Originally posted by Lira
That's standard TA procedure: no thread remains on topic for more than 10 posts.
Znack may edit the thread title if he finds it necessary, but it's just a matter of time until this becomes a unified discussion about Jordan Peterson, meat, Tesla cars, and circumcision procedures in Djibouti.
That’s amazing I thought I knew all the countries in world but this is the first time I’ve heard of Djibouti!
Funny you should bring up that country I heard in that area of the world there is a pirate stock market.
Do you have any suggestions for a new thread title?
SYSTEM-J
Nah, I'll can the meat talk. It isn't my intention to turn every thread into an environmentalism debate.
To return to the topic; if there's one thing I like about Peterson, it's his emphasis on self-actualisation and personal accountability. The absolution of personal responsibility in favour of blaming big social systems for all our problems is pretty much my single major bug-bear with The Left, and "take responsibility for yourself" is the basic message that seems to astound and uplift all those aimless male losers who form his core demographic. The guy is a clinical psychologist who's helped hundreds of people deal with life problems through personal coaching and therapy, and I think it says everything that he gets such results out of that core message.
However, that aside, most of his views seem deeply conservative to me, despite what he may claim, and after hearing him talk about religion for ten minutes I just struggle to take him seriously. As someone who loves dissecting an argument, probably the thing that irks me the most is his reputation for being a debating grandmaster who "destroys liberals". To watch him in one of these arguments is doubly depressing: both because his domineering rhetorical tactics disguise the fact he's actually pretty rubbish at debating, and also because he's still good enough to swat aside most of the ill-conceived dross fired at him by self-appointed lefty mouthpieces. The whole thing just shows how intellectually pitiful the Left-Right cultural war really is, both sides blurting out utter with nobody in the middle to slap their heads together and bring order out of the chaos.
Jon_Snow
I actually agree with someone of his views although he is quite conservative and takes things too far. For every social movement there is always an opposite over reaction. He is the response to the SJW and the political correct gender identity nonsense.
SYSTEM-J
He's actually a fairly mild reaction to it, which is why he's seen as credible. Donald Trump is probably the real over reaction.
I think there are two basic reasons why he's become such a guru. The first is his self-help stuff, which seems to have genuinely helped a lot of people. The second is that academia is so overwhelmingly left wing that it's rare to get an academic or "intellectual" who's prepared to criticise these things and who can bring to bear a wide array of references and subjects when he/she does so. And yes, he does have some good points mixed in there with the mad , and shooting holes in identity politics and wokeness is like shooting fish in a barrel. But ultimately it shows the intellectual poverty of the reactionary right that this guy with his mad bull about lobster hierarchies and all-meat diets is seen as a heavyweight, hence the "stupid man's smart person" tag I mentioned earlier.
Jon_Snow
I agree for the most part with everything you said.
I’d disagree about Trump he’s not an ideolog, he’s an opportunist. Most of what he says and does has less to do with what he believes in and more about what he thinks he can use to manipulate poeples fears and biases in his favor.
For example he didn’t sign the Paris climate accord not because he doesn’t believe in climate change but because it served him politically with his base.
The common thread of his presidency is to blame the outsider, whether that is Europe and the climate accord, the wall and immigrants, the Chinese and tariffs, Iran and nuclear treaty...
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by Sykonee
The Inuit seemed to get by just fine subsisting on a meat-only diet.
Didn't they also forage wild berries, eat seaweed, and make their children listen to Baby Shark? That's all pretty wild, and it's a big difference:
quote:
Originally posted in the Discover Magazine
A key difference in the typical Nunavik Inuit’s diet is that more than 50 percent of the calories in Inuit native foods come from fats. Much more important, the fats come from wild animals.
Wild-animal fats are different from both farm-animal fats and processed fats, says Dewailly. Farm animals, cooped up and stuffed with agricultural grains (carbohydrates) typically have lots of solid, highly saturated fat. Much of our processed food is also riddled with solid fats, or so-called trans fats, such as the reengineered vegetable oils and shortenings cached in baked goods and snacks. “A lot of the packaged food on supermarket shelves contains them. So do commercial french fries,” Dewailly adds.
So, yeah, I don't know... going full meater doesn't seem much better for your health than going full vegan.
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I made the mistake once of going to a Brazilian rodizio grill and only eating meat.
Thoughts and prayers :(
Sykonee
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Didn't they also forage wild berries, eat seaweed, and make their children listen to Baby Shark? That's all pretty wild, and it's a big difference:
I don't know how many berries grow in the remote tundra of Nunavut. Very few, like kinnikinnick or stray blueberries. But yeah, seal, whale and walrus blubber is basically the wonder-food for the Inuit, which makes sense since blubber's entire function is nutrient storage for lean meal times.
Whoops, drawing back to food talk. Uh, Peterson. My first exposure to him was this New York Time article. An entertaining read, to say the least.
SYSTEM-J
Funny we should be having this conversation now, as I'm currently halfway through The Terror by Dan Simmons, the plot of which prominently features both "Esquimaux" natives and excruciating detail on the symptoms of scurvy.
DJ RANN
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Funny we should be having this conversation now, as I'm currently halfway through The Terror by Dan Simmons, the plot of which prominently features both "Esquimaux" natives and excruciating detail on the symptoms of scurvy.
Oh ing christ. I watched the Terror show (AMC) over Christmas and it's one of the best things I've seen in years.
I won't ruin it but the characters are fantastic, the atmosphere is thicker than the ice they're battling and performances are pure class.
I'm sure the book is better but I strongly recommend everyone to binge watch that .
Jon_Snow
I wonder what Meat187 would think of this thread.
I just watched an interview with Jeff Goldblum. That cat is interesting as hell but weird, lovable weird.
Swamper
quote:
Originally posted by Jon_Snow
I actually agree with someone of his views although he is quite conservative and takes things too far. For every social movement there is always an opposite over reaction. He is the response to the SJW and the political correct gender identity nonsense.
He's kind of conservative lite but the rationality behind what he says in his video is sound.
Tenets of a viable 21st century conservatism
1. The fundamental assumptions of Western civilization are valid.
2. Peaceful social being is preferable to isolation and to war. In consequence, it justly and rightly demands some sacrifice of individual impulse and idiosyncrasy.
3. Hierarchies of competence are desirable and should be promoted.
4. Borders are reasonable. Likewise, limits on immigration are reasonable. Furthermore, it should not be assumed that citizens of societies that have not evolved functional individual-rights predicated polities will hold values in keeping with such polities.
5. People should be paid so that they are able and willing to perform socially useful and desirable duties.
6. Citizens have the inalienable right to benefit from the result of their own honest labor.
7. It is more noble to teach young people about responsibilities than about rights.
8. It is better to do what everyone has always done, unless you have some extraordinarily valid reason to do otherwise.
9. Radical change should be viewed with suspicion, particularly in a time of radical change.
10. The government, local and distal, should leave people to their own devices as much as possible.
11. Intact heterosexual two-parent families constitute the necessary bedrock for a stable polity.
12. We should judge our political system in comparison to other actual political systems and not to hypothetical utopias.
SYSTEM-J
Again, some of those things are valid, some are very loaded and questionable. I doubt any lefty would deny that "hierarchies of competency are desirable", but the whole point is that a rich white Western bloke might be completely blind to the subtle injustices of an oppressive system, so his edict of "Everything is fine, keep it as it is" is not necessarily valid because he has no qualia of the ways the "hierarchy of competence" actually s over certain groups and benefits others. This is really basic ; that kind of point is not "sound" and the discussion should be happening at a higher level of nuance than this.
