Moonbox

I think you're missing the point entirely. The universities-as-enclaves are not a product of the "culture-war". They're one of the primary causes. This is a deeply entrenched, reinforcing feedback loop of academia informing policy makers, who in turn (consulting with peer-reviews) are responsible for funding grants. The funding grants are often what determine the longevity of a researcher, and there's a strong survivorship bias on those promoting the prevailing thinking. The research being done, and thus the research being consulted by policy makers, therefore ends up being tilted in one direction. The curriculum also reflects that. It's profoundly naive to suggest that change is likely going to come organically from within this sort of system. The insular nature of these institutions is obvious when we see the extent to which they're going to stifle and censor alternative viewpoints (however mild), both from their students and their faculty. The fact that Peterson is an academic doesn't prove the "spectrum" is represented. That's extremely disingenuous. He's a singular example and it's not a stretch to say he was punished for going against the grain. Not only that, but his being an outlier and his subsequent notoriety have subjected him to the sort of scrutiny that his multitude of faceless critics never have to worry about. It doesn't even matter what he says anymore. What's the solution? I don't know, maybe you can tell me? I'd argue that the system is fundamentally broken and close-minded, and that much of the federal funding being granted to social sciences is of dubious merit. The natural progression of where this goes is to see the apparatus slowly torn down from outside by hostile book-burning policy makers, and the funding void will get filled with corporate/foreign entities (if at all). I don't like this solution, but it doesn't seem like there are a lot of folks grabbing the banner that JP left on the ground when he "sold out". It's not like academia is showing a lot of perspective, humility or introspection when subjected to criticism. The fact that you somehow felt it was okay to call JP supporters incels but then rankled at my comment of tweed suits (of all things) is, I think, indicative of the challenge people face with actually getting through.

Didn't check this over the long weekend...oops. I already mentioned "mainstream" wasn't a great choice of words. While I'd agree with you that Peterson doesn't have "mainstream" support, I'd also argue that his opponents are almost just as far from the mainstream as he is. If there's any "mainstream" in the "culture-war" as you call it, it's the intellectual path of least resistance. By that I mean that most people want to avoid confrontation and will do what they can do to not ruffle feathers. When a teacher or someone posts a link to a Toronto Star article lamenting how they have to buy craft supplies for their Kindergarten class, or how Doug Ford didn't want to attend the Pride Parade, woe unto anyone who brings up an alternative viewpoint. What you end up with is a vocal left proudly proclaiming their ideology, fighting against only the most absurd idiots on the right who feel it's worth jumping into the mud to get skewered. The middle ground and even the mildly-right stay far away. Those poor naive souls who do try to pipe up innocently are sent back with their tails between their legs (and maybe onto 4dchan or some other troll site). Nowhere is this phenomenon more obvious than in North American universities, except here it's formally institutionalized and given money and authority. It's easy to dismiss Lindsay Shepherd's case as one of "mishandling" by the school, but she's far from the only embarrassing example we've seen in recent years. I'll go through a list if you need me to. The real mistake is to assume that mainstream academic thinking is the actual mainstream - and this thinking has led to unfortunate consequences. The combination of the politicization of research funding with overt censorship on campuses has raised fair criticism of echo-chamber thinking and this is the last place we want that to be happening. Much of the criticism for academia is well-deserved, though I think it's worth noting that even at WLU a faculty petition to protect free speech was signed by around 50% of members (IIRC).

1) Okay? What does that mean, other than what it means at face value? 2) Find me anything where he says he wanted to be a "uniting figure". Let's hold each other to the same standards, okay? 3) That's utter nonsense and completely backward. If anything, being negatively compared to someone you don't respect makes the shame even worse. This isn't a bubble-world where it's academics vs academics only. There's an audience - there's actually a world outside the lecture halls. It's difficult to overstate how embarrassing the Lindsay Shepherd case is for WLU, regardless of how much the professor's disrespect JP. I can guarantee you the university was highly embarrassed and broadly ridiculed. That has an effect. 4 and 5) Can you give me many/any examples where Peterson wasn't speaking civilly to or against his opponents? Why does his financial success somehow invalidate his arguments? It's not like university faculty and administration hasn't been whoring itself out for decades. That wasn't a blanket statement, by the way, but these institutions are FAR from the beacons of intellectual freedom that some would have us believe. 6) Penthouse would be a bizarre partner, but then how "wrong" would it be? If they did support his research, what would that actually mean? Can you qualify the moral objection here? 7 and 8) Doesn't matter. You've already acknowledged that there's a culture-war, and that the average person knows about it and has an opinion. I'd argue that we've already seen part of the outcome - Trump, Brexit, yellow-vests, populism etc. 9) You didn't comment on an individual. You generalized and ridiculed his entire following, and in much more colorful language than I ever did. You weren't even talking about his arguments or positions, you were just characterizing anyone who followed them....as incels. I mean...come on. Are you even reading what you write? 10) He may have missed a magical opportunity that you've decided was his to grasp, but he's still brought awareness to deeply-rooted problem with modern academia and that in itself is a good thing.

1) I don't think that was ever trying to be "uniting". He had a bone to pick and set out to embarrass the politically correct, intellectual establishment - and so far he's succeeding. The argument that he deserves disdain because he didn't reach for the lofty expectations others hoped he would is pretty weak. 2) and 3) This is rich criticism, considering Rebel media only started their crowdfunding campaign for him after his application for federal grant money was denied for the very first time following his speaking out about gender politics. While I find any association with Rebel highly questionable, it would be a weird look for a free-speech advocate to slap away a helping hand because he doesn't like everything they say. Regardless, the system of public-grant funding is a contentious issue altogether, rife with echo-chamber group-think and intellectual conflicts - not to mention questionable corporate and foreign donors. 4 )and 5) That was an oxymoron, so a poor choice of words on my part, but in this context I meant something different. Compared to 5-10 years ago, there's now a much stronger and much more vocal opposition to whatever you want to call this oppressive version of political correctness. It is a mainstream issue now, and people aren't nearly as ashamed as they used to be about voicing dissenting opinions. The fact that we're discussing Peterson demonstrates he's mainstream, not to mention his coverage all over the world. 6) and here you demonstrate the sort of behavior that serves as the root cause of the problem. Not only did you start the discussion by framing Peterson's followers as "an incel-cult", you proceed to get miffed by my off-hand comment about the sneering tweed-suited professor. Obviously you missed the comical and ironic hypocrisy, but then maybe you don't appreciate folks questioning your thinking either? You're not making a very compelling case here...

Even non-exempt dividends and capital gains should receive preferential treatment. These are important encouragement for investment in productive activity. More problematic is the byzantine nature of our tax system and the complicated (but more or less legal) schemes that business owners use to avoid taxes while they run their businesses and when they transfer the wealth to their family on death. Their not content with just the (more or less) legitimate tax mitigation strategies either. On top of that they grossly abuse the rules around business deductions, salaries to family and anything else they can reliably get away with. I'm a financial planner by trade and see it all of the time, and while I don't blame them for it, I do think CRA is a joke and needs substantial attention and investment. It's the same in the US with the IRS. It won't happen, however, and the reason is pretty obvious. The people abusing the tax system are also generally the ones holding political office.

I've more or less been absent from these forums since around 2014/2015, so I can only go with what I remember. I've obviously missed 5 years of back-and-forth so I have no idea what sort of discussions everyone has had in the interim, but I'll hear anyone out who's not talking crazy - you probably know who I'm talking about...

Canada had pretty much its lowest unemployment rate ever leading up to the recent recession. There's nothing sacrosanct about "those jobs". It's actually good for the economy to lose jobs with inflated wages supported by trade protectionism and militant unions. It leads to improved productivity elsewhere. In the case of steel production, for example, US tariffs on Chinese steel has actually led directly to significant downstream job losses, far more than were brought back by a "revived" steel industry. Unfortunately one of the ancillary effects seems to be be a further polarization of wealth. This has more to do with an extremely shitty system of taxation in western economy than on globalization itself. It's actually kind of sickening to see how little tax a lot of the wealthy pay. I'm not even talking about the super-rich, who only pay a fraction of what they should. Just the average Joe-millionaire, with a bit of planning, can pay less than half the oft-quoted 53% top rate that the rich typically bemoan. Very, very few are paying these rates.

1) Because I figured you were more thoughtful and contemplative than just dismissing it as a "cult". Actually, I know you are, and you pretty much confirm that with your other responses. 2) He may very well have cashed-in on his success, but I'm not sure why you think that reduces his influence. 3) I do agree with this, at least partially. While I don't agree that he's deliberately or even implicitly aligning himself with "trolls", I do agree that he's not done enough to separate himself from them. You do lose legitimacy even by loose comparisons with such groups, but then part of the problem is that his opponents go to great lengths to advertise those (mostly implied) associations. It's not like he's shaking hands with Clan Wizards, but folks like to characterize him as that type of person. 4) Up until now there wasn't any potential for discussion on political-correctness. That's the whole point. The shouting-down and shaming of any dissenting voice was endemic in universities across the world. No case more clearly demonstrates this than Lindsay Shepherd's at WLU - a comical example of how out-of-touch, arrogant and overreaching much of the intellectual establishment had become. Her supervisors literally compared Peterson talks to Hitler speeches. I'd graduated from there less than 10 years before, and it was extremely disappointing to see how things had devolved so badly, though the problems were already entrenched even back then. If nothing else, Peterson is normalizing and empowering an alternative point of view. This is both a good an necessary thing. We can probably agree on criticism for some of his messaging, which even I think is a bit chauvinistic and out-of-touch, but you can't discount his influence just because of that. He has a large, mainstream counter-culture following that people are actually listening to and taking note of. I doubt he's terribly concerned with the fact that there's a tweed-suit at Queen's sneering at him and that won't debate with him. Few have had much success against him in that regard anyways.

Not really, because the willingness to be a "cog in the wheel" is also associated to lack of innovation and ambition, two of the central pillars of the American economy. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages, but the Chinese system currently relies on forcing foreign companies that want to do business in China to share tech and production secrets, and also on foreign acquisition. The cultural and institutional framework enforced by the Communist Party makes it extremely difficult to allow "innovation" to occur naturally. You need to have a Communist Party rep supervising any organization of more than 50 people, and these aren't the most open-minded thinkers. Despite astounding public funding to Chinese Universities, the flow of ideas is controlled centrally by Party secretaries and the like. This is another area where Trump, despite all of his flaws, is actually right. Something should be done about protecting intellectual property in China.

Peterson's support goes far, far beyond "incels", and from what little I know of you I'd expect you to know better than that. There's no doubt that many "incels" admire him, but his academic arguments mostly focus on free-speech and he represents a counter-culture against what many argue (including myself) is out-of-control political correctness. The one thing that I really don't like about him is that he doesn't do enough to distance himself from the more toxic alt-right, incel or even racist supporters. Folks who speak out against him tend to get death threats from neo-Nazis and the like, and Peterson's rebukes against them could be a lot more energetic.

D E E P S T A T E Q U A N T U M C O M P U T E R S C L I N T O N S + R O T H S C H I L D S How is this thread 5 pages long?

I absolutely agree, but stupid and non-viable solutions should be rejected. There ARE success stories around the world. Solar panels work a lot better in places like Arizona, and wind-turbines work better in Scotland or off the coast of Holland. Neither were a very good fit for Ontario in most cases, since the tech wasn't far enough along for widespread adoption or connection to the grid. The "stupid politicians" have, however, done far more harm to Ontario than just a lot of wasted money. They've wasted so much money that they've made future Green energy initiatives (even actually workable ones) far more contentious than they ever should have been. Just mentioning "Green Energy" makes a lot of people shudder in Ontario now.

I haven't watched anything Michael Moore has done since the Columbine flick (he's a hack), but I suspect any criticism of the Green Energy movement is based on how politically compromised it's been thus far. Even just in Ontario, something between $10-20 billion has been spent in the last 10 years on building wind-turbines and solar panels that then had to be hooked up to the grid and that haven't even made a dent in our energy mix. The engineers and economists warned that it was going to be a colossal failure, but the Ontario Liberals proceeded regardless. Where did all that money go? To companies like Samsung and others who temporarily employed a small number of people. Most of those jobs are gone now and we have nothing to show for it other than skyrocketed electricity bills and a huge pile of debt. This experience has been echoed all over the world.

I know at least through the 80's through to the Great Recession, the thinking was that joining the world economy would lead to a democratization. There are some small successes that demonstrate this throughout the world, but it hasn't really worked with China. It looked like it was working up until Xi became chairman, but he's sent the country 180 agrees in the other direction and we're quickly learning that dealing with China is just the same-old-same-old, except now China has more clout.

Nope. They'll be okay.

This is a dumb topic. The pandemic isn't going to last 3 years. The lockdowns aren't even going to last a year. School may be done for the 2019/2020 year, but folks will be out and about this summer. Don't you worry, all those young fellas will be able to get your "sitting around" hot girls experience.

I'll try to keep this post brief but I wanted to ask a few questions because I've found the Trudeau government's handling of the China file to be deeply puzzling. On the one hand, there's obviously no reason to antagonize China unnecessarily. In a small way I've been impressed with Freeland and Trudeau and how they haven't done much to antagonize Trump. Justin's father was an asshole when it came to bi-lateral relations so it's good to see his son isn't trying to capitalize politically on Canada's distaste for POTUS. On the other hand, I think it's become crystal clear at this point that China isn't going to be the good-faith partner that the Liberals had hoped it would be. Meekness and humility aren't working and China's taking advantage of our perceived weakness as a result. The detaining of the two Michael in 2018 was flagrant bullying and the charges were trumped-up. Chinese diplomats in Canada are running clubs at Canadian universities focused on bullying and harassing those speaking out against the communist regime and their endless list of human rights abuses. These are the sorts of things that clearly demonstrate what China ultimately is - a communist dictatorship. It's cringe-worthy watching Trudeau and his Ministers change the subject and avoid commenting on anything China-related. They seem terrified to offend the world's largest economy. What has this brought us though? China's our second largest trading partner, but only accounts for something like 3.9% of our exports - practically nothing. We import 3x more than we export, and its not like there aren't other third-world nations we could source our cheap labor from. Conversely, they buy our resources - commodities that trade on the open market and that other countries will buy from us if China doesn't. I really struggle with the Liberal government's philosophy on China. It seems they're living in fantasy-world and knowing what we know about the regime there, I don't understand for a second why we're even entertaining Huawei for our 5G networks. The Chinese government has little/no credibility and their attempts to frame the Uighur detention camps as "vocation schools" speak for themselves...

I don't watch CNN, and I'm extremely anti-Clinton. Way to make boneheaded assumptions and talk out of your butt.

Um, the correct spelling is D E E P S T A T E. You can use hyphens between each letter if you like, but it's not necessary.

Lots of people agree with it, and larger aims of the broader "movement" or whatever you want to call it - it's not very well-defined as a movement anyways. While it does get wielded as a "wedge", I think the key here is that minority and feel-good politics have limits and populism is a force to be reckoned with. "Angry white guys" are just the tip of an iceberg that shouldn't be ignored. I was disgusted to see some of the stuff over the last few years go on in universities across Canada with the censorship and the shouting-down of non-progressive views. I think what we're seeing now is the natural reaction to that. Trump is normalizing political "inappropriateness" and allowing folks who'd previously felt they'd get reviled for offering anything but 100% support for whatever in-vogue progressive measure being discussed an outlet. There are a lot of idiots among them (true for both sides) but the naming and shaming and the culture of "offense" has provoked a broad-enough populist counter-movement that it can no longer just be mocked and ignored. It's politically relevant again. I don't want to speak for him but he seems to be a pretty cynical pragmatist. The closest I could guess is that Trump has, like I said before, normalized the counter-culture we've seen in North America and Europe over the last number of years. It's no longer as shameful to be anti-immigration, anti-globalization or pro-nationalism. This sort of sentiment led to Angela Merkel's downfall, to Brexit etc. As far as distrust go, this is a problem of widespread ignorance and apathy. It's natural for the ignorant to be distrustful and this is true on both sides. On the left it's the tired bleating of evil "corporations" - with corporations being something they don't even understand. On the right, it's the vacuous nattering about the D E E P S T A T E and bureaucracy etc. Both have valid points, but neither allow for much middle ground and lead to the poo-flinging we've seen of late. . In regards to the Green Energy debacle in Ontario - no, it wasn't just governance and accountability. Experts knew ahead of time that the Liberal plan wasn't going to work. Economists were against it, the engineers in charge of implementing it argued it wouldn't work, and the government went ahead with it anyways. The idea of being "forward-looking" visionaries on the climate and the green economy was intoxicating to both the ruling government and the people who voted for them. It didn't matter that the whole thing was based on deeply flawed economic and technological assumptions that doomed it from the beginning. The ignorance and refusal to listen to dissenting opinions is what doomed us. Even after the plan blew up in everyone's face, they still go re-elected (a really weak opposition). It wasn't until 8-10 years later that people FINALLY saw the results in their energy bills and the government was "held accountable" at the polls.

Nobody said it was a global threat. It's apparent, however, that North Americans and Europeans have grown tired and frustrated with outward-looking moral righteousness at the expense of kitchen-table economics. Look no further than the Ontario Liberals' implosion in the face (of all people) Doug Ford's election as Premier. The colossal failure of the go-ahead-at-any-cost Green Energy shift led directly to the election of a blustering populist and has likely done more harm than good for the environment as a result. Despite billions wasted, we still produce hardly any additional renewable energy and this will make actually effective climate/environmental spending more contentious down the road. Also, I wasn't laughing at your post. I thought it was witty. I think it's dangerous to judge the US as a singularly volatile country. BC made a point earlier about how any democracy shows this quality off with a changing government. Canada may have an inherently more stable political system, but we aren't immune to the policy flip-flops we're seeing in the US and indeed these have happened all over the western world. Angela Merkel is on the outs after her latest election defeat, the UK is leaving the EU, yellow-vest protests - these are all signals that western democracy is straining against the liberalization and globalization of their individual countries. I don't think we have to worry much about the USA and China getting a strangle-hold on power. They're very much at odds on the majority of issues.

I touched on this sort of issue in another thread with BC. These, particularly, are the sorts of things that drive people insane and show how horribly off-the-rails Liberalism/Progressivism has gone. Trump, if nothing else, has hopefully stunned some sense into that movement and taught them that hurt feelings are something to get over. They're not something that lawmakers have to bend over backwards to accommodate. Saying "too bad" is perfectly okay. That does cut both ways though. Certain issues like gay-marriage or women's rights (including abortion) are also things that people need to just "get over". It doesn't affect you, so nobody should give a shit if it offends you.

I'll certainly agree with Trump being a symptom of a more more pernicious disease. I wince every time I hear someone around here talk about how "stupid" the Americans who voted for him are. There are definitely a lot of obese Bubbas and Bubbettes at his rallies, and it's hard not to cringe when you hear them get interviewed, but then there are plenty of intelligent folk who voted for Trump knowing that he's an amoral asshole with a huge and fragile ego but also knowing that could shake things up. I get it. If Trump is a symptom, however, he's one of many, but the scary part is that he's also the one who's been entrusted to treat a disease he doesn't even understand. If America has the equivalent of Lyme disease Trump is offering blood-letting and electro-shock as the cure. It's a terrible analogy, but the point is that his solutions are directed at treating symptoms and they cause more harm than good. Although remedies are needed, quack cures don't help. If he's a one-and-done President, I hope that he's at LAST awoken lawmakers around the world to the fact that Liberalism in the Western world has over-stepped. I'm not talking about large Rights issues like gay-marriage or abortion, but rather the bending backwards politicians have been doing to avoid "offending" minorities and the exercises in guilt over colonialism/imperialism etc...He's made it clear that Americans aren't willing to eat a raw deal for the sake of feeling good about themselves, and there's nothing wrong with that.

It's not personal animus. It's bad economics. In a sense you're right though. Policy has been overly accommodating ever since 2009. Interest rates were never meant to stay this low for this long, but it's human nature to kick the can down the road. Trump inherited an economy buoyed by this (along with previous administrations' collective failures), but then he doubled-down on it at the PEAK of the economic cycle. Choosing to expand your deficits and amplify your economy at the top of a boom cycle is a relative waste. There are diminishing returns on stimulus spending as the economy heads to full capacity. We gave up Reaganomics for a reason, but Trump and his trade advisors seem to be living in the 1980's still. Forget about Canada. The loudest complaints on the boneheaded steel/aluminum tariffs came from US manufacturers. Ultimately I don't think folks were even really that worried that US/Canada trade would be fine. It's probably the most balanced trade relationship in the world. As for their effectiveness, those tariffs were a massive flop. US manufacturers ended up paying the majority of the price for the tariffs, and the amount of jobs and money lost from that paled in comparison to the puny and temporary bump in US steel production. Of those new jobs, a lot of them have since been lost anyways. There are no doubt trade inequities that should be addressed, but throwing the baby out with the bath-water and playing wrecking-ball just for the sake of doing something was stupid and only hurt American business. Shaking things up is fine and was no doubt warranted, but he's doing more harm than good.

He didn't do $1.5B in business with China. He was part of a group that arranged for a Chinese corp to provide financing for a venture. No doubt the optics and ethics behind it are questionable, but that's unfortunately how US politics seem to work and efforts to fix that are usually stonewalled in the House. Regardless, you (and Trump/Giulliani) love to throw big numbers out there and imply Hunter was receiving hundreds of millions in payoffs or something, when there's absolutely no evidence of it...just some shady-looking nepotism. Meanwhile, Jared Kushner's Cadre organization has received $90M from mysterious and secretive foreign "investors" to Cayman accounts while HE is actively working in the White House and closely with Trump. In his first Ethics Disclosure he "inadvertently" failed to mention his ~$50M stake (oopsie!). For very obvious reasons he was denied security clearance by US officials but Trump overruled and pushed him through anyways. I'm all for discussing corruption if you like (Hunter/Joe Biden included) but not if you're going to cherry-pick out of Rudy and Donald's brazen mud-slinging and truth-bending. Why would be focusing on some questionable business relationships with the past vice-president's son (who wasn't involved in politics), when we have the CURRENT president's senior advisor/son-in-law (the son of a convicted felon no less) actively profiting first-hand? As for Ukraine, yeah, that's nothing-burger. I've reviewed that one in a fair bit of detail before and Rudy's claims are based on hilariously mistaken timelines and the affidavit of a corrupt/disgraced former Ukrainian prosecutor.