Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Talking with Russians | Mikhail Avdeev | EP 217" video.

@wandadelange1322 Cambridge was wrong, and inexplicable. A stain on them, on freedom of speech principles, certainly.
3
What poor treatment do you refer to? The Canadian government didn't do anything to him, and he was a full professor at University of Toronto for as long as he wanted to be. Cambridge rescinded a fellowship, which was bogus, but that's in the UK. It had nothing to do with Canada.
2
@glendawarn6927 At least one politician opposed that bill after speaking with Dr. Peterson. The press is, well, the press. :(
2
@DP-ym4dg It's shocking to read this, isn't it. Collective guilt? Are those newcomers who put down roots in California usurpers of Mexican land? Are all Europeans in America guilty of mass incarceration? Are all Americans guilty for Guantanamo? Even Michael Ratner? We forget how disturbed some people are, and how they are praised for it in the US (as are drug users, and gurus, and followers of gurus, etc.). No wonder "they" have dropped the most bombs on the rest of humanity, and cannot name the places they've bombed. (But who is "they?" Not a simple question, is it? The ardent bombers and those ignorant of the bombs are not the same.)
1
If you are denouncing your family members, who are not here to defend themselves, under your true name, on this medium, then you are correct that you do need psychological treatment. You'd have to threaten my life to get me to do that. No one could persuade me to do it for cheap approval. Or, say, dirty money.
1
@jamesbirchfield2195 You mean Jordan Peterson followers approve of denouncing one's deceased family members? I would have thought not, I mean that sincerely. I don't see that in his work. P. S. Go clean your room. Sometimes it fits.
1
@JordanBPeterson Honesty? You don't denounce your father or mother or grandparents. Pfft.
1
@ElenaRoche You still don't get it. I categorically reject the concept of "collective guilt." This is vague, poorly analyzed, and, for something so serious, completely unacceptable. Moreover, if everyone is guilty, no one is, and the very concept is then wielded like a weapon, with the first to accuse very often in a position of unmerited dominance. That's a stupid game. On second thought, maybe you do get it. You will collect the praise. David Riesman was right. (I always edit for spelling and such. Writing is editing. )
1
@DP-ym4dg She was caught in an obvious lie, and was praised. Shows you a lot about the trajectory America is on. This is the rule now.
1
@ElenaRoche For example, "Miss Arendt referred to the post-war climate in Germany -- where those personally innocent during the Nazi period all admitted to their "collective guilt" while the real criminals showed no remorse as "the quintessence of moral confusion." The concept of collective guilt, as opposed to individual guilt, is "senseless," Miss Arendt said, and only serves as an effective "whitewash" for guilty individuals to hide behind." (1964) Precisely.
1
@DP-ym4dg You're probably right. BTW, I'd like to know your reading list. Not kidding.
1
@DP-ym4dg I am so turned off by people who come to America and denounce their families. James Baldwin wrote about that demand, which American society places on immigrants who want to "succeed" (i.e., make money for not doing much). The demand is repugnant, and acceding to it is base. But Americans lap it up. It's part of the culture. No wonder so many people are lost.
1
@ElenaRoche You posted it here. People "face painful truths" all the time without posting. I expected you to take it down, frankly, but the up votes of complete strangers who don't wish you well -- not really -- might be more important to you. That's not called facing truth, that's called assimilating for perceived advantage.
1
@DP-ym4dg No. ;( Speak French, though.
1
@ElenaRoche You could not get me to describe my grandfather as "muttering to himself," and do it online no less, without threatening me with a weapon. For example.
1
@DP-ym4dg If you can follow French, Emmanuel Todd recently gave a great conference at Dialogue Franco-Russe. It was an excellent summary of what most Europeans know, and is not generally known in the US.
1
@ElenaRoche So, this didn't happen; it's not factual, but an opinion. That would explain the impossible date. But then it's not about "facing painful truths," it's about expressing popular opinions, for pandering purposes perhaps. I believe you. It does sound like opinion styled as fact, like all the phony memoirs that became best sellers. I can't blame anyone for that. I think it's kind-of humorous.
1
@DP-ym4dg Baldwin was best in analyzing it, how I miss him! I was living in France when he died there. Have you read, "It's Me, Eddie?" The incomparable BBC documentarian Adam Curtis turned me on to that book, and to the story of Afeni Shakur as well. "It's Me, Eddie," is about as profane as Henry Miller, so it requires a warning, but it's great.
1
@DP-ym4dg Oh well! ;( I tried.
1
@ElenaRoche I see you put in a little edit. Same nonsense, but by changing a key word it avoids confronting the seminal texts and thinkers on the subject, or proposing real solutions to real problems. Your posts are perfect examples of gish gallops -- where does someone start? By sheer accident, though, they happen to pander to the worst prejudices of the target audience. The irony is rich -- it's you who is deftly avoiding "painful truths." I wonder if any of the people who posted in this thread praising you were called to their senses, and resolved not to be duped in the future, or to denounce deceased family members in public. I hope so, and I bet some did. That's what matters. (You do recognize Hannah Arendt, correct?)
1
@DP-ym4dg Find someone to translate Emmanuel Todd for you. Most of what he says you already know, but it's wonderful to hear his theoretical framework, which is unique, and it's nice to know that others are clued in. He did his doctorate at Cambridge, though he is French, and he integrates insights from anthropology and archeology into his analysis.
1
@ElenaRoche It's an opinion. No problem. You claim terrible things about your family. No problem. Le champs vous est libre. There was no USSR in 1997, as several posts already pointed out. 1997 was during Clinton's second term, when Russia was being subjected to neoliberal looting. But we can opine about anything we like. No one asked about age. (I'm the one who disapproves of oversharing confidential matters online, remember?)
1
@ElenaRoche Anyway, I have better things to do. So long.
1
@DP-ym4dg The conference is great, though, at Dialogue Franco-Russe, with current demographic data on the US and Russia. All in one hour. His books are dense. (Well, academic, you know?)
1
@ElenaRoche If you need to believe I'm the fantasist (and you need to let everyone know, in this group of strangers), well then you will. You can't pass it up. Rereading your first post, your denunciations of your own family are uglier than I had remembered. That fires up the masses here. Perhaps you should consider speaking to a real person about your issues, rather than relying on a YouTube personality.
1
@ElenaRoche You thought I questioned the date not because it is an obvious historical falsehood, but because you look young, and you think someone else has fantasies? I didn't look at you.
1
@tamedshrew235 People who have studied actual acts of heroism report that the person acts automatically. They literally do not think, they do -- at least that's their inner perception. It does not matter whether they are Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu, Jewish, or agnostic. When people do have time to reflect and act heroically, that is remarkable. Like Vasili Arkhipov, who literally saved the world.
1
@tamedshrew235 My main point was that this is not how heroic acts are undertaken. Actually, the best journalistic description of heroism that I've read were by Chris Hedges, who is an ordained minister. EDIT: I mention that as an interesting coincidence, but also to make the point that a divinity school graduate analyzed this differently, after having spent decades as a war correspondent.
1
@wandadelange1322 Didn't work for the Nazis, did it, unless you consider the rat line good.
1
@Danne1886 Not at all. Supporters of the BDS boycott of Israel, wise or not, were fired and blackballed outright. No one is trying to make Jungian psychoanalysis illegal or defining it as racist, and no one prevents Peterson from teaching or continuing his clinical practice. He's making more money in other pursuits. Maybe you should heed your own counsel? I've read Nadine Strossen on why we should reject hate speech laws. Have you?
1
@Danne1886 You suggested that I care much less about scrutinizing the truth of claims that fundamental rights are being violated when people who (appear to) have very different politics from Peterson's are asserting that their rights are being violated. I just automatically believe them, no questions asked. What made you think so? Did you start with yourself? Throwing in trendy German words adds nothing to the argument. If you want to go off on a tangent about "the Zeitgeist," we can talk about all the states that passed anti-BDS laws. BTW, I'm not even sure BDS is wise, and tend to think not. I know it should not be illegal.
1
@Danne1886 You're the one who jumped to a wrong conclusion about me, and then swore. Perfect. Thanks for making my point.
1
@Danne1886 Nah, you just can't reason or express yourself without the most vapid cliches (trigger, clutch pearls, cudgel, whataboutism, LOL). I prefer the f word. It has a nobler history. You think I should admit I'm wrong about something? You don't even know what I said. Of course you don't have any idea how many people have been fired over BDS.
1
@Danne1886 " The next time you see a lefty making claims of systemic oppression, I hope you keep the same energy . . . " --- if you already forget you wrote that, eat more fish and greens and get more exercise.
1
@Danne1886 I did not. I claimed he chose to leave his position as tenured professor and his clinical practice.
1
@Danne1886 Fish and greens. No joke.
1
@Danne1886 I have no information about the Canadian government either way. But nothing from any Five Eyes government would ever, EVER surprise me, especially after COVID.
1
@Danne1886 That was in the context of his university tenure! And his free speech rights in general. That was the issue. Cambridge was disgraceful, and I said so, because it was. That's what we were talking about. No wonder I didn't recall this failure on my part to "admit" what you're blathering about. You have some evidence that he suffered an unwarranted probe into his taxes for purposes of harassment? Why not tell us? (As for audits, who hasn't had one?) Tell me, does he also get pulled over for speeding because pronouns?
1
@Danne1886 I just searched for this "frivolous tax investigation" you speak of, in press generally highly favorable to him, as well as MSM. No sign of it. Clue us in.
1
@Danne1886 IOW, just your opinion. It's also when he started to make money online. Or, it could have been random. A tax audit, standing alone, is not a violation of rights. It's not the government "doing something" to you. I couldn't even find it reported!
1
@Danne1886 Of course, I couldn't find evidence that he was audited in the first place.
1
Anyone who is well read sees so many holes in his theories that they ultimately throw up their hands. It would take too long to unravel. He has painted himself as the quintessential underdog who triumphs, as were Jesus and Socrates. Good use of archetypes, it works great. Seems like a nice enough guy. His family had to face a lot of rare illnesses, I give him credit for making the money they actually needed and putting it to good use. He's not motivated by greed.
1
Peterson's definition of racism is nonsense. Racism is an ideology that emerged in the 16th century in Western Europe, which questions whether non-Western Europeans are fully human or a separate species, or inferior ("degenerate") exemplars of the human species. It does not exist in pre-modern European history, and it is not a simple preference for one's own ethnolinguistic group, which is a general tendancy in all social groups. Anyone who reads the ancient Greeks or Latin literature cannot help but be struck by it right away. Or, consider the conquest of the Americas by the Spanish and compare it to the English; you cannot miss the difference. The Spanish were eager to convert the most beautiful Aztec women to Catholicism and marry them. Cultural supremacy? Ethnocentrism? Obviously, and deeper than any that's familiar to us now. Racism? You must be kidding.
1