/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.9296848]

So is this guy the new Sam Harris?
It's really kind of bothering me that he's being posited as this revolutionary hyper-intellectual when many of his ideas already emerged in the 20th century.

Also call me SJW if you want but it's fucked up that his rise to fame was basically exploiting transgender controversy.
>I wont use they/them pronouns
>hurr i'm a hero
And people bought it!! Goddamn.

[Anonymous No.9296866]

>>9296848
I wish I didn't drop out when he was at Mac so I coulda pulled an Otoya

[Anonymous No.9296868]

>>9296848
What if I told you transgenders are actually the most powerful race on earth?

[Anonymous No.9296872]

>>9296848
he's like sam harris in that he's a philosopher for normies. Imagine how terrible the world would be if normies started reading kant and wittgenstein and start reading their insecurities into them, you get what i mean

[Anonymous No.9296882]

>>9296872
>Imagine how terrible the world would be if normies started reading kant and wittgenstein and I had no more reasons for my unwarranted elitism and had to kys myself
It would be bretty good, anon.

[Anonymous No.9296883]

>>9296872
i'm a normie and i kant be bothered with that shit

haha

[Anonymous No.9296894]

>>9296848
>he's being posited as this revolutionary hyper-intellectual
By who? Himself. And latched onto by all the youtube addicted incels who can't be bothered to read. Don't worry anon. Just like Sam Harris, this guy isn't and won't ever be taken seriously by anyone outside his cult following.

[Anonymous No.9296905]

>>9296872
pic related is a normie philosopher and I never hear anyone talk about him ... other than esteemed authors

[Anonymous No.9296914]

>>9296848
>he's being posited as this revolutionary hyper-intellectual
but he isn't?

[Anonymous No.9296930]

>>9296905
How is Gray a normie philosopher? Just because you now fell for the sophistry of a man who claims that there's a meaning to life doesn't mean that more cynical thinkers are without their merits.

[Anonymous No.9296949]

>revolutionary hyper-intellectual
nobody said that
lmao /lit/ is so tumblr-tier leftie (mods and all). Not a single good argument just whining about "normies". What makes you so special?

[Anonymous No.9296952]

>>9296930
I'm using normie to mean pop, easily accessible. These Peterson fags could just as well be into Gray, is what I mean. And I'd prefer that, because I never did this:
>Just because you now fell for the sophistry of a man who claims that there's a meaning to life doesn't mean that more cynical thinkers are without their merits.
I like Gray, but he is still a pop philosopher. He's the poor man's Rorty.

[Anonymous No.9296964]

>>9296848
>hat he's being posited as this revolutionary hyper-intellectual when many of his ideas already emerged in the 20th century.

Not in the package that he delivers them. I suggest you actually see the interview where he talks about his influences and how he constructed his worldview.

Everyone stands on the shoulders of giants before them, that doesn't mean they are worthless.

[Anonymous No.9297002]

>>9296848
There's no such thing as a 'respectable public intellectual' anymore. There's just effective and ineffective media brands. All public figures will be CGI simulacrums within 10 years, anyways.

[Anonymous No.9297044]

>>9296883
Poetry

[Anonymous No.9297057]

>>9296949
You should include the detail that they tend to be skinnyfat. A lot of them are flabby and have poochy bellies. I have yet to see a single /fit/ numale.

[Anonymous No.9297123]

>>9297057
it's a tautology
if you saw anyone who was fit you wouldn't think of him as a numale

[Anonymous No.9297151]

>>9296848
>Also call me SJW if you want but it's fucked up that his rise to fame was basically exploiting transgender controversy.
p sure his rise to (in)famy was due to an autistic reading of individual rights in light of specific language-policing legislation, not "exploiting" generic idpol controversy.
The fact that you couldn't pick up on that makes me think that you are, in fact, the kind of person /pol/tards refer to when they say sjw.

[Anonymous No.9297181]

>>9297151
Same shit you pedant.

[Anonymous No.9297189]

>>9297181
Not him, but how is it the same shit?

Being ordered by the State to use specific words =/= Some random transgender dingbat asking you to use specific words as courtesy

[Anonymous No.9297215]

>>9297189
The state never ordered anyone anything of the sort. Hate speech laws are not so strict. Peterson grossly misinterpreted the law and its consequences. This is specifically because the changes to the law which were proposed lay neatly in anti-pc sights: namely, the inclusion of non-binary gender expression.

All you Peterson fags make the same error in making the distinction you did.

[Anonymous No.9297229]

>>9296848
He's kind of synthesizing "post modernist" thinking, with scientific thought and applying their terms and ideas to science, which no one has done before
His nature vs nurture argument for example. When you reduce evironment forces (removing gender norms and other social constructs) all that's left are biological forces
He's forcing liberals to take very extreme positions like suggesting behavioral training to make women more aggressive and men less aggressive
He may not be the most "original" thinker but I think he does a great job of navigating and communicating reason in such a chaotic time

[Anonymous No.9297248]

>>9297215
>The state never ordered anyone anything of the sort.

Yes it did? The inclusion of non-binary gender expression in the law literally means that when a person asks you to use their preferred pronoun and you say no, the social justice tribunal in Canada will punish you for it.

[Anonymous No.9297259]

>>9297229
He really isn't a post-modernist at all. He's more of a pragmatist.

[Anonymous No.9297260]

>>9296949
Why is that pic so accurate?

[Anonymous No.9297264]

>>9297248
The court you're referring to is run by the OHRC. This is a provincial institution. It has very little legislative power and the court as a result is a joke. At worst the offence could be construed as "quasi-criminal", which is a fine at worst.

[Anonymous No.9297274]

>>9297264
It doesn't matter. If you refuse to pay their fine or accept their punishment, you will be held in contempt, which is punishable by jail time.

[Anonymous No.9297283]

>>9297215

>Hate speech laws are not so strict.

That's kinda his point. The extremely vague wording in the law means that what exactly is considered hate speech when it comes to misgendering is hugely up to interpretation, and thus the decision whether to punish someone is largely made on a whim or on the personal thoughts of the officials rather than within the precise specifications of what should be in the law, which is a HUGE issue because it opens up doors for abuse.

There's also the fact that it includes UNINTENTIONAL misgendering as hate speech if the victim in question is sufficiently offended, which also allows the victim to decide whether or not they want someone sent to the tribunal on a whim.

This isn't even considering the fact that legally requiring someone to use a word that someone literally made up with zero justification except "I feel like it" is unbelievably retarded in its own right.

[Anonymous No.9297290]

>>9297264

>which is a fine at worst.

And what happens if you don't pay the fine?

[Anonymous No.9297313]

>>9297215
>Peterson grossly misinterpreted the law and its consequences

Not to dick-ride here but:
1. Seems unlikely that the university would be aggressively coming after him with cease and desists unless there were serious legal ramifications for it.
2. IIRC he had a debate with a lawyer and what basically came of it was that you couldn't technically be jailed but you could have all of your financial assets seized, which is scary enough given the indictment is "you failed to use the words the legislation forces you to use". No other hate speech legislation work this way.

[Anonymous No.9297356]

>>9297259
More like post-postmodernism, or whatever its equivalent is

[Anonymous No.9297371]

>tfw 4chan unironically drives you sympathise with trannies

[Anonymous No.9297374]

>>9296848

Where's the exploitation? Regardless of what you think of transgenderism, laws that regulate speech should be offensive to anyone who values freedom. It's not a left-right issue or a moral issue. It's just a basic human issue.

[Anonymous No.9297419]

>>9297283
When I said strict I was referring to legal consequence rather than poorly written legislature. Not that I think it's poorly written anyway. All law draws upon misinterpreted philosophy pooled behind the distilled legal text and modification through case law.

>>9297274
What kind of retard wouldn't pay the fine? From a pragmatic standpoint it really makes no sense. Obviously Peterson is far beyond this: he's a committed idealist arguing his ideology which is just another side in the ongoing debate.

>>9297313
Or the university (being an academic institution) did not want to associate with a vocal political figure.

Seized in what circumstances?

[Anonymous No.9297436]

>>9296848
i'm pretty sure that if a student asks him to, he'll use their "preferred pronouns".
it's just that he's against the university forcing him or anyone to change their speech. he's not really exploiting the transgender controversy that much, it's just that in these times people respond outrageously to those topics on either side, so he got a lot of attention for something which is, in reality, fairly benign

[Anonymous No.9297476]

>>9296949
you are either a nazi or a failed liberal game developer, there is literally no other choice.

[Anonymous No.9297487]

>>9297419
>What kind of retard wouldn't pay the fine?

I certainly wouldn't. The state has no right to tell me which words to use.

They can gladly tell me I shouldn't call a black man a nigger, but they can't tell me I have to say African-American. There is a qualitative difference between the state outlawing something, and the state forcing you to do something.

[Anonymous No.9297495]

>>9297436
Wrong.

If it's some bullshit made up term, or even they, he'll just use their proper names and not make a big deal out of it

[Anonymous No.9297506]

>>9296866
I bet you would have too.

[Anonymous No.9297525]

>>9297495
oh, alright. it's kind of funny those people consider that a denial of their humanity.

[Anonymous No.9297580]

>>9296848
Jordan Peterson is the only thing standing between us and full sharia transgender dictatorship

[Anonymous No.9297630]

>>9297506
is that sarcasm?

[Anonymous No.9297651]

>>9297283
>The extremely vague wording in the law means that what exactly is considered hate speech when it comes to misgendering is hugely up to interpretation,

Great, so the courts have to give it reasonable meaning, like the legal system of every commonwealth nation for the past 300 years.

[Anonymous No.9297666]

>>9297630
Is it?

[Anonymous No.9297711]

>>9296868
I'm listening....

[Anonymous No.9297727]

>>9297711
As the great Voltaire once said, to learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise. Hence, it follows the transgender race are actually the secret rulers of this earth.

[Anonymous No.9297740]

>>9297525
I've had conversations about this in person, it's absolutely insufferable. And the worst part is that Peterson's right. These people are so ideologically possessed that when you challenge them they'd rather attack you personally than respond to your arguments.

And yeah, it's baffling. "You're INVALIDATING MY EXISTENCE!" Like what the fuck, no. All I'm saying is that you can't just call yourself non-binary and force me to use terms nested within an ideology that I despise let alone disagree with, and then call my disagreement violence when I wont cow to your rhetoric.

It's not funny, man. It's really fucked up. I don't see this situation improving anytime soon.

[Anonymous No.9297851]

>>9297740

And yet people like OP thinks it's fine to have those deranged lunatics dictating uni policies and federal legislation.

[Anonymous No.9298044]

>>9296848
(1/2)
I would say he's the new Dawkins, rather than Harris.
Harris was a crossbreeding experiment gone wrong where the sperm of a New Age mystic corporate Buddhist met with the egg of a smug and amoral New Atheist. He's an error, rather than a phenomenon. His academic career was essentially bought, and his audience has been brought in via cult practices.
Now consider the careers of Dawkins and Peterson. Both were fringe, heterodox thinkers in their fields who nonetheless managed to attain a substantial degree of respect, despite their offbeat views. Dawkins' monographs such as The Selfish Gene, Unweaving the Rainbow, etc. are solid, even if the ideas expressed therein are not broadly accepted in the field. Likewise, Peterson has an ideosyncratic but educated understanding of Jungian psychology, mythology, and philology (specifically when discussing religious hermeneutics and applying his findings to socioevolutionary and developmental psychology (usually via Piaget) built on that psychoanalytic ground he finds in Jung. His readings are often quite hard to accept, but regardless of whether or not his theses are accepted by his colleagues does not actually reflect on whether, say, Maps of Meaning, is a good text or not. It's certainly compelling in places, and well-researched.
These types of thinkers are essential for most studies, especially the sciences. If all thinkers were perfectly in line with the orthodox view, science would never move beyond the status quo, and would sit in a quagmire of dogma, fear, and willful ignorance. It's good practice to have a few fringe thinkers, educated in the relevant literature and practices, but deviating wildly from the regular mode of discourse. They're wrong nine times out of ten, and nine out of those ten times, their research leads nowhere, but that tenth man is incredibly valuable. That tenth man was Chomsky in linguistics, Mendeleev in chemistry, you get the idea. If the weirdos are given adequate academic freedom, sufficient resources, and a platform to express their ideas, they flourish and good things happen.
(1/2)

[Anonymous No.9298053]

>>9298044
(2/3 sorry, miscounted)
However, the weirdos tend to develop a few traits that mean they turn into Dawkinses and Petersons. For one: (1) they tend to be charismatic. They have to be. If they can't clearly lay out their ideas in an entertaining and elucidating way that can enrapture the general public, they lose funding. Another mark (2) is that they quickly become paranoid. Because these figures tend to have difficulty publishing their research (because it so often contradicts the normative view) and because they encounter a lot of opposition from their colleagues. Finally, (3) these thinkers tend to overestimate their intelligence, critical thinking skills, and ability to grasp new concepts quickly and accurately. These scientists and philosophers have spent so long honing a specific skill for which they have a natural inclination. They regularly encounter preeminent and well-regarded authorities in their own field who seem to them to be wrong for reasons X, Y, and Z. And they work and study one field to the detriment of all other education. When they encounter an idea with which they were previously unfamiliar, Dunning-Kreuger syndrome sets in. These fellas have difficulty understanding that their understanding of a new topic is roughly equivalent to that of an undergrad on the first day of his first semester in a major he picked because it sounded cool and he watched a Crash Course Video on it and read the *entire* Wikipedia article.
Now what ends up happening is that these potential precursors of a paradigm shift, usually late in their career as their hair starts to gray, come to realize that they haven't changed many hearts and minds within their own fields, and so they start to branch out into other topics.
Dawkins started reading up on philosophy of religion. Peterson started reading up on Marx and Nietzsche. And their understanding, in the cases of Dawkins and Peterson, already heavily biased and bigoted, was only solidified by the sense that they were correct. So when Dawkins reads Aquinas, and he reads "Argument from the unmoved mover" it doesn't matter that he's reading a poor translation and that even if a medievalist scholar walked him through the Latin, he'd still have trouble grasping Aquinas' argument. His reading and the fact that he has read confirms for him that he is correct. End of discussion. When Peterson reads through Marx or Nietzsche and picks up the phrases "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "overman," only his uneducated understanding of the term matters.
(2/3)

[Anonymous No.9298057]

>>9298053
(3/3)
That's just trait (3) screwing these guys. What happens next is trait (1) comes into play. Dawkins and Peterson, because they are relatively charismatic, (for academics) will develop an audience and fast. Like-minded people who share their bigotry and ignorance (but rarely their passion for their field) will begin to surround them and inform their thinking through their discourses (see Peterson's recent trainwreck on m'leddit). This ends up in a state of self-imposed group-think where only opposing ideas (of which the ideosyncratic Mr. Peabody turned amateur iconoclast was already wary) are approached with skepticism and confirmation bias informs all induction. In other words, a circle-jerk forms around a shoddy cult of personality.
Finally, trait (2) comes into play. When ignorant statements broadcast will invariably attract the attention of the informed, paranoia takes over. All criticism and questioning becomes censorship and interrogation. Logic shuts down, and rationality ceases. At its most benign, this opposition is seen as the ivory towers crying at their shattered idols. In Dawkins case, it was fundie extremists mad 'cause he proved church was a big dumb. In Peterson's case, it's the evil Kultural Marx and his frankfurter school of queer transgender critical theorists trying to turn his classroom into a safespace.
(3/3)

[Anonymous No.9298070]

>>9296949
Holy fuck I see so much of so many people I know in this, and in myself

[Anonymous No.9298090]

>>9298044
>>9298053
>>9298057
Interesting viewpoint but I don't think Dawkins and Peterson are as similar as you make them seem. Peterson explicitly states that he's a beginner on many topics, he did not even talk about Islam because he thought he wasn't familiar enough with it after 3-4 years of study. I can definitely see a cult forming around him but that's just how people are, he can't really do much about that.

What arguments of his do you disagree with?

[Anonymous No.9298102]

>>9298090
>fantacies

Embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.9298139]

>>9296848

is this guy actually interesting beyond being a meme? what books of his should i start with?

>>9296866

the only otoya you're pulling is your nightly dildo dates

[Anonymous No.9298140]

>>9297651
too bad the judges suck liberal sjw cock for breakfast

[Anonymous No.9298144]

>>9298057
If 'cultural marxism dont real', then what do you call THIS?!?

[Anonymous No.9298181]

>>9298102
quality rebuttal

[Anonymous No.9298189]

>>9298090
It seems to me as though a claim to ignorance on topics one is about to discuss has become a mere academic formality. I've seen Chalmers claim he didn't know anything about the mind and maybe kind-of knew something about consciousness, before going on to give a two-hour talk on mind and consciousness. (This isn't me knocking Chalmers, just an observation). When he picks up a topic and runs with it and makes so many baseless and often completely wrong claims, it's hard to imagine that he really believes that he knows nothing about the topic. I haven't followed any of his discussions on Islam, so I can't speak to that. Usually, I encounter him making claims about critical theory, Canadian law, Marxism, and general leftist culture. He'll make a claim like, "Derrida is the quintessential postmodernist" and refuse to explain why he thinks this to be the case. He'll make these incredibly bold, baseless accusations of various thinkers, Derrida, Foucault, Adorno, etc. that nobody who's actually read the texts by these authors would make. It makes me think that he's read some far-right journo like William Lind who's quickly and poorly summarized his opinion on, say, Adorno and the gang, and has taken that as fact. When he discusses legal matters like C-16 or M-103, his arguments read like he read them from a thinkpiece posted on The Rebel Media or found them on an amateur American law blog.
To answer your question: in the context of his professional research, while I admire his mythologized understanding of psychosexual development as potentially more coherent than what Freud or Lacan ever theorized (I'm being generous, but only so much), his work in personality typing (like all work in personality typing) sounds like grade-A stinkweaselry to me. I also think his apologetics for Christianity are too abstract to function on any level other than the poetic, though I appreciate the attempt on his part to defend the faith that he and I share. In the context of his more popular commentary on law, culture, freedom of speech, minority rights, academic freedom, and the left, I disagree with most of what he says, either because it reeks of unresearched opinions or because he identifies patterns and conspiracies where none exist (often where none could exist). That said, I certainly sympathize with his *situation* (I've run into the tumblrite crowd myself), I just think he's handled it poorly. People who misread queer theory and critical theory are not put away by misreading queer theory and critical theory back at them.

[Anonymous No.9298196]

He's not correct about everything and I think he sometimes contradicts himself when he gets into modern political ideas he hasn't really thought about yet but I really love his talks relating to archetypes and other Jungian concepts. I'm trying to take some of his life advice to heart too, not because I think he's some guru that has it all figured out but I lack discipline and structure in my life and he makes very good cases for why you should

Also no, he may have risen to fame through that controversy but that wasn't his fault. He didn't plan on it at all. Now he's being invited to talk everywhere and people very often ask him the same stupid questions about the pronoun thing

[Anonymous No.9298204]

>>9298196

could you share some talks you particularly enjoyed?

[Anonymous No.9298218]

>>9298139
MAPS OF MEANING is available as a free pdf from his site. i doubt anyone in this thread has read it.

http://jordanbpeterson.com/2016/11/maps-of-meaning-intro/

personally i like peterson. he's humble, knowledgable, and determined to make a positive change. exactly the fellow i want to be, and he was born 30 years before me. he's a huge fan of jung's, and seems to be searching for how to make those ideas useful to the 21st century's isolated, distracted man. this is what jung would have wanted for his work, i am sure: that generations ahead would find the collection unconscious "soul" of man useful in surviving their times.

peterson's free speech accolades are deserved imo. i am an american and largely apolitical, but the passage of M103 in canada is a blow to free speech in that country. although largely a symbolic measure, that it COULD be used by the public to legally censor and ruin others is a mistake. canada should be ashamed. this is an accomodation too far, trudeau's bongo-banging liberal party are creating a new class of citizen that is immune to criticism in the name of inclusiveness. simple as that. critical theory is eating itself, the events of may 1968 should be excised from this timeline.

[Anonymous No.9298225]

>>9297651

>Canadian supreme court judges
>reasonable

They already said that factual statements can be considered hate speech, so I wouldn't get your hopes up.

[Anonymous No.9298228]

>>9298204
Here's a great one about parenting where he explains the concept of the Oedipal mother
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50FbeazFkgs

Many of the ones I watch are short clips of longer talks so I can't quite remember the names of many of them but just clicking around the recommended videos will find you some of his really interesting ideas.

[Anonymous No.9298232]

>>9298204
i am not the anon you were talking to, but i really enjoyed this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwcVLETRBjg

and especially the Q&A that followed.

[Anonymous No.9298246]

>>9298218
>he events of may 1968 should be excised from this timeline.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lWX1GAojHU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8UzTTFd3Q8

Nobody is even sure of what really happened back in the 1960s- what it was and what it could have been- it was a truly apocalyptic time for those living through it. Somewhat like the late 10s so far.

[Anonymous No.9298282]

>>9298144
Holistically? A disenfranchised young man or woman who, blinded by ultranationalism, economic anxiety, rural decay brought on by irreligiosity and falling education standards, and the simultaneous globalization and fracturing of culture, will seek solace in the misplaced understanding that their problems (poor health, underemployment, income inequality, depression, isolation, alienation, and uncertainty of even the existence of the future, never-mind its quality) are caused by a highly organized grand-conspiracy of Kabbalistic nether-daemons. Because this individual observes many other disenfranchised groups, including racial minorities, the LGBT community, immigrants, and Jews, fighting for their rights and liberties, and sometimes even working together for those rights and liberties, this young man or woman realizes that in their own case, equality with these groups means sitting at the bottom of the totem pole: in other words, that the previously multi-layered caste-system of the West may quickly become a two-tiered class-system of the upper and lower classes. Despite this meaning no real material change, the perceived alteration of status causes this young person a great deal of anxiety, anxiety which is exploited by the ruling caste via various systems of power, specifically the nation state (though not limited so). Convinced of the lie that achievement, success, and happiness can only be achieved once they have actualized themselves through the lens of the nation state, the young man or woman is fully indoctrinated into the fascist mindset, and can be fed any number of bizarre, impossible, even contradictory conspiracy theories ("the world is ruled by evil (((billionaire))) (((Jews))) who drink the blood of children;" "(((immigrants))) are going to take my job, even though they are inexperienced and unqualified for the work I do, and they want to destroy those institutions which they specifically immigrated to take advantage of, apparently;" "a group of (((Jewish))), (((Marxist))) (((intellectuals))) are really just like the (((Nazis))), guys;" "(((transgender))) people want to diddle kids in the bathroom, even though I'm more likely to be assaulted by a (((sitting member of congress))) in the WC;" "(((Hillary Clinton))) is a literal demon who performs horrific sex acts straight out of (((de Sade))) on tens of thousands of specifically white children and operates out of a small family restaurant and she and her (((crew))) communicate by talking about what to eat for dinner"). As a result, this person, rather than uniting with members of other disadvantaged groups to actually make themselves better off and more free, do the bidding of the very global elites they rail against by getting irrationally angry when they see women wearing headscarves and men wearing dresses and by spreading looney conspiracy theories that make them indistinguishable from trolls.

[Anonymous No.9298286]

>>9298144
literally nothing wrong with top right

[Anonymous No.9298287]

>>9298189
>>9298282
Yeah, use paragraphs and stop obfuscating your Marxist bullshit if you want a serious reply.

[Anonymous No.9298314]

>>9298189

Why every gay thinks he is a privileged snow flake and that his sexual choices is a concern for politics?

[Anonymous No.9298320]

>>9298282
>As a result, this person, rather than uniting with members of other disadvantaged groups

Maybe because everyone is disenfranchised? And therefore you should let a free market decide how the individual in that chase earns value in society.

>to actually make themselves better off and more free, do the bidding of the very global elites

The global elites are against transgenderism and Muslims. The global elites are FOR transgenderism and Muslims. See how easy that is?

> they rail against by getting irrationally angry when they see women wearing headscarves and men wearing dresses and by spreading looney conspiracy theories that make them indistinguishable from trolls.

Most people care more about Burka's than hijabs, nice try.

God this board is so left it's disgusting.

[Anonymous No.9298323]

>>9298286
>black ppl
>obesity
>degeneracy (via mortal sin of GLUTTONY)

[Anonymous No.9298343]

>>9298287
Translation: I can't read anything not written with may-may arrows with an attached .jpg. I only brows /lit/ to spread my shitty ideology which I've poorly analogized through a shitty 1999 Keanu Reeves vehicle. Any word I don't understand is "obfuscating." If somebody writes more than 100 words and doesn't say "cuck," they're a Marxist, even if they bemoan secular society and express umbrage if indifference at identity politics. I demand serious replies for my ultra-redpill memes, and will take somebody high on cough syrup calling me a troll in a longwinded way as serious criticism of my point of view, but nonetheless dismiss that criticism because it's too long and the words is too big. I demand reddit spacing because I regularly browse r/thedonald. I have serious opinions about Brianna Wu. I watch incest porn because then I can be sure there's no miscegenation going on.

[Anonymous No.9298369]

>>9298282
You're a good writer but your reading comprehension is laughable. Way to predicate a wall of text upon a straw man, dude. Good job!

[Anonymous No.9298370]

>>9298343
Look, you talk a lot but don't say much.

[Anonymous No.9298389]

>>9298320
>Maybe because everyone is disenfranchised?
This is false.
>And therefore you should let a free market decide how the individual in that chase earns value in society.
Why is that the case? I generally follow the economics of Hayek, Friedman, Sowell, and Laffer more closely than Keynes or Piketty, but even I'm not this neoliberal. Disenfranchisement is not exclusively economic, dude. How do you expect the free market to solve racial gerrymandering (against whites in Illinois and Maryland; against blacks in Texas)? Do you expect the free market to get money OUT of politics? You're not making sense here. Even if we ignored forms of disenfranchisement other than the economic and adopted a totally laissez-faire approach and assumed absolute socio-economic equality at T=0, there are many factors that keep the poor poor and the rich rich. Ensuring that businesses actually compete in the labour market (rather than the workers) is a complex task.
>See how easy that is?
This is incoherent, and I cannot engage with it.
>Most people care more about Burka's than hijabs, nice try.

>God this board is so left it's disgusting.
I was intentionally strawmanning (a difficult task, considering the concentrated autism of the attached image) because that entire comment was an insult, not a legitimate critique.

Fuck, now you have me defending my shitposts because you're just that retarded.

[Anonymous No.9298391]

>>9298323
every american has the god given right to enjoy the burger of his preference

[Anonymous No.9298395]

>>9298369
I'm tired and on cough sizzurp, and I'm just trying to go to an inordinate amount of effort to straw-man the post and call it out as a troll because I don't have anything better to do. I'm also frustrated because some dummy in this thread apparently identifies with the image, which means that that shitpost is now being read a legitimate political statement, because I'm actually a shitty writer with decent reading comp.

[Anonymous No.9298396]

>>9296848
He' really really boring.

[Anonymous No.9298438]

>>9298389
>This is false.
Name one group that is disenfranchised. I am assuming you mean institutionally oppressed.

>How do you expect the free market to solve racial gerrymandering (against whites in Illinois and Maryland; against blacks in Texas)

Are you seriously saying EVERY white person is disenfranchised in those Illinois and Maryland?

I am saying even if one thinks they are oppressed, they can still find a means to live and contribute in some way. For example, a 80IQ woman that sews scarves will make way less than a computer engineer. She will live without a lot of "material" wealth. It is not up to the government to redistribute wealth so that she lives a better life. Not everyone has a high enough IQ to live a comfortable life. Deal with it.

>This is incoherent, and I cannot engage with it.
Your statement is that the global elites want us to think Muslims are bad, what makes you think the elites want us to think Muslims are good. C'mon, Achmed.

[Anonymous No.9298472]

>>9298395
Oh, and you're a degenerate too? Even better!

[Anonymous No.9298570]

>>9298438
(1/2)
>Name one group that is disenfranchised. I am assuming you mean institutionally oppressed.
The black descendants of slaves in the United States. I'd recommend The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, which examines the issue in the context of prisons and criminal justice.
Also in the United States, poor whites from the Appalachian region, where a long history of class conflict, poor education, neglect, and malignant welfare policy has left the region economically and socially devastated, with high unemployment, high rates of drug addiction, alcoholism, and crime, low rates of education, and other assorted endemic problems.
Indians in my own country of Canada, where discrimination by police, judges, and landlords, as well as the Indian Act makes it difficult for those born on reserves (Canuck version of reservations) to leave for an economic climate with greater opportunities, and ensures that those born outside of reserves face an uphill battle from the often terrible conditions into which many Indians are born in the Western prairie provinces. Neglected infrastructure and a long history of oppression, genocide, racism, and cultural criminalization (much of which hasn't ended) means a poor home environment for young Indians. In my province, the murders of white women are almost always solved, while more than 90% of the murderers of Indian women never face justice.
>Are you seriously saying EVERY white person is disenfranchised in those Illinois and Maryland?
Under that vector, sort of. On average, the value of a black vote in Illinois or Maryland is mathematically worth more than the value of a white vote in those states, although this depends on the specific constituency in individual cases, although the overall effect is the same as if it weren't the case. The converse is true in Texas and Oklahoma, alongside many other parts of the South. However, there are other ways in which black people in Baltimore and Chicago are intentionally kept in poverty by the state and the ultra rich. Conflict among the lower classes is good for those in power.
>I am saying even if one thinks they are oppressed, they can still find a means to live and contribute in some way. For example, a 80IQ woman that sews scarves will make way less than a computer engineer. She will live without a lot of "material" wealth. It is not up to the government to redistribute wealth so that she lives a better life. Not everyone has a high enough IQ to live a comfortable life. Deal with it.
Let's examine this inductive argument:
C0: IF A is O, THEN A can L&C
P1. A is O
P2. A ~can L&C
C1: (A is O) & (A ~can L&C)
C1 contradicts C0. (apologies for not using proper notation, but 4chan)
Or more simply, you are arguing that someone who is unable to contribute as much as another can still live sufficiently with enough work. You then argue exactly the opposite, that this person will struggle to live, even if they work their ass off.
(1/2)

[Anonymous No.9298573]

>>9298570
(2/2)
Ignoring the incorrect suggestion that IQ is anything more than a coincidental statistical indicator of education and earning, that it is in fact a cause of success (wrong) we can start critiquing the finer points of your invalid argument. We'll substitute the term "stupid" in for "low-IQ". There are many stupid, sometimes even illiterate people who have attained vast wealth. They do this through accident (such as through the lottery, or through litigation), through inheritance (see Liliane Bettancourt, Donald Trump, Alice Walton, Prince Charles etc.), or through illegal or highly immoral means (though this is less common for stupid billionaires). There are many intelligent people of sound mind and body with a strong work ethic who nonetheless fail to achieve wealth. Let Nikola Tesla, Steve Wozniak, and Richard Stallman serve as examples. There are those who (A) have the skills to achieve success, (B) have an open avenue of success, (C) pursue success with strong worth ethics and sound strategy, and who yet (SURPRISE!) still fail. And there are those who bumble into success like Larry, Curly, and Moe, or like Snidely Whiplash.
Now when you put those quote-marks around "material". What exactly is that supposed to indicate? What sort of wealth is immaterial? Are you proposing an economy of love and kindness like a Care Bear?
I'm not arguing for any redistributive policies. I, in my free time because I'm a fucking loser with no friends, argue against national minimum wage laws, amalgamated labour unions, protectionist regulations, guaranteed basic income, affirmative action, and most forms of welfare.
There's a further implication in your commentary that if a demographic is disenfranchised, it must be because that demographic intrinsically has a low IQ because . . . well, that part isn't justified, but basically praise the free market, may its golden goodness trickle down upon us!
>Your statement is that the global elites want us to think Muslims are bad,
Generally, yes. There are some who feel as though that's bad for business, but it's nonetheless a broad tendency in many parts of the world.
>what makes you think the elites want us to think Muslims are good.
I don't. That's literally the opposite of what I said and what you understood. Where the fuck are you coming from. While there are certainly various entities to be found within governments and corporations who either do not care or would prefer a lack of conflict ("the elites" are not a monolith any more than any other demographic), it's rather difficult to deny the extreme thread of Islamophobia, fearmongering, stereotyping, and scapegoating coming out of numerous government, NGO, and corporate entities since the declaration of the War on Terror (as though a 15-year-old goatherd in a cave in a desert on the other side of the planet posed any sort of threat to the global imperial mega-hegemony.
>C'mon, Achmed.
Hey! Give me back my white privilege!
(2/2)

[Anonymous No.9298575]

>>9298472
Or maybe I just have a bit of a cough, fagboy.

[Anonymous No.9298579]

>>9298189
Very interesting read Anon, thank you.

[Anonymous No.9298581]

>>9296883
Pottery

[Anonymous No.9298588]

>>9298575
The correct dosage of cough syrup should never have too much of an effect on anything besides your cough

[Anonymous No.9298603]

>>9298588
Well yeah, but then I can't get high.

[Anonymous No.9298655]

>>9297419
So your argument isn't so much that he's wrong about the law as that you don't care.

[Anonymous No.9298678]

>>9298282
Pretty decent understanding of the alt right, even if there's also a bit more historical aspects in play. Love seeing them get triggered at your post tho :')

[Anonymous No.9298705]

>>9298573
Apply cold water to the afflicted area.

[Anonymous No.9298712]

>>9298573
>I, in my free time because I'm a fucking loser with no friends, argue against national minimum wage laws, amalgamated labour unions, protectionist regulations, guaranteed basic income, affirmative action, and most forms of welfare.

Since you've clearly thought about this a bit, what's your go-to counter for the atlas shrugged argument that by regulating the free market (corporations) into a liberal notion of fairness--workers can eat AND afford decent housing etc--that this will deincentivize seedling and budding capitalists into apathy or art or what the fuck ever until we end up as impoverished as communist China/Russia/Vietnam?

[Anonymous No.9299398]

>>9296949
I'm a total nu-male, but I only fit into one or two of those descriptions. Should I try harder?
>tfw can't even grow a respectable hipster beard

[Anonymous No.9299430]

>>9296883
what a kant

[Anonymous No.9299587]

>>9297487
There's no difference.
>I'm okay with someone else telling me what to do
I really don't like saying this, but: cuck.

[Anonymous No.9299664]

Are there any other noteworthy Phycologists that have a lot of free content / lectures online like Peterson has on JewTube?

[Anonymous No.9299727]

>>9297371
>tfw you can't tell where your 4chan-inspired contrarianism begins and you end

[Anonymous No.9299958]

>>9298282
>>9298057
>>9298053
>>9298044
I wish there was more people like you on /lit/

[Anonymous No.9299985]

>>9298712
>>I, in my free time because I'm a fucking loser with no friends, argue against national minimum wage laws, amalgamated labour unions, protectionist regulations, guaranteed basic income, affirmative action, and most forms of welfare.
>Since you've clearly thought about this a bit, what's your go-to counter for the atlas shrugged argument
Oh God /lit/, never change

[Anonymous No.9299995]

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=8609176
This was the bill that was passed in Canada. My problem with it was that gender expression was included, and not just gender identity.

[Anonymous No.9300002]

>>9298678
OMG thisssssss!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.9300017]

>>9298189
>"Derrida is the quintessential postmodernist"
He explained it like that: Derrida argues that there is nothing outside of the text and that categorization leads to exclusion. While it is somewhat true, it is an absolutely corrupt way (i.e. ideological) to look at the world.

>When he discusses legal matters like C-16 or M-103
He says that he is in contact with top lawyers and that the text is dangerously written because it is a complete mess (according to the law, gender is literally fashion and you can't defend identity on fashion). The social justice tribunal of human rights are to be found guilty of the mess that these laws are.

>his work in personality typing (like all work in personality typing) sounds like grade-A stinkweaselry to me
Jesus Christ, the Big five model is anything but that. It is as validated as a psychometric model can be.

> I also think his apologetics for Christianity are too abstract to function on any level other than the poetic
Sort yourself out, strengthen the individual, lead by example, don't lie, etc... are not poetic at all.

> I just think he's handled it poorly
Compared to what? Compared to who? Anybody who tried to apologize to the SJW crowd got trampled. Yet he has never been aggressive to them.

I really cannot fathom how someone can be as misinformed as you, yet articulate it with as much condescension.

[Anonymous No.9300021]

>>9296848
Hes pretty humble about his ideas. He's acknowledged in talks before the weirdness of his rise in popularity, and he outright owns that his ideas are not new, only somewhattimely

[Anonymous No.9300026]

>>9299664
Not many and none are as good imho

Sapolsky
John Vervaeke
Greg Sadler
Gad Saad

[Anonymous No.9300030]

>>9300017
>He explained it like that: Derrida argues that there is nothing outside of the text and that categorization leads to exclusion. While it is somewhat true, it is an absolutely corrupt way (i.e. ideological) to look at the world.
It's actually a legitimate way to look at ideologies. Which is all Derrida did. He didn't run around saying "we shouldn't categorise things!" That's how I know Peterson either didn't read him himself or is paranoid.

[Anonymous No.9300031]

>>9298573
>Ignoring the incorrect suggestion that IQ is anything more than a coincidental statistical indicator of education and earning

[Anonymous No.9300038]

>>9300030
>He didn't run around saying "we shouldn't categorise things!"
That's a complete strawman.

Valorizing something is excluding other things. Yes, that's true. What is corrupt and ideological is to see only the exclusion.

[Anonymous No.9300040]

>>9300038
Derrida didn't do that either.

[Anonymous No.9300053]

>>9300040
from plato.edu

"Deconstruction is a criticism of Platonism, which is defined by the belief that existence is structured in terms of oppositions (separate substances or forms) and that the oppositions are hierarchical, with one side of the opposition being more valuable than the other."

>structured in terms of oppositions
pure ideology

>with one side of the opposition being more valuable than the other
pure ideology again

That's as far as I understand, what is at the basis of postmodernism and neo-marxism (class conflict transformed into any oppression).

[Anonymous No.9300092]

>>9300053
You just said it yourself: Platonism is the ideology. Deconstruction is a criticism of it - meaning it questions the idea that this is how existence is structured. And that's all it does. It doesn't call for so and so values or hierarchies to be done away with, it just questions them. It's very non-judgemental. Ideology is actually the judgemental part because it makes value judgements.

[Anonymous No.9300101]

>>9298570
>The black descendants of slaves in the United States. I'd recommend The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, which examines the issue in the context of prisons and criminal justice.

2017, blacks discriminated.
Reread Thomas Sowell.

>Also in the United States, poor whites from the Appalachian region, where a long history of class conflict, poor education, neglect, and malignant welfare policy has left the region economically and socially devastated, with high unemployment, high rates of drug addiction, alcoholism, and crime, low rates of education, and other assorted endemic problems.

You going to give specifics or just offer conjecture?

Also, I don't care about Canada. Your government is fucked.

On average, the value of a black vote in Illinois or Maryland is mathematically worth more than the value of a white vote in those states, although this depends on the specific constituency in individual cases, although the overall effect is the same as if it weren't the case. The converse is true in Texas and Oklahoma, alongside many other parts of the South. However, there are other ways in which black people in Baltimore and Chicago are intentionally kept in poverty by the state and the ultra rich. Conflict among the lower classes is good for those in power.

There are individuals within a society than can be racist. The institution itself is not racist or oppressive. Again, get specific instead of making statements. Baltimore has a black mayor and black police chief that want to keep their people down?

It's a coincidence that Chicago and Baltimore's mayors are democrats who happen to side with welfare progroms and handouts. I wonder if that has anything with keeping people down.

> that this person will struggle to live, even if they work their ass off.

Yes, how is this wrong. Some people have a higher capacity for sucess and some don't. Deal with it.

>>9298573
You seem to confuse a stanard if living with being rich.

You are also thinking in immediate terms. If one's parents worked hard and provided inheritance to their children, then those children (if not retarded) will invest in it and so on. Those that don't and squander the money leave no money for their children and so on.

You seem to think the rich and powerful stay that way without actually working constructively and instead work to undermine the lower class. Again, this is what Peterson means when he mentions idealogy, you are only seeing one side and not critiquing it.

Yes, Steve Woz is totally living in poverty, Tesla was totally oppressed by going to university and getting published. I am saying if one gets a job or multiple jobs then they can not starve to death. I don't mean they WILL get rich. The free market decides that based on one's services and proficiency.

[Anonymous No.9300108]

>>9300092
>It's very non-judgemental
>"one side of the opposition being more valuable than the other"
You're joking, right?

[Anonymous No.9300129]

>>9300108
"one side of the opposition being more valuable than the other" is what the people it's criticising do.

[Anonymous No.9300139]

>>9300092
>It doesn't call for so and so values or hierarchies to be done away with, it just questions them. It's very non-judgemental.

Criticizing something without supplying a solution is the mark of the nihilist.

[Anonymous No.9300160]

>>9298573
>Now when you put those quote-marks around "material". What exactly is that supposed to indicate? What sort of wealth is immaterial? Are you proposing an economy of love and kindness like a Care Bear?
Physical stuff. Now you're nitpicking.

>I'm not arguing for any redistributive policies. I, in my free time because I'm a fucking loser with no friends, argue against national minimum wage laws, amalgamated labour unions, protectionist regulations, guaranteed basic income, affirmative action, and most forms of welfare.
I am for that. But, you argue against affirmative action yet you say Blacks are discrimated in 2017?

>There's a further implication in your commentary that if a demographic is disenfranchised, it must be because that demographic intrinsically has a low IQ because . . . well, that part isn't justified,

Those that get out of poverty either:

1. Find a job.
2. Provide some fringe talent that the free market purchases. (sports/arts)

but basically praise the free market, may its golden goodness trickle down upon us!
The free market doesn't trickle down anything. You see the free market as a rope that someone dangles down for you when it's a ladder you climb.

>Hey! Give me back my white privilege!
Checked.

[Anonymous No.9300170]

>>9300139
Nihilism can be deconstructed ;)
But you're free to believe that. No skin off my bones.

[Anonymous No.9300181]

>>9300170
I'll retract that statement actually, criticizing something without producing a solution is the mark of the Last Man.

[Anonymous No.9300185]

>>9300170
>le unflappable questioning man
you're not worth much in terms of discourse. Deconstruction without construction ends in nihilism. Just because you can take apart the ideas of nihilism doesn't mean you're not susceptible to it.

[Anonymous No.9300188]

>>9300129
I would like to apologize. In my quick reading, I read the "which" for Deconstruction and not Platonism as I've always heard that Derrida was responsible for dismissing categories but to turn them on itself (which is not completely untrue as it is described as "the first part of deconstruction").

[Anonymous No.9300191]

>>9296949
no one's ever going to take anything you say seriously. by all means keep shitposting I just get just get satisfaction from telling you this.

[Anonymous No.9300208]

>>9300181
>>9300185
I don't give a shit is what I'm saying

>>9300188
He does that just as a means of deconstructing. That's not the final result.

[Anonymous No.9301080]

>>9296848
Both him and Harris are more rethorists than philosophers. From what I've heard/read from both, all I got was a repackaging of previous ideas, with simpler language and illustrated with some of the shittiest analogies I've ever seen.

[Anonymous No.9301322]

>>9298343

>having a serious opinion on brianna wu is a bad thing

you realize brianna wu has gotten a disproportionate amount of media coverage and was one of the key people that helped slander the gamergate people to their own gain and the radicalization of those said people, right? Like they were literally caught falseflagging cyberbullying against themselves, fuck one time they forgot to log out of their developer account on steam greenlight and made a thread on their shitty game's forum calling themselves a piece of shit that needed to get raped.

Now that person you're not supposed to have any serious opinions about is getting politically involved but whether they can win or not they're pushing the "give me money to stop trump" bullshit really hard and forgive me if I think that scam artists like that really need to be exposed and shoved out of the door. Ignoring people that nobody else is ignoring doesn't work, people kept going "LOL, TRUMP, WHAT A JOKE XD" right up until he became fucking president. At some point you have to take the world seriously and people that are very good at what they do(in Brianna's case, lying) should be watched carefully.

Or you know, LOL WHAT A JOKE, XD and just let her do what she wants. Stupid faggot.

also,
>the matrix was bad!

Nah it was pretty good, had slick special effects and good art/world design. Music was enjoyable too. Enjoyable characters and it's rare to see cyberpunk films post 1989

[Anonymous No.9301403]

>>9301322
Anyone who I ironically gives their hard earned money to Brianna Wu or any professional legacy gamer gate personality in the year of our Lord 2017 for that matter is a moron who definitely deserves to get scammed

[Anonymous No.9301462]

>>9299727
>tfw able to switch back and forth effortlessly between 'woke leftist lgbt ally' and 'borderline fascist neoreactionary' depending on whom you are talking with and whether you want to ingratiate yourself to them or just piss them off.
>tfw reached blissful nirvana of ironic detachment where every opinion no matter how outlandish seems equally reasonable

[Anonymous No.9301467]

>>9301462
This is beneficial to you but highly detrimental to the larger populace

[Anonymous No.9301505]

>>9300101
(1/4)
>2017, blacks discriminated.
>Reread Thomas Sowell.
(1.) If you read Sowell as flat out denying racial discrimination, you need to learn to read. (2.) We weren't talking about discrimination or racism or prejudice. We were talking about disenfranchisement. This can occur economically, politically, socially, etc. If you are disenfranchised politically, you have significantly reduced power to change your own country via democracy. One of the central arguments in Alexander's text is that black men, who are sentenced at a far greater rate for far greater periods of time for drug crime, despite using drugs as often or less often than white men, are legally denied voting rights. This is a perfect example of political disenfranchisement.
>You going to give specifics or just offer conjecture?
This is a non-argument. I gave you what you asked for.
>Also, I don't care about Canada.
Well fuck you too.
>Your government is fucked.
I strongly agree, but fuck you nonetheless.
>There are individuals within a society than can be racist.
Yep.
>The institution itself is not racist or oppressive.
Untrue, but I'll entertain the thought for now.
>Again, get specific instead of making statements.
You're requiring too high of a standard of evidence for the International Journal of Shitposting and Memetics.
>Baltimore has a black mayor and black police chief that want to keep their people down?
Why do you feel as though all black people present a 100% united front for their racial interests? I assume it's not too difficult for you to imagine a white politician caring little or not-at-all about the interests of his constituents. I'm not familiar enough with the local politics of individual American cities to make informed commentary on their mayors, but the general function of America's political system is difficult to change without changing the structure of that system itself.
>It's a coincidence that Chicago and Baltimore's mayors are democrats who happen to side with welfare progroms and handouts.
Not a coincidence at all. Welfare is a tool of political and economic control. The poor vote for those who will give them more welfare. And it means that employers don't have to provide an actual living wage. In very limited cases, applied carefully, it can be used to uplift those in need. But not often.
>I wonder if that has anything with keeping people down.
Yes. It does.
>Yes, how is this wrong.
Morally.
>Some people have a higher capacity for sucess and some don't.
What is the empirical measure of this capacity? Because, looking at the Forbes 400, it seems as though the strongest indicator of great wealth is having very wealthy parents.
(1/4)

[Anonymous No.9301515]

>>9301505
(2/4)
>You seem to confuse a stanard if living with being rich.
You seem to confuse your dictionary for a suggestion Mr. Sucess Progrom Stanard. Chop chop. Specifics. Don't just make statements. If you're going to hold me to a standard. Hold to that standard yourself.
>You are also thinking in immediate terms. If one's parents worked hard and provided inheritance to their children, then those children (if not retarded) will invest in it and so on. Those that don't and squander the money leave no money for their children and so on.
This is a myth. From Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century, page 440:

Between 1990 and 2010, the fortune of Bill Gates . . . increased from $4 billion to $50 billion. At the same time, the fortune of Liliane Bettencourt . . . increased from $2 billion to $25 billion, again according to Forbes. Both fortunes thus grew at an annual rate of more than 13 percent from 1990 to 2010, equivalent to a real return on capital of 10 or 11 percent after correcting for inflation.
In other words, Liliane Bettencourt, who never worked a day in her life, saw her fortune grow exactly as fast as that of Bill Gates, the high-tech pioneer, whose wealth has incidentally continued to grow just as rapidly since he stopped working. Once a fortune is established, the capital grows according to a dynamic of its own, and it can continue to grow at a rapid pace for decades simply because of its size. Note, in particular, that once a fortune pases a certain threshold, size effects due to economies of scale in the management of the portfolio and opportunities for risk are reinforced by the fact that nearly all income on this capital can be plowed back into investment.

In other words, past a certain threshold, the rich have a great deal of difficulty spending their money fast enough to lose money, and no matter how hard they work, they will continue to earn money at roughly the same rate.
Poverty too is self-enforcing. In many countries, the United States in particular, if the balance of a savings account descends below a certain threshold, fines are incurred (the bank doesn't want liabilities), further reducing the balance of that account. Shoes, clothing, appliances, tools, and so on must be purchased cheaply for those who live paycheck to paycheck, and the poor quality of these goods means they must be re-purchased often. Whereas the rich are required to pay a large sum only once, the poor must continually buy new goods as the old goods fail. Cheap food is generally unhealthy, which means that the poor have high insurance premiums and greater healthcare costs. And if the poor are uninsured or if their insurance does not cover them, hospital paymasters (an American phenomenon) ensure that they pay several times the actual cost of treatment.
I'm a big believer in individual merit, not generational merit. One is not metaphysically entitled to wealth without work, simply because their parents worked hard.
(2/4)

[Anonymous No.9301519]

>>9301515
(3/4)
>You seem to think the rich and powerful stay that way without actually working constructively
They do.
>and instead work to undermine the lower class.
They don't directly work to do so. They don't even think about doing so when they do. They're actively trying to remain wealthy and powerful. And their wealth is seen in relative terms. They are only wealthy and powerful if the majority is poor and powerless. Therefore, those who are wealthy and powerful and also intelligent but amoral will game the system to ensure that the poor and powerless remain so.
>Again, this is what Peterson means when he mentions idealogy, you are only seeing one side and not critiquing it.
Again? This is the first time you've talked about Peterson and ideology. But I think you're calling the kettle black here.
>Yes, Steve Woz is totally living in poverty, Tesla was totally oppressed by going to university and getting published.
You're moving the goalposts. These individuals were not consigned to poverty. No individual who's name is recognizable between two anonymous strangers will be economically deprived. However, these geniuses were cheated out of their fortunes.
Do you deny that there are intelligent, hard-working individuals who are nonetheless destitute? If so, you need to get off the Vanderbilt estate. And do you really think that the wealth of a billionaire relative to his maid is proportional to the ratio of how hard they work and how intelligent they are? A maid with a net-worth of $600 dollars, versus a man with a net-worth of $60 billion? I've never met anybody who was 100,000,000 times smarter than anybody else.
>I am saying if one gets a job or multiple jobs then they can not starve to death.
Praise the Lord! Through our wageslavery the famine has been averted!
>The free market decides that based on one's services and proficiency.
You don't live in a free market economy. The free market, if it were even instantiated, decides nothing. And you don't live in a meritocracy.
(3/4)

[Anonymous No.9301523]

>>9301519
(4/4)
>>9300160
>Now you're nitpicking.
No, I was genuinely confused, and figured that you were indicating that there was some form of wealth other than the material that would be worth talking about in this context.
>I am for that. But, you argue against affirmative action yet you say Blacks are discrimated in 2017?
Yes.
The #1 beneficiary of affirmative action in America is middle class white women. <http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative-action-has-helped-white-women-more-than-anyone/>
Affirmative action can be useful for quickly "leveling the playing field," but historically, in the USofA, it has only benefited a small subset of the American black population: the ancestors of slaves who managed to buy their freedom or whose freedom was bought for them. This is the demographic which attended the HBCUs in the 50s and 60s and which comprises the majority of wealthy black Americans today. Affirmative action, for them, is effectively useless. For those who are actually disadvantaged, it does nothing, since this demographic has so many barriers to achievement anyway.
In other words, affirmative action accomplishes the opposite of what it was intended to do.

>Those that get out of poverty either:

>1. Find a job.
>2. Provide some fringe talent that the free market purchases. (sports/arts)
This is true.
However, it's only part of the story.
There are four demographics we are concerned with, regarding this statement:
1. Those who are born poor and stay poor.
2. Those who are born poor and become rich.
3. Those who are born rich and stay rich.
4. Those who are born rich and become poor.
Demographic 4 does not exist in the United States today. It's a fairy tale, found only in 19th C. romance novels.
Demographic 3 has already been covered.
Demographic 2 exclusively lifts itself out of poverty through intelligence, talent, and hard work. I do not begrudge them their wealth. It's well-earned.
However, while all in demographic 2 worked hard and had talent and smarts, not all who work hard and have talent and smarts are found in demographic 2. There are many in demographic 1, those who are born poor and will die poor, who work hard, study hard, and who have the skills and intelligence to succeed, yet fail, not because they were unworthy or because they lacked the skills or ethic, but because the game was so heavily rigged against them.
>The free market doesn't trickle down anything. You see the free market as a rope that someone dangles down for you when it's a ladder you climb.
If the market were actually free, and also assuming some coherent notion of equality, which also not present, then yes, the free market, in my estimation, would be an avenue for success. But the market is not free, the starting conditions are unequal, and there are many many factors at play which mean that the ladder is made of ice and those at the top have a strong safety net.
(4/4)

[Anonymous No.9301808]

>>9298314
What gets your dick hard isn't a choice, but if gays want to get married and have the same legal rights as a male/female couple, why not? But if a guy wants me to respect his wormkin status, fuck no.

[Anonymous No.9301836]

>>9296848
Butt blasted xirself detected.

[Anonymous No.9302044]

>>9298282
>tfw I shitpost on /pol/ not because I am disenfranchised but because I see the nation as an aesthetic project and SJWs and their likes as bad artists
Pretty fucking patrish desu.

[Anonymous No.9302081]

>>9302044
You are not the artist. Nor are you the project. You are a hair on the brush. And the painting is fucking tacky.
Nations are not art. They are machines that serve a purpose.

[Anonymous No.9302083]

>>9296848
why is it fucked up?
why do you frame the controversy like that?
>being posited
> rise to fame was basically exploiting transgender controversy.

he expresses his views, I presume. how society reacts is not his reponsibility.
stands to reason when a part of sociery is trying to impose societal norms that go as far as controlling how people speak, those who revolt against it are going to be seen as heros by the opressed.

[Anonymous No.9302126]

>>9296848
>It's really kind of bothering me that he's being posited as this revolutionary hyper-intellectual when many of his ideas already emerged in the 20th century.
I don't know anyone who thinks he's some genius. The man is just an educated thinker who is is very talented at articulating his thoughts. He doesn't conform to the normie agenda that leftists try to push, so it's a breath of fresh fucking air. He's a professor at a SJW fucking school and it's really refreshing to hear a person like him go against the grain.

You sound like a baiting contrarian. a leftist one at that

>>I wont use they/them pronouns
>>hurr i'm a hero
>And people bought it!! Goddamn.
He never claimed to be a hero. People are just fucking relieved to hear some common sense being fucking spoken for a change. Western society is deteriorating with all this "social progressiveness" and people are attacked for speaking up against it.

[Anonymous No.9302167]

>>9302126
>Normie agenda
>SJW fucking school

Cease your existence.

[Anonymous No.9302175]

>>9302167
Where do you live that normies aren't SJW? Have you ever been to Toronto?

[Anonymous No.9302194]

>>9296949
is John Green a nu-male or tortured soul trying to reclaim himself

[Anonymous No.9302203]

>>9302194
I feel like I've been posting this picture too much lately.

[Anonymous No.9302274]

>>9296848
he's the new zizek

[Anonymous No.9302278]

>>9296894
Both those lads are taking seriously by millions more people than your serious 'academics'.

[Anonymous No.9302281]

>>9302278
Millions of teenagers who've never read a philosophy book in their lives

[Anonymous No.9302290]

>>9302281
And millions of adults. Academics don't even have a little bit of a cult following generally.

They are way more influential than the dusty cunts you worship.

You can act like you're above it all but your ivory tower is getting memetically cucked by people like this who know how to use the internet.

There is no value in the traditional humanities any more.

[Anonymous No.9302306]

>>9296848
I've always been torn about Peterson. On one hand I agree with you that the things he says aren't new or add anything to the discussion. However I think it's more the lefts reaction to him that put him in the spotlight rather than anything he actually says. I disagree he exploited transgender controversy.

I do admire his bravery and conviction, and putting him - a quiet well behaved serious old man - in a lecture theatre full of protesters trying to stifle his speech draws quite a contrast.

[Anonymous No.9302314]

>>9302306
The fact that what he brings to the table is being perceived as novel by a lot of people suggests it was about time for a reintroduction of those ideas though.

[Anonymous No.9302322]

>>9302290
>There is no value in the traditional humanities anymore
Peterson is a purebred "traditional" humanities professor though.

Maybe if you had some tertiary education you'd understand.

[Anonymous No.9302324]

>>9302322
In a way he is, but he only gained relevance when he stepped outside of that.

Which only proves my point.

[Anonymous No.9302332]

>>9302314
This is a great point. There is nothing inherently wrong with making important pre-established philosophical concepts more easily accessible

[Anonymous No.9302336]

>>9302314
You're right and he's a good mouth piece for those ideas, he's knowledgeable and well spoken. Some of his ideas I like but it's a pretty slippery slope intellectually from what Peterson believes to reactionary right-wing bullshit

Pitting him against some 20 something year old SJW idiots is such a false dichotomy and I get the impression real intellectual adversaries avoid him like the plague.

[Anonymous No.9302349]

>>9302324
Wow nice point proven.

Everything Peterson believes comes from those ivory towers intellectuals you despise, idiot.

[Anonymous No.9302350]

>>9302336
>but it's a pretty slippery slope intellectually from what Peterson believes to reactionary right-wing bullshit
Not if you actually listen to him instead of /pol/

[Anonymous No.9302360]

>>9302336
>I get the impression real intellectual adversaries avoid him like the plague.
Because they'd get btfo

[Anonymous No.9302363]

>>9302175
Where the fuck did i say that """"""normies aren't sjw""""""? I know you alt-righters are subhumans but at least learn to fucking read.

[Anonymous No.9302367]

>>9302350
I see /pol as more a mix of national socialist fascism/anarcho-capitalist than reactionary right wing.

Anyway I do listen to Peterson very closely and have read his book. I still thing his ideas are quite reactionary.

[Anonymous No.9302372]

>>9302367
You probably know a lot more about him than I do then, which ideas in particular seem that way to you?

[Anonymous No.9302375]

>>9302360
Because associating yourself in any way shape or form with the darling of the """alt right""" is not a good idea if you're a smart person with a good job

[Anonymous No.9302381]

>>9302363
You implied it when you greentexted both articles of text in a row. Do you not understand how memearrows work and what they imply? Seriously go back to r.eddit you fucking newfag.

>alt-righters are subhuman
That's very tolerant of you. I'm not even an alt-righter lmao

[Anonymous No.9302386]

>>9302375
You sound super butthurt there buddy.

[Anonymous No.9302405]

>>9302386
I'm truly not I just think that if you're a professor who disagrees with Peterson and watches him closely (as I'm sure many do) actually publicly debating him on Youtube would not be a good career move. This coming from someone who is an aspiring academic.

The whole idea of no one want to debate him from fear of being "btfo" is childish imo

[Anonymous No.9302435]

>>9302405
Why would it be a bad career move to debate a man who is raising to fame? It sounds like just the thing that could boost your own career via proxy. Unless of course you yourself are a pseud who couldn't hold a candle to Peterson in a debate.

>[...]is childish imo
Nice argument

[Anonymous No.9302445]

>>9302381
>Not understanding that memearrows can be used for quoting

>Not even an alt-righter
Whatever you wanna call yourself, using "Normie agenda" unirocally makes you a fucking mongoloid

>Go back to r.eddit, newphag
Are you 12

[Anonymous No.9302453]

>>9296848
>revolutionary hyper-intellectual
I doubt anybody considers him such. He's just promulgating ideas from well established philosophers from relatively recent times. How is that bad?

[Anonymous No.9302463]

>>9302435
Do you think academics care about being famous? Explain how having a public debate would "boost your career"? Do you understand that public debates are actually very rare in academia? We leave that to debate clubs.

And by "childish" I thought it was pretty self evident what I meant was in an intellectual debate both sides give their arguments, then the audience takes in both sides and goes away and think long and hard about who they agree with. It's not WWE smack down were one guy totally btfo the other guy and it's a huge spectacle.

That's the whole problem with fame in academia, your "fans" are morons like you who watch Youtube videos with titles like "Peterson DESTROYS cry baby SWJ" for entertainment.

[Anonymous No.9302465]

>>9302445
The fact that you weren't able to decipher the blanket term which "normie agenda" covers further proves that you're new to 4chan. On top of that you're also defending r.eddit; your retort to my use of 4chan's longstanding zeitgeist really shows how fucking new you are.

Try to come up with a better response than "lol u must be a kidd!! xDD". All it displays is your personal insecurity when it comes to age. You yourself are probably some 17-21 year old kid.

[Anonymous No.9302469]

>>9302349
>Everything Peterson believes comes from those ivory towers intellectuals you despise, idiot.
I only despise the ones who think being in the club is the only proof of merit.

[Anonymous No.9302475]

>>9302463
>Do you think academics care about being famous?
>Explain how having a public debate would "boost your career"?
You have 0 idea with how the real world works.

[Anonymous No.9302481]

>>9302463
>we

[Anonymous No.9302508]

>>9302475
>>9302481
I don't want to flaunt my credentials but I have a PhD in biochem and philosophy and and currently a ARF in my universities philosophy department so I do sort of have an idea of what the academic world is like.

To clarify I do think what Peterson says/stands for is important and worthy of discussion and debate but I just think it's not going to happen on Youtube and will be too nuanced for Petersons "fans" to care about anyway.

[Anonymous No.9302514]

>>9302465
Au contraire, is the fact that i know very well what you retards mean with tEh bLaNkEt TeRm nOrMie agenDA that makes me fucking cringe

>4chan longstanding zeitgeist
Lmfao

Also if you weren't a complete moron you'd realise that my "You're 12" and your "You're new" are the same thing, only for the fact that i don't really think you're 12.

[Anonymous No.9302524]

>>9302465
>Criticises anon for invoking age in an argument
.Guesses age of anon

[Anonymous No.9302525]

>>9298232
Was at that talk. Started off pretty strong but he lost me about 2/3rds of the way through when he started going on about God and "the father". I probably just don't know enough about Jungian archetypes so it went over my head

Also started to feel almost like a preachy motivational talk towards the end which I could have done without. Interesting nonetheless tho

[Anonymous No.9302537]

I'm unironically quite concerned about the SJW problem, you know these people would get rid of the whole western cannon for being 'triggering' and replace it with 'empowering' 'twerking' videos and buzzfeed style 'dear cishet white guys' content if they could. This is why someone like Peterson is good, though certainly far from enough. he process already seems halfway complete if you've even set foot inside a north american university somewhere over the last 5 years

[Anonymous No.9302539]

>>9302514
>I-I s-swear I know what it means!!!!
Lol, getting defensive through autistic spats are we?

>Also if you weren't a complete moron you'd realise that my "You're 12" and your "You're new" are the same thing
Fucking idiot. It is not the same thing at all as what I said coincides with like I said, the longstanding zeitgeist of 4chan and calling people newfags. Jesus Christ anon. You're embarrassing yourself.

>>9302524
That was the point. How did you miss that?

[Anonymous No.9302547]

>>9297215
>This is specifically because the changes to the law which were proposed lay neatly in anti-pc sights: namely, the inclusion of non-binary gender expression.
This is where you gave yourself away, kys faggot

[Anonymous No.9302549]

>>9302514
>Lmfao
>Implying 4chan isn't the current seat of the World Spirit

[Anonymous No.9302557]

>>9297215
>This is specifically because the changes to the law which were proposed lay neatly in anti-pc sights: namely, the inclusion of non-binary gender expression.
don't resist leftist social engineering. that's not nice, not a nice thing to do you goys.

[Anonymous No.9302559]

>>9302537
This isn't a bad thing though. We now have a populace of stupid drooling under-educated limp-wristed SJW retards. Anybody who can discipline themselves outside of mainstream culture and works towards greatness will easily be able to rule over the plebs and force his vision of society onto the masses.

Society is really ripe for a new Caesar, Napolean, or Hitler.

[Anonymous No.9302578]

>>9302559
So, Trump?

[Anonymous No.9302601]

>>9302524
Why the fact do you act like the meaning of Le Normie Agenda is some sort of obscure knowledge and only True Channers can know it lmao. You're the one embarrassing yourself.

Also fine usage of ironic cd's and multiple exclamation points. Because I am the newfag, right?

And for the love of God stop using "longstanding 4chan zeitgeist", thanks.

[Anonymous No.9302609]

>>9302601
>cd's
* xd's

[Anonymous No.9302658]

>>9302508
>dont want to flaunt my credentials
>double Phd
>160IQ
>10 inch dick
>net worth of 25mil
>oh yeah and i fucked your mum last week

seriously you are a symbol of the deep problems in academia. So hopped up on your own hubris that you cant even comprehend the fact that the way you view the world may be deeply flawed. Just look at the way you assume Petersons fans would be too stupid to understand your arguments. You're a fuckin joke m8.

[Anonymous No.9302671]

>>9302658
No.
You are the only joke around these ways m8

[Anonymous No.9302695]

>>9302671
I'm a different anon btw. It's just clear your ego blinds you.

[Anonymous No.9302720]

>>9302695
If you read the comments I replied to I was just trying to show as someone who has suffered through two PhDs and is struggling to become a professor that from my own experience I have some idea of what the academic world is like, at least where I am.

When people ask me what I do I say "I work for the university" because I'm embarrassed at how pompous and nebulous my job is, I hate taking about it.

Thanks for your casual judgement over the internet reaffirming my anxieties about my work. I especially enjoyed your reduction of who I am as a person as "a symbol of the deep problems in academia". Nice job.

[Anonymous No.9302890]

>>9302720
I mean no offense mate I'm just taking the piss. Of course the effort of earning two Phds is worthy of praise and a position in university holds value. I'm just saying you came across as dismissive of Peterson and what people see as a resurgence of metaphysical ideas that seemed to have been lost to existence for the last half century, only to be replaced by a materialistic outlook and the inherent nihilism and hedonism that has accompanied it. I think Peterson is good not just for his arguments against that zeitgeist, but because he tempers the views of the alt-right and their desire to enforce too much order into the world (eg natsoc and nrx popularity).

apologies again for being an asshole i'm sure you could argue me under the table anyway

[Anonymous No.9302895]

>>9296882
He would kill himself himself?

[Anonymous No.9303221]

>>9301519
>maid net-worth of 600$ vs man net-worth of 60$ billion
>I've never met anybody who was 100.000.000 times smarter than anybody else

maybe that's because you're too busy attending the weekly antifa gangbangs. Perhaps, maybe, if you entered the real world you would see how maybe, perhaps, sometimes, in certain cases, some individuals provide incredible value that others are willing to pay for which, oh, i don't know, just kind of confirms that value, more or less, but hey...

I'm sure it's because Gates is a white man and maid is a Mexican womyn. He rayceeeeest.
In other words,
>Get to ze choppa

[Anonymous No.9303302]

>>9302314
I didn't really think of it that way, it's true. 99% of philosophy and literature is unoriginal. But a good chunk of that 99% is saying what has already been said in a productive, researched, educational way. If you just disregard every contemporary thinker because their ideas already exist, you're kind of missing out on the great benefits of philosophy in favour of intellectual wankery.

[Anonymous No.9303326]

>>9303221
Your post is the inane ramblings of a neckbeard cretin who can only speak in dismissive strawmans and tired clichés. However, I'll look past it because you're clearly a Eurofag from an irrelevant shitcountry like Czechoslovenia or Yugoserbia.
However! I will make a retraction: although it's not something you've noticed, because your presented understanding of economic value-theory is worse than that of a Marxist who also believes in Praxeology. In comparing net-worths, I would inevitably run into the problem of comparing wealth based on cash and personal belongings versus wealth based in equity. Wealth based in the former is built up through intelligent investment, rather than work; wealth based on the latter is exclusively tied to work.
This is the sort of comparison I was hoping to avoid. A comparison of wages would be more apt, and result in less hysterical but still unjustifiable value-ratios.

[Anonymous No.9303349]

>>9303326
>Your post is the inane ramblings of a neckbeard cretin who can only speak in dismissive strawmans and tired clichés. However, I'll look past it because you're clearly a Eurofag from an irrelevant shitcountry like Czechoslovenia or Yugoserbia.

a b s o l u t e i d e o l o g y

>Wealth based in the former is built up through intelligent investment, rather than work; wealth based on the latter is exclusively tied to work.

It's almost as if.... maybe... work smarter not harder was the basic maxim of every single species of this planet. wow. Almost as if there is value in investment itself. Almost as if management is an important skill. Almost as if it's related to planning, which sets us apart from any other species.

almost.
maybe.
mayhaps.

[Anonymous No.9303421]

>>9303349
>work smarter not harder was the basic maxim of every single species of this planet.
This is so wrong I can't even laugh at it.
>Almost as if there is value in investment itself. Almost as if management is an important skill. Almost as if it's related to planning,
Of course. I'm not denying that investment, management, and planning are valueless, nor that management, innovation, and planning aren't of greater value than other forms of labour (so long as there is scarcity of qualified individuals due to the quality of that innovation et al). I'm not a socialist, nor a Keynesian. However, the last three exchanges have completely changed the topic from the initial point to be made, which was that a plurality of the incredibly wealthy (we'll say 8 figures net-worth or more) have not earned their wealth in the slightest, while many of those who lack wealth possess the skills and work ethic to do so, but are unable to due to a variety of factors that are easily remedied (and would be remedied to the benefit of all save those who haven't earned their vast wealth).
It's also worth noting that the value provided by that investment has the prerequisite of a surplus of capital, and if a large percentage of the population is unable to acquire a sufficient surplus of capital to make investments and undertake ventures, then we (as western capitalists) miss out on the growth, innovation, and competition represented by those missed opportunities as a group, and those who exist in the economically disenfranchised demographic are denied the God-given joy and liberty of free enterprise. To uphold such a practice for the benefit of leaches such as the rapist-pedophile Robert Richards IV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_and_sentencing_of_Robert_H._Richards_IV)) and the murderer Alice Walton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Walton#Automobile_incidents)) is a moral crime and an aberration against the nature which you so staunchly appeal to.
>which sets us apart from any other species.
This (A.) Contradicts your claim that all species work smarter rather than harder as a basic maxim and (B.) is wrong as shit.

Also, fuck off with this almost maybe shit you shitlivered cocksucker. It's annoying as a fucking pinworm. If you want to insult me, do it. Being a condescending little prick is only excusable if you're actually smarter than the person you're talking to. I'm decent enough to call you an illiterate bitch to your face like a man; I expect the same respect from you. I'd like to hate you for good reasons.

[Anonymous No.9303425]

>my primary source of income before becoming a youtube star was consulting on employment screening tests
>let me explain why employment screening tests are bad

[Anonymous No.9303436]

>>9303425
>this somehow makes him less trustworthy instead of moreso

[Anonymous No.9303439]

>>9303436

the problem with this person is to even attempt to verify his philosophy I have to give him some youtube clicks or buy his book

even an attempt at critique is a losing situation

[Anonymous No.9303441]

This thread is pure idiocy. The entire drama surrounding Peterson is pure idiocy.

Whether it's the leftist fuckheads who are desperate for any kind of character flaw to attack him on, or the alt-right neo-nazi human garbage that attached themselves to him despite not understanding 99% of what comes out of his mouth. Especially funny considering he basically called them all morons with their shallow, incomplete ideology.

[Anonymous No.9303445]

>>9303441
If I'm not either of those things and I'm really not interested in the pronoun shit at all can I like him?

[Anonymous No.9303450]

>>9303441

>entire drama surrounding Peterson is pure idiocy.

the attention he's given brings out some inherent flaws in western philosophy, if he was performing for educated people he could just shout ITS THE LOGOS DAMMIT, THE LOOOGOS, LOOGOOS and it would save them a lot of time and still get his worldview across just as well, and demonstrates how horribly equipped classical philosophy of any origin is to deal with the problems humanity is about to face

[Anonymous No.9303486]

>>9303439
His book is free on his website, but yea naturally if you want to interface with someone viewpoint you have to learn about it.

[Anonymous No.9303490]

>>9301467
The entire populace seriously needs to get the fuck over itself.

[Anonymous No.9303493]

>>9303490
Sort yourself out

[Anonymous No.9303499]

>>9303493

glad you've found the answer to life's hard questions on Youtube (TM)

[Anonymous No.9303524]

>>9303421
>This is so wrong I can't even laugh at it.

notanargument.jpeg

>Of course. I'm not denying that investment, management, and planning are valueless

Freudian slip, commie?

>a plurality of the incredibly wealthy (we'll say 8 figures net-worth or more) have not earned their wealth in the slightest, while many of those who lack wealth possess the skills and work ethic to do so
>not earned their wealth in the slightest
If only we could establish a Utopia with you redistributing wealth. It would be so much different than any other attempt.
>many of those who lack wealth possess the skills and work ethic to do so
So why are they not rich? they have both skills and work ethic. Surely, they would advance significantly. Might it be that, perhaps, they in fact, do NOT, have skills that the market is in dire need of? Just because you are 99% as good as Bill Gates doesn't mean you get 99% of his result. We already have a sufficient amount of Bill Gatii.

>if a large percentage of the population is unable to acquire a sufficient surplus of capital to make investments and undertake ventures
Maybe if they majored in lesbian dance theory with emphasis on Druidic perspectives on menstrual cycles in Lemurs. Otherwise, citation fucking needed. If you got skills and ideas and work ethic you will advance ABSOLUTELY ANYWHERE. even in subsaharan fucking Africa. Not to even mention the rest of the world, esp USA.

>those who exist in the economically disenfranchised demographic are denied the God-given joy and liberty of free enterprise
Where are those men with guns denying them?

>To uphold such a practice for the benefit of leaches such as the rapist-pedophile
Muh anecdotal evidence sprinkled with ad hominems and a pinch of strawman. Literally not relevant to argument. We are not arguing criminality or law now.

>This (A.) Contradicts your claim that all species work smarter rather than harder as a basic maxim and (B.) is wrong as shit.
Prerequisites can be necessary, yet not sufficient.
It's not wrong, you're dumb and my dad has a bigger penis than your dad.

>Also, fuck off with this almost maybe shit you shitlivered cocksucker. It's annoying as a fucking pinworm. If you want to insult me, do it. Being a condescending little prick is only excusable if you're actually smarter than the person you're talking to. I'm decent enough to call you an illiterate bitch to your face like a man; I expect the same respect from you. I'd like to hate you for good reasons.

wew
e
w

lad.
>I expect the same respect from you
Muh respect. Stay classy, my lesbian gender theorist.

[Anonymous No.9303669]

>>9303524
(1/3)
>notanargument.jpeg
It's a demand for evidence for a wild claim.
>Freudian slip, commie?
No, just an error. Surely someone with your grasp (or lack thereof) of the English language can forgive that.
>If only we could establish a Utopia with you redistributing wealth. It would be so much different than any other attempt.
Why do you think I want to redistribute wealth? I advocate for taking wealth away from those who have not earned it but rather acquired it through inheritance (such as the aforementioned Walton or Richards, or such as Trump, SC Johnson III (another billionaire pedo on the loose), Bettencourt, Chelsea Clinton, etc) or who have earned it through illegitimate means such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, George Soros, Carlos Slim, or formerly Bernie Madoff. But I do not want to give away that wealth. Reinvesting it in education and infrastructure would be far more productive. For someone like Gates, Musk, Ma, or Bloomberg, I don't begrudge their wealth. In fact, I would say they *shouldn't* give it away, but should spend it lavishly (see Lindsey McGoey's No Such Thing as a Free Gift for an argument why).
>So why are they not rich? they have both skills and work ethic.
while many of those who lack wealth possess the skills and work ethic to do so, but are unable to due to a variety of factors that are easily remedied (and would be remedied to the benefit of all save those who haven't earned their vast wealth).
Were you literally blinded by your retardation that you couldn't read the rest of the sentence?
The factors at play are incredibly complex, but we can work through at least a few of them. Keep in mind that we are making *Bayesian* claims. Those (such as Oprah Winfrey or Andrew Carnegie) who are able to lift themselves out of poverty through sound financial strategy, hard work, talent, and fucking over the poor are the exception, not the rule. And I can't think of an example of an inherited fortune worth $1B or more in 2017 dollars which has dwindled away, though I can name many wealthy people who lack intellect, work ethic, and talent all three, yet who maintain and grow their wealth. These are just four of the reasons why those born into poverty, despite being talented, smart, and good workers, fail to succeed financially:
(1/3)

[Anonymous No.9303673]

>>9303669
(2/3)
1. Education -- quality education, especially in the United States, costs money and is practically guaranteed for the wealthy should they choose to pursue it (regardless of intellect) while those in poverty must work while they educate themselves, oftentimes living and working in dangerous conditions due to their poverty.
2. Rigged industries -- hyper-regulation, protectionist policy, and corporate welfare means that large, established businesses owned by old-money families are unlikely to fail while new businesses cannot succeed in hostile environments.
3. Lack of connections -- In terms of finding investors, head-hunting talented executives, networking for opportunities, and just identifying those essential connections required to establish oneself in an industry, the pool of names, phone numbers, email addresses, and LinkIn accounts is bone-dry for the poor.
4. Lack of initial capital. Poor people don't have a lot of money. Big fucking surprise. It doesn't matter how good your idea is or how hard you work, if you don't have the cash to get it off the ground, it's going nowhere. Meanwhile, you need to feed yourself, pay the rent, clothe yourself, and take care of your dependents if you have them. You can't exactly put dinner on hold. Even the fictional Thomas Sutpen had eight slaves and acres of land.
>Maybe if they majored in lesbian dance theory with emphasis on Druidic perspectives on menstrual cycles in Lemurs.
I don't know what this is, but it's not funny, clever, relevant, or even insulting. You're trying far too hard. Also, muh STEM. You'll notice most people on the Forbes 400 didn't major in chemical engineering. A few have MBAs, which is a pretty fluffy degree in most institutions. Many dropped out to focus on their businesses. That is -- those who actually earned their wealth.
>Otherwise, citation fucking needed.
"*poverty* noun 1. the state of being extremely poor." (Compact Oxford English Dictionary. Ed. Soanes and Hawker. 2008. pg 797)
Are you that fucking stupid?
>If you got skills and ideas and work ethic you will advance ABSOLUTELY ANYWHERE.
Okay, I really need to know. Are you trolling? Or are you just the most naïve child I've ever met?
>even in subsaharan fucking Africa.
I'm still unsure. But this is fucking stupid. You think a child soldier amputee in the North Kivu region of the Congo, suffering from malaria made worse by HIV, without access to basic healthcare and with little food or potable water, displaced from his village, and taken in as the sex slave of a warlord, you think that if he just works really hard, puts his mind to it, and has a really great idea, he's going to make the next doodad that turns the world into Tron? I'm impressed by your commitment to being a total fucking loon.
>Not to even mention the rest of the world, esp USA.
Just stop. You have no real-world experience and no insight into the empirical evidence. You're like a Sargon of Akkad video, only worse.
(2/3)

[Anonymous No.9303676]

>>9303673
(3/3)
>Where are those men with guns denying them?
Do you really think that guns are the only form of coercion that exists?
>Muh anecdotal evidence
Anecdotal evidence is a small number of specific cases intended to speak for a claim where statistically significant results are more useful. My claim was, in less colloquial terms, "there exist individuals who benefit from vast amounts of inherited wealth, produce no value, and act as a drain on various systems, both social and economic: call them 'leachers'." Reference to Robert Richards IV and Alice Walton was sufficient to advance this claim.
>sprinkled with ad hominems
An ad hominem (literally, "to the man") is the practice of responding to the argument of an interlocutor by appealing to their nature or character. IE: "X claim is wrong because Y proposing X is a liar" or "A claim is true because B proposing A is a gentleman and a scholar." In the quoted fragment, no characterization of you was made, unless you happen to be Mr. Richards or Ms. Walton, in which case 1. Kill yourself and 2. The quoted fragment does not characterize you as an interlocutor.
> and a pinch of strawman.
"strawmanning" is the process of uncharitably representing the argument of an interlocutor so as to substantiatively alter the claims or form of that argument. For example, when responding to "If Bill is married, then Bill is not a bachelor," a strawman of this argument might look like, "Are you claiming that if Bill is in love, then he is a bachelor?" This example changes both the form and the predicate. The quoted fragment does not characterize the argument presented by you in any way.
>We are not arguing criminality or law now.
Of course not. But the fact that these individuals escape justice despite their proven guilt in crimes for which you (I assume) or I would be imprisoned for years or decades is extremely relevant, as it undermines the narrative you've presented of the even playing field where everybody in the free market gets ahead or fails based only on their merit. <--- this is a strawman. It's not a particularly bad representation of your argument, but hysterical enough to earn the label.
>Prerequisites can be necessary, yet not sufficient.
That doesn't mean it's not a contradiction in your thought.
>It's not wrong,
Yes it is, and since you made the claim I'd like you to prove otherwise or concede.
> you're dumb
True. I'm crying now. I am defeat, so sad. Good luck to you, Doctor Professor Actual Factual.
>my dad has a bigger penis than your dad.
That's only because you're a nigger.
(3/3)

[Anonymous No.9303701]

>>9297727
The Jews just are using them as scapegoats

[Anonymous No.9303739]

>>9303669
1/fuck you
I don't want to redistribute wealth, i just want to forcefully take property (wealth) of other people and reinvest it (according to my priorities of course).

But this is not theft or tyranny no... no no.
This is for the higher good.

>they didn't earn it
according to your standards. Unless they took it by force, they earned it. If it was obtained in a (relatively) free market and through voluntary contract - it was fair and earned.

>while many of those who lack wealth possess the skills and work ethic to do so, but are unable to due to a variety of factors that are easily remedied (and would be remedied to the benefit of all save those who haven't earned their vast wealth).
so if everyone got a fair share of that 1%'s wealth, you think Utopia would be established?

>your points 1. 2. 3. and 4.
Education - I am literally receiving a part of education in US. You have no idea how good you have it compared to everywhere else. You BATHE in cash. You get money for having any conceivable talent and even if you have to take out a load, so long as you enter a profitable industry - you're good.

Rigged industries - which is why I am AGAINST interference of ANY central force - government or individual. It's a dumb fucking idea to think you know better than COLLECTIVE WISDOM AND INTEREST of the human race - that is, in most cases.

Lack of initial capital - So you're saying if you had groundbreaking ideas or great talent.... you would slave away in KFC? There is 150 IQ people working in KFC? There is Einsteins working in Wallmarts?

Lack of connections - how do we improve this issue further than it's already alleviated by social media and social mobility? forced socialization? People will hang out with people similar to them. They will form groups, groups will differentiate. Su-fucking-prize, how do you think we came to this situation in the first place?

>You think a child soldier amputee in the North Kivu region of the Congo bla bla bla

Yes. If he genuinely has something of value TO THAT SOCIETY, he will absolutely advance. I am sorry, different societies and different environments encourage different strategies. It's a little part of, you know, a thing called... umm... what was it called? EVOLUTION.

>You have no real-world experience and no insight into the empirical evidence.
B-b-b-but anon, these arguments you are presenting are not valid because you're gay and have aids and you're an unemployed faggot and i hate you i hate you i hate you waaaaaah

>Do you really think that guns are the only form of coercion that exists?
All coercion rests on violence. All. Nobody pays taxes because they love it.

[Anonymous No.9303751]

>>9301523
>There are many in demographic 1, those who are born poor and will die poor, who work hard, study hard, and who have the skills and intelligence to succeed, yet fail, not because they were unworthy or because they lacked the skills or ethic, but because the game was so heavily rigged against them

Nah it's poor work ethic
It's a game of odds
If you try a million times you'll get it just don't die or give up

[Anonymous No.9303757]

>>9303739
suck my dick/nigger jews

>no characterization of you was made, unless you happen to be Mr. Richards or Ms. Walton
Oh you poor subsidized dumb fuck. You characterized their economic prosperity as "leeches" because they did something immoral. That is the very definition... of an ad hominem. You see, I care about standards and arguments in GENERAL and i believe in such a thing as LOGIC and SYSTEMATIC THOUGHT.

>the narrative you've presented of the even playing field where everybody in the free market gets ahead or fails based only on their merit.
Literally WHERE did i say that.
You're the one jerking off to utopias. I happen to think real world is imperfect. I also happen to think we can hardly make it better by establishing utopias. Free (relatively speaking) market is the best solution. Regulation and interference, bailouts and choosing winners, special interests... those are all toxic.
You nigger commie jew. eks dee

>That doesn't mean it's not a contradiction in your thought.
It doesn't, but my thought is not contradictory anyway, so suck my big fat white uncircumcised cock. ;)

>I'd like you to prove otherwise or concede.
wait, you'd like me to prove that evolution works by selecting away any unnecessary and sub-optimal traits and that physics (for the greatest part, i don't know about subatomic shenanigans) works on the principle of the path of least resistance?
we just happen to be very good at planing, management, and long term shit. That is OUR VERSION of optimization and "working smarter"

Dolphins have little use of planning buildings and complex societies. They got fucking flippers you know. They optimize according to THEIR environment and THEIR potential.

By Allah, what is EVEN your education at this point. I am not in STEM, but the way you hate on it... you gotta be in social sciences or some shit.

[Anonymous No.9303791]

>>9296894
He is/was taken seriously in his field of psychology.

[Anonymous No.9303793]

>>9303791
He only did psychology for credential-boasting.

[Anonymous No.9303805]

>>9296848
Some of his points are good, but he has a fucking abysmal way of expressing them, is prone to bad, flawed arguments that come off seeming smart (so idiots jump on them,) sophistry, and dressing up justifications for his christian beliefs as something else.

He is well read, I'll give him that. But he often makes unsound conclusions, using premises that indicate he hasn't got enough background knowledge to even engage in the debate (like when he talks about postmodern and Marxist scholarship, despite very clearly only having a cursory knowledge, attributing things to Marx which Marx wasn't really about.)

I don't think he's a complete dick though. I think he means well. But still, he is annoying as fuck.

[Anonymous No.9303811]

>>9296848
He suckers you in by tackling the social justice issue like a pro, then tries to force his ridiculous ideology on you with the power of namedropping and telling you "religious truth" is separate from "scientific truth".

[Anonymous No.9303814]

>>9303811
Indeed truth is just truth. Science is a method of investigating truth. Religion is a way of ceasing investigation of the truth in favor of peace of mind. End of discussion.

[Anonymous No.9303817]

>>9298057
Probably the best post(s) I've seen on /lit/, and one of the best summations and analysis of these types of academics that i've read.

[Anonymous No.9303921]

>>9303814
>ends the two truths discussion of theology and philosophy that's been around since the middle ages in one shitpost on a Grecian chuckle-huckin board
Kudos ma man.

[Anonymous No.9303945]

>>9296848
Do you need a safe space, crybaby?

[Anonymous No.9303953]

>>9303739
(1/4)
>I don't want to redistribute wealth, i just want to forcefully take property (wealth) of other people and reinvest it (according to my priorities of course).

>But this is not theft or tyranny no... no no.
>This is for the higher good.
I don't want to redistribute wealth, I just want to forcefully take property (wealth) of[sic] bank robbers and con-men and give it back to the victims.
Those who have not earned their wealth have no claim to that wealth. People who have never worked a day in their lives should not be in possession of fortune-500 companies and billion dollar estates.
If a 100% inheritance tax on all items in the estates of deceased individuals above $5,000,000.00 (exact number can be debated), with single plots of real-estate grandfathered in alongside proven heirlooms (such as jewelry, texts, and art) -- and using that to replace the actually redistributive income tax, sales tax, and capital gains tax -- is redistributive, then sure, I'm advocating for redistribution (using your fucked up definition of the word). However, I don't see it as such because the possession of that wealth is entirely unjustifiable. It was earned by the dead. The dead cannot own things. They are dead.
>[they didn't earn it] according to your standards. Unless they took it by force, they earned it. If it was obtained in a (relatively) free market and through voluntary contract - it was fair and earned.
My standard for what it is or is not for someone to earn something is the definition of the word "earn": 1. obtain money in return for one's work or services 2. receive deservedly for one's behaviour and acheivements (same dictionary as before). "Daddy gave me a yacht" is not equivalent to "I earned this yacht."
>so if everyone got a fair share of that 1%'s wealth, you think Utopia would be established?
Obviously not. However, there would be a noticeable and sizeable increase in the standard of living for all (including the 1%) if wealth that would normally be inherited were instead invested in education, science, infrastructure, and the humanities.
>I am literally receiving a part of education in US.
You should get fully educated instead.
>You have no idea how good you have it compared to everywhere else.
How do you figure, Mr. People-In-Africa-Can-Shoot-For-The-Stars?
>You BATHE in cash.
That is unhygienic and frankly perverted.
>You get money for having any conceivable talent
This is a lie and you know it.
>and even if you have to take out a load,
I just had to take out a load on your mum last night.
(1/4)

[Anonymous No.9303958]

>>9303953
(2/4)
>so long as you enter a profitable industry - you're good.
This is predicated on one's ability to actually enter into a profitable industry. All those ladies you think are studying lemurs and dance theory for whatever reason mean that the labour market of engineers and lawyers is smaller. And these days, the availability of engineering positions is shrinking as the labour pool increases. And even if you decide to make your own way, entrepreneurialism comes with extreme risks that are simple for the wealthy to mitigate and impossible for the poor to avoid.
>Rigged industries - which is why I am AGAINST interference of ANY central force - government
Good! We agree on that at least!
>or individual.
You're against . . . individuals . . . interfering in the markets? How? How would markets function? Markets cannot exist without demand (from individuals) and supply (from individuals). I'm nitpicking here, but this legitimately confuses me.
>It's a dumb fucking idea to think you know better than COLLECTIVE WISDOM AND INTEREST of the human race
You need to re-read your Adam Smith (who am I kidding, you just passively listen to a Stefan Molyneux podcast now and then and cast yourself as le supreme inturlectural).
>So you're saying if you had groundbreaking ideas or great talent.... you would slave away in KFC?
If one lacked the capital required to move that idea off the ground or exploit that talent, then yes. Wage labour would be the only recourse. It's better than starving.
>There is 150 IQ people working in KFC?
Absolutely without a doubt there are.
>There is Einsteins working in Wallmarts?
Not Einstein himself, but certainly those capable and able and with the force of will necessary to accomplish similar things, absolutely without a doubt there are Einsteins working in WalMarts.
>how do we improve this issue further than it's already alleviated by social media and social mobility?
By stripping wealth from those who did not earn it but rather inherited it. They will still have those connections, however they will lack the advantage of capital, making the ladder less slippery for those at the bottom.
>Yes. If he genuinely has something of value TO THAT SOCIETY, he will absolutely advance. I am sorry, different societies and different environments encourage different strategies. It's a little part of, you know, a thing called... umm... what was it called? EVOLUTION.
NO YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG AND RETARDED STOP TALKING YOU STUPID FUCKING CRETIN. That is not how evolution works. That is not how sociology works. That is not how fucking praxeology works if you believe in that shit. You dim mongoloid. Read a book for once in your life.
>B-b-b-but anon, these arguments you are presenting are not valid because you're gay and have aids and you're an unemployed faggot and i hate you i hate you i hate you waaaaaah
Your lack of insight and experience is an explanation for your stupidity, not a counterargument.
(2/4)

[Anonymous No.9303963]

>>9303958
(3/5 I did my adding wrong; sue me.)
>All coercion rests on violence. All. Nobody pays taxes because they love it.
He's a voluntaryist.
>Oh you poor subsidized
I am neither of those things.
>You characterized their economic prosperity as "leeches" because they did something immoral.
I characterized *them* as leeches because they have contributed nothing yet consume so much. Like a leech, a creature which sucks blood from its host organism yet gives nothing back. I characterized *them* as pedophiles and rapists and murderers because that is what they are and that is what they did.
>That is the very definition... of an ad hominem.
No it is not. If I were to argue that "my argument X is right because I have a PhD in the field of bullshitology" or "You are wrong because you are retarded," THAT is an ad hominem. Now, I may in fact have a degree in bullshitology. I may in fact be correct. But I am not correct BECAUSE I have a degree in bullshitology. And you are retarded. That's a fact. You are also wrong. But you are not wrong BECAUSE you are retarded. Well, there's a causal relationship, but it's somewhat abstract for what we're looking at.
You've confused insults for ad hominems. An ad hominem attack is illogical. An insult is just rude. In other words, you are being insulted. I am insulting you.
>You see, I care about standards and arguments in GENERAL and i believe in such a thing as LOGIC and SYSTEMATIC THOUGHT.
Lol, no you don't.
>Literally WHERE did i say that.
Read the next sentence you literal nothing.
>You're the one jerking off to utopias.
"Hey Bob?"
"Yeah, Greg?"
"You ever notice how the world is kind of shitty?"
"Yeah, I do Greg."
"I had a thought about how to make it a bit better."
"Haha, fag believes in Utopias. He's too illogical to understand NATURE and EVOLUTION and SCIENCE and LOGIC."
>I happen to think real world is imperfect. I also happen to think we can hardly make it better by establishing utopias.
By the definition of the word "utopia" our imperfect world would literally be better in every possibly conceivable way if we (by some black magic and fairy dust) managed to establish a utopia.
>Free (relatively speaking) market is the best solution.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you, but you haven't proved this. Or even given one iota of evidence to support this claim.
>Regulation and interference, bailouts and choosing winners, special interests... those are all toxic.
Again. Common ground. The ancient idea of primogeniture used to pass on farmland and kingdoms is choosing winners and serves no purpose in the modern world. It needs to be removed.
>nigger
>jew
What?
>It doesn't,
Glad you agree.
>but my thought is not contradictory anyway,
Whoops! Back to the idiot bin.
(3/5)

[Anonymous No.9303964]

>>9303963
(4/5)
>so suck my big fat white uncircumcised cock. ;)
I don't like the way you're looking at me, Albino Lamarr.
>wait, you'd like me to prove that evolution works by selecting away any unnecessary and sub-optimal traits
No.
Your original claim was, and I quote, "work smarter not harder was the basic maxim of every single species of this planet," and "Almost as if it's related to planning, which sets us apart from any other species." (>>9303349)
This is a gross mischaracterization of Darwinian evolution (or Aristotelian or Lamarckian or even Lysenkoist if you're a dirty pinko bolshevik). The goal of biological organisms under the Darwinian theory is exclusively to reproduce. All functions, including survival, are dependent upon their utility toward that goal. Many species suffer a great deal to reproduce, often inefficiently. Male bees fight each other for a chance to impale the Queen with their phallus, which promptly breaks off, leaving the male to die. Redback black widow males are cannibalized by the female, often before the end of the reproductive process. Bacteria, in evolutionary terms the most successful organisms on the planet, survive through reproducing as quickly as possible and expending most of their energy in the process. There's no teleology other than reproduction, and secondary and impinged on that, survival. If you want to frame this discussion in evolutionary terms, then the wealthy have failed, since they tend to have fewer children.
Please don't talk about science that you know nothing about. I'm not even going to touch the train-wreck that is your idea of physics. I'm embarrassed for you, but I also sort-of envy you. I wish I lacked self-awareness at your level. It must be so liberating to walk around thinking you know everything, just squirting liquid garbage out of every orifice like an open spigot.
>Dolphins have little use of planning buildings and complex societies. They got fucking flippers you know. They optimize according to THEIR environment and THEIR potential.
I understand that you don't read, but you should pick up Carl Sauer at some point. Geographic determinism is a scourge upon the minds of pseuds.
(4/5)

[Anonymous No.9303967]

>>9303964
(5/5)
>By Allah, what is EVEN your education at this point.
B.A. English (min linguistics); B.Sc. Mathematics (min philosophy).
>I am not in STEM,
Yeah, I kind of guessed that by the way you talk about evolution, logic, and physics.
>but the way you hate on it...
I don't hate on STEM. I think a lot of young people foolishly wander into certain fields, some of which are characterized as STEM, thinking that there's a line-up of men in ties waiting to offer jobs to graduates of those degrees, and also fail to understand that the supply and demand of labour shift over time, and that the jobs that are in high-demand today may not be needed tomorrow.
I also see a general trend among many undergrads, oftentimes in T and E, sometimes from the S, who misconstrue the skills given to them as universally applicable to all fields. Many of these students develop a conception of other fields that is simply incorrect.
But that's about the extent of my criticisms, which are more directed toward young enthusiasts of the field who've done little to no coursework.
(5/5)

[Anonymous No.9304058]

>>9303953

>People who have never worked a day in their lives should not be in possession of fortune-500 companies and billion dollar estates

Do you thinks these companies belong for a single person? What about the huge number of families that depends on the income from all the positions inside of them and the indirect jobs created from it?

[Anonymous No.9304092]

>>9303953

Do you think these companies belong for a single person? What about the huge number of families that depends on the income from all the positions inside of them and the indirect jobs created from it?

[Anonymous No.9304145]

>>9304092
If you're referring to my inheritance tax commentary, equity does not disappear once sold. Under such tax law, equity seized would be resold to investors. (What good is an oil company to a government that doesn't drill?) Major shareholders (if they have brains) would be incentivized to periodically sell-off their shares as they age, avoiding the value of those shares being reduced when the equity is seized and resold on shareholder death.

[Anonymous No.9304181]

>>9304145

So a major shareholder dies, then half the company would be seized and somehow it would be better for the investors and those in need to have it all invested in public services through this magical tax?

[Anonymous No.9304301]

>>9304181
>So a major shareholder dies, then half the company would be seized
And resold. Were you paying attention.
>and somehow it would be better for the investors
If a major shareholder dies while still controlling 51% of the company, (in which case, he controls the board), then the value of the shares takes a hit (which is normal for a company when the director and president dies suddenly) temporarily. The current shareholders get screwed over somewhat if they were planning to sell in the next few years, new shareholders are overjoyed at discount prices. Because worker productivity, profit, and expenditure continue as normal, no jobs are lost (unless the company loses all value, in which case, it probably wan't a good investment anyway). This is why, for example, General Electric in 2008 lost 82% of its share value but only laid off 3% of its workforce (mainly due to declining ratings, lost ad revenue from the failing financial sector, and the lingering effects of the writer's strike -- all of the layoffs took place at NBC Universal).
>better for the investors and those in need to have it all invested in public services
Yes. Everybody benefits from good schooling that does make you thunk good. And water! Do you like water? I like water. It's good policy to keep the pipes maintained. And what about those museums, eh? They're great for the kids.
>through this magical tax?
There's nothing magical about moving money around from where it's serving no purpose to where its serving a purpose. It's certainly a better solution than burdening the workforce with income tax and discouraging investment through capital gains tax.

[Anonymous No.9304316]

>>9303441
>This thread is pure idiocy. The entire drama surrounding Peterson is pure idiocy.

Anti-Peterson threads are made to shill Peterson, these sad caricatures are intentionally mediocre.

[Anonymous No.9304397]

>>9296848
He isn't really valued for his original contributions. People listen to him because he took a stand and because they never had a father.

He's more of a new Rosa Parks than anything else.

[Anonymous No.9304455]

>>9303953
Lol you're such a resentful little worm

[Anonymous No.9304522]

>>9304455
t. guy that got published in Thermidor

[Anonymous No.9304660]

>>9304455
I resent that.

[Anonymous No.9304674]

There isn't a single day that goes by without /lit/ whining about Jordan Peterson. It's almost like you're all collectively jealous or something.

[Anonymous No.9304716]

>>9304397
>He's more of a new Rosa Parks than anything else.

Wait... you're serious?

[Anonymous No.9304729]

>/lit/ is anti-Peterson
Figures, why would anyone good, positive and sincere ever get the /lit/ stamp of approval. Now let's get back to jerking off some pessimistic, projecting, weak existentialist.

[Anonymous No.9304765]

>>9303953
>Son, I am on my deathbed now. At least I can pass on my company to you, it's my life's works
>Oh wait, right, that 100% inheritance tax. Well nevermind, the company goes to some people that the government decides deserve it more than I, the owner, do

Why are these imaginary scenarios always so arbitrary?

[Anonymous No.9304770]

>>9304674

they are resentful cuckholds, shivering under the gaze of judgement.

the whole leftists circus only operates if you dismiss the values of our forefathers.

i'm really excited about the post millenial generation boy o boy!

[Anonymous No.9304778]

>>9304729
What I dislike is that there's always some who say he's a sophist, makes flawed arguments, etc. but never post examples.
How are we to learn then? Either they are shitposting and can't actually point to any, or they are right and people won't know which arguments are bad because muh ivory tower discussions.
This doesn't just happen with Peterson, mind you, but with pretty much anyone.

[Anonymous No.9304779]

>>9304716

opposing STATE TYRANNY

the canadian government has the right to fine you if you refuse to use language made up by degenerate idealogues.

if you refuse to pay the fine you will be i m p r i s o n e d

[Anonymous No.9304801]

>>9304765
As I proposed it, the money would go toward education, not people's bank accounts.
And why should little Billy Billionaire Jr. get ten billion dollars? What did he do to deserve it? William Sr. won't give a shit. He's dead.

[Anonymous No.9304818]

>>9304801
There's already enough money for education in countries in the western world in general, the trick is spending it efficiently.
So just because people we die we shit on their families, present and future? What if my dad wants to leave me a house? It's sure under $5 million, but again, arbitrary number. Maybe I'm poor and can't afford a house of my own, but it doesn't matter in your scenario.

[Anonymous No.9304829]

I've only ever met one tranny IRL, at uni, and xe seems like a rather inoffensive autist. Don't get what's the big deal.

[Anonymous No.9304874]

>>9304829
Most actual transgender people I've met irl are super nice people who just want to go about their day like everyone else. G*e*n*d*e*r*Q*U*E*E*R*** Folx however typically spend every waking moment making sure you KNOW that you are NOT talking to a boy or a girl. A bunch of preachy, horrendous crybabies who have confused the concept of gender expression with some "other" idea of what gender is.

[Anonymous No.9304917]

>>9304818
The reason I selected the $5,000,000 figure was to ensure that the house, the family farm, and grandma's wedding ring don't get gobbled up by the big bad gubbamint. I'm sure that an actual economist with access to and the ability to navigate the available empirical data could arrive at a more appropriate figure. The arbitrariness comes from the fact that I am not an economist, not because it *has* to be arbitrary.
When it comes to spending on education, why settle for less? In the United States, most education funding comes from local governments, with only a small portion allocated by state and federal budgets. Because local government budgets are managed (or rather mismanaged) by either inexperienced and unknowledgeable politicians still early in the idealist phase of their career or by the corrupt. Education budgets are therefore barely reliable, especially in poor neighbourhoods. Many schools are forced to reinforce their budgets through fundraisers, and there isn't an American teacher outside of Montesori-like environments who hasn't used their own money to purchase supplies for their students. Ensuring a large and consistent revenue-source would alleviate these problems greatly.
And why stop at education? Pour money into the humanities, scientific research, building and maintaining infrastructure, the arts, libraries, and other ventures that tend to be neglected by the free market.
Why should this be given up for the sake of ensuring daddy's money gets put in his happy little accident's trust fund?

[Anonymous No.9304935]

>>9304801

>As I proposed it, the money would go toward education

"Thanks to William Sr. we, the state, will now tell you about the 6 million jews and how to properly have gay sex! Here are some free condoms, my lovely third graders!"

[Anonymous No.9304983]

>>9304917
Because we've seen what taking the private property of the rich looks like. In the best of cases, they save their wealth in a way that you can't get to it, or they move out of the country directly. That's not a constant stream of money for the schools.
Again, the money is there, and if it isn't it's not hard to see other government programs which are inefficient or wasteful and would have their budgets better used elsewhere. I'm not in the US, but the same thing happens here (lots of money thrown at education, inefficiently managed so public education is complete garbage).
And it will be arbitrary no matter how many economists look at it. There's always discussions on how tax rates should apply to people, according to their wealth level or percentile. Eventually we come to a compromise because we're a democracy, but to each individual it's a matter of opinion really. So one economist will say 5 mil, another one will say 500 mil, etc. All of this assuming we would all agree on the admittedly extremist point of view that we should tax 100% of the inheritance of the "very rich".

[Anonymous No.9305076]

>>9303967
>B.A. English (min linguistics); B.Sc. Mathematics (min philosophy).

Thank you for ending the debate you Molymeme. Go back to listening to desTINY, you immoral faggot.

I'm done schooling you
oh wait, one last jab.

>The goal of biological organisms under the Darwinian theory is exclusively to reproduce. All functions, including survival, are dependent upon their utility toward that goal. Many species suffer a great deal to reproduce, often inefficiently.

So... it's not to reproduce. Because every species would employ the strategy of a mosquito or something? It's almost as if... gosh... man... let me look my notes up.
Oh, it's almost as if evolution is a marathon, rather than a sprint - and species are invested in their continued survival, reproduction being the necessary prerequisite of which - yet no sufficient.

Anon, go back to writing poetry and short dialogues for gay sex scenes, you are really really poorly educated on these matters.

:*

[Anonymous No.9305132]

>>9304674
/lit/ is pretty pathetic when there ins't something huge going on

[Anonymous No.9305331]

>>9304935
>will now tell you about the 6 million jews
Oy vey, these Jews, blowing everything out of proportion. Six million this; six million that. I tell you it was only 5,990,000, give or take a few thousand! They really need to pick up their victim complex.

>>9304983
>In the best of cases, they save their wealth in a way that you can't get to it, or they move out of the country directly.
Sort of. I'm going to (and forgive me) ignore the "save their wealth in a way you can't get to it," part, because loopholes in tax-law can always be closed. When it comes to the wealthy moving out of the country directly, this is not too much to worry about. They cannot take their factories with them, nor their stores, nor their pipelines, lumber mills, malls, and hotels. The greater part of their wealth -- that which is not represented by cash, bonds, and commodities -- cannot be so easily shed as their nationality.
Brain drain would not set in. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, professors, computer programmers, etc. would have nothing to fear: they'd never pass the threshold beyond which inheritance is taxed; their children will never have to worry about putting food on the table. The billionaire expats who feel the need for their children to inherit their wealth (a demographic of which Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are not members, since they intend to leave their children nothing but an education) would continue to manage their corporations with their minds only on profit. No jobs are lost; no growth is missed. Where the billionaire class divests completely, a sterling opportunity for growth is to be had.
The new generation of entrepreneurs would grow up with a new ethic of work and earning: for them, wealth would be hard-won, not coincidence of birth.
In other words, for little to no real risk, we can gain a lot.
>Again, the money is there, and if it isn't it's not hard to see other government programs which are inefficient or wasteful and would have their budgets better used elsewhere. I'm not in the US, but the same thing happens here (lots of money thrown at education, inefficiently managed so public education is complete garbage).
I fully agree with the notion that government spending is usually wasteful and inefficient, but this is such a uselessly pessimistic point of view. It's like saying we shouldn't design new cars because the roads are full of potholes. While the appropriation of government funding is certainly lacking, it's obvious for anyone that a larger budget for a school-board means a better quality education. It doesn't solve all of the problems. But it means that when systematic and structural issues are addressed, we aren't left floundering to scrap up the funds to empower the solution.
>>9305076
What's a desTINY?
>I'm done schooling you.
You never started.

[Anonymous No.9306767]

>>9305331
How are these ideas you are advocating any different from pic related?

[Anonymous No.9306924]

>>9304829
>>9304874
Its not about trannies lads, its abour Queer Politiks

Imagine a moron like this one >>9305331 who believes he can bring the utopia by taking control over human interaction in an absolute way via "closing loopholes" , but not with economics and moronic categories based on wage, but with sex and moronic categories based on what you do with your dick.

You here seem to read Foucault and like to namedrop him, yet you don't see the connection between History of Sexuality 1 and Queer Politiks

Pic related, the end-game of these power hungry control freaks

[Anonymous No.9306951]

In Part One, Foucault discusses the "repressive hypothesis", the widespread belief among late 20th-century westerners that sexuality, and the open discussion of sex, was socially repressed during the late 17th, 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, a by-product of the rise of capitalism and bourgeois society, before the partial liberation of sexuality in modern times. Arguing that sexuality was never truly repressed, Foucault asks why modern westerners believe the hypothesis, noting that in portraying past sexuality as repressed, it provides a basis for the idea that in rejecting past moral systems, future sexuality can be free and uninhibited, a "...garden of earthly delights".

In Part Two, Foucault notes that from the 17th century to the 1970s, there had actually been a "...veritable discursive explosion" in the discussion of sex, albeit using an "...authorized vocabulary" that codified where one could talk about it, when one could talk about it, and with whom. He argues that this desire to talk so enthusiastically about sex in the western world stems from the Counter-Reformation, when the Roman Catholic Church called for its followers to confess their sinful desires as well as their actions. As evidence for the obsession of talking about sex, he highlights the publication of the book My Secret Life, anonymously written in the late 19th century and detailing the sex life of a Victorian gentleman. Indeed, Foucault states that at the start of the 18th century, there was an emergence of "...a political, economic, and technical incitement to talk about sex,"...with self-appointed experts speaking both moralistically and rationally on sex, the latter sort trying to categorize it. He notes that in that century, governments became increasingly aware that they were not merely having to manage "subjects" or "a people" but a "population", and that as such they had to concern themselves with such issues as birth and death rates, marriage, and contraception, thereby increasing their interest and changing their discourse on sexuality

[Anonymous No.9306957]

Foucault argues that prior to the 18th century, discourse on sexuality focuses on the productive role of the married couple, which is monitored by both canonical and civil law. In the 18th and 19th centuries, he argues, society ceases discussing the sex lives of married couples, instead taking an increasing interest in sexualities that did not fit within this union; the "world of perversion" that includes the sexuality of children, the mentally ill, the criminal and the homosexual. He notes that this had three major effects on society. Firstly, there was increasing categorization of these "perverts"; where previously a man who engaged in same-sex activities would be labeled as an individual who succumbed to the sin of sodomy, now they would be categorised into a new "species," that of homosexual. Secondly, Foucault argues that the labeling of perverts conveyed a sense of "pleasure and power" on to both those studying sexuality and the perverts themselves. Thirdly, he argues that bourgeoisie society exhibited "blatant and fragmented perversion," readily engaging in perversity but regulating where it could take place.

In part three, Foucault explores the development of the scientific study of sex, the attempt to unearth the "truth" of sex, a phenomenon which Foucault argues is peculiar to the West. In contrast to the West's sexual science, Foucault introduces the ars erotica, which he states has only existed in Ancient and Eastern societies. Furthermore, he argues that this scientia sexualis has repeatedly been used for political purposes, being utilized in the name of "public hygiene" to support state racism. Returning to the influence of the Catholic confession, he looks at the relationship between the confessor and the authoritarian figure that he confesses to, arguing that as Roman Catholicism was eclipsed in much of Western and Northern Europe following the Reformation, the concept of confession survived and became more widespread, entering into the relationship between parent and child, patient and psychiatrist and student and educator. By the 19th century, he maintains, the "truth" of sexuality was being readily explored both through confession and scientific enquiry. Foucault proceeds to examine how the confession of sexuality then comes to be "constituted in scientific terms," arguing that scientists begin to trace the cause of all aspects of human psychology and society to sexual factors.

[Anonymous No.9306960]

In part four, Foucault explores the question as to why western society wishes to seek for the "truth" of sex. Foucault argues that we need to develop an "analytics" of power through which to understand sex. Highlighting that power controls sex by laying down rules for it to follow, he discusses how power demands obedience through domination, submission, and subjugation, and also how power masks its true intentions by disguising itself as beneficial. As an example, he highlights the manner in which the feudal absolute monarchies of historical Europe, themselves a form of power, disguised their intentions by claiming that they were necessary to maintain law, order, and peace. As a leftover concept from the days of feudalism, Foucault argues that westerners still view power as emanating from law, but he rejects this, proclaiming that we must "...construct an analytics of power that no longer takes law as a model and a code," and announcing that a different form of power governs sexuality. "We must," Foucault states, "at the same time conceive of sex without the law, and power without the king."

Foucault explains that he does not mean power as the domination or subjugation exerted on society by the government or the state. Rather, power should be understood "as the multiplicity of force relations immanent in the sphere in which they operate." In this way, he argues, "Power is everywhere . . . because it comes from everywhere," emanating from all social relationships and being imposed throughout society bottom-up rather than top-down. Foucault criticizes Wilhelm Reich, writing that while an important "historico-political" critique of sexual repression formed around Reich, "the very possibility of its success was tied to the fact that it always unfolded within the deployment of sexuality, and not outside or against it." According to Foucault, that sexual behavior in western societies was able to change in many ways "without any of the promises or political conditions predicted by Reich being realized" demonstrates that the "antirepressive" struggle is "a tactical shift and reversal in the great deployment of sexuality."

[Anonymous No.9306972]

>>9306767
Communism as advocated by Karl Marx calls for the elimination of currency, the end of class structure, the abolition of private property (distinguished (in a way I personally think is bullshit) from personal property), the death of nation states and hierarchical power, and either the end of wage labour or the democratization of the workforce. His vision of the means of achieving this goal was a socialist economy enforced by what he called "the dictatorship of the proletariat" although the term "dictatorship" here is potentially misleading as this pseudo-state is not necessarily autocratic. His close colleague, sponsor, and co-author Friedrich Engels offered a working example of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Paris Commune. Marx saw this process as the inevitable result of "historical materialism."
While I think many of Marx' criticisms of capitalism hold some weight, particularly his concepts of alienation, reification, and accelerationism (a critique not exclusive to the left, as it's been taken up by the wordsalad stinkpiece but somewhat smart guy Nick Land), I disagree with him on almost every topic important to Marxism and socialism in general.
Marx was an atheist; I am a theist.
Marx was a materialist; I tend toward idealism.
Marx bought into a historiography of progress; I see history as having no grand direction, save for modernization.
Marx wanted to eliminate currency, credit, and debt; I see these as useful stores of value.
Marx believed that value was derived from labour (following Ricardo); I see value as derived from pleasure and utility.
Marx saw class structures as unnecessary and oppressive; I see class structures as unavoidable and useful.
Marx wanted to abolish private property, arguing essentially, to quote the mutualist Proudhon, that "property is theft"; I view private property as indistinguishable from personal property, and consider that to eliminate either would be a terrible injustice.
Marx wanted to bring an end to the state; while I'm extremely skeptical of state power, I see state institutions as necessary, though unpleasant.
Marx thought hierarchies were inherently oppressive; I see them as uplifting, in the right conditions, provided they aren't too rigid.
Marx wanted to bring about an end to wage labour; while I think a purely post-scarcity economy would be nice (and therefore make the idea of wage labour moot), there are strong reasons to doubt whether one could be achieved in reality.
Marx believed that the wealth of the "exploiting classes" as he called them was always illegitimate; I argue that it is only illegitimate when acquired at no personal risk or work and at the expense of others: ie illegally, through highly unethical means, or through inheritance.
I'm literally calling for the abolition of income tax, capital gains tax, welfare, affirmative action, minimum wage laws, trade protectionism, sales tax. But because I think people should earn their money, I'm a pinko now. Sure.

[Anonymous No.9306973]

In part five, Foucault asserts that the motivations for power over life and death have changed. As in feudal times the "right to life" was more or less a "right to death" because sovereign powers were able to decide when a person died. This has changed to a "right to live," as sovereign states are more concerned about the power of how people live. Power becomes about how to foster life. For example, a state decides to execute someone as a safe guard to society not as justified, as it once was, as vengeful justice. This new emphasis on power over life is called Biopower and comes in two forms. First, Foucault says it is "centered on the body as a machine: its disciplining, the optimization of its capabilities, the extortion of its forces, the parallel increase of its usefulness and its docility, its integration into systems of efficient and economic controls." The second form, Foucault argues, emerged later and focuses on the "species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes: propagation, births and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity, with all the conditions that cause these to vary. Biopower, it is argued, is the source of the rise of capitalism, as states became interested in regulating and normalizing power over life and not as concerned about punishing and condemning actions.

[Anonymous No.9306995]

>>9306972
>I'm literally calling for the abolition of income tax, capital gains tax, welfare, affirmative action, minimum wage laws, trade protectionism, sales tax. But because I think people should earn their money, I'm a pinko now. Sure.

Only commies steal property. You're on the right track. Drop the compassion, at least in institutional form and that's about the best we can do.

If you wanna give someone else his "fair chance" you're free to give it to him yourself.
You are also free to boycott a product or company if you think they are undeserving for any reason.
Finally, you can always pitch your genius idea or of that proverbial 12301302184128 IQ guy in KFC to people who have money or an entire city if you'd like.

Those are all voluntary, legal, and ethical ways. Stealing other people's property is lazy and immoral and I am highly suspicious of motives of people who advocate it.

[Anonymous No.9307068]

>>9306995
It's not their property if they didn't earn it.
Also plenty of people steel property who are nonetheless not communists. They're called capitalists.

[Anonymous No.9307094]

>Foucault

[Anonymous No.9307109]

ITT: undergraduates attacking Peterson in an attempt to justify their post-modern nonsense because if they realize that they believe nonsense, and that they really just need to sort themselves out, they will too realize that they have wasted years of their life and potentially several hundred thousand dollars.

Most of you will wind up teaching a watered down version of your nonsense to uninterested high school students, oh, and writing that "novel" which will never be published.

It's quite sad really..

[Anonymous No.9307127]

>>9307094
>Michel Foucault est l’astre noir du politiquement correct

>Another idiot who didn't understand Foucault

[Anonymous No.9307336]

>>9307068
You didn't earn your genes. You didn't earn a single penny of inheritance, even if you want to draw some dumb arbitrary line at x amount of money. You didn't earn the culture. You didn't earn your parents (who may be better than others).

Why not force every single generation to start in a cave then?

You're being a fucking dumbass and you're embarrassing yourself on this fine international board of water pipe smoking enthusiasts.

[Anonymous No.9307373]

>>9307336
>tfw my parents left me their finest collection of water pipes, today worth over $30k

[Anonymous No.9307418]

>>9307336
>You didn't earn a single penny of inheritance
Your parents earned the right to give you what was theirs. Do not steal from your parents' rights.

[Anonymous No.9307450]

>>9297727
Voltaire didn't say that faggot. A white nationalist who went to jail for CP possession did.

Voltaire still hated the k*kes though

[Anonymous No.9307483]

>>9298044
>>9298053
>>9298057
enjoyed this.

[Anonymous No.9307488]

>>9307418
I absolutely agree. Property is yours to deal with as you please. Humans, as a species, take care of their offspring and inheritance is a natural part of that.

I was only portraying how fucking moronic his immoral idea of theft is. He listened to Sanders too much and watched too much Robin Hood..

[Anonymous No.9307530]

>>9296848

>it's fucked up that his rise to fame was basically exploiting transgender controversy.

He didn't "exploit" transgenders. He was being endlessly harassed by their nonsense and perpetual one-upmanship hysteria so much that he decided to speak out against it. But he didn't go out of his way to "exploit" anyone.

People instantly gravitated toward him because he was articulating something that most people innately agreed with. He was talking common sense. I literally mean that: the general sense of the common people on this matter.

>Also call me SJW if you want

I might have to, yeah.

[Anonymous No.9307546]

>>9302453

>I doubt anybody considers him such. He's just promulgating ideas from well established philosophers from relatively recent times. How is that bad?

Because the left want "free speech" on their own terms at all time and if you disagree you must be silenced for not choosing the correct form of "free speech".

[Anonymous No.9307577]

>>9298282
As a gay man, the fulfillment of my interests could be detrimental to the interests of the majority. While I would like to live in a world that values my inclinations as much or more so than that of my heterosexual peers, and I would like for my sexuality to be systematised in some way for my ease, this would probably not be positive for the heterosexual populace. While I think gay marriage - as pursued by contemporary gay and liberal interests - is a poor imitation of the idealised heterosexual sacrament, pursued more out of resentment than serious desire, as an institution it is still beneficial to my standing in society and my participation in it. However, by elevating my sexual life to the same heights, placing it on the same pillar, as the heterosexual union, I think it also demeans the heterosexual union in the aspects of heterosexuality that make it unique - the unity of the masculine and the feminine, reproduction and the care of children, motherhood/fatherhood etc. By saying that my relationship is not only equal to the heterosexual union, but the *same*, we rob both of what makes them unique and powerful. And while this might not affect me negatively at all, since I am still gaining a substantial amount of enfranchisement, the majority of the heterosexual populace lose some of the gravity of their ideal, and their institution. In an age where birth rates are sharply declining, I don't rest comfortably with the idea of my political existence being reduced to simply another blow against the already broken family unit.

[Anonymous No.9308000]

>>9301505
>We weren't talking about discrimination or racism or prejudice. We were talking about disenfranchisement. This can occur economically, politically, socially, etc. If you are disenfranchised politically, you have significantly reduced power to change your own country via democracy.

Blacks and other minorities go into the democratic party which pushes policies they believe to help them (even though they don't like welfare). How is their voice not being heard?

>One of the central arguments in Alexander's text is that black men, who are sentenced at a far greater rate for far greater periods of time for drug crime, despite using drugs as often or less often than white men

Depends on whether the blacks had priors or resisted arrest compared to their counterparts.

>are legally denied voting rights. This is a perfect example of political disenfranchisement.

Yet, whites in those same states have the same justice. Is that ever mentioned? What's happening is that there is a high amount of blacks in a certain area that commit crimes compared to whites which makes the statistics seem skewed.

>Why do you feel as though all black people present a 100% united front for their racial interests?
So is a racial group disenfranchised when their own people can get into some of the highest positions in their own locations?

>I assume it's not too difficult for you to imagine a white politician caring little or not-at-all about the interests of his constituents.
Sure, but those whites aren't getting air time about being supposedly oppressed either.

>>Yes, how is this wrong.
>Morally.
So what is your solution, obviously welfare isn't going to work and you don't agree with free markets either.

>What is the empirical measure of this capacity? Because, looking at the Forbes 400, it seems as though the strongest indicator of great wealth is having very wealthy parents.

(In America) Getting a high school diploma, finding a job, not having children before having standard income ($25,000-30,000, two parent or single), marriage before having children (two parent households are more likely to produce healthy children). One can also go to community college to learn more lucrative trade skills. Learning to manage your savings (20-50% of your paycheck into a savings). The romantic notion is that there are these people slaving 10 hours a day and barely scraping by which is the outlier, not the mainstream.

[Anonymous No.9308003]

>>9301515
>You seem to confuse your dictionary for a suggestion Mr. Sucess Progrom Stanard. Chop chop. Specifics. Don't just make statements. If you're going to hold me to a standard. Hold to that standard yourself.

In America, one can receive a basic level of education through public schools and libraries. There is section 8 housing and homeless shelters.

What is your solution for those that have no valuable skills to offer to the free market and also do not have the IQ necessary to gain those skills? You seem to have a disdain for the rich, I am assuming you want to take from them and give to the former?

>Poverty too is self-enforcing. In many countries, the United States in particular, if the balance of a savings account descends below a certain threshold, fines are incurred (the bank doesn't want liabilities), further reducing the balance of that account.

Depends on the savings account that YOU choose to sign. I assume you are speaking for the poor, who should be using a debit card anyway.

>Shoes, clothing, appliances, tools, and so on must be purchased cheaply for those who live paycheck to paycheck, and the poor quality of these goods means they must be re-purchased often. Whereas the rich are required to pay a large sum only once, the poor must continually buy new goods as the old goods fail.

What is goodwill. Shitty Levis 501s and a pair of used tennis shoes last forever. Again, when one is poor, shouldn't they only be buying necessary things? The free market is also making things cheaper than ever like tech and clothing.

>Cheap food is generally unhealthy, which means that the poor have high insurance premiums and greater healthcare costs. And if the poor are uninsured or if their insurance does not cover them, hospital paymasters (an American phenomenon) ensure that they pay several times the actual cost of treatment.

This is on the individual who simply does not know better. One can simply go to a library and search on the computer: healthy diet. Keto diets and fasting for example leads to a healthier body. I'm sure there are other ways this information is disseminated. Also, Chinatowns and even Safeways offer cheap foods. No one is forcing someone to eat McDonalds and sugar.

The healthcare system in America is a joke, we need to get rid of Medicaid and government programs so that prices are actually competitive.


>I'm a big believer in individual merit, not generational merit. One is not metaphysically entitled to wealth without work, simply because their parents worked hard.
So... take away all the money and give it to the poor?

[Anonymous No.9308009]

>>9301519
>They don't directly work to do so. They don't even think about doing so when they do. They're actively trying to remain wealthy and powerful. And their wealth is seen in relative terms. They are only wealthy and powerful if the majority is poor and powerless. Therefore, those who are wealthy and powerful and also intelligent but amoral will game the system to ensure that the poor and powerless remain so.

Who specifically? A company that makes a lot of money also provides goods and services and jobs to their communities. Some are better to their employees than others like In-n-Out and Costco and some aren't. However no one is forcing anyone to work there. My point is that the poor and powerless are able to get themselves out of it through hard work and possibly because of a culture that aligns to where they live (east Asian, Nigerian, Jewish immigrants). Not all poor and powerless people are equal. Some have a culture in which the individuals follow that will keep them and their offspring in that position forever.

>You're moving the goalposts. These individuals were not consigned to poverty. No individual who's name is recognizable between two anonymous strangers will be economically deprived. However, these geniuses were cheated out of their fortunes.

Because they did not understand the system completely. However, they are not in poverty which is my point. My point is that one can get out of poverty and having a decent standard of living, not become rich.

>Do you deny that there are intelligent, hard-working individuals who are nonetheless destitute? If so, you need to get off the Vanderbilt estate. And do you really think that the wealth of a billionaire relative to his maid is proportional to the ratio of how hard they work and how intelligent they are? A maid with a net-worth of $600 dollars, versus a man with a net-worth of $60 billion? I've never met anybody who was 100,000,000 times smarter than anybody else.

Don't strawman, that wasn't my only point. The free market decides who becomes rich. Bill Gates is richer than your average maid because the service he and his company provide are worth more to the free market. The maid however, by working hard can a least not be in poverty. (In America) That maid also has more options like community college and access to libraries.

>Praise the Lord! Through our wageslavery the famine has been averted!
I was exaggerating but yes.

>You don't live in a free market economy. The free market, if it were even instantiated, decides nothing. And you don't live in a meritocracy.

Just look at how Asian Americans are beating out Whites in university acceptance and income. And even then there are programs that help the disenfranchised like affirmative action. Google and Amazon even wonder to themselves why blacks aren't more represented in their companies and have departments dedicated to diversifying it.

[Anonymous No.9308011]

>>9301523
>No, I was genuinely confused, and figured that you were indicating that there was some form of wealth other than the material that would be worth talking about in this context.

Well if you want me to bring it up. Wealth in terms of friends and access to sex.

>In other words, affirmative action accomplishes the opposite of what it was intended to do.

So those in office intentionally made this program to make themselves look good and further disenfranchise blacks? I am against it anyway and don't think it works but the intention seemed to come from a good place. There are blacks from Oakland who get into UC Berkeley because of this program by the way (over non blacks who may be more qualifies) for the sake of diversity.

Overall the number of blacks getting degrees from 1996 to 2016 has incressed 23% for BA, 39% for Associate, and 113% for “other”. The number entering into top tear universities is lower however. The percentages are somewhat lower however (At Harvard, for example, 6.5 percent of undergraduates were black in 2013, down from 7.4 percent in 1994.)

>There are many in demographic 1, those who are born poor and will die poor, who work hard, study hard, and who have the skills and intelligence to succeed, yet fail, not because they were unworthy or because they lacked the skills or ethic, but because the game was so heavily rigged against them.

Outliers like this can exist, they do not represent the majority.

>If the market were actually free, and also assuming some coherent notion of equality, which also not present, then yes, the free market, in my estimation, would be an avenue for success. But the market is not free, the starting conditions are unequal, and there are many many factors at play which mean that the ladder is made of ice and those at the top have a strong safety net.

We have to come down to the solutions then if your position is not free markets. The levels of disenfranchisement can continue forever.

A black man
A black woman
A light skin black man
A cripple dark skin black woman
A single dark skin fat black woman with 3 kids.

How specific do we have to go to help these people and who assigns the distribution to help them get out of poverty and into a decent standard of living?

[Anonymous No.9308481]

>>9307336
You are the walking sperm of your dad

[Anonymous No.9308787]

>>9304316
>Anti-Peterson threads are made to shill Peterson
/thread