Okay, we can talk more generally then. I do think it can be useful to remember that there are individuals within the juggernauts of Republicans/Democrats who are doing good things or maybe turning those monsters slowly. But, yes, general is probably more useful as it gives a sense of the big picture.
On the subject of Peterson in the public arena, I think he's doing way more good than harm. He's got a message of "shape up!" which a lot of young men need to hear. From the stories I've heard, it sounds like he's been a force for good there. He's told stories of young men who were going down the alt-right path who have returned to more sensible notions after listening to Peterson.
I won't pretend the man is perfect (nobody is) or that nobody has been hurt by his rhetoric, but I think on balance he's in the black, as it were.
Well, going on what I've been talking about, I have (up until now) been mostly flogging free speech. I don't mean I want to berate people or use that as a smoke screen to cloak my harmful actions. I suppose that's all talk, but it's a message board. I don't know what else to say that could prove it; take me at my word or don't, I guess. If free speech and free expression are right wing values, then, as you've said, maybe labels aren't that important.
I'm fairly similar to you insofar as I hold some values that people would say are to the right (I like the idea of less legislation, for instance), and some from the left (I'm on board with single-payer health care and I desire compassion in governance).
I do agree that the government has not been stepping up to the plate, particularly of late.
I don't really see JP as a political leader. I see him as an interesting contributor to the intellectual discourse. I agree with him a lot (his motivational stuff, psychological stuff, the free speech thing), and I disagree with him sometimes, too (his cantankerousness, while amusing, is counter-productive).
reply
share
brux (14666)
4 years ago
> He's got a message of "shape up!" which a lot of young men need to hear.
You hit on something here. The problem is that while a first order approximation of JP's message is that young men should shape up - I don't think that is a positive thing because of where he is taking them to to shape up - Conservatism ultimately, which is why he is supported by Conservatives and the Right-Wing.
I agree that we are failing our young people - particularly men. That is because of a lot of complicated factors, but almost all the tendrils trace back to Conservatives and how in making everything about money, and funneling that money back them they are hurting the very people they profess to be trying to help.
It is the simple things in life that make people productive moral citizens ... and look at Republicans and Conservatives. Maybe you are not as well-read and familiar with the works of Libertarians, Conservatives and the Right. They do all this stuff in the background to undermine democracy and take power - almost like the Nazis, while trying to cover it with things like Evangelical Christianity and individual people they think or build up to be charismatic. It is all a facade ... hypocritical house of cards built on lies and hypocrisy.
Want young men to be a positive force in the country - don't make it impossible for them to survive and get educated. I think you have to look at a bigger picture i.e. outcomes and realities, and now focus on platitudes something like JP talks about.
I've listened to JP, and it is not even so much that I disagree with him, though I think most of what he says is talking out his ass - that is a favorite human pastime for most people. It is the machine he has been built up to. I have no animus to the man ... everyone is imperfect, but the myth bothers me.
I don't see any way that free speech is a right-wing value. It is used as a flag-waving, bible-thumping symbol of free-speech, but the right can only use slogans lies and people's laziness to push ideas into their heads for their own benefit. This is Trump talking about Covid-19. Free Speech is such a broad concept it is almost useless to use in a specific issue where harms are more sensible to discuss, such as the Presidential debate example I gave earlier.
If free speech and democracy were a right-wing value, right-wingers would not be trying to manipulate people's rights of expression ... speech, voting, sexual affairs.
The basic thing going on in this country, that has always been going on, but because of wealth, technology and organization the issue is the rich and powerful using their fear of losing control and wealth by having people voting themselves to take their money - they hate democracy - or at least how they spin it - dangerously.
They have worked for nearly 100 years to study how to un-democratize the country. JP is not a big part of that, maybe not a conscious part, and maybe would resent it, but like all of us, he has to make a living - thus we have psychological tension building up ... but I never hear him talking about anything that complicated.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9435)
4 years ago
I don't think he's leading them towards conservatism. Most of his self-help stuff seems to be geared towards personal growth and goals, and taking responsibility for your life. It's about knuckling down and doing the hard work. It's a kind of hard-line self-help stuff, which I think helps a lot of men because they respond well to firm guidance. Most self-help stuff is very soft. I don't think that makes it bad, worse, or valueless, just that for a lot of guys they need to hear the message in a different idiom.
From what I can tell, the conservatives alone are not responsible for the abandonment and kicking of (particularly young) men in society today. I see it coming from a few places.
I'm familiar with it; I'm pretty well-read on the topic.
My point was kinda that free speech isn't a right wing specific value, nor should it be specific to any party or ideology. It should be universal in a democracy. It is an intrinsic right humans have. But I do see plenty of attacks on free speech from the left, which used to be the domain of the right. The right has glommed onto that and the left are starting to alienate people who care about free speech. That's a big problem, too.
I'm agreed with you as far as wealthy people abusing their power to slash at democracy. You're right here, though: Jordan Peterson would - from what I can tell of the man - hate that, too. In fact, he's talked about the dangers of right wing extremism, fascism and the like, at length - often whenever asked. I'm surprised you've never heard him talking about complex things, since I've seen him do this on numerous occasions.
reply
share
brux (14666)
4 years ago
> My point was kinda that free speech isn't a right wing specific value,
Yeah, it is the exact opposite. "Should be" ... I don't know what to say. I can agree with that, but wishing for something or saying it should be like this has never worked.
I don't see attacks on free speech from the Left, and when I hear them called out or mentioned by the Right when you dig into the facts it's almost always total nonsense.
I think there is something to what you say about the Right having been able to use media and think tanks to develops strategies that dishonesty and through lies and only focusing on fake stories or the exceptions, i.e man-bites-dog, have been able to actually get people to think that the Left is against Free Speech when nothing like that is true.
The fact is for democracy to work there needs to be some bounds set on the rich and powerful ... and that is the only FREEDOM that the rich and powerful will fight for ... they call it Liberty.
Liberty in the sense of "taking liberties" ...
> take liberties
> PHRASE
> If you take liberties or take a liberty with someone or something, you act in a
> way that is too free and does not show enough respect.
>> Try to make your writing exciting, without taking liberties with the truth.
>> She knew she was taking a big liberty in developing Mick's photos without his knowledge.
The rich already pay no taxes and obey no laws, and now they are using their control over the media to mediate reality, like the only freedom or liberty that matters are those which advance their agenda. We've seen this get worse in the last 40 years and now are are back to where we were 100 years ago before FDR.
To be a truth-teller you have to attack lies and wherever and whenever you hear them, I've never heard JP criticize the Right in any real or balanced way ... another reason I count him as being on the Right.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9435)
4 years ago
Well, we're watching different things, then. I've seen the left attack free speech. I've seen Peterson criticize the right a lot.
I agree with you that those with wealth and power try to hold onto it, often becoming corrupt and attempting to squash those with less.
reply
share
brux (14666)
4 years ago
Yeah, agreed ... but it is not "often" it is 100% all the time ... a bad trait of our human character. That is the reason we have a government and try to make a thing called democracy work, though it never really has in the USA.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9435)
4 years ago
It isn't 100%.
Bill Gates' charitable record is huge. He's wealthy, he seems to have avoided a lot of that corruption.
You yourself mentioned FDR. I'd throw in Lincoln on a list of not-too-corrupt US politicians. I'm sure there are others.
reply
share
brux (14666)
4 years ago
A book that talks about what you are mentioning is "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World," by Anand Giridharadas
That is the most brilliant book with new ideas that I have read in over a decade.
Which by the way MicroSoft was in a class of its own in terms of monopoly operations and bribery and corruption.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9435)
4 years ago
So FDR was an evil hump?
reply
share
brux (14666)
4 years ago
No idea what that means or how you derive that but I can see you squirming to throw up more nonsense as the discussion gets down to facts. What does that even mean?
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9435)
4 years ago
You said power/wealth corrupt 100% of the time.
I said it didn't and gave Bill Gates, FDR, and Abe Lincoln as examples.
You brought up Winners Take All and said Microsoft (Gates) was/is evil.
I'm assuming that, since you are maintaining your stance that power is corrupting 100% of the time that you think FDR was a corrupt powermonger. Is this wrong?
reply
share