politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I watched 30m of a Peterson 'lecture' a co-worker recommended to me. It kind of opened my eyes. Peterson is basically a 'motivational speaker' that presents himself as an academic well enough to fool people that only understand academic aesthetics. He doesn't even try to back up his claims or references, he just makes wildly abstract and generalized claims about human civilization and draws analogies that sound like they support that perspective. They sound right enough to people that want to believe that there is an expression of their culture that is inherently 'good' and all of civilization's problems are based on corruptions of that culture. But in the minds of his fans he's offering 'proof' of this perspective by appearing academic, even though he offers none.
he's a TED talk basically.
most TED talks are like that. sophisticated sounding gibberish that has no real world merit, but sounds really cool and interesting.
Yeah. Every once in a while there’s a good one though.
It really has become so easy to make yourself seem smart and credible these days. The fact that people thought Trump was a "good businessman" is absurd
Give millions of people across the US the same money, connections, and opportunity and they would all be just as successful if not more.
This shines brightly in his "debate" with Slavoj Zizek
https://piped.video/watch?v=qsHJ3LvUWTs
Also love that Peterson is glued to his laptop while Zizek fucking slams shit down with nothing but paper notes.
I wish Zizek had went harder on that fool.
I felt like Zizek understood that debating Peterson directly wouldn't benefit him, and instead took his case to the audience, sort of bypassing Peterson himself and focusing on the ideas he wanted to share.
However, I don't disagree. I wanted to see more of Zizek shaking is head in his "my god" disbelief at the bullshit Peterson was peddling.
Oh I know. It’s just frustrating because I really wanted to see an intellectual destroy Peterson and I thought this was gonna be my chance to do it.
Like fuck man, I’D debate Peterson and am confident I would wreck him, and I’m just a fucking carpenter working in camps.
I like watching crowder get destroyed sometimes but he’s not smart enough for me to give a shit when it happens.
Zizek actually said as much in an interview some time before (or after?) the debate. He was well aware that debating Peterson directly would be extremely difficult due to the "techniques" he uses. So Zizek focused on getting a message to the audience.
The few times he did engage were hilarious smackdowns though ("where are all these 'postmodern marxists'???")
As far as I'm concerned Zizek went the right amount of hard, considering how effortlessly, utterly, and thoroughly he dunked on Peterson without Peterson ever having any idea what had happened.
In no way was that fair play. That was the rudest thing I've ever seen done to a person where I yet personally applauded the maneuver. I love Zizek.
Peterson left that debate believing discourse had happened and that's just hilarious.
He's basically a conman. It's impressive in a way, I've watched enough of it a few times to see how convincing he is. Anyone who doesn't want to believe it will sniff the bullshit after 3-5 minutes of him doing nothing but blow smoke and talk in self reinforcing circles with no facts.
If you want to agree with him, it's very easy to think he's informed and speaking the truth. Which is why he's so dangerous. He's like the gateway drug to right wing extremist views. He tells men all the things a lot of them want to believe. About how their inadequacy isn't their fault. How everything was stacked against them. Reinforces their sexism, their anger, directs it. Then they're listening to all the other even more blatant alt right voices and most of them never come back.
He's just a glorified self-help guy who's gotten way more attention than he deserves by saying mildly offensive things. He should never have been allowed to become a target for outrage. Once that happened, he figured out how to monetize it and it was off to the races. It's like a feedback loop.
I highly recommend watching his debates with Sam Harris
It really shines a light on what a fake sophist charlatan Peterson is. Harris is so clear and plainspoken in comparison. His ideas are sophisticated, but explained simply.
People don't actually like the smart and capable. They like bombastic, big mouth bullies who deliver sound bites and agree with them, or worse yet just a guy they recognize.
Everyone complains about how we only have old guys running for President, when we had several other options in the last primaries. We just picked the worst ones because the others seemed "boring" or people didn't know them
There's a little known Aesop Fable called "The Clown and the Countryman" that illustrates something close to this
https://www.infoplease.com/primary-sources/fables-fairytales/aesops-fables/aesops-fables-30
Well, before we can say that Peterson is fooling people by only aesthetically presenting as an academic first we need to define fooling, then we need to define academic and then we need to define presenting. Without that shared substrate we can't make any value judgements about him because if we don't have that, we don't have anything.
That sounds like a lot more trouble than he's worth.