Jordan B Peterson, Critical Theory, and the New Bourgeoisie

[Gadarene]

For someone who doesn't want to waste your time on me and who has stated in a post before this that you are done, you are rather quick to respond.

Do you want my definition or not?

In any case it's hard to read the response of "define definition" to a question about how you are defining something as anything other than a transparent dodge.

Hang on, kiddo - quote me exactly, if you’re going to quote me - I said define “complete definition”. I don’t want to put down a definition, having been asked for a definition, and then I get hit with some bizarro extremist logic of AHA BUT THAT WASN’T A COMPLETE DEFINITION or similar bollocks.

But supposing that you are serious in your question, what I am looking for is that a definition that is comprehensive in that we can apply it wherever we are looking for "equality" in politics.

Treat people as individuals rather than by the stereotypes or stats of the groups they belong to. Don’t let their innate traits or personal choices that don’t have anything inherently to do with their ability stop you from judging them meritocratically.

I still maintain you are - as most extremists are - looking for an oversimplistic answer where one is unlikely to exist, so because this definition will invariably not be 110% perfect, let’s hear now how it’s all wrong, with no viable alternative presented.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Treat people as individuals rather than by the stereotypes or stats of the groups they belong to. Don’t let their innate traits or personal choices that don’t have anything inherently to do with their ability stop you from judging them meritocratically.

There's two problems with this definition. The first is, it isn't clear to me how this can credibly called "equality." Indeed, applying this standard admits a great deal of differences between people but insists that we cannot admit most of them, at least not in our judgment. But it also doesn't mean that we should treat people as completely interchangeable, because we are also told that we should judge by merit, which means that some people are more meritous than others. Thus, we are saying that people are different, but they are the same if your ignore the differences, except for the relevant differences that you don't ignore. Whatever this is, it's hard to see why you would call it "equality."

This ties in to my earlier point that when people talk about equality in specific circumstances they are usually talking about something else, and it would be clearer to just state that instead. For example you might call what you've posted "a principle of meritocracy" rather than "equality" and do a lot better job of describing what you mean.

But even beyond the questionable name for this position, this definition is impossible to apply. This is because there is no guide as to what it means for something to "not have anything inherently to do with their ability." We've been told that we should ignore group memberships and large scale stats, but also that we should ignore innate individual traits and personal choices. Doesn't that eliminate absolutely everything you could use to describe a person? We can't say that we should consider this person because he graduated from Yale, that's a group membership. We can't say that we should consider him because he's smart, that's an inherent trait. We can't say that we should consider him because he's done a lot of community work in the past, that's a personal choice.

Except we apparently can consider such things when they are "relevant."

Boiling it down it becomes "you shouldn't judge people for anything except the things that you should judge them for." True, I suppose, being a tautology. But not terribly useful.

I still maintain you are - as most extremists are - looking for an oversimplistic answer where one is likely to exist, so because this definition will invariably not be 110% perfect, let’s hear now how it’s all wrong, with no viable alternative presented.

You still don't understand that my position is that equality, in a political sense, is incoherent. Asking me for a definition is like asking me for a definition of a square triangle. It doesn't exist. But since you are convinced that I must really just be an "extremist" who differs from a perfect "centrist" by trying to get the same things but in the wrong way, you are apparently physically incapable of understanding that.

It's like that joke about a foreign atheist visiting Ireland in the time of the troubles and after responding to the question of "what religion are you?" with "I'm an atheist" getting the response "but are you a Catholic atheist or a protestant atheist"?

 

[Gadarene]

And yet again, one definition is countered using a definition of equality no-one uses. I specifically said that “equality” in a political context does not exclude meritocracy - iow, allowing for equality of opportunity, not insisting on equality of outcome. I put a definition down and am still met with the same dumb argument. Waste of time, yet again.

Maybe this isn’t extremism, simply tedious pedantry.

Done.

 

[MoonlessNight]

And yet again, one definition is countered using a definition of equality no-one uses. I specifically said that “equality” in a political context does not exclude meritocracy - iow, allowing for equality of opportunity, not insisting on equality of outcome. I put a definition down and am still met with the same dumb argument. Waste of time, yet again.

Maybe this isn’t extremism, simply tedious pedantry.

Done.

I used the exact phrases that you wrote yourself!

It's hardly pedantry to read what you wrote and take it at its word.

My claim was that you said that we should ignore group memberships, innate traits and personal choices, except when they are relevant. Is that precisely what you wrote?

 

[Gadarene]

I used the exact phrases that you wrote yourself!

It's hardly pedantry to read what you wrote and take it at its word.

My claim was that you said that we should ignore group memberships, innate traits and personal choices, except when they are relevant. Is that precisely what you wrote?

When you are talking about things like race, gender, etc - the usual things people talk about when they talk about equality - they aren’t really ever relevant to ability.

“But it also doesn't mean that we should treat people as completely interchangeable, because we are also told that we should judge by merit, which means that some people are more meritous than others. Thus, we are saying that people are different, but they are the same if your ignore the differences, except for the relevant differences that you don't ignore. Whatever this is, it's hard to see why you would call it "equality."

No, you aren’t using the same phrases as me. This is the same dumb argument you’ve been making all along.

I specifically said in my definition that it isn’t just treating everyone 100% the same in all circumstances. Where did I say that it meant people must be interchangeable? Then right on cue you show up going HERP DERP BUT EQUALITY MEANS EVERYONE IS INTERCHANGEABLE

I’ll certainly conclude your definition of equality is meaningless in a political context - that might be why literally everyone else uses different definitions! You do know there are such things as homonyms, right?

 

[MoonlessNight]

When you are talking about things like race, gender, etc - the usual things people talk about when they talk about equality - they aren’t really ever relevant to ability.

I'd say that whether a someone is a woman or a man is pretty relevant to whether that person is qualified to be a firefighter or an army marine. Certainly it isn't the only point of data that you'd consider, but it's pretty damn relevant.

But beyond that, note how you are now talking about "the usual things that people talk when they talk about equality." Why should it matter what "people" talk about when it's quite clear in the conversation that we are specifically talking about your definition? We have an explicit definition put down now, shouldn't we refer to that? Where's the need to be vague at this point?

Here's your problem: you aren't working from any specific definition. You really can't, since what you are trying to define is incoherent. This doesn't usually cause you a problem, since most other people think that there's a way that we could define "equality" in a consistent and desirable fashion. Because most people agree that this is possible, in most discussions if someone says that we should do something because of equality, and you disagree, you can get away with saying "that's not what equality is really about." But not here.

I specifically said in my definition that it isn’t just treating everyone 100% the same in all circumstances. Where did I say that it meant people must be interchangeable? Then right on cue you show up going HERP DERP BUT EQUALITY MEANS EVERYONE IS INTERCHANGEABLE

I never claimed that you said that everyone was interchangeable. I said that you claimed that we should ignore group membership, inherent traits, and personal choices, except when we shouldn't. Again, I'm not pulling these words out of thin air, they are all plainly there in the definition you chose.

I’ll certainly conclude your definition of equality is meaningless in a political context - that might be why literally everyone else uses different definitions! You do know there are such things as homonyms, right?

I explicitly told you that I don't think that there is a definition of equality in a political context. Yet you respond by telling me what "my" definition must be like. How can I make it any clearer that there is no "my definition"?

I suspect that the problem is that you are used to framing things as "sainted centrists versus evil extremists." And in that framing both the centrists and extremists talk about the same sort of things, but the extremists talk about them in the wrong ways. Thus both the centrist and extremists are concerned with free speech, for instance, but the evil extremists hate it and the centrists are wise enough to love it. And similarly with any other issue the extremists are like you, but with the opposite ideas. Since you are a self-described centrist, and I disagree with you, by process of elimination I must be an extremist, despite never describing myself as an extremist and despite me doing anything whatsoever in this thread that you have identified as "extreme," beyond disagreeing with you.

The trouble is that this is completely the wrong frame to address my argument from. It would be like if you tried to explain music to someone who had never heard it, and got asked the question "is it like the color blue?" After answering that no, it's not like the color blue you get the response "ah, so it must be like the color red then." After saying that no, it's not like the color red and it isn't like a color at all you get the angry response that you simply aren't being clear about what color it is like. But the reality is that it's not a question of what color it is at all.

(Also, a protip: if you want to convince people that you are done with an argument, that I'm not worth your time, that you've concluded etc., the correct thing to do is stop posting even if that means that the other guy got the last word in. I've been willing to keep posting over the long term because A.) I really don't understand why self-described centrists believe what they do, and this type of conversation might help me understand that and B.) it amuses me. But as a consequence of that if you post that you're finished for good, I might just reply to you once again.)

 

[Gadarene]

I'd say that whether a someone is a woman or a man is pretty relevant to whether that person is qualified to be a firefighter or an army marine. Certainly it isn't the only point of data that you'd consider, but it's pretty damn relevant.

But beyond that, note how you are now talking about "the usual things that people talk when they talk about equality." Why should it matter what "people" talk about when it's quite clear in the conversation that we are specifically talking about your definition? We have an explicit definition put down now, shouldn't we refer to that? Where's the need to be vague at this point?

I gave two examples. Gender, race. PAY. ATTENTION.

And you’ve spent the entire thread saying I have to show how my definition is relevant, then I get told off for appealing to how a definition used by many? Any time you want to be consistent, start.

Equality is usually defined according to a specific set of protected classes anyway - so again, your one-size-fits-all insistence on an oversimplification won’t be cutting it.

Here's your problem: you aren't working from any specific definition. You really can't, since what you are trying to define is incoherent. This doesn't usually cause you a problem, since most other people think that there's a way that we could define "equality" in a consistent and desirable fashion. Because most people agree that this is possible, in most discussions if someone says that we should do something because of equality, and you disagree, you can get away with saying "that's not what equality is really about." But not here.

Evidently not, as you can’t string a coherent post together without changing your mind, committing a fallacy, or misrepresenting the point. Most people I discuss this with don’t immediately go OH SO WE NEED TO BE TREATING EVERYONE THE SAME ALL THE TIME when no-one is saying to do that.

I never claimed that you said that everyone was interchangeable. I said that you claimed that we should ignore group membership, inherent traits, and personal choices, except when we shouldn't.

Again, I'm not pulling these words out of thin air, they are all plainly there in the definition you chose.

Personal choices that aren’t relevant to whatever situation is in hand, and most of the time, group membership, inherent traits and personal choices will be irrelevant.

I’m sure you’d whine up a treat if Christians were excluded arbitrarily from jobs whose description had nothing to do with their faith?

You know, the opposite of meritocracy.

I explicitly told you that I don't think that there is a definition of equality in a political context. Yet you respond by telling me what "my" definition must be like. How can I make it any clearer that there is no "my definition"?

Come off it. You’ve spent this entire exchange insisting that equality means treating everyone the same in all circumstances. This is verging on experimental how incogent you’re being.

I suspect that the problem is that you are used to framing things as "sainted centrists versus evil extremists." And in that framing both the centrists and extremists talk about the same sort of things, but the extremists talk about them in the wrong ways. Thus both the centrist and extremists are concerned with free speech, for instance, but the evil extremists hate it and the centrists are wise enough to love it. And similarly with any other issue the extremists are like you, but with the opposite ideas. Since you are a self-described centrist, and I disagree with you, by process of elimination I must be an extremist, despite never describing myself as an extremist and despite me doing anything whatsoever in this thread that you have identified as "extreme," beyond disagreeing with you.

Incogently. And you certainly piped up based on one offhand comment about centrism.

The trouble is that this is completely the wrong frame to address my argument from. It would be like if you tried to explain music to someone who had never heard it, and got asked the question "is it like the color blue?" After answering that no, it's not like the color blue you get the response "ah, so it must be like the color red then." After saying that no, it's not like the color red and it isn't like a color at all you get the angry response that you simply aren't being clear about what color it is like. But the reality is that it's not a question of what color it is at all.

What’s going on here is you keep insisting white is a colour, then I correct you to say that actually it’s a bit more complicated than that, it’s really a combination of multiple colours - then you keep insisting for a clear definition of what a colour is when you’ve already been given your answer. Then you insist you aren’t saying anything about what a colour is.

(Also, a protip: if you want to convince people that you are done with an argument, that I'm not worth your time, that you've concluded etc., the correct thing to do is stop posting even if that means that the other guy got the last word in.

That’s your cue to stop spamming the same dishonest crap you’ve been doing the entire thread. If you keep insisting on spouting nonsense and misrepresenting me, I’ll be correcting you.

I've been willing to keep posting over the long term because A.) I really don't understand why self-described centrists believe what they do, and this type of conversation might help me understand that and B.) it amuses me. But as a consequence of that if you post that you're finished for good, I might just reply to you once again.)

I already outlined that ages ago as well! Pay attention. Read.

It’s about hybridising the best ideas of both sides. For some reason you got hung up on equality, like the other totally-not-an-extremist did. I wonder why? Plenty more to centrism than that.

 

[iluvatar5150]

(a rather sweeping set of ridiculous policies have just recently been passed in Baltimore)

What policies were those?

 

[Redac]

Not really. I’d hardly be recommending business innovation and any form of nationalism if that were the case.

But this is what you get with non-centrists. Anything that isn’t on their extreme triggers them and they assume you’re on the opposing wing from the one they occupy.

I don't assume you're on the opposite end of the spectrum. I think you accept some of the same axioms and that your position isn't particularly effective, but it's not the same.

And no one is "triggered" by you and your big-brain centrism, FYI.

You’re right, it would be.

I reject them because most of the time, hardline extremism is just dumb. It’s not a good metric for finding solutions.

Depends on what you value and what solutions you want.

You’ve seen me posting here, right?

If your idea of pushing hard against the left is blowing off the entirely of the press and voting for Trump, or at least tolerating his excesses because he upsets the SJWs, then yeah, we can do better than that.

Sure, there's plenty more you could do from either side of Trump. He should hardly be considered the be-all of someone's ideology.

Because those aren’t solutions, and they’re dumb.

They're solutions, just not very good ones.

National pride that doesn’t involve framing your nation purely in terms of the positives and ignoring its negatives, and bashing foreigners, or kicking all the foreigners out.

I don't see a whole lot of nationalists talking about their nation as if it were literally perfect and unassailable in any way, but I'll concede that these people probably do exist and aren't all that nuanced in their thinking. I just don't see it as often as it's talked about by others.

The left has soured the discussion by effectively prohibiting whites from having a sense of pride in their own race. The left awakened whites to their racial identity, and the identity they gave them was that of “scapegoat”.

On this we agree.

I said what I did because you insist that centrism involves a drifting centre, based on the current paradigm. It doesn’t, necessarily.

It doesn't necessarily have to, but that's usually what it is. If you're synthesizing ideas from either side, but simultaneously rejecting the extremes -- which are usually only "extreme" within a given paradigm -- then you're really just pulling ideas from within the current spectrum of acceptable political thought. Given that that spectrum is constantly shifting, the result is that what centrism is, or at least what the centrist position on something is, tends to shift along with it. For a really simple example, take what the centrist position on gay marriage would have been 30 years ago, or even 20 years ago, compared to what it is now.

And as with the last joker, you start with a definition of equality that no-one here is using and then let your keyboard run away with you.

Yawnorama.

You seem to be talking about equality of opportunity, which I briefly touched on. Why don't you explain exactly what you mean when you talk about equality, and what would it look like? No referencing other posts or public attitudes, none of this all-too-common 2intellectual4u self-important smugness, just spell it out so I'm not arguing about something you don't believe.

 

[Redac]

For some reason you got hung up on equality, like the other totally-not-an-extremist did. I wonder why? Plenty more to centrism than that.

There are a number of assumptions in a lot of political discourse that go unexamined -- that equality, whatever people take it to mean, is inherently moral and should be something societies actively work toward; that history is by and large a progression toward greater and greater equality or liberty or what have you; that, consequently, "social progress" is a coherent concept; and so on.

Sometimes it's helpful to look at and debate those assumptions rather than go at it about specific policy proposals.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What policies were those?

Here's an article explaining many of them...

Baltimore, Justice Department reach consent decree agreement on police reform

I guess it's worth mentioning I do agree with some of them.

 

[Rion]

Whenever I hear this, it's one of two things. Either it's said directly to someone as a gotcha ("haha, I just called you this thing you don't like! Checkmate!"), or it uses a definition of SJW that's so broad it includes nearly everyone that isn't an enlightened centrist.

So, given social justice isn't quite what the alt right is about, what exactly do you mean when you say they're basically just SJWs?

To start with, keep in mind I'm referring to alt-right people like Spencer, Enoch, etc. I know that there's different denominations or what-have-you, but when people think alt-right, they're thinking of those guys. As for some of the similarities:

• The basing of merit or virtue upon a person's skin color.
• The desire to promote the increase in one's own ethnicity while discouraging others.
• Blaming the actions of the individuals upon the collective when it is the out group, but demanding that the in group be seen as individuals (most or all whites for SJWs, most or all blacks for AR)
• The demonizing of an out group to become an ever present and insidious threat ("Da Jews!" "Da Patriarchy!")
• The desire to create a Collectivist Utopia for their in-group and a disregard for individualism.
• An absolutist mentality which lends itself to purity spiraling.

There's actually a lot more that I caught in the Sargon vs. Spencer debate, and I tried to re-listen to it last night to refresh my memory, but it is the mental equivalent of two midgets slap-fighting each other for two or three hours so nope.

 

[super animator]

To start with, keep in mind I'm referring to alt-right people like Spencer, Enoch, etc. I know that there's different denominations or what-have-you, but when people think alt-right, they're thinking of those guys. As for some of the similarities:

• The basing of merit or virtue upon a person's skin color.
• The desire to promote the increase in one's own ethnicity while discouraging others.
• Blaming the actions of the individuals upon the collective when it is the out group, but demanding that the in group be seen as individuals (most or all whites for SJWs, most or all blacks for AR)
• The demonizing of an out group to become an ever present and insidious threat ("Da Jews!" "Da Patriarchy!")
• The desire to create a Collectivist Utopia for their in-group and a disregard for individualism.
• An absolutist mentality which lends itself to purity spiraling.

There's actually a lot more that I caught in the Sargon vs. Spencer debate, and I tried to re-listen to it last night to refresh my memory, but it is the mental equivalent of two midgets slap-fighting each other for two or three hours so nope.

Sounds like tribalism.

 

[Rion]

Sounds like tribalism.

Very much so.