Is universal healthcare and education a socialist ideology? because they are really privatized in China for example. You've got to give the doctor cash before he looks at you.
It's more a liberal ideology i think
even military, police and infrastructure? i don't know.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Where did I say that? I don't deny that pure unregulated capitalism isn't able to solve all of its own problems, from inefficient markets, monopolies, and the centralization of wealth. My opening sentence was just a play on PF's last statement.
Sorry, I misread that first sentence of your post. I understand now.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
To try to bring this back on topic, it's funny how the American right has tried to claim Peterson as one of their own (and the Canadian left vilify him), even though he's come out in support of Canada's universal health care system, and other mainstream Canadian social policies that are far beyond the pale in American conservative circles.
It's because a straight division between left and right on an axis is one of the worst ways to quantify human social behaviors and political constructs. Even a more nuanced political compass is still overly simplistic.
Peterson supports certain liberal social policies and values. He considers himself a classic British liberal. At the same time, he places a lot of value on tradition, custom, establishment, and is wholly against legislation that he views weakens the people's rights and mollycoddles the population. Ultimately, he views the world as a hard and threatening place and legislating too many protections infringes upon other rights and weakens society. That said, I believe he genuinely wants to help and I've seen him break down in tears many times when describing some of the hardships that his clinical patients have gone through.
I find that I agree with him on some things, but in some other instances, I have totally seen him "sell-out" when appearing on Fox News etc. to carefully control his message so that it fits more into the American right-wing audience in order to promote his book.
Last edited by Hack&Lube; 05-08-2018 at 01:48 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hack&Lube For This Useful Post:
So I read the book, and while I disagreed with certain points I was expecting it to be a lot more inflammatory than it was. I haven't heard many psychologists go the Freudian route before, so that was interesting. If anything it felt like he was writing to persuade people from becoming a ball of hatred and anger commonly found in alt right circles. Perhaps his youtube lectures are more wild, but the book was mostly run-of-the-mill self help stuff.
His usage of biblical examples drove me crazy with boredom, but I understand why they were used. If I had a complaint that would be it.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Russic For This Useful Post:
In this extended NBC interview, Peterson handles the lazy slur that he's alt-right with the observation that the progressive left is making the mistake of assuming that everyone against their dogma must be alt-right or extreme right.
This is another once of those tactics that makes me wonder if the people who employ it are doing it out of cynicism, or naivete? Are they knaves or fools?
Ad hominem and presenting a false dilemma are time-honoured rhetorical weapons. I'd be surprised if Peterson's opponents didn't unsheathe them. But I'm starting to think naivete is the more common explanation for the belief that criticism of identity politics can only come from the alt-right. People live in such homogenous social bubbles these days that they're often way off base with how widely held their values are.
I'd identify the core identarian belief system as:
* Our primary social and political identities are our collective identities of race, gender, and sexual orientation.
* Any disparities in the outcomes of those groups is due to systemic oppression by the dominant European hetero capitalist patriarchy.
* It's incumbent on all people who value justice to press for a world where the outcomes of those people are equal.
My sense is maybe 15-20 per cent of Canadians subscribe to that belief system. However, that 20 per cent is highly concentrated in certain demographics and social environments. So highly concentrated that most of those people genuinely believe their values are shared by fully half of Canadians. And since people drawn to these sorts of dogmas tend to have a simplistic, binary outlook, they lump everyone who opposes them into their most prominent social media enemies, the alt-right. They really do think you're either a decent person (read: identarian), or alt-right. Never mind that 80+ per cent of people are neither of those things.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 05-09-2018 at 05:10 PM.
In this extended NBC interview, Peterson handles the lazy slur that he's alt-right with the observation that the progressive left is making the mistake of assuming that everyone against their dogma must be alt-right or extreme right.
This is another once of those tactics that makes me wonder if the people who employ it are doing it out of cynicism, or naivete? Are they knaves or fools?
Ad hominem and presenting a false dilemma are time-honoured rhetorical weapons. I'd be surprised if Peterson's opponents didn't unsheathe them. But I'm starting to think naivete is the more common explanation for the belief that criticism of identity politics can only come from the alt-right. People live in such homogenous social bubbles these days that they're often way off base with how widely held their values are.
I'd identify the core identarian belief system as:
* Our primary social and political identities are our collective identities of race, gender, and sexual orientation.
* Any disparities in the outcomes of those groups is due to systemic oppression by the dominant European hetero capitalist patriarchy.
* It's incumbent on all people who value justice to press for a world where the outcomes of those people are equal.
My sense is maybe 15-20 per cent of Canadians subscribe to that belief system. However, that 20 per cent is highly concentrated in certain demographics and social environments. So highly concentrated that most of those people genuinely believe their values are shared by fully half of Canadians. And since people drawn to these sorts of dogmas tend to have a simplistic, binary outlook, they lump everyone who opposes them into their most prominent social media enemies, the alt-right. They really do think you're either a decent person (read: identarian), or alt-right. Never mind that 80+ per cent of people are neither of those things.
Of the three "core beliefs" that you have proposed, I believe in the third. I'm not apologetic about that. I think it's a reasonable (even if ultimately unattainable goal.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Of the three "core beliefs" that you have proposed, I believe in the third. I'm not apologetic about that. I think it's a reasonable (even if ultimately unattainable goal.
Okay, let's look at income parity for men and women. We have it already, until women reach child-rearing age. Then women choose to work and earn less outside the home than their partners, and men work and earn more. This seems to be a choice entered into freely by most couples. Income parity will only be achieved if there is no difference between how much time men and women devote to children and family life.
But what if that's isn't what many women want? Denmark used to offer generous two-year maternity leave for mothers. A great many women took advantage of it, presumably because when given the option between spending more time at work or at home with young children, they preferred the latter. This resulted in a widening of the income gap between men and women, so Denmark rolled it back. In an effort to bring about the social agenda of gender equity in income, the state reduced public support for a program that women actually wanted.
That's justice only in an abstract, collectivist way that takes no account of individual preferences and choices.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
In this extended NBC interview, Peterson handles the lazy slur that he's alt-right with the observation that the progressive left is making the mistake of assuming that everyone against their dogma must be alt-right or extreme right.
This is another once of those tactics that makes me wonder if the people who employ it are doing it out of cynicism, or naivete? Are they knaves or fools?
Ad hominem and presenting a false dilemma are time-honoured rhetorical weapons. I'd be surprised if Peterson's opponents didn't unsheathe them. But I'm starting to think naivete is the more common explanation for the belief that criticism of identity politics can only come from the alt-right. People live in such homogenous social bubbles these days that they're often way off base with how widely held their values are.
I'd identify the core identarian belief system as:
* Our primary social and political identities are our collective identities of race, gender, and sexual orientation.
* Any disparities in the outcomes of those groups is due to systemic oppression by the dominant European hetero capitalist patriarchy.
* It's incumbent on all people who value justice to press for a world where the outcomes of those people are equal.
My sense is maybe 15-20 per cent of Canadians subscribe to that belief system. However, that 20 per cent is highly concentrated in certain demographics and social environments. So highly concentrated that most of those people genuinely believe their values are shared by fully half of Canadians. And since people drawn to these sorts of dogmas tend to have a simplistic, binary outlook, they lump everyone who opposes them into their most prominent social media enemies, the alt-right. They really do think you're either a decent person (read: identarian), or alt-right. Never mind that 80+ per cent of people are neither of those things.
While 3 is quite widely held I think, I'm not convinced the first 2 are. I think most people that view identity politics as a good thing have more complex views on the disparities between groups.
If I had to narrow it down to 3, I'd say it's something like this.
1. The handicap that each person starts out in life with can be determined by immutable characteristics, unchosen circumstances of birth, and identity.
2. The primary reason for differences in #1 and the rates of social and economic mobility between various groups in North America is systemic oppression by the dominant European hetero capitalist patriarchy and the historic effects of European colonialism.
3. It's incumbent on all people who value justice to press for a world where the outcomes of various identity based groups are equal
The thing is, 1 and 3 are widely held for at least some identity groups across the political spectrum, and 2 is at least partly accepted by a signification portion of the population
The primary differences are about the best way to try achieve 3, how to measure 3, and which groups to apply 3 too.
Identity politics comes in when trying to to adjust 1 based on group membership rather than trying to address the unevenly distributed causes. A large portion of self identified progressives support this kind of group based discrimination to try make up for 2, while the majority of self identified centrist, libertarian, and conservative people would much prefer addressing the underlying causes in a nondiscriminatory/identity politics based manner.
So, for example, in the US, programs that help low income people build new, marketable skills without accumulating huge amounts of debt would disproportionately help black people. So would creating colleges (or programs within colleges) that educate motivated students with lower high school achievement become highly skilled in valuable professions. Conservatives (by the traditional definition) would largely accept this kinds of solutions as ways to help address 3 and they go along with the principle of benevolence that they typically hold to, but they would be opposed to affirmative action programs based on group identity/membership, while self identified progressives would support affirmative action programs.
Last edited by sworkhard; 05-10-2018 at 09:00 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to sworkhard For This Useful Post:
Equality in opportunity is a reasonable and just goal. Equality in outcomes is an unquestionably bad one, and it's why Cathy Newman looked so bad in her interview of Peterson.
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Ashasx For This Useful Post:
Equality of outcome is perhaps the most insidiously wicked ideal ever conceived. Not only does it lower the living standard for everyone it takes near dictatorial control by the government to even try and enforce due to natural differences in intellect and productivity between individuals.
Equality in opportunity is a reasonable and just goal. Equality in outcomes is an unquestionably bad one, and it's why Cathy Newman looked so bad in her interview of Peterson.
Sure, but equality of opportunity looks different to different people. Many southerners defended the Jim Crow laws relating to voting rights on the basis that they provided equality of opportunity to all citizens, regardless of race. Everyone was subject to the same requirements for registering to vote, so they argued it was totally fair. But the end result of that equality was near total disenfranchisement of African Americans because the standards were nearly impossible to meet given their position within society. We see the same thing with voter ID laws. Sure on their face they're nominally fair because everyone has to meet the same requirements, but they're clearly being put in place in an attempt to disenfranchise certain classes of people.
So it's important to consider what equality of opportunity means and which countries and societies best exemplify what you mean by that. Some might argue that the United States is the best example of that in action. On the other hand, if one goes by social and economic mobility within a society, then Scandinavian social democracies seem to do the best job at providing an environment where people can succeed from varying backgrounds, while a place like the US is probably the worst in that respect among rich nations.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Equality in opportunity is a reasonable and just goal. Equality in outcomes is an unquestionably bad one, and it's why Cathy Newman looked so bad in her interview of Peterson.
But you need real equality of opportunity.
A child born into poverty does not have the same opportunity that a wealthy child does. Before the kid makes any choices for his or herself they alr say have had fewer words spoken to them, poorer medical care, and been exposed to more food and security risk.
Two people equally qualified walk into a job interview. Implicit bias leads to the white male getting the job for more money.
A white kid gets for smoking marijuana whose parents call a good lawyer doesn't end up with a criminal record whereas the poor kid does.
Or system be it through class, race, or gender discrimination does not provide equality of opportunity.
To argue that non equal outcomes is not at least a partial result of non equal opportunity would take evidence that I do not believe exists.
(The one area where equality of opportunity may exist is in the pay gap (for progressional jobs not at the executive level) as choices while employed is the same field regarding child rearing account for much of that gap though not all of it.)
Since Asians make more than white men in the United States they are clearly the beneficiaries of Asian privilege and implicit biases. Or maybe as a group they focus on education and family. Tough to say
A child born into poverty does not have the same opportunity that a wealthy child does. Before the kid makes any choices for his or herself they alr say have had fewer words spoken to them, poorer medical care, and been exposed to more food and security risk.
Two people equally qualified walk into a job interview. Implicit bias leads to the white male getting the job for more money.
A white kid gets for smoking marijuana whose parents call a good lawyer doesn't end up with a criminal record whereas the poor kid does.
Or system be it through class, race, or gender discrimination does not provide equality of opportunity.
To argue that non equal outcomes is not at least a partial result of non equal opportunity would take evidence that I do not believe exists.
(The one area where equality of opportunity may exist is in the pay gap (for progressional jobs not at the executive level) as choices while employed is the same field regarding child rearing account for much of that gap though not all of it.)
I argued that?
Everything in your post contradicts what equal opportunity is. Ideally, justly, and rationally, yes, a person in a job interview would not be judged on the colour of their skin or their height or the cost of their clothes. Otherwise that isn't equal opportunity, and I think we can all agree on that.
Ok a new and big fan of this youtuber, someone posted this in response to Jordan Peterson's word salad and really took an honest look at his good and bad.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
A child born into poverty does not have the same opportunity that a wealthy child does. Before the kid makes any choices for his or herself they alr say have had fewer words spoken to them, poorer medical care, and been exposed to more food and security risk.
Two people equally qualified walk into a job interview. Implicit bias leads to the white male getting the job for more money.
A white kid gets for smoking marijuana whose parents call a good lawyer doesn't end up with a criminal record whereas the poor kid does.
Or system be it through class, race, or gender discrimination does not provide equality of opportunity.
To argue that non equal outcomes is not at least a partial result of non equal opportunity would take evidence that I do not believe exists.
(The one area where equality of opportunity may exist is in the pay gap (for progressional jobs not at the executive level) as choices while employed is the same field regarding child rearing account for much of that gap though not all of it.)
Equal of opportunity is that we are all equal before the law. It is a right.
My son went to his sold out show in Detroit on Sunday night. He thought it was great. He discovered Peterson through Joe Rogin podcasts and has really enjoyed a lot of his lectures directed toward young men. Sunday he talked about being a good partner, good father/mother, the Soviet Union, Nietzsche, Jung, the Toronto van incident, Columbine.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bigtmac19 For This Useful Post:
To argue that non equal outcomes is not at least a partial result of non equal opportunity would take evidence that I do not believe exists.
I rarely see anyone suggest that. What is far, far more common is for unjust social structures to be cited as the only factor in unequal outcomes. In polite progressive society, it's essentially a taboo to offer non-structural explanations for differences in outcome. So you can't talk about marriage, parenting, attitudes towards education, substance abuse, innate capabilities, or individual choice. Because that's Victim Blaming.
Now, I don't think the people who enforce that taboo necessarily believe, in private, that marriage, parenting, substance abuse, etc. has no effect on outcomes. You only have to see the choices progressive, upper-middle class parents make with their own families to see that. It's just another example of the stark differences between the values people espouse and their personal behaviour.
Suppressing the mere mention of many factors that impact outcomes doesn't do those at the bottom of the ladder any favours. Ignoring the enormous effect being raised by a single parents has on children, for example, is just one way our social mores actually handicap efforts to remedy social ills.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 05-10-2018 at 08:56 AM.
