Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "Jordan Peterson: The fatal flaw in leftist American politics | Big Think" video.

  1. LOL! Kilgore Trout: JBP is discredited because he's not an indoctrinated postmodernist. You guys come up with the same lies and then cite each others' papers to create a false sense of peer-reviewed solidarity, when everything out of your mouth flies in the face of what the science is actually telling us. You're so indoctrinated that anything against your doctrine is easily dismissed by the very pseudoscientific claptrap you've adopted as your religion.
    20
  2. Failures of free market capitalism are the false scapegoat. The exact same thing you deride in corporatism and fascism in OUR system represent the extent to which we are NOT free-market capitalism. And JBP is one of the few people out there saying Real Liberals OPPOSE big government. That's why I'M a libertarian and consider myself a classical liberal; whereas, so-called liberals, like you, never found a single issue that bigger, more powerful and more intrusive government couldn't solve. If you're really speaking truth to power, ask yourself why you're on the side that wants government bureaucrats and legislators controlling everything. You not only believe the collective is important, but you reject the individual, entirely, and your world view is sadly out-of-balance on the tightrope we ALL walk between order and chaos.
    12
  3. Riley Kierath: Yes. "But I'm smarter!" is no longer an argument. Kilgore Trout's just exposing his own ignorance and echo-chamber thinking. I haven't seen one refutation of a single JBP claim, but I see many mischaracterizations of JBP's positions that can only come out of a fact bank restricted to reading only his critics. It's like a "Master Plots" version of English Literature. It's an "I read a couple abstracts" argument about data collection.
    12
  4. LOL! Yes. Wikipedia is totally unbiased. (Joke) Your word salad allows you to ignore the best data-driven science in behavioral, biological and social sciences.
    10
  5. Modern SJWs are fighting battles in wars that were already won, decades ago. Is society perfect? No. But is equal protection guaranteed by law? Yes. If anything, our current "advanced state" should have us asking whether Affirmative Action actually works, and whether we still need it in force. I think it should be abolished. It's generally destructive to have ANY kind of racial or gender criteria for hiring and promoting. It gives us all the problems associated with White Patriarchy, only with somebody else deciding the hierarchy. The left rail against hierarchy and then promote their own arbitrary hierarchy in its place. It's ridiculous. It's internally inconsistent reasoning. It's how slaves rule over slavemasters. It's just as ignorant and just as destructive. Worse, the only way to enforce the new order is with exactly the kinds of laws that put more power in the hands of the state than ever before. Every time. You're the closet aristocrats. You're the closeted elitists. You're just trying to re-define things so a different group gets preferred by law, not more than a half-century after everybody decided that shit was a bad idea.
    5
  6. Anti-life. A bunch of people volunteering for jobs as Terminator robots.
    4
  7. Kilgore Trout: So, without actually denying the Gulag Archipelago, you deny the Gulag Archipelago.
    4
  8. That's a very alluring argument on the surface, HeyLena. But diversity for diversity's sake is destructive. Hatred and de-platforming of whites is destructive. Using the tactics of the most murderous political systems in history is unlikely to lead to the kinds of good outcomes you think. I applaud your intention. I just think your expertise in real remedies is uninformed by fact and history.
    4
  9. oleharris: The point you're missing is that Stalin was justified by an ideology that is - at its philosophical roots - ultimately dehumanizing and subsumes the individual to the demands of the mob.
    3
  10. This is true, stuffums, although I would argue that in countries like ours that are not openly socialist, the expression of collectivist thinking in the economic-political system is essentially fascist, with dicta handed down by executives and bureaucrats that make distinctions between individuals according to absolutely hateful and bigoted distinctions r skin color, ethnicity and political persuasion. The left believe that they get a free pass on racism, because they're "good" racists and the people they attack are obviously "bad" people.
    3
  11. Egalitarian principles are ROOTED in rights of the individual, but are sadly twisted and distorted by a slavish adherence to equal outcomes in contravention of everything we know about distributions in nature. No matter the rule set, you always have a fraction of winners, a fraction of losers, and a TINY fraction that succeeds out of all proportion to the rest. Is Joe Rogan a white supremacist, because his website is wildly successful? Is his being better at vlogging than everybody else because he's a racist and part of the patriarchy, or is he just the hardest-working interviewer in the business, riding the crest of a wave of open-format, deeply nuanced and informative conversations? Postmodernist fascists would shut Joe Rogan down as an exploiter, by the mere fact of his success.
    3
  12. I dunno, Paul. To my eye, we're looking at a red-pill awakening by a growing fraction of a once-captive segment of society, and the hysterical sky-is-falling reaction by the still-captive, still-indoctrinated, still-brainwashed so-called liberal left is creating a short-term period of bitterness and hate. Their nice little utopia is breaking down, because people see that the more they listen to them, the worse things get. And when I cruise YouTube, I keep stumbling across more and more people of color who actually GET IT. They're not just haters. They actually understand what's going on, and are listening to (and sharing with one another) the best minds on the Classical Liberal side, like Jordan Peterson and Thomas Sowell. It's an awakening. And the education our kids have been denied in public schools is all there for the taking on the Internet, for instance, asshat teachers giving instructional videos away for free: http://www.harryzaims.com/ Don't like the way I lay it down? Khan Academy. Don't like Khan? There're a million other places to get the knowledge, if you want it.
    2
  13. iii: What you don't understand is that the groups you place ABOVE individuals are no better than the character of the individual members. YOU don't suddenly become a math whiz, because your teacher put you in a group with a genius geek. But in modern education, that's enough to get a passing grade, with your INDIVIDUAL competence in the discipline is subsumed into your ability to work well with others and copy the smart kid's work. When your worship of arbitrary distinctions between groups becomes paramount, the system you create can not account for, nor respect, the individuals within your arbitrary groups, and it ends up crushing everybody, except maybe the technocrats and bureaucrats calling the shots in a new form of aristocracy that ALWAYS ends up dominating everybody. Modern-day liberals, in their love and worship of the BORG, reject the values that filled their bellies and allows them to dissent in the first place. They don't even realize it, but they're taking us BACK to the days when all wisdom and power was in the hands of the local warlord, and the people get the stick. Yes, there were always socialists associated with getting the worker a more just share of the pie. But all the workers wanted was fairness, and a fair wage for a fair day's work, commensurate with the value provided by the worker. What neither the socialists nor the working class understood was they were NOT under free-market capitalism, but under an essentially fascist hierarchy, where the robber baron OWNED the local government and was aided and abetted in their misbehavior by fascists. They just don't understand that replacing fascists by socialists is just another recipe for the same entrée. It's not the capitalism that was corrupt. It was having the local law enforcement and city council in the hip pockets of the local robber baron. You REALLY fight the robber baron by offering competitive alternatives, and choosing to buy from somebody else. The left, rather than seeking to open up competition, always subvert their own cause by asking for MORE government interference. This just ensures that the robber baron stays in business, as long as he follows the new rule set. What people MISS is that the new rule set inhibits new competition, because only the existing big boys have the resources to follow the new regs. What people MISS is that the robber barons go from BREAKING THE LAW to ensure their pre-eminence, to having the law on their SIDE, when the regulations - written BY the robber baron - somehow only keep new competition from rising.
    2
  14. HeyLena: You bring up a good point. Change can be good. In nature, most changes are bad and quickly eliminated, because they don't work as well as the original. Also, change means that individuals who WERE flourishing may no longer flourish, so anyone making conscious change to the political system better be damn sure they're right, and have more than speculation and pseudoscience backing their proposed remedies. As for the whole gay marriage thing, we haven't even stopped and asked ourselves why marriage became an institution in the first place. It was probably invented by the collective to keep a lid on unwanted and unaffordable new members being created and needing to be provided for. If you have a male-female tag team, and both appear to be competent, then their offspring generally have a good chance of surviving and not dragging down the tribe with them, or just causing the tribe to incur extra costs. Say what you will about what went before, but the reason it became tradition is because is SUCCEEDED and was passed on as a trait/behavior to the following generation. If it's sustainable, it persists. So when you poke holes in an institution like that, you better have a pretty good idea of exactly what you're replacing it with, or you're going to create negative feedback systems that can grow out of control and put the tribe at a disadvantage in some fashion. So the collective decided to put the brakes on adolescent lust, but give advantage to those who did decide to marry and have children. As a strict individualist, I'm not sure I like the state getting that involved, but it's the tradition, and it's all about making and supporting more children, essentially for the purposes of the state. Still, I do think it's a decent idea to enable an individual to confer "family" status to their family, intentional or biological. A gay couple who cohabitate and split the family chores like a family for 20 years, then it's only common sense that benefits similar/identical to those accruing to the surviving spouse of the breadwinner in a hetero couple. But I still question whether in an advanced civilized society that the government should need to put its imprimatur on ANY family arrangement. If you want to partner up, then plan accordingly. If you want babies, then that's your choice, unequivocally, and it's nobody else's say whether they're yours by blood or by adoption. But you chose to make them or adopt them, and your choice to do so doesn't entitle you to the money from other families. That's the thing. No say on how you run it, but in return, it's up to you to make it work. With paternity tests removing all doubt, I don't see why we need marriage as an institution. We can hold the baby-makers strictly accountable for their responsibilities quite easily. Maybe better. How many cucks are bound by law to raise up some other SOB's babies, because a married woman fooled around? I want more babies raised by parents who planned for them and cherish them and who KNOW it's a sacrifice. I want zero babies from teen-age girls who only had them because the government would set them up in a household of their own, as an escape from the welfare mom and all the boyfriends that she had to grow up being victimized by. Now I know we'll never have a perfect world, and I shore wouldn't throw away a living baby. But I shore would like there to be a system that didn't incentivize negative behavior, and in my lifetime, those are the only remedies Democrats have offered, and we know the results.
    2
  15. I like the way you totally discredit Jordan Peterson inside of half a minute. Let me guess, you decided Isaac Newton was full of shit after reading the introduction just inside the cover of your first calculus book, in the certain knowledge that you would have far better understanding of reality and the world around you by majoring in gender studies.
    2
  16. TheCausation: Yes. I agree. Sargon's a refreshing layman, with a fairly quick wit. But he's not any kind of serious scholar. At least he's smart enough to pick up on a lot of the more blatant lunacy.
    1
  17. No. They're rational. They're just very very stupid and willfully ignorant of history and human nature.
    1
  18. Everybody is special. Everybody is unique. Now shut up. You're white and so you don't understand.
    1