Please consider registering
Guest
sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
Philosophy
3 April 2019
9.41am
Avatar
QuarryMan
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 2585
Member Since:
26 January 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1201sp_Permalink sp_Print

Wigwam said

Socialism has failed everywhere that it's ever been tried over any length of time.......Everywhere.

Not as much failed as "has been sabotaged by the USA''. The reality is, socialism has never been given the chance to succeed, because the US comes down on it with all their might every time it appears, whether it's through blockading them of imports, fighting proxy wars or by launchings coups and installing dictatorships. Now I'm not actually a socialist, and I think that DO is spot on by saying "we can have elements of socialism without becoming a socialist nation" but I do have to call out the one-sidedness of this viewpoint.

I'm also not going to defend the governments of places like the USSR and China. But I really don't understand why It's So Hard to understand that authoritarian dictatorship is not socialism. Socialism is workers control of the means of production. This was not the case in the USSR and its not the case in China now. In my book, unless a country is democratic, then any 'socialism' it pursues is deceiving itself, because the whole point of it is freeing the people. 

I'm already hearing on here..... 'it's America's fault they failed because of meddling' Really? Russia? China? The 6 million Ukrainians that starved to death in the 1930s America's fault!!

Have you... ever heard of the Cold War? 

The failures of the USSR can be put down to a great many reasons, sure, but denying that the US played a huge role in their eventual downfall is absurd. The US' tactic is well documented - force them into spending all their money on controlling a large 'buffer zone' of countries to protect against nuclear missiles, escalate the astronomically expensive arms race as far as possible and then draw them into various proxy wars for the same reason. 

Now capitalism is far from perfect. The inequalities of wealth extreme. Some caused by ancestry, some by criminality.......But most by productivity, genius and bloody hard work.

Now you're getting to the point. Here's the thing - capitalism is great at creating wealth but terrible at distributing it. And once that wealth has been consolidated in the hands of specific families in the form of classes, it persists, widening the gap in equality further and further until social mobility based on hard work (the ENTIRE point of capitalism) becomes borderline impossible. 

In a socialist country it's harder to stomach that, everyone.... everyone who has more than you has got it by stealing it from you. That reality is really appealing to the darkest side of humanity....And it justifies corruption.....'They got what they got by corruption I must do the same to succeed'

This exact same criticism could be attributed to capitalism. 

Socialism's appeal to the young en mass, and the well intentioned but naive .......(I can see it here) is a product of our education.

So you're saying that people becoming more educated leads them to stop being blindly subservient to capitalism? Gee, what a surprise! 

Most people know about WWII and the Nazis.....but they know next to nothing about Russia and China....Their brutality...The millions and millions who starved to death. We fought a cold war that nearly destroyed the planet to defeat that poison........

Erm... not really. It's pretty well documented how terrible the crimes of the USSR were, and few except the really ignorant wouldn't know about that. If anything, people are more ignorant to the crimes of capitalism, as demonstrated by your next quote. I'd say more people know about the crimes of Stalin than say, the Wall Street Crash. 

Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system developed. Study, (but you won't) how it has lifted the standard of living in China......

Didn't you just cite China as a failed socialist country? But yes, I mostly agree with this point.

Finally some hope for agreement through reflection......Close to DO's last comment above.......Consider the countries most quoted and admired as Socialist, in truth practice compassionate Capitalism. That's a very different kettle-of-fish. And your generations best hope.

In essence, I agree with you, particularly here. Socialism is not a terribly sound ideology, and hopefully won't be necessitated again. But your criticisms and understanding of it seems to be way off. I think we both would end up reaching the same conclusions overall: capitalism is good, but its worst elements should be tempered by the state. I guess the difference between us would be that you see capitalism as a positive, whereas I see it as a necessary evil. 

As for Jordan Peterson... spare me. That man may hide his hatred of other people under several layers of incomprehensible word salad and seemingly well meaning ancillary information, but hatred in what he is implying is always present. 

  

The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:

The Hole Got Fixed, Wigwam

Tall, dark-haired QuarryMan likes basketball, music, and naturally, boys. He was a valuable participant on the track team. He is one of Freeport's great contributors to the recording world. As for the immediate future, QuarryMan has no plans, but will take life as it comes. 

 

3 April 2019
3.58pm
Avatar
The Hole Got Fixed
A Dock at Southampton
Moderator

Moderators
Forum Posts: 6981
Member Since:
27 November 2016
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
1202sp_Permalink sp_Print

a-hard-days-night-ringo-8My only response to the above post:

Damn, I only managed to thank it once. 

 

Very well put @QuarryMan . A necessary evil, one that, while it should exist, should be diluted to be less evil. 

The following people thank The Hole Got Fixed for this post:

QuarryMan

Oh, by the way, this post was made by The Hole Got Fixed!

2016 awards: Username-Badge.png 2017 awards: The-Hole-Got-Fixed-2017.png 2018 awards:The-Hole-Got-Fixed-2018.png

3 April 2019
5.02pm
Avatar
QuarryMan
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 2585
Member Since:
26 January 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1203sp_Permalink sp_Print

Precisely. On the one hand, it has its advantages. A system where, say, four extremely hardworking and talented songwriters and musicians like The Beatles can rise to the top and get the success they deserve is a good thing right? Or as wigwam puts it "bloody hard work". 

But then I look around me and see the corrupting influence of capitalism everywhere, and the ways it dehumanises and turns us into commodities. I want to be worth something more, and for my life to have more meaning, than just my material wealth and my ability to generate further wealth. When technology inevitably eventually advances further into the automation of existing jobs currently performed by humans, I don't want to become homeless, jobless and worthless. And if I am successful, I don't want it to be at the cost of other people's quality of life. 

Here's a pair of videos by a youtuber who I am a pretty big fan of, that pretty well sum up my thoughts on the subject.

The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:

The Hole Got Fixed, Wigwam

Tall, dark-haired QuarryMan likes basketball, music, and naturally, boys. He was a valuable participant on the track team. He is one of Freeport's great contributors to the recording world. As for the immediate future, QuarryMan has no plans, but will take life as it comes. 

 

3 April 2019
7.23pm
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1875
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

QuarryMan said

Wigwam said

Socialism has failed everywhere that it's ever been tried over any length of time.......Everywhere.

Not as much failed as "has been sabotaged by the USA''. The reality is, socialism has never been given the chance to succeed, because the US comes down on it with all their might every time it appears, whether it's through blockading them of imports, fighting proxy wars or by launchings coups and installing dictatorships. Now I'm not actually a socialist, and I think that DO is spot on by saying "we can have elements of socialism without becoming a socialist nation" but I do have to call out the one-sidedness of this viewpoint.

I'm also not going to defend the governments of places like the USSR and China. But I really don't understand why It's So Hard to understand that authoritarian dictatorship is not socialism. Socialism is workers control of the means of production. This was not the case in the USSR and its not the case in China now. In my book, unless a country is democratic, then any 'socialism' it pursues is deceiving itself, because the whole point of it is freeing the people. 

Socialism had failed and the, censorship, right-think, brutality and death was evident long before there was any outside 'sabotage', True the US has resisted rather than embraced socialism. You avoid seeing the very valid reasons for that... 

I'm already hearing on here..... 'it's America's fault they failed because of meddling' Really? Russia? China? The 6 million Ukrainians that starved to death in the 1930s America's fault!!

Have you... ever heard of the Cold War? 

The failures of the USSR can be put down to a great many reasons, sure, but denying that the US played a huge role in their eventual downfall is absurd. The US' tactic is well documented - force them into spending all their money on controlling a large 'buffer zone' of countries to protect against nuclear missiles, escalate the astronomically expensive arms race as far as possible and then draw them into various proxy wars for the same reason. 

I have heard of the cold war and mention it in the post you're quoting. You seem to only be against one side of that war and ignore the documented attempts to gain dominance by the other. The US and western values...(even envy of the Beatles) played a part in defeating a poisonous system. You actually should be grateful. 

Now capitalism is far from perfect. The inequalities of wealth extreme. Some caused by ancestry, some by criminality.......But most by productivity, genius and bloody hard work.

Now you're getting to the point. Here's the thing - capitalism is great at creating wealth but terrible at distributing it. And once that wealth has been consolidated in the hands of specific families in the form of classes, it persists, widening the gap in equality further and further until social mobility based on hard work (the ENTIRE point of capitalism) becomes borderline impossible. 

If capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth socialism is the equal distribution of poverty. 

In a socialist country it's harder to stomach that, everyone.... everyone who has more than you has got it by stealing it from you. That reality is really appealing to the darkest side of humanity....And it justifies corruption.....'They got what they got by corruption I must do the same to succeed'

This exact same criticism could be attributed to capitalism. 

Simply put..NO it can't. Creativity....(Beatles being a case in point) flourishes in a capitalist society because the system rewards creativity in all areas. Obviously a simplification but a truth nonetheless.

 

Socialism's appeal to the young en mass, and the well intentioned but naive .......(I can see it here) is a product of our education.

So you're saying that people becoming more educated leads them to stop being blindly subservient to capitalism? Gee, what a surprise! 

The last and present generation is less well educated (particularly in terms of philosophy), because PC thought has increasingly taken over college faculties and students are  exposed to a more limited and controlled areas of thought and opinion. The result being a push towards one PC approved direction.

 

Most people know about WWII and the Nazis.....but they know next to nothing about Russia and China....Their brutality...The millions and millions who starved to death. We fought a cold war that nearly destroyed the planet to defeat that poison........

 

Erm... not really. It's pretty well documented how terrible the crimes of the USSR were, and few except the really ignorant wouldn't know about that. If anything, people are more ignorant to the crimes of capitalism, as demonstrated by your next quote. I'd say more people know about the crimes of Stalin than say, the Wall Street Crash. 

I'd disagree.....

Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system developed. Study, (but you won't) how it has lifted the standard of living in China......

 

Didn't you just cite China as a failed socialist country? But yes, I mostly agree with this point.

You should study the rise of China from its entry into the world of capitalism from the early 70s

 

Finally some hope for agreement through reflection......Close to DO's last comment above.......Consider the countries most quoted and admired as Socialist, in truth practice compassionate Capitalism. That's a very different kettle-of-fish. And your generations best hope.

 

In essence, I agree with you, particularly here. Socialism is not a terribly sound ideology, and hopefully won't be necessitated again. But your criticisms and understanding of it seems to be way off. I think we both would end up reaching the same conclusions overall: capitalism is good, but its worst elements should be tempered by the state. I guess the difference between us would be that you see capitalism as a positive, whereas I see it as a necessary evil. 

Capitalism is certainly a necessary evil. But it's the least worse evil our unequal world has found

 

As for Jordan Peterson... spare me. That man may hide his hatred of other people under several layers of incomprehensible word salad and seemingly well meaning ancillary information, but hatred in what he is implying is always present. 

If you're only conditioned to see hate in alternate views then that's what you'll see. Peterson deals with the realities confronting us, not hate.

 

Forgive the formatting muddle ......Somewhere it went crazy and I couldn't be arsed to start all over again. The block print is only employed to designate a reply....Not in anyway anger.

We do agree mostly. Compassionate Capitalism is the way to go.

Cheers 

 

  

  

3 April 2019
7.57pm
Avatar
Dark Overlord
Nowhere Land
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 4009
Member Since:
9 March 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1205sp_Permalink sp_Print

The last and present generation is less well educated (particularly in terms of philosophy), because PC thought has increasingly taken over college faculties and students are exposed to a more limited and controlled areas of thought and opinion. The result being a push towards one PC approved direction.

But let's not forget that we have the internet, something that previous generations lacked, a place where you can find a whole range of opinions that are all over the political spectrum. In this day of age, we have the balls to accept ideas that 50 years ago we wouldn't even discuss. Not to mention, we have Wikipedia which contrary to popular belief is quite accurate.

People often treat progressivism and political correctness as bad things but they're not, they only become so when people twist it for evil purposes like reverse discrimination but that's not progressive, that's regressive.

The following people thank Dark Overlord for this post:

Wigwam, QuarryMan

If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.

3 April 2019
8.32pm
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1875
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

A good point my friend.......Here's an example of what you are saying.....

 

Google push your searches where they want and Wiki weight them.......If I was an eighth grader and put in a search for 'American inventors or scientists'.....this is how the result is framed.......Ask yourself why?

https://www.google.com/search?......1852.7657..9729...0.0..0.168.1874.14j5......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..35i39j0j0i131j0i67j0i131i67.FjnwTji2mvk

 

I'm going to say something and by all means anyone here feel free to call me a bigot.......I won't complain or hold it against you, ( my generation never had need for safe rooms).....but only call me a bigot if in your heart you really think that's what I am.

The Wright brothers are ignored on that list because they are the wrong colour ..................and the wrong sex come to that.

3 April 2019
8.36pm
Avatar
Starr Shine?
Waiting in the sky
Apple rooftop
Members
Forum Posts: 15584
Member Since:
1 November 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Speaking of atrocities, Japan was swept under the rug and people tend to ignore that one.

 

Also, safari isn't as cool as Firefox.

https://youtu.be/52nwiTs7bk8

Brainwashed by RadiantCowbells.

If you can't log in and can't use the forum go here and someone will help you out.

3 April 2019
8.40pm
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1875
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Starr Shine? said
Speaking of atrocities, Japan was swept under the rug and people tend to ignore that one.

 

  

What Japanese atrocities and experiments on Allied prisoners of war were you talking about? (I'm being facetious) 

You know about the A bomb..It's taught in school and  rightly so......

But did you know about unit 731?......... Is that taught in school?

Have a gander:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

You'll need to read it through.......To understand the total depths of evil involved here.

These swine were given immunity by the US.......Scared the Soviets would get them first.

Despite the transcendent and the uplifting creations of mankind in music, art, architecture, science and literature .......It's a shit world all over ........but it's not one-sided....

..Be open. Be fair. Be thoughtful. Don't let yourselves be fooled. Do your own thinking.

 

Here endeth the lesson....

Read today by Brother Wigwam. The well know Frisbeetarian 'who believe that when we die our souls soar up onto the roof and get stuck in the guttering.'  

4 April 2019
2.02am
Avatar
QuarryMan
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 2585
Member Since:
26 January 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1209sp_Permalink sp_Print

It is curious that the Wright Brothers are not there, but I do see quite a few white men there too. At worst, PC culture has simply overcompensated for the past exclusion of people of colour, as so many times throughout history white people have claimed credit for the achievements they didn't actually do. 

As for Jordan Peterson, it's not that I'm conditioned to see hate in his views, it's just that it's pretty obviously there. What's frustrating about him is that he never says what you know he means, and if someone finishes his sentence ("so you believe this") he acts all shocked and accuses them of putting words in his mouth. Take his analysis of women in the workforce. The obvious conclusion of his arguments is that women should return to their traditional gender roles or else only word in maternal or "agreeable" professions, but he never comes out and says that, he just skirts round the point.

To paraphrase ContraPoints, who I believe says it best, young disenchanted white men who haven't achieved the success they were promised in life listen to people like Peterson and learn to blame their problems on what he terms "postmodern neo-Marxism" which basically seems to mean feminism, immigration and LGBTQ people. Here is where she's particularly spot on - these men aren't even wrong in saying that society is screwing them over, it's just that it's screwing everyone else over more and if they stopped blaming feminists for a second they would realise that the problem is capitalism. 

The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:

Wigwam

Tall, dark-haired QuarryMan likes basketball, music, and naturally, boys. He was a valuable participant on the track team. He is one of Freeport's great contributors to the recording world. As for the immediate future, QuarryMan has no plans, but will take life as it comes. 

 

4 April 2019
9.54am
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1875
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Here's another list.....Going on your claim how many of these American inventors have stolen their ideas from Black Americans?......(Though I wouldn't put it past Edison!).

Shouldn't a few more of these be represented in the initial list and available for study?

 

https://www.google.com/search?.....=psy-ab.12...28338.34588..36786...0.0..0.122.1552.12j4......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j35i39j0i8i7i10i30j35i304i39j0i8i7i30j0i7i30j0j0i30j0i8i30.A2PWRZsbLps

 

Quote you here...

"As for Jordan Peterson, it's not that I'm conditioned to see hate in his views, it's just that it's pretty obviously there. What's frustrating about him is that he never says what you know he means, and if someone finishes his sentence ("so you believe this") he acts all shocked and accuses them of putting words in his mouth. Take his analysis of women in the workforce. The obvious conclusion of his arguments is that women should return to their traditional gender roles or else only word in maternal or "agreeable" professions, but he never comes out and says that, he just skirts round the point.'

We couldn't really disagree more here. You may not be conditioned to see hate in his views but I'm at a loss for another explanation.

I agree there's frustration and sometimes anger  when he's confronted with wilful deceit, or wilful ignorance. 

I feel his choice of words is very precise. He says exactly what he means and is acutely aware when others make deliberate attempts to misinterpret his words; which is something skilled interviewers are well practised in........... and most of us either let it go or don't even notice. Jordan's precision means that he always does. I find that refreshing, you find it tiresome...... 

As for women in the work-place....I've heard him say he's absolutely for equality of opportunity but not for equality of outcome. And I agree with that.

My son is studying maths at university. The system at his university encourages girls to study maths over boys. A girl can get on the course with lower grades than a boy and can be awarded a scholarship with lower grades......That isn't fair. Boys with more ability shouldn't be disadvantaged in that way just as boys should not be advantaged  over girls, (if they are) to encourage more boys to take up nursing. That isn't fair......Moreover 'engineering outcomes' by having the same number of boys and girls in each subject doesn't work. Boys and girls in general have different proclivities. More boys take up engineering.......More girls become Vets.

Both sexes should be able to be or do whatever they want....But the system for selection should be based on ability and fair to each.

Perhaps you could give an example where Peterson says 'women should stay in the home'....Or confusingly, where that's his true meaning but he skirts around saying it's what he's saying. I've not come across this....or him skirting points at all really. I'd be interested in examples if you have time. 

 Regarding feminism I have a lot to say that might surprise you.....But perhaps that's better left for a bespoke feminism thread.

 

Thank you for your considered replies QM.

The following people thank Wigwam for this post:

Beatlebug
4 April 2019
3.26pm
Avatar
QuarryMan
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 2585
Member Since:
26 January 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1211sp_Permalink sp_Print

What I was thinking of when I made that claim wasn't specifically inventions, more in terms of culture. Like how on the first expedition to find the North Pole, a black servant actually found it first, but his white team leader who arrived several hours later claimed all the credit. I watched a documentary on this a while ago, and I will get back to you if I remember the other examples they named. Another one is how genres of music with black origin are co-opted by labels who use the same ideas but sell them using a white artist (and make massive profit). We can see this with many different genres, the most notable examples being Elvis (rock and roll) and Eminem (hip hop). That's not to say the white artists weren't talented or anything like that, it's just that they were given disproportionate amounts of financial support and promotion by companies taking advantage of the racism of consumers. 

This is the specific Jordan Peterson video I'm talking about. All the way through he talks about the problems of having women in certain roles or positions, but he never actually punctuates or defines his point. There's plenty I hate about his actual ideas too, but I find this way he presents them really annoying, and it forces people like that unfortunate BBC interviewer (the clip of which I'm sure you've seen - he totally wiped the floor with her) to try and guess at what he's getting at, making anyone who disagrees with him sound paranoid or whatever. 

-------

Here's where I'll respond to your points.

I agree with the following statements

I've heard him say he's absolutely for equality of opportunity but not for equality of outcome. And I agree with that.

Both sexes should be able to be or do whatever they want....But the system for selection should be based on ability and fair to each.

See, people opposing JP do not disagree with these statements. The whole point of these "engineering outcomes" things is to ensure that equality of opportunity, as paradoxical as it may seem. The way I interpret affirmative action is this: ingrained and institutional sexism (or racism) has existed within most industries for decades, meaning that women in the past who might've wanted to become high up in the engineering industry would have been prevented from doing so through discrimination both legal and personal. These processes therefore seek to level the playing field in order to right that historic wrong. It may go against the principle of meritocracy in the short term, but in the long run it actually serves that goal as it helps ensure that sexist discrimination won't prevent talented women from succeeding in certain fields in future. 

TL;DR by sacrificing meritocracy to some degree in the short term, affirmative action can increase it in the long run by stopping discrimination from preventing the success of women with the merit necessary to succeed. 

Here's the part I really disagree with:

 Boys and girls in general have different proclivities. More boys take up engineering.......More girls become Vets.

See, it comes down to how we diagnose the problems of gender inequality in certain professions. While in reality it is probably a combination of multiple issues, you seem to put it down to biology, while I put it down to discrimination and restrictive gender roles.

I can concede that, as according to Peterson, maybe to some degree, biology might cause some women to pursue more maternal, caring jobs reflecting their biological need to be a mother. But I would argue this is a minimal influence compared to the environment in which one is raised. For example, in PE lessons at my school, boys are taught rugby and girls are taught dancing. Similarly, out-of-school rugby and dancing clubs have similar gender divides. Correspondingly, there are far more male rugby players and far more female dancers. Does this mean that there is some innate quality of being a woman that inspires in you a passion for dancing? No, of course not. It's not that women flock to dancing because of a biological need, it's that we are all brought up in a society that establishes and encourages gender roles, institutionally (in the schools) or not (the choice of parents which clubs they send their children to). In short: women dance because they're taught to, not because of any non-individual predisposition to do so. 

Jordan Peterson loves to pretend that there isn't any evidence for my side of the argument, trumpeting one particular statistic about Scandinavian countries having strong gender divides in certain professions despite efforts to eliminate them. But he is ignoring the most obvious piece of evidence of all: the sheer fact that the workforce is pretty much split 50/50 according to gender. According to his argument, then the biological maternal instincts of women would therefore lead them to choose to remain in the housewife role rather than seeking employment. But clearly this hasn't happened: pretty soon after employment opportunities for women appeared at all in the West, women took advantage of them very quickly, creating the pretty much even split we have today.

Now this is something we can't really accurately attribute to societal pressure: it's not as if women in the 1940s joining the workforce for the first time were pressured into it against their nature by the great spectre of feminism. And even if we did attribute it to, say, the need to replace men who had gone off to fight in various wars, this is still a minority of cases and the trend hasn't really reversed once those conflicts ended. 

I'm not going to try and pretend that biology plays zero role in how men and women act, since it mostly likely does, even just on a hormonal level. But this idea that any and all gender splits are due only to innate biology (rather than vast differences in upbringing and education as well as historical sexist discrimination in many industries) is typical of the defeatist right wing attitude that we should just accept negative situations because that's the way it is and that any attempt to improve things will be thwarted by that great deity, human nature, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. 

And this leads me back to where we started, with Jordan Peterson. (I may start making rather large reaches here, so maybe don't take this part quite as seriously as the rest of my argument). He's a conservative, right? So he's opposed to attempts to ensure equality both financial and social through state engineering, and would rather leave it up to the natural process or free market to decide. Therefore, feminist efforts to create gender equality in certain professions are futile and going against the natural order. But the fact that he's so obsessed with maintaining said order is the biggest red flag for what he's really about. My theory is that the conservative obsessions with tradition and so forth are ways for them to keep their own prejudices, such as sexism, institutional in order to keep themselves (rich, white men) at the top of the ladder. If you can frame it so that any effort to change things in a way that will disadvantage slightly reduce the overwhelming dominance of your own demographic (rich, white men) appears like it's futile and going against the natural order of things, you can convince people to blindly join you in upholding the status quo, even when it disadvantages them. Therefore, while it may seem like Peterson's effects to dissuade us from levelling the employment playing field are well meaning, I believe they are simply representative of his desire to retain male superiority.  

The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:

The Hole Got Fixed, vonbontee, Wigwam

Tall, dark-haired QuarryMan likes basketball, music, and naturally, boys. He was a valuable participant on the track team. He is one of Freeport's great contributors to the recording world. As for the immediate future, QuarryMan has no plans, but will take life as it comes. 

 

4 April 2019
4.12pm
Avatar
Dark Overlord
Nowhere Land
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 4009
Member Since:
9 March 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1212sp_Permalink sp_Print

As far as the different lifestyle choices between boys and girls, it's bit of both but there's no doubt there's biological differences between the genders. For example, women are biologically weaker then men, to the point where a boy's football team was able to easily beat a women's team.

As for affirmative action, my problem with it is that i'm not responsible for the racism and sexism in the world so i shouldn't have to suffer just because i'm a white man. Also, while sexism and racism still exist, most of it stopped by 1970 so affirmative action is more of a form of revenge then something that's actually helpful to women and minorities. Not to mention, affirmative action is racist towards Asians since Asians are often held to a higher standard then even whites because of the stereotype that Asians are smart.

The following people thank Dark Overlord for this post:

Wigwam

If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.

4 April 2019
4.32pm
Avatar
QuarryMan
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 2585
Member Since:
26 January 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1213sp_Permalink sp_Print

Sure, there are differences, but my point is that they aren't nearly as useful a predictor of behavioural norms, such as choice of career, as one's actual upbringing.

Also, affirmative action is not making white men suffer. Let's use the example of the US Congress, where in the 2017-2019 term, 19.4% of members were female. In this case, affirmative action would be employed so that it was corrected so that Congress was evenly split between men and women, accurately reflecting the population they are supposed to represent. The whole point of it is that white men are already grossly overrepresented anyways. Reducing the HUGE advantage that they already have to a figure actually proportional to the population is not suffering. Think about this - if you are upset by the idea of a Congress that is only 50% male, and consider that to be you "suffering", think how bad it has been for women all these years with barely one fifth representation there. Now that is suffering. 

most of it stopped by 1970

The idea that most racism and sexism stopped after 1970... where on earth are you getting that from? Racism has thankfully been reduced over the years, but that is hopelessly naive. If sexism had really stopped, then the representation of women in Congress wouldn't be the way it is. 

And uhhhh.. I'm not getting your logic of affirmative action being racist towards Asians. It's not about what standards different ethnic groups are held to based on stereotypes, it's about reversing discrimination against previously marginalised groups, including Asian people. This pushes against the dominance of practically every field by white men. 

Tall, dark-haired QuarryMan likes basketball, music, and naturally, boys. He was a valuable participant on the track team. He is one of Freeport's great contributors to the recording world. As for the immediate future, QuarryMan has no plans, but will take life as it comes. 

 

4 April 2019
5.45pm
Avatar
Dark Overlord
Nowhere Land
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 4009
Member Since:
9 March 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1214sp_Permalink sp_Print

When it comes low percentage rates for women, it all depends on intent. Did the US congress intentionally discriminate against women or did it just happen to be that 80% of the people who applied were men?

1970 is a rough estimate considering the civil rights movement of the 1960's significantly reduced racism, which according to Wikipedia ended in 1968. As for sexism, women gained the right to equal pay in 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned other forms of gender based discrimination.

As for your last point, people often buy into stereotypes, even those who claim they're progressive.

Take the stereotype that gay men are effeminate for example. Many of those who claim they're pro-LGBT believe this stereotype and some even masc-shame gay men who are masculine under the guise that they're appropriating heterosexual culture (AKA straight acting) although gay men are just as masculine as straight men and even if they weren't, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being both gay and masculine and it's incredibly homophobic to suggest that you can't act a certain way because you're gay.

The following people thank Dark Overlord for this post:

Wigwam

If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.

4 April 2019
8.42pm
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1875
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

QuarryMan said
Sure, there are differences, but my point is that they aren't nearly as useful a predictor of behavioural norms, such as choice of career, as one's actual upbringing.

Also, affirmative action is not making white men suffer. Let's use the example of the US Congress, where in the 2017-2019 term, 19.4% of members were female. In this case, affirmative action would be employed so that it was corrected so that Congress was evenly split between men and women, accurately reflecting the population they are supposed to represent. The whole point of it is that white men are already grossly overrepresented anyways. Reducing the HUGE advantage that they already have to a figure actually proportional to the population is not suffering. Think about this - if you are upset by the idea of a Congress that is only 50% male, and consider that to be you "suffering", think how bad it has been for women all these years with barely one fifth representation there. Now that is suffering. 

most of it stopped by 1970

The idea that most racism and sexism stopped after 1970... where on earth are you getting that from? Racism has thankfully been reduced over the years, but that is hopelessly naive. If sexism had really stopped, then the representation of women in Congress wouldn't be the way it is. 

And uhhhh.. I'm not getting your logic of affirmative action being racist towards Asians. It's not about what standards different ethnic groups are held to based on stereotypes, it's about reversing discrimination against previously marginalised groups, including Asian people. This pushes against the dominance of practically every field by white men. 

  

 So much I disagree with in this post.....I don't think there's anything I could say, however accurate or compelling that would succeed in inching you away from your views.

Let's try though with the easiest to prove.......That Asians are disadvantaged in applications for American colleges.

https://www.ft.com/content/ebd.....a20d67390c

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/28/.....admissions

https://www.insidehighered.com.....ions-elite.

Now I don't know but I assume you're a white female QM.......Like me (a white male), we don't have skin in this game. But I have empathy for hard working bright Asian kids who have to battle society's thumb on the scales. Any system that advantages groups by sex or ethnicity in an attempt to engineer an equal society can't be based on unfairness. 

I'm pretty sure, despite my thinking that the evidence above is pretty irrefutable, that you will now quite naturally look for arguments to equivocate or dilute what the evidence shows......However, I think it will be pretty hard for you to refute it.

I can only imagine that you could defend this affirmative action (which employs disaffirmative action on other groups)....is rightly necessary to engineer the society where everyone is equally represented in the workforce no matter how many lives are prematurely and unfairly damaged or even destroyed ,despite their abilities and their own best efforts.

So let's consider the case for affirmative action in an area where all of us, black, white, yellow, male, female, young and old have skin in the game.

Under Obama it was decided that white men were over-represented in the profession of air traffic control.

https://www.thenewamerican.com.....sity-rules

https://www.theblaze.com/news/.....awyer-says

 

https://video.foxnews.com/v/57.....ow-clips 

 

I hesitated to quote Fox directly fearing you would deride my argument because of its source. 

But if you disagree here I can only ask you 'go for the ball not the man'

I'll conclude by asking that you consider that affirmative action by accepting lower standards from some groups is as misguided as applying the law differently to different groups.  

4 April 2019
11.31pm
Avatar
The Hole Got Fixed
A Dock at Southampton
Moderator

Moderators
Forum Posts: 6981
Member Since:
27 November 2016
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
1216sp_Permalink sp_Print

Wigwam said
Now I don't know but I assume you're a white female QM.......Like me (a white male), we don't have skin in this game. But I have empathy for hard working bright Asian kids who have to battle society's thumb on the scales. Any system that advantages groups by sex or ethnicity in an attempt to engineer an equal society can't be based on unfairness.  

Pretty sure QM has said they're male multiple times in various places.

Oh, by the way, this post was made by The Hole Got Fixed!

2016 awards: Username-Badge.png 2017 awards: The-Hole-Got-Fixed-2017.png 2018 awards:The-Hole-Got-Fixed-2018.png

5 April 2019
12.27am
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1875
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The Hole Got Fixed said

Wigwam said

Now I don't know but I assume you're a white female QM.......Like me (a white male), we don't have skin in this game. But I have empathy for hard working bright Asian kids who have to battle society's thumb on the scales. Any system that advantages groups by sex or ethnicity in an attempt to engineer an equal society can't be based on unfairness.  

Pretty sure QM has said they're male multiple times in various places.

  

Thank you....Either way 'they' have no skin in the asian element of the discussion. 

But, if indeed 'they are' a male it would add some weight in the feminism debate due to 'their' level of impartiality.

It goes to show that, 'when I assume I make an ass out of u and me'

My apologies to 'them'

 

Forgive me 'Hole Got fixed' for having fun with your typo........I can be a very naughty boy sometimes......Not sure though if it's down to nature or nurture? 5555

5 April 2019
4.10am
Avatar
QuarryMan
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 2585
Member Since:
26 January 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1218sp_Permalink sp_Print

Dark Overlord said
When it comes low percentage rates for women, it all depends on intent. Did the US congress intentionally discriminate against women or did it just happen to be that 80% of the people who applied were men?

1970 is a rough estimate considering the civil rights movement of the 1960's significantly reduced racism, which according to Wikipedia ended in 1968. As for sexism, women gained the right to equal pay in 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned other forms of gender based discrimination.

As for your last point, people often buy into stereotypes, even those who claim they're progressive.

Take the stereotype that gay men are effeminate for example. Many of those who claim they're pro-LGBT believe this stereotype and some even masc-shame gay men who are masculine under the guise that they're appropriating heterosexual culture (AKA straight acting) although gay men are just as masculine as straight men and even if they weren't, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being both gay and masculine and it's incredibly homophobic to suggest that you can't act a certain way because you're gay.

  

Well for the thing about Asian people, then I concede that point as I wasn't aware of the problem. 

It's not necessarily a case of Congress itself discriminating against women in terms of its membership, as it has to include everyone who is elected. Its more based, like I said, on a variety of social and institutional factors that discourage women from going into certain fields, such as politics, all through their life. This can be anything from only ever seeing male politicians on the TV as a child, to boys and girls being given different classes in schools that encourage them toward different careers, to institutional sexism within party selection mechanisms, to the sexism of ordinary voters. Basically, there's a huge range of reasons why there are few women in Congress, but I don't think biology is a significant one of them, as Peterson seems to suggest when talking about working women in general. 

I think you're misunderstanding the motives when you say

I can only imagine that you could defend this affirmative action (which employs disaffirmative action on other groups)....is rightly necessary to engineer the society where everyone is equally represented in the workforce no matter how many lives are prematurely and unfairly damaged or even destroyed

See, this viewpoint requires the assumption that the current system is 100% a meritocracy, a claim I disagree with. If we could be sure that every selection process was entirely based on merit irrespective of gender/ethnicity/whatever , then there would be no need for affirmative action, but clearly this isn't the case, for a large variety of reasons. I don't believe that the white male politicians who dominate congress truly have that much more merit than everyone who is underrepresented. It's more that they were likely born into a rich family with a history of political careers, sent to expensive schools and universities to get the best qualifications money can buy, and given a great amount of financial backing to get into their position. 

Is affirmative action morally right? I'm not sure. For me, it seems that the process itself is undesirable, as preferably every selection would be a meritocracy anyways, but I don't think this is the case currently, so I'm willing to support action to level the playing field so that in future both men and women are free to pursue whatever career they like without discrimination, intentional or not, influencing them against it. My conclusion, then, is that it is yet another necessary evil. 

@Dark Overlord , I agree that such stereotypes are harmful (something I've had several times is "but you don't act gay, do you?") but I don't really see how it's relevant to affirmative action, so if you could explain that it would be great. And yes, I am a white male ahdn_paul_02

Also, thanks for the engaging discussion @Wigwam , these are very interesting topics to get stuck into.  

Tall, dark-haired QuarryMan likes basketball, music, and naturally, boys. He was a valuable participant on the track team. He is one of Freeport's great contributors to the recording world. As for the immediate future, QuarryMan has no plans, but will take life as it comes. 

 

5 April 2019
4.11am
Avatar
QuarryMan
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 2585
Member Since:
26 January 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1219sp_Permalink sp_Print

To expand my point, here's yet another ContraPoints video, this one talking about how institutional racism still exists in the USA long after civil rights. I believe it's a similar situation with issues of sexism.

Tall, dark-haired QuarryMan likes basketball, music, and naturally, boys. He was a valuable participant on the track team. He is one of Freeport's great contributors to the recording world. As for the immediate future, QuarryMan has no plans, but will take life as it comes. 

 

5 April 2019
5.22am
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1875
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I can agree with quite a lot of the above......particularly that we are some way away from a 100% meritocracy.

Accidents of birth mean, as we've seen in the US courts this week, that money can buy places in esteemed American colleges. That is so wrong. Power, influence, even celebrity are other factors. Wrong, so wrong. Schools will then over time only reflect the cream of society......The rich and thick!

I'm sure there are students born into black, white and yellow families holding those advantages that should not be at their institutions thereby denying better equipped students places.

You see affirmative action as a necessary evil.......I understand but I can't support battling unfairness in the system with systemised unfairness. .....because it's unfair.

I'm not familiar with the current system but change admissions policies......

Because subjects can be coached and students tutored to pass entrance exams raise the weighting of verbal and non verbal reasoning tests ensuring that they are strictly administered to establish a baseline of raw aptitude. Only then consider a student's current attainment in the subject area to be studied. 

No test can be devised that is 100% fair. There may be students with incredible abilities in music or the creative arts. Allowances have to be made. That's what scholarships are for. As longs they are earned and not bought.

Affirmative action is well intentioned but a lazy and unfair solution that just fuels resentment and a mistrust in the education system.

I see you're a young chap QM good luck in your career......I'm sure from what I see in your writing that you will do well.

Just be sovereign to yourself.

Best wishes Uncle Wigwam.

The following people thank Wigwam for this post:

QuarryMan, Beatlebug
Forum Timezone: America/Chicago
Most Users Ever Online: 700
Currently Online: The Hole Got Fixed, Elementary Penguin, 50yearslate, Jenna L
1
Guest(s)
Top Posters:
Starr Shine?: 15584
Ron Nasty: 9788
Necko: 7856
50yearslate: 7546
parlance: 7111
mr. Sun king coming together: 6403
AppleScruffJunior: 6381
Mr. Kite: 6147
trcanberra: 6061
mithveaen: 4621
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 87
Members: 2736
Moderators: 6
Admins: 2
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 44
Topics: 4771
Posts: 329019
Newest Members:
HereThereAndEverywhere_1, wadawano, Hiram@123, Jimmie K, youknowwhattodo
Moderators: Joe: 5061, Zig: 9807, meanmistermustard: 22278, Ahhh Girl: 18419, Beatlebug: 15313, The Hole Got Fixed: 6981
Administrators: Joe: 5061, Ellie: 4