common stories - and these common stories are the same the world over, throughout historical societies.

But he limits his world view by not including anything on Hinduism, Confucianism, or really much outside of the Judeo-Christian line of thinking (some Buddhism). A good article on it here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/hot-thought/201803/jordan-petersons-murky-maps-meaning.

 

Anyway, I will agree, violence doesn't solve things - but you can't simply say that every position is equally valid.

[YangYing]

I'm not saying that every position is valid no, but the mechanism to find whatever is valid, is by discussion. (I mean I guess this is obvious butt)

 

What do you wanna discuss?

 

I mean I bumped this thread to discuss the fenomena of groupthink and tribalism/polarization and how that plays out on the internet, and I think I have made a case for being more open to whatever the opposing view is and attempt to discuss rather than fight

 

that article touches really on the discussion Sam Harris and Jordan are having right now, those vids should come up soon so we'll see.. here's partially what J.Pjortsen has to say on it

 

https://jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/facts-and-values-science-and-religion-notes-on-the-sam-harris-discussions-part-i/

 

https://jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/facts-from-values-not-without-an-intermediary-notes-on-the-sam-harris-discussions-part-ii/

[dingformung]

I'm not saying that every position is valid no, but the mechanism to find whatever is valid, is by discussion. (I mean I guess this is obvious butt)

 

What do you wanna discuss?

I mean I bumped this thread to discuss the fenomena of groupthink and tribalism/polarization and how that plays out on the internet, and I think I have made a case for being more open to whatever the opposing view is and attempt to discuss rather than fight

 

that article touches really on the discussion Sam Harris and Jordan are having right now, those vids should come up soon so we'll see.. here's partially what J.Pjortsen has to say on it

 

https://jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/facts-and-values-science-and-religion-notes-on-the-sam-harris-discussions-part-i/

 

https://jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/facts-from-values-not-without-an-intermediary-notes-on-the-sam-harris-discussions-part-ii/

 

Do you think that the discussion culture on this forum requires it to remind people to debate in a fair way?

[YangYing]

well I mean I see alot of "all trump supporters are absolute idiots" n stuff, altough id say thats kinda been reduced during the last weeks

 

edit: I do think the "discussions" taking place on the youtube front of things is missing that element of respect to the other side alot, but I might b wrong man iunno, s just how the internet feels to me

[dingformung]

well I mean I see alot of "all trump supporters are absolute idiots" n stuff, altough id say thats kinda been reduced during the last weeks

Well, Trump supporters are idiots in a way. I mean not all are unintelligent but have values that I see are the reason for a lot of problems in the world. And that can be infuriating.

[hello spiral]

there are always two halves to every contensious iusse and depending on where your perception is aimed you will only see the facts that cater to that perception

 

up to everyone to find out both halves of the story as in my experience there are always elements of truth and falsehoods in both and then make up their minds etc

 

edit: imho

 

 

You haven't read it yet though

 

 

 

You haven't read it yet though

yea I did, s why i wrote what I did

 

 

You must be a very fast reader. I'm quick and I didn't read it that fast

 

 

Ive read about half

 

I'd just like to leave this here for perpetuity 

[YangYing]

hey i did read it.. half of it (when I wrote that)

 

well I mean I see alot of "all trump supporters are absolute idiots" n stuff, altough id say thats kinda been reduced during the last weeks

Well, Trump supporters are idiots in a way. I mean not all are unintelligent but have values that I see are the reason for a lot of problems in the world. And that can be infuriating.

yea man, and if u go to their forums they are saying the exact same thing about u..

 

this is the critical point, have the dialogue or fight it out

[dingformung]

hey i did read it.. half of it (when I wrote that)

 

well I mean I see alot of "all trump supporters are absolute idiots" n stuff, altough id say thats kinda been reduced during the last weeks

Well, Trump supporters are idiots in a way. I mean not all are unintelligent but have values that I see are the reason for a lot of problems in the world. And that can be infuriating.

yea man, and if u go to their forums they are saying the exact same thing about u..

 

this is the critical point, have the dialogue or fight it out

 

You are dropping phrases a lot but you don't talk about anything concrete. If you want to discuss anything in particular or give an opinion about something concrete, go ahead. But your last posts were just platitudes. No offense

[chenGOD]

I'm not saying that every position is valid no, but the mechanism to find whatever is valid, is by discussion. (I mean I guess this is obvious butt)

 

What do you wanna discuss?

I mean I bumped this thread to discuss the fenomena of groupthink and tribalism/polarization and how that plays out on the internet, and I think I have made a case for being more open to whatever the opposing view is and attempt to discuss rather than fight

 

that article touches really on the discussion Sam Harris and Jordan are having right now, those vids should come up soon so we'll see.. here's partially what J.Pjortsen has to say on it

 

https://jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/facts-and-values-science-and-religion-notes-on-the-sam-harris-discussions-part-i/

 

https://jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/facts-from-values-not-without-an-intermediary-notes-on-the-sam-harris-discussions-part-ii/

 

 

So Peterson is a moral absolutist, and his interpretations of morals are based on the stories that he thinks are necessary.

He also contradicts himself so as to essentially invalidate his argument:

6. "The interpretive structure ... is a product of evolution."

7. "The interpretive structure is ... socially-constructed."

It's either a product of evolution, which is a natural process, or it is a social construction, which is not natural process in as much as it is directed by man.

He keeps his worldview limited to Judeo-Christian thinking referring constantly to heaven and hell. So he leaves out a hefty percentage of the global population, whose values are shaped by other interpretative structures that don't have this concept.

 

Harris is a bigot, but Peterson presents no cogent counter-argument.

 

I'm sure this thread will have gone many posts by the time I return.

[YangYing]

 

hey i did read it.. half of it (when I wrote that)

 

well I mean I see alot of "all trump supporters are absolute idiots" n stuff, altough id say thats kinda been reduced during the last weeks

Well, Trump supporters are idiots in a way. I mean not all are unintelligent but have values that I see are the reason for a lot of problems in the world. And that can be infuriating.

yea man, and if u go to their forums they are saying the exact same thing about u..

 

this is the critical point, have the dialogue or fight it out

You are dropping phrases a lot but you don't talk about anything concrete. If you want to discuss anything in particular or give an opinion about something concrete, go ahead. But your last posts were just platitudes. No offense

that's fine, but is not an easy thing to talk to people who have a really opposing view to you and be reasonable, my opinion is: do that to the best of your ability and don't fall into groupthink

 

edit:

 

I'm not saying that every position is valid no, but the mechanism to find whatever is valid, is by discussion. (I mean I guess this is obvious butt)

 

What do you wanna discuss?

I mean I bumped this thread to discuss the fenomena of groupthink and tribalism/polarization and how that plays out on the internet, and I think I have made a case for being more open to whatever the opposing view is and attempt to discuss rather than fight

 

that article touches really on the discussion Sam Harris and Jordan are having right now, those vids should come up soon so we'll see.. here's partially what J.Pjortsen has to say on it

 

https://jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/facts-and-values-science-and-religion-notes-on-the-sam-harris-discussions-part-i/

 

https://jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/facts-from-values-not-without-an-intermediary-notes-on-the-sam-harris-discussions-part-ii/

So Peterson is a moral absolutist, and his interpretations of morals are based on the stories that he thinks are necessary.

He also contradicts himself so as to essentially invalidate his argument:

6. "The interpretive structure ... is a product of evolution."

7. "The interpretive structure is ... socially-constructed."

It's either a product of evolution, which is a natural process, or it is a social construction, which is not natural process in as much as it is directed by man.

He keeps his worldview limited to Judeo-Christian thinking referring constantly to heaven and hell. So he leaves out a hefty percentage of the global population, whose values are shaped by other interpretative structures that don't have this concept.

 

Harris is a bigot, but Peterson presents no cogent counter-argument.

 

I'm sure this thread will have gone many posts by the time I return.

can the structure not be both partially a product of evolution and partially socially constructed?

 

like a hero can be a great warrior in a society where that's a thing or a great hunter in a society where that's a thing but the concept of "hero" could have arisen biologically (i believe this is his claim)

[dingformung]

 

I'm not saying that every position is valid no, but the mechanism to find whatever is valid, is by discussion. (I mean I guess this is obvious butt)

 

What do you wanna discuss?

I mean I bumped this thread to discuss the fenomena of groupthink and tribalism/polarization and how that plays out on the internet, and I think I have made a case for being more open to whatever the opposing view is and attempt to discuss rather than fight

 

that article touches really on the discussion Sam Harris and Jordan are having right now, those vids should come up soon so we'll see.. here's partially what J.Pjortsen has to say on it

 

https://jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/facts-and-values-science-and-religion-notes-on-the-sam-harris-discussions-part-i/

 

https://jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/facts-from-values-not-without-an-intermediary-notes-on-the-sam-harris-discussions-part-ii/

 

 

So Peterson is a moral absolutist, and his interpretations of morals are based on the stories that he thinks are necessary.

He also contradicts himself so as to essentially invalidate his argument:

6. "The interpretive structure ... is a product of evolution."

7. "The interpretive structure is ... socially-constructed."

It's either a product of evolution, which is a natural process, or it is a social construction, which is not natural process in as much as it is directed by man.

He keeps his worldview limited to Judeo-Christian thinking referring constantly to heaven and hell. So he leaves out a hefty percentage of the global population, whose values are shaped by other interpretative structures that don't have this concept.

 

Harris is a bigot, but Peterson presents no cogent counter-argument.

 

Well, social construction is a natural process and product of evolution, but anything social is socially constructed and the social itself is bred by evolution so when talking about a social issue the term "socially constructed" has little meaning. It's like saying the sky is blue. You can say that, of course, but it doesn't lead to much insight. Remember, we are in the smarty-pants thread.

The idea of a Judeo-Christian tradition is very twisted though. Traditionally, Jewish communities were blamed for everything bad that happens within the majoritarian Christian society. Antisemitism is as old as Christianity. Pogroms were a welcome mean of stress handling throughout the last centuries, anywhere in and around Europe, at least before and during WW2. So talking about a Judeo-Christian tradition can be controversial because of the rather violent relationship between these religions. But the idea of heaven and hell is indeed limited to mostly monotheist religions and completely disregards Animist, Buddhist and non-religious and other world views that are just as relevant as a Christian or Jewish world view.

 

 

 

 

hey i did read it.. half of it (when I wrote that)

 

well I mean I see alot of "all trump supporters are absolute idiots" n stuff, altough id say thats kinda been reduced during the last weeks

Well, Trump supporters are idiots in a way. I mean not all are unintelligent but have values that I see are the reason for a lot of problems in the world. And that can be infuriating.

yea man, and if u go to their forums they are saying the exact same thing about u..

 

this is the critical point, have the dialogue or fight it out

You are dropping phrases a lot but you don't talk about anything concrete. If you want to discuss anything in particular or give an opinion about something concrete, go ahead. But your last posts were just platitudes. No offense

that's fine, but is not an easy thing to talk to people who have a really opposing view to you and be reasonable, my opinion is: do that to the best of your ability and don't fall into groupthink

 

Another platitude.

[YangYing]

sure, try it out

 

edit: I really don't see that refutal of jungs ideas as worth pursuing, is really not only the judeo-christian tradition being analysed.. the proposition is something like that these religions are the most articulated form of all of these ideas/patterns of ideas now you can debate that, but the core proposition still stands (that the patterns exist, and are useful etc etc)

[dingformung]

thanks