The fatal flaw in leftist American politics

[Grim17]

I would respectfully like to ask a favor of those who are contemplating a response. Please watch the entirety of the video and respond to what was said on it, rather than simply ignoring the content and launching a personal attack on Jordan Peterson, or bashing Donald Trump.

The deterioration of civil political discourse in recent years has rendered serious political and ideological discussion a rarity. We need to have discussions about issues such as the one I'm trying to start here, and it can't happen as long there are closed minded people who use insults and personal attacks in an effort to prevent any intelligent discussion from taking place.

Thank you.

************************************************** **********************************

Don't let the title fool you. This video is not a "Bash the left" tirade, but rather an observation of how individuals on both sides of the political spectrum have dealt with, or not dealt with, the radical elements that side with their political leanings. Peterson also expresses his opinion on the flaws that both sides possess, and his reasoning behind those opinions. There is also another element to this not presented in this video that I might bring up later, depending on the direction the conversation takes.



.

 

[Winston]

1:50 Peterson says, "You couldn't be conscious and thinking and be pro-Marxist"

I would say, you can't be conscious and thinking and be pro-Trump:



Trump appeals to the White identity and you can see how the dog-whistles or fog-horns stoke white anger in that video.^

3:38 Peterson says, I think we've identified on the right, people who have gone too far in their ideological presuppositions. Yeah, if that were true you would name and blame Donald Trump.

4:45 He says, "We don't know what the markers are for going too far on the left." He says this meaningfully, meaning the left is abdicating its duty to reign in radicals.

Well, here's the thing. What is he talking about? I hear people call Bernie Sanders a radical. He's not a radical. He's a peaceful man who wants to bring change to the country's policy through the given method to effect change: democracy. What's radical about that? Also, his policy menu is centrist in most of the world. Including his most popular position: medicare for all. If you were to campaign in a country that had single-payer healthcare.. if you were to campaign on a platform of privatizing healthcare, you would be considered a fringe candidate with an outlandish idea. So, it's not radical ideologically. And it's not radical in terms of being in danger of a violent uprising.

Peterson then goes on to wag the finger at equality of outcome, but, he has also advocated for enforced monogamy.

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-context-of-jordan-petersons-thoughts-on-enforced-monogamy/

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Peterson said of the alleged Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

How can a man who is telling cautionary tales of equality of outcome, also advocate for equality of outcome in sex?

 

[Cardinal]

The deterioration of civil political discourse in recent years has rendered serious political and ideological discussion a rarity.

 

[Winston]

View attachment 67239487

Literally the first thing I thought of when Grim expressed his concern that political discourse has deteriorated.

 

[PLizzy]

Where does he get the idea that people on the left are not called radicals by their opponents? For years and years, conservative activists in media have been calling anyone and everyone that disagrees with them socialists, radicals, far-left, and even Marxists.

Peterson seems to live in this bog where people that are extremists on the left are necessarily "Marxists", as if extremism on either side is rooted in dead political doctrines on the same side of the spectrum. He further illustrates this clunky thinking by claiming that the alleged "marker" for extremism on the right are ideals of racial superiority.

Peterson wants the worlds morality and political paradigms to be wrapped-up in neat little packages, where the most dangerous ideas are easy to spot with alleged markers. Well, that's how the real world is ever going to work. Whether we like it or not, there's not some rule book that guides us on what ideals are dangerous.

Incredibly lazy thinking for an alleged intellectual.

 

[PLizzy]

Literally the first thing I thought of when Grim expressed his concern that political discourse has deteriorated.

I've noticed that for all the "F your feelings!" tough guy stuff on the right, the conservatives in this country have become unable to see any dissent from their ideology or leadership as being anything other than a personal attack

 

[Winston]

I've noticed that for all the "F your feelings!" tough guy stuff on the right, the conservatives in this country have become unable to see any dissent from their ideology or leadership as being anything other than a personal attack

It'd be nice if for once they did put facts over feelings.

 

[distraff]

I would respectfully like to ask a favor of those who are contemplating a response. Please watch the entirety of the video and respond to what was said on it, rather than simply ignoring the content and launching a personal attack on Jordan Peterson, or bashing Donald Trump.

The deterioration of civil political discourse in recent years has rendered serious political and ideological discussion a rarity. We need to have discussions about issues such as the one I'm trying to start here, and it can't happen as long there are closed minded people who use insults and personal attacks in an effort to prevent any intelligent discussion from taking place.

Thank you.

************************************************** **********************************

Don't let the title fool you. This video is not a "Bash the left" tirade, but rather an observation of how individuals on both sides of the political spectrum have dealt with, or not dealt with, the radical elements that side with their political leanings. Peterson also expresses his opinion on the flaws that both sides possess, and his reasoning behind those opinions. There is also another element to this not presented in this video that I might bring up later, depending on the direction the conversation takes.



.

Here are the premises of the left:
1. The purpose of the government, economy, and nation is to enrich the middle class, workers, and common people who make up 99% of the country. The top 1% are doing just fine and don't need any help.
2. The free market while generally a positive force very often fails to do this and will often help the rich and powerful at the top who run the economy rather than the workers at the bottom.
3. With increases in technology, human jobs are being replaced with machines and will create economies of scale that benefit big corporations over small ones. Technology is also increasing the challenges and problems for the economy that requires regulation. It also gives more disposable income to the economy to help people at the bottom.
4. Therefore we need a government that regulates the free market to ensure that the workers aren't being ripped off, the dangers of technology are being regulated, wealth are being redistributed to the middle class to make up for machines taking human jobs and increasing income inequality, and we can help the very poorest out of compassion if we can afford it.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I would respectfully like to ask a favor of those who are contemplating a response. Please watch the entirety of the video and respond to what was said on it, rather than simply ignoring the content and launching a personal attack on Jordan Peterson, or bashing Donald Trump.

The deterioration of civil political discourse in recent years has rendered serious political and ideological discussion a rarity. We need to have discussions about issues such as the one I'm trying to start here, and it can't happen as long there are closed minded people who use insults and personal attacks in an effort to prevent any intelligent discussion from taking place.

Thank you.

************************************************** **********************************

Don't let the title fool you. This video is not a "Bash the left" tirade, but rather an observation of how individuals on both sides of the political spectrum have dealt with, or not dealt with, the radical elements that side with their political leanings. Peterson also expresses his opinion on the flaws that both sides possess, and his reasoning behind those opinions. There is also another element to this not presented in this video that I might bring up later, depending on the direction the conversation takes.



.

Here's your god.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGtaBD-FCLo

 

[Grim17]

Where does he get the idea that people on the left are not called radicals by their opponents?

That isn't what he said at all... Not even close.

He said that the people on the extreme left are not called out for being radicals by the people on the rational, main stream left.

For years and years, conservative activists in media have been calling anyone and everyone that disagrees with them socialists, radicals, far-left, and even Marxists.

That isn't the issue here.

Peterson wants the worlds morality and political paradigms to be wrapped-up in neat little packages, where the most dangerous ideas are easy to spot with alleged markers. Well, that's how the real world is ever going to work. Whether we like it or not, there's not some rule book that guides us on what ideals are dangerous.

His point was clear, but you failed to even address it.

There are radical elements on both sides of the spectrum and what he has observed, as have I, is that the left hasn't drawn a line in the sand and separated themselves from those on their side of the spectrum who embrace radical and quite frankly, dangerous views.

A good example of that came last week when a host on CNN defended ANTIFA. If there were ever a group of people that the left should outright condemn and separate themselves from, it would be ANTIFA. I hear some on the left occasionally condemn their violence, but they never draw that line in the sand and say their radical views are not welcome.

.

 

[Grim17]

Just a side note.... I asked if we could have a serious discussion and to please refrain from personal attacks and Trump bashing.

I really thought that people might for once, respect the topic and not attempt to stifle discussion. It saddens me that there are those who seem incapable of this.

 

[Winston]

That isn't what he said at all... Not even close.

A good example of that came last week when a host on CNN defended ANTIFA. If there were ever a group of people that the left should outright condemn and separate themselves from, it would be ANTIFA. I hear some on the left occasionally condemn their violence, but they never draw that line in the sand and say their radical views are not welcome.

.

ANTIFA is not a part of the mainstream left, not even a little bit. Also, ANTIFA was a response to the Trump supporters screaming **** Islam, **** Beaners, and **** Niggers. You don't think Trump supporters screamed those racial slurs? Watch the video I posted in #2.

 

[Grim17]

ANTIFA is not a part of the mainstream left, not even a little bit.

So you disagree with his point and believe that the left has denounced ANTIFA and separated themselves from their violence and radical beliefs?

.

 

[PLizzy]

That isn't what he said at all... Not even close.

He said that the people on the extreme left are not called out for being radicals by the people on the rational, main stream left.

That might have something to do with the fact that when the right slams everyone as being a "RADICAL!", others begin to ignore the charge as nothing other than an attempt by people on the right to stifle ideas they are unable to interact with - like the right claims we do.

That isn't the issue here.

It's completely relevant to the conversation.

There are radical elements on both sides of the spectrum and what he has observed, as have I, is that the left hasn't drawn a line in the sand and separated themselves from those on their side of the spectrum who embrace radical and quite frankly, dangerous views.

Again, when you call every thinker on the left a radical the accusation eventually gets generically ignored, and nobody bothers to look for them.

Seriously, they called Clinton a radical, they called Obama a radical, they called Sanders a radical, and now when they accuse people like Cortez of it nobody outside of the right takes it seriously.

Actions have some consequences.

A good example of that came last week when a host on CNN defended ANTIFA. If there were ever a group of people that the left should outright condemn and separate themselves from, it would be ANTIFA. I hear some on the left occasionally condemn their violence, but they never draw that line in the sand and say their radical views are not welcome.

We have condemned ANTIFA's violence.

They aren't radicals anyways, they're just violent thugs - like the Nazi's.

 

[Winston]

So you disagree with his point and believe that the left has denounced ANTIFA and separated themselves from their violence and radical beliefs?

.

Yes, I also don't think ANTIFA has any left-wing political objectives. You know who did? SDS and the Weathermen. The right is trying desperately to demonize the left as some radical movement. But, they can't even look far enough back to the 1970's when the left in this country bombed buildings.

However, we have yet to hear republicans divorce themselves from the man who couldn't even name and shame white supremacy in Charlottesville.

 

[PLizzy]

Just a side note.... I asked if we could have a serious discussion and to please refrain from personal attacks and Trump bashing.

I really thought that people might for once, respect the topic and not attempt to stifle discussion. It saddens me that there are those who seem incapable of this.

You don't get to set the parameters of debate to be so narrow, as to stifle examples and points that undermine your narrative.

Be glad anyone bothered to participate. Most people don't normally care to interact with an 'argument by video' thread, where what was said in the video is disputed due to the lack of direct quotes.

 

[Winston]

Just a side note.... I asked if we could have a serious discussion and to please refrain from personal attacks and Trump bashing.

I really thought that people might for once, respect the topic and not attempt to stifle discussion. It saddens me that there are those who seem incapable of this.

Forbidding Trump bashing in a thread about identifying radical elements within your political ideology.

Do you also forbid gravy with mashed potatoes?

 

[Grim17]

That might have something to do with the fact that when the right slams everyone as being a "RADICAL!", others begin to ignore the charge as nothing other than an attempt by people on the right to stifle ideas they are unable to interact with - like the right claims we do.

The left engages in the same behavior calling anyone who opposes their policy beliefs as racists, bigots, homophobes, etc... but that does not stop those on the right from condemning the racist radicals on the extreme right, and excluding them from political discussion. You won't find and conservative intellectuals that embrace them or espouse their beliefs.

We have condemned ANTIFA's violence.

They aren't radicals anyways, they're just violent thugs - like the Nazi's.

I already conceded that some have condemned their violence, but what you haven't done is condemn them as a group. On the occasion that ANTIFA isn't violent, or at least there's no video of it, their protests are embraced fully by the left.

When racists organize a protest, you don't see anyone on the right ever embracing them or anything they have to say. The recent protests organised by racists in DC and Charlottsville attest to this.

.

 

[Grim17]

You don't get to set the parameters of debate to be so narrow, as to stifle examples and points that undermine your narrative.

Be glad anyone bothered to participate. Most people don't normally care to interact with an 'argument by video' thread, where what was said in the video is disputed due to the lack of direct quotes.

I'm sorry that you find my asking for a civil, intelligent discussion of the topic, that's free from personal attacks and attempts to silence the discussion, an unreasonable request.

.

 

[Cordelier]

I would respectfully like to ask a favor of those who are contemplating a response. Please watch the entirety of the video and respond to what was said on it, rather than simply ignoring the content and launching a personal attack on Jordan Peterson, or bashing Donald Trump.

The deterioration of civil political discourse in recent years has rendered serious political and ideological discussion a rarity. We need to have discussions about issues such as the one I'm trying to start here, and it can't happen as long there are closed minded people who use insults and personal attacks in an effort to prevent any intelligent discussion from taking place.

Thank you.

************************************************** **********************************

Don't let the title fool you. This video is not a "Bash the left" tirade, but rather an observation of how individuals on both sides of the political spectrum have dealt with, or not dealt with, the radical elements that side with their political leanings. Peterson also expresses his opinion on the flaws that both sides possess, and his reasoning behind those opinions. There is also another element to this not presented in this video that I might bring up later, depending on the direction the conversation takes.

I didn't watch the video, but I'll take up your invitation to engage in a dialogue on the matter of radical politics. I think any radical - be they left or right - is, by definition, a purist. They're convinced that their way is the only way and there's no room for compromise whatsoever. That's fair, if that's what someone wants to believe... but from my perspective, the perfect will always be the enemy of the good. Every "purist" in history has always turned out to be a monster... be they Robespierre, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or whoever else you want to mention.

The only way to ever get anything done in a democracy is to sit down and negotiate in good faith with the other side. Sometimes you win some, sometimes you lose. It's always got to be a give and take. Compromise shouldn't ever be a dirty word.

Unfortunately, though, that kind of attitude isn't going to win you many primaries... and that's why we keep ending up with sub-par Presidents - in both parties.

 

[Grim17]

Forbidding Trump bashing in a thread about identifying radical elements within your political ideology.

That's because I'm not a fan, or supporter of Donald Trump and don't want this serious issue to devolve into another Trump bashing thread. We have hundreds, if not thousands of those on this forum.

Trump does not represent conservatism, he is an oddity that ran under the republican banner and only won the presidency because he was seen as a better alternative than Hillary Clinton.

.

 

[Grim17]

I didn't watch the video, but I'll take up your invitation to engage in a dialogue on the matter of radical politics. I think any radical - be they left or right - is, by definition, a purist. They're convinced that their way is the only way and there's no room for compromise whatsoever. That's fair, if that's what someone wants to believe... but from my perspective, the perfect will always be the enemy of the good. Every "purist" in history has always turned out to be a monster... be they Robespierre, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or whoever else you want to mention.

The only way to ever get anything done in a democracy is to sit down and negotiate in good faith with the other side. Sometimes you win some, sometimes you lose. It's always got to be a give and take. Compromise shouldn't ever be a dirty word.

Unfortunately, though, that kind of attitude isn't going to win you many primaries... and that's why we keep ending up with sub-par Presidents - in both parties.

Since you couldn't spare 10 minutes to watch the video, we have nothing to discuss.

.

 

[Winston]

That's because I'm not a fan, or supporter of Donald Trump and don't want this serious issue to devolve into another Trump bashing thread. We have hundreds, if not thousands of those on this forum.

Trump does not represent conservatism, he is an oddity that ran under the republican banner and only won the presidency because he was seen as a better alternative than Hillary Clinton.

.

Well, I'm glad you acknowledge that. I thought you were a Trump supporter.

 

[Cordelier]

Since you couldn't spare 10 minutes to watch the video, we have nothing to discuss.

.

Fair enough... but the bottom line is that the fatal flaw of the leftists is the same fatal flaw of the rightists... perfectionism.

 

[Cardinal]

You don't get to set the parameters of debate to be so narrow, as to stifle examples and points that undermine your narrative.

Be glad anyone bothered to participate. Most people don't normally care to interact with an 'argument by video' thread, where what was said in the video is disputed due to the lack of direct quotes.

You clicked on the video? You're more generous than me.