Advice to Poilievre: Canada is a good country, Appeal to higher angels

[myata]

3 hours ago, Contrarian said:

I don't think your mind would agree

You are the last of the dinosaurs. No, there's none like you left in the developed, modern democratic world. Yes people can read and they can understand "representation" and "representative". No you can't win against evolution with dinosaur arguments. Can always try though, that one is free.

[Contrarian]

8 minutes ago, myata said:

You are the last of the dinosaurs. No, there's none like you left in the developed, modern democratic world. Yes people can read and they can understand "representation" and "representative". No you can't win against evolution with dinosaur arguments. Can always try though, that one is free.

The system is fine and is changing at the rate that is supposed to change.

You can always try with "Destroy and Rebuild."

Is also free, but in history this type of tactic rarely produced results. 

but now it seems you are changing the argument.

You don't want "Destroy and Rebuild", you are just a reformer it seems. 

Why don't you start your platform:

"Here to destroy and rebuild for you!"'

and then you sign it like:

Whoever they vote for we are ungovernable - The Anarchist Movement. 😎

= )

Edited February 7 by Contrarian

[myata]

3 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

You can always try with "Destroy and Rebuild."

Dinosaur (the last of): "Horror, o horror!!! Destroy and rebuild!"

The rest of the (animal) world: "Look, nothing personal but we're living this way already a million years".

...

By the way, have you seen that one, you know the dinosaur, of late?

The end (evolutionary, dead one)

[Contrarian]

24 minutes ago, myata said:

Dinosaur (the last of): "Horror, o horror!!! Destroy and rebuild!"

The rest of the (animal) world: "Look, nothing personal but we're living this way already a million years".

...

By the way, have you seen that one, you know the dinosaur, of late?

The end (evolutionary, dead one)

so what you are saying that if I don't go along with your Pet Project to save the world and society, at the rate that you want, people like me are therefore dinosaurs and deserve the same fate as them? 

You got anger, great, there were a few anarchists that got tired of fighting with the mirror and enrolled in the Ukrainian foreign legion, at least for purpose and as an outlet for their control issues in their own countries. 

Fight there because clearly here you are not changing anything.

Edited February 7 by Contrarian

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

1. Which NDP? The Mulcair NDP or the Singh NDP?
2. Mulcair NDP vowed fiscal discipline and to be more business friendly.
 

1. Pre Broadbent.
2. This counts as 'left wing' today.

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Maybe you don’t like Peterson now that he’s standing up to the woke mob that’s created a chill over free speech and turned university campuses into EDI indoctrination centres.  Basically he is one of a few brave as yet uncancellable voices.  Liberal Arts education is gone. University debates are finished.

That's what I originally liked about Jordan Peterson.  The Lindsey Shephard debacle at my alma mater years ago is what made me aware of him.  When he was making intellectual arguments about freedom of speech and about some of the absurd examples of PC overreach, I vibed with it. 

Then he realized that he could make +$50,000/m validating the vague anxieties and grievances of incels and angry white dudes, and he decided to do that instead.  

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

I experience this movement first hand in the workplace. People are saying what they don’t believe out of fear.

I'm sure it's just awful for you, and that the secret police have your phone line bugged too.  

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. He's a complete fraud and believes his own publicity.  Imagine you are going to debate a renowned Marxist scholar in front of the world, and you don't read ANY of Marx's political & economic work "Das Kapital" and instead read the 23-page call to arms "The Communist Manifesto".  Then you go to the debate and talk about Marx at length.

He's the dumb man's smart man.  Watch one of his videos and you can see it in action.  If he has an opportunity to say, "be cognizant of" instead of just saying, "know" he'll take it.  This sort of pseudo-profound gobbledygook is impressive to a certain type.

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

As far as I know his view is if women don't want you that's almost certainly your own damn fault and you should change the way you act and behave. Women don't like weaklings and whiners. 

and that's just one among many of Jordan Peterson's bizarre contradictions.  Women don't like weaklings and whiners, he says, an they "should be picky", but then the man spends his time and energy talking about how unfortunate and marginalized young white men are, fostering their anxieties and victim complex.  Yay.   

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

1. I ignore him on certain subjects because he sound silly. On psychological topics, though, he sounds quite sensible most of the time.
2. And I believe Marx, and I am far from an expert, produced an unworkable system which ignores human motivation. 
3. On climate change, he has his opinion just like you do.

1. Ok, sounds good.
2. Well, JP says that Marx didn't talk about "nature" meaning natural resources.  I advise you to go find other critics of Marx, there are many>
3. So he gets a participation trophy... good for him.  Any individual talking out his ass is doing that.  An academic doing that is showing he doesn't understand epistemology - which it is his actual vocation to do, before he practices even...

[I am Groot]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok, sounds good.
2. Well, JP says that Marx didn't talk about "nature" meaning natural resources.  I advise you to go find other critics of Marx, there are many>

I don't care enough about Marx to bother. It's a failed ideology, a failed economic model.

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. So he gets a participation trophy... good for him.  Any individual talking out his ass is doing that.  An academic doing that is showing he doesn't understand epistemology - which it is his actual vocation to do, before he practices even...

What about what he says is incorrect? 

[I am Groot]

9 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

and that's just one among many of Jordan Peterson's bizarre contradictions.  Women don't like weaklings and whiners, he says, an they "should be picky", but then the man spends his time and energy talking about how unfortunate and marginalized young white men are, fostering their anxieties and victim complex.  Yay.   

Do you think marginalized men (I've never heard him referring to simply white men) are not perhaps encouraged to be less whiny and to take responsibility by listening to his advice? He's not incorrect about the problems faced by young men and boys, who increasingly perform less well, academically, than young women and girls. He's also not wrong in trying to tell them how to do better.

Edited February 7 by I am Groot

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

1. I don't care enough about Marx to bother. It's a failed ideology, a failed economic model.

2. What about what he says is incorrect? 

1. It's also a critical framework, and an examination of history.  If you like watching Peterson because there are some good bits you should also read Marx by principle.
2. I have to turn him off when he talks about things that aren't "self help"... saying "there's no such thing as climate" on climate change, talking about Nietzsche and saying "he was right about this" "wrong about that" is ridiculous, he's way out of his depth with no clue... saying Marx didn't consider the limits of nature, critiquing economic theory.... 

I'm too old to be hoodwinked...  I can listen to people who are wrong but not people who just talk out their ass.  

[Contrarian]

36 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. It's also a critical framework, and an examination of history.  If you like watching Peterson because there are some good bits you should also read Marx by principle.

Karl Heinrich Marx was a piece of human waste which took years out of my life via his theories including family, society, dreams of progress IN MY OWN HOME.

The theories that you born here Westerners keep talking about with such a high regard lead to tragedies the same as Mein Kampf. 

Don't give a rats something about "critique" and the intellectual value of a rat, Marx, a low life which spat even on his own community to push his garbage.

I think @I am Groot has a point when he says too much is not promoted as to what this low life Marx brought upon the world. 

Das Kapital if it was up to me would have the same status as Mein Kampf. 

I look at the end results, don't care about the surface literature. The program is not compatible with humanity. That is my position.

Edited February 7 by Contrarian

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

1. Karl Heinrich Marx was piece of human waste which took years out of my life via his theories including family, society, dreams of progress IN MY OWN HOME.

2. The theories that you born here Westerners keep talking about with such a high regard lead to tragedies the same as Mein Kampf. 

3. Don't give a rats something about "critique" and the intellectual value of a rat, Marx, a low life which spat even on his own community to push his garbage.

4. Das Kapital if it was up to me would have the same status as Mein Kampf. I look at the end results, don't care about the surface literature. The program is not compatible with humanity.

5. That is my postion.

1. Sorry for your loss.
2. Ok.
3. A lot of people feel that way about Jesus too.  I don't.  We have a guy on here who follows a clown like Jordan Peterson because he's right sometimes...
4. Well, one is a biography that includes a grand Jewish conspiracy expressly adopted in a systematic effort to extinguish a culture, succeeding in 6 million deaths.  And the other is a historical/economic tract which was used to rationalize a system of economics eventually used for a large minority of the world's people.  The former is definitely "evil" because the evil is written into the pages.  Remains to be seen how the second book is not just "mistaken", for me at least.
5. Ok then.  
 

[myata]

1 hour ago, Contrarian said:

people like me are therefore dinosaurs and deserve the same fate as them? 

Does the rock deserve to be attracted to the ground and fall? Wrong question: it's a law of nature. You can see it, admit and try to understand it. Or fall free and see what happens. Sure you can always check, that one is free.

[Contrarian]

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, one is a biography that includes a grand Jewish conspiracy expressly adopted in a systematic effort to extinguish a culture, succeeding in 6 million deaths.  And the other is a historical/economic tract which was used to rationalize a system of economics eventually used for a large minority of the world's people.  The former is definitely "evil" because the evil is written into the pages.  Remains to be seen how the second book is not just "mistaken", for me at least.

You think if you bring the name of "Jewish" in the discussion that gives more weight to your point? I heard this point amongst all you spoiled Westerners that went to school here and studied this low life Marx and once in a while, I find someone preaching to me (that went through tragedies and family split up) the "critique" or "intellectual value." 

I think differently. 

If someone robs a bank people like you look at the people with the trigger, this is what Main Kempf provides. They just show you the criminal element right away. 

Das Kapital is what I see a more complex program, which leads to the same trigger man however on the surface it shows everything as a legitimate perfect operation which makes it even more dangerous. A neo-nazi, in my estimation you know right away who the criminal is, but a Neo-Marxist, uhmmm, that can be anyone, that can be even me that I talk about centrism, how do you know? Is hard to detect it my point is. 

So you keep lying to yourself that the books are different, maybe in writing, the way human minds used the literature lead to the same disaster no matter how much intellectual analysis comes from it by bored westerners. 

Edited February 7 by Contrarian

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

1. You think if you bring the name of "Jewish" in the discussion that gives more weight to your point?

2. I heard this point amongst all you spoiled Westerners that went to school here and studied this low life Marx and once in a while, I find someone preaching to me, that went through tragedies and family split up the "critique" or "intellectual value."   I think differently. 

3. If someone robs a bank people like you look at the people with the trigger, this is what Main Kempf provides. They just show you the criminal element right away. Das Kapital is what I see a more complex program, which leads to the same trigger man however on the surface it shows everything as a legitimate perfect operation which makes it even more dangerous. Because a neo-nazi, you know right away who the criminal is, but a Neo-Marxist, uhmmm, that can be anyone, that can be even me that I talk about centrism, how do you know? Is hard to detect it my point is. 

4. So you keep lying to yourself that the books are different, maybe in writing, the way human minds used the literature lead to the same disaster no matter how much intellectual analysis comes from it by bored westerners. 

1. Wow.  Talk about missing a point.... "extinguish a culture, succeeding in 6 million deaths"
2. When analyzing an idea, I see adjectives and attributions like "spoiled Westerners" as signed that the speaker is letting emotion into the analysis.  Hey, I do it too.  No big deal.
3. Sure, but this drive to go deeper than who holds the gun seems so subjective.  Sometimes people will say "It's just a book" and other times "It's so much more dangerous".  I honestly try to be objective of such things.  The Bible, The Koran, The Fountainhead, Das Kapital and even the Communist Manifesto are just books to me because they aren't prescriptive.  And, yes, there's no doubt you can search my principles and find a contradiction.  Please go ahead, I do not profess to be without flaws.
4. People have said this to me about the Bible and religious groups.  That a book that explicitly demands its adherents to "love others as they would be loved" is a vessel for evil because of Residential Schools, A Face in the Crowd, the Crusades... etc.   They are making the same argument now for LGBTQ teaching, drag shows and on and on....

I don't discount your opinion because you lived under Communism.  I don't elevate it either.

[Contrarian]

26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't discount your opinion because you lived under Communism.  

I don't blame you if you do, that is one topic where you will never see reason from me.

26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Wow.  Talk about missing a point.... "extinguish a culture, succeeding in 6 million deaths"
2. When analyzing an idea, I see adjectives and attributions like "spoiled Westerners" as signed that the speaker is letting emotion into the analysis.  Hey, I do it too.  No big deal.
3. Sure, but this drive to go deeper than who holds the gun seems so subjective.  Sometimes people will say "It's just a book" and other times "It's so much more dangerous".  I honestly try to be objective of such things.  The Bible, The Koran, The Fountainhead, Das Kapital and even the Communist Manifesto are just books to me because they aren't prescriptive.  And, yes, there's no doubt you can search my principles and find a contradiction.  Please go ahead, I do not profess to be without flaws.
4. People have said this to me about the Bible and religious groups.  That a book that explicitly demands its adherents to "love others as they would be loved" is a vessel for evil because of Residential Schools, A Face in the Crowd, the Crusades... etc.   They are making the same argument now for LGBTQ teaching, drag shows and on and on....

I don't discount your opinion because you lived under Communism.  I don't elevate it either.

1. I find it interestingly how a lot of Christians use the name Jewish to push their points, I was just observing. How many Jews died due to Das Kapital's theories or interpretation of those? Do you have any idea what Stalin did to the Jewish Community after WW2? With what theory did Stalin keep the masses in line? 
2. Zero reason when it comes to this topic from me. This one emotion wins the battle and always will. Zero debate when it comes to fascism and communism. No negotiation on my part. As soon as you mention analysis, we will talk something else. Sure, plenty of your friends on a late night Bordeaux will definitely want to pick Marx's brains. 
3. Of course Das Kapital is just a book to you. However, someone with your mind that values intellectual thought, if he were to be woken up at 3 AM to check the library if the book is there or if the picture of the dear Leader is hanged, I highly doubt when you escaped you would be sitting here talking about "critique" of low life Marx. That explains my 2. 
4. I don't understand this point, what is the main idea here? 

Edited February 7 by Contrarian

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

1. I find it interestingly how a lot of Christians use the name Jewish to push their points,

2. I was just observing. How many Jews died due to Das Kapital's theories or interpretation of those? Do you have any idea what Stalin did to the Jewish Community after WW2? With what theory did Stalin keep the masses in line? 

3. Of course Das Kapital is just a book to you...

4. I don't understand this point, what is the main idea here? 

1. Meh.  I could have used it or not.  I don't think I used it for any other reason than clarifying the obvious.
2. I already addressed the crux of this point when I talked about the inherent prescriptiveness of Hitler's book.  This doesn't change my mind on that.
3. Yes so we really can't discuss it productively.
4. I don't hate Christianity because the oppressor was holding a bible.  It's a set of philosophies and ideas like Das Kapital.  I have to make the point again but the other book says something different: "Get rid of this culture and kill its members and your problems are all solved"

[Contrarian]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes so we really can't discuss it productively.

 

Yes, but on other topics, absolutely. 👍

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Do you think marginalized men (I've never heard him referring to simply white men) are not perhaps encouraged to be less whiny and to take responsibility by listening to his advice?

No, because he's stating the obvious and packaging it in pseudo-profound but totally clichéd self-help.  You don't need Jordan Peterson to tell you to eat healthy, stay in shape, show ambition and follow through on it.  You don't need Jordan Peterson to teach you to be stronk assertive man, and even less to get this advice on how to interact with women.  

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

He's not incorrect about the problems faced by young men and boys, who increasingly perform less well, academically, than young women and girls. He's also not wrong in trying to tell them how to do better.

No, but that's the problem with pinning down Jordan Peterson's long-winded and confusing writing.  He takes a bunch of common-sense truisms that everyone would agree on, but then mixes them with a sprinkle of angry and populist sloganeering, which is what his audience is actually interested in.  Self-help gurus for young men and boys are a dime-a- dozen.  The only reason that Peterson stands out is because he's riding the wave of anxiety that follows his audience everywhere.  

[Zeitgeist]

6 hours ago, Moonbox said:

No, because he's stating the obvious and packaging it in pseudo-profound but totally clichéd self-help.  You don't need Jordan Peterson to tell you to eat healthy, stay in shape, show ambition and follow through on it.  You don't need Jordan Peterson to teach you to be stronk assertive man, and even less to get this advice on how to interact with women.  

No, but that's the problem with pinning down Jordan Peterson's long-winded and confusing writing.  He takes a bunch of common-sense truisms that everyone would agree on, but then mixes them with a sprinkle of angry and populist sloganeering, which is what his audience is actually interested in.  Self-help gurus for young men and boys are a dime-a- dozen.  The only reason that Peterson stands out is because he's riding the wave of anxiety that follows his audience everywhere.  

The reason Peterson is significant is that he makes the case for values that are ridiculed today as somehow harmful when they are actually the order of things. Joseph Campbell, Northrop Frye, and Marshall McLuhan would appreciate his references to the cultural envelope of Western Culture which gets much of its force from the types and archetypes of the Great Code and the greatest ancient texts, from Homer through Aeschylus through Ovid and the Bible through Dante and Milton and so on.  They inform our very sense of meaning.

He has an understanding of the nature gods and myths that inform our cultural identities.  Setting all of this aflame like with the recklessness of the French Revolutionary is what we’re witnessing in real time today. We’ve been here before.  It’s another Inquisition.  Few are strong, sharp, or brave enough to stand up to the ignorant radicals who don’t understand how stupid they’re being because they have no understanding of the historical and philosophical underpinnings of their society.

University is supposed to set us straight on the shallowness and ineptitude of mainstream culture so that we can create the excellence that Rilke’s Torso of Apollo calls forth from any discerning person insightful enough to pay attention: “You must change your life.”

There aren’t many media voices reminding us of what makes life meaningful.

Edited February 8 by Zeitgeist

[Moonbox]

10 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The reason Peterson is significant is that he makes the case for values that are ridiculed today as somehow harmful when they are actually the order of things.

The only reason Jordan Peterson is significant is that his fans elevate him to a stature far beyond what his credentials deserve, and that's only because he's telling them what they want him to hear.  HIs characterization of the "natural order of things" is absurd and he's mocked around the globe as the "Lobster King" by academics who actually know things about those topics.  That's another problem with Peterson - his willingness to wade in and promote conclusions on topics for which he knows little/nothing.  

10 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Joseph Campbell, Northrop Frye, and Marshall McLuhan would appreciate his references to the cultural envelope of Western Culture which gets much of its force from the types and archetypes of the Great Code and the greatest ancient texts, from Homer through Aeschylus through Ovid and the Bible through Dante and Milton and so on.  They inform our very sense of meaning.

Jordan Peterson would approve this sort of pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook.  Have you read any of these books?  Honestly?  That question is just for you.  You don't actually have to answer.  

As for the "natural order of things", the contradiction he's making is self-evident.  Winners are winners, and losers are losers.  The richest and most successful people in the world are white dudes.  The fact that all the poor incels and disenfranchised young white men who follow Peterson is merely evidence of their beta status...if we're to follow his logic.  

10 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

University is supposed to set us straight on the shallowness and ineptitude of mainstream culture so that we can create the excellence that Rilke’s Torso of Apollo calls forth from any discerning person insightful enough to pay attention: “You must change your life.”

University is supposed to make us better critical and evidence-based thinkers.  

Edited February 8 by Moonbox

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

The only reason Jordan Peterson is significant is that his fans elevate him to a stature far beyond what his credentials deserve, and that's only because he's telling them what they want him to hear.  HIs characterization of the "natural order of things" is absurd and he's mocked around the globe as the "Lobster King" by academics who actually know things about those topics.  That's another problem with Peterson - his willingness to wade in and promote conclusions on topics for which he knows little/nothing.  

Jordan Peterson would approve this sort of pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook.  Have you read any of these books?  Honestly?  That question is just for you.  You don't actually have to answer.  

As for the "natural order of things", the contradiction he's making is self-evident.  Winners are winners, and losers are losers.  The richest and most successful people in the world are white dudes.  The fact that all the poor incels and disenfranchised young white men who follow Peterson is merely evidence of their beta status...if we're to follow his logic.  

University is supposed to make us better critical and evidence-based thinkers.  

Very well said...

Peterson is such an intellectual nullity that podcaster Joe Rogan tripped him up on this "incel" point.  If incels are the "losers" why is Peterson championing them or does he even care ?  They're not reproducing by definition so they're evolutionary trail mix right ?

[Zeitgeist]

4 hours ago, Moonbox said:

The only reason Jordan Peterson is significant is that his fans elevate him to a stature far beyond what his credentials deserve, and that's only because he's telling them what they want him to hear.  HIs characterization of the "natural order of things" is absurd and he's mocked around the globe as the "Lobster King" by academics who actually know things about those topics.  That's another problem with Peterson - his willingness to wade in and promote conclusions on topics for which he knows little/nothing.  

Jordan Peterson would approve this sort of pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook.  Have you read any of these books?  Honestly?  That question is just for you.  You don't actually have to answer.  

As for the "natural order of things", the contradiction he's making is self-evident.  Winners are winners, and losers are losers.  The richest and most successful people in the world are white dudes.  The fact that all the poor incels and disenfranchised young white men who follow Peterson is merely evidence of their beta status...if we're to follow his logic.  

University is supposed to make us better critical and evidence-based thinkers.  

Yes I have read them.  You’re revealing the shallowness of your knowledge.  It’s not that there aren’t many other great thinkers out there like Peterson, it’s that few of them can make these ideas understandable to the general public and few will risk their status within academia or established media outlets.  He’s not uniquely heroic, but there are very few intellectuals bothering to take on the political factions that are compromising democracy and academic freedom.

Perhaps you think you’re admirable by repeating the mindless acceptance of so much cultural and political stupidity.  That’s how I see you, Hardner, and several other apologists for poor governance.  It’s not about Peterson, populism, or other figures you cast as demons, whether Trump or Poilievre.  It’s the refusal to see the giant log in the eye of our current government and organizational cultures.  Most Canadians sense this brokenness but few can articulate the pseudoscience and confusing dominant narratives that are making life harder generally.

Bravery and honesty are the exception it seems.  I don’t think they’ve been this exceptional in a long time.

You clearly buy into the idea that people are better or worse based on superficial group identifiers like skin colour.  You don’t see the repugnance of that outlook. Nevertheless you’re not alone and only contempt and division will result from your attitude.

Hardner, your Social Darwinist attitude towards those who are struggling is disgusting.  You think this outlook will heal the West and end the culture wars?   You’ve lost the plot.  

Edited February 8 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. it’s that few of them can make these ideas understandable to the general public and few will risk their status within academia or established media outlets.

2. He’s not uniquely heroic, but there are very few intellectuals bothering to take on the political factions that are compromising democracy and academic freedom.

3. That’s how I see you, Hardner, and several other apologists for poor governance.  ... It’s the refusal to see the giant log in the eye of our current government and organizational cultures.  Most Canadians sense this brokenness but few can articulate the pseudoscience and confusing dominant narratives that are making life harder generally.

4. Hardner, your Social Darwinist attitude towards those who are struggling is disgusting.  You think this outlook will heal the West and end the culture wars?   You’ve lost the plot.  

1. You have hit on the key virtue of JP and the one reason I followed him and was hopeful.  The idea of the "public intellectual" disappeared and few will explain concepts, even badly, to "the" public anymore.
2. Agree 100%.
3. I am very cynical about the Liberals abuse of public ignorance to remain in power.  However, until "the" public is able to pay attention we don't have enough choices.  I think Moonbox likely is close to this as well.  

Believe me I would jump on "good enough" as a flavour and Doug Ford is inching into a zone where he can play the populism card while making real changes.  He's shown himself to be electable, at least, unlike the TPP and other populist carnival barkers.

4. I have no idea what I say that makes you say that.  I suspect you are projecting, just like the crowd of clowns who proclaim that I "love Trudeau" but there's a giant treat in store for you if you can find an example that would make me eat crow.  So find a link, and I will explain myself and very possibly apologize ... 
 

[Zeitgeist]

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You have hit on the key virtue of JP and the one reason I followed him and was hopeful.  The idea of the "public intellectual" disappeared and few will explain concepts, even badly, to "the" public anymore.
2. Agree 100%.
3. I am very cynical about the Liberals abuse of public ignorance to remain in power.  However, until "the" public is able to pay attention we don't have enough choices.  I think Moonbox likely is close to this as well.  

Believe me I would jump on "good enough" as a flavour and Doug Ford is inching into a zone where he can play the populism card while making real changes.  He's shown himself to be electable, at least, unlike the TPP and other populist carnival barkers.

4. I have no idea what I say that makes you say that.  I suspect you are projecting, just like the crowd of clowns who proclaim that I "love Trudeau" but there's a giant treat in store for you if you can find an example that would make me eat crow.  So find a link, and I will explain myself and very possibly apologize ... 
 

You said this with reference to “incels” and Moonbox said something similar with regard to “white losers”:

”They're not reproducing by definition so they're evolutionary trail mix right ?”

You don’t seem to understand that the value someone like Peterson brings, apart from his cultural criticism, is in the attempt to identify and fix the crises that are reducing men’s participation in higher education and many fields below 50%.  He raises important points about the fact that men value themselves by what they do and aren’t respected for taking on the caregiving role that removes many women from the workforce temporarily following pregnancy.  Affirmative action doesn’t account for these differences, scoffing at biological facts and tendencies. Men are indeed falling apart and society at large pays the price.

Very few commentators are calling out reckless ideas like affirming a child’s non-biological gender preference when it may be temporary.  If children’s temporary preferences were affirmed on most matters, there would be no education or transference of values, healthy adaptive behaviours such as being on time, reading, being responsible, etc.

Foolish experimentation is underway in a range of categories, from euthanasia to hard drug use to gender reassignment surgery and ascribing pronouns that are basically biological lies.  Who is calling out these destabilizing moves?   I haven’t even mentioned the resegregation underway with race-based identity politics, top-down central planning by international elites, the list goes on.  What about the proxy war distraction we’re funding during a cost of living crisis?

These are the issues today.  One party doesn’t own these issues because it’s not really about left versus right, or rather, the “progressive” left is now the overreaching establishment compromising rights, security, and affordability.

Only leaders who provide opportunity and freedom for all are worth our time.  Most current political leaders are great at self-preservation but the current left are champagne socialists who use identity politics and overseas threats as distractions from the pressing issues of our time: affordability, freedom, opportunity, merit, energy security…

Edited February 8 by Zeitgeist