Comments by "dixon pinfold" (@dixonpinfold2582) on "Piers Morgan Uncensored"
channel.
-
476
-
39
-
@drjulief I stated clearly what I think. EDIT: Thanks for your reply. On second thought I should try to satisfy your polite and sincere desire to know in more detail what I think, assuming that's what it was. (Tbh, I couldn't tell, but now I do think so.)
Think of it like milk versus that beverage in cartons which is made from soybeans and water. People trying to get others to accept and to drink the latter stuff want us to call it "soy milk," and also to call milk "cow's milk." That way, we'll have to alter our minds to conform to what we're saying, namely that they're simply two varieties of milk.
But no. They are not, and I will never adopt those terms. There are few things I resent so much as attempts to mentally and verbally corral me through cunning whether subtle or crude, into going along with anything I wouldn't naturally and freely agree to otherwise.
The two things in question are: milk (never cow's milk except in distinction to goat's milk, sheep's milk, or mother's milk, etc.) and soy beverage. Or soy drink.
(Cp. William Blake: "Words are the sons of man, while things are the daughters of heaven." I understand and agree with him, although, being myself totally irreligious, I am not attempting to invoke any sort of religion, religious thinking, or 'spirituality' here whatsoever. It is only the philosophical aspect of his remark which I am in sympathy with.)
21
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Maté is a master class in talking out of six sides of one mouth. All evasion, platitudes, sanctimony.
Aware of his high profile, I spent maybe 20 long hours watching him both on medical and contentious other subjects. It's the same each time: It all makes him seem wonderful. Then you try to get it straight in your own mind and it dawns on you that it does not cohere at all. You are forced to a realization that it's all grift, wokeness, gobbledegook.
He's a contrast with Canada's other famed interpreter and healer of the human psyche, Dr. Jordan Peterson, whom he attacks savagely as though he is history's worst monster. Peterson when he lays out an analysis and proposed solutions to problems always makes coherent sense. One may disagree with him but you are in no doubt about what he thinks and will always have to concede that he has presented evidence in a logical manner, even, I repeat, if you entirely or on the whole oppose his conclusions (which I do about quite a number of things.)
So why would Dr. Maté attack him like that? For one thing, careerism. He, too, gives talks and writes books for the general public, and the strong emotion with which he condemns Dr. Peterson, unaccompanied by anything more than name-calling, to me indicates obvious envy. For another, political antipathy: His own career is built on a weepy sort of wokeness which betrays a passionate commitment to left political thinking. He was brought up mostly under the communist regime of Hungary, remember, which might have a lot to do with it.
His professional critics are many. They notice that he always emphasizes the weakness of people, blames their problems on other people and the world, stresses the importance for their chances of getting better (or being healthy in the first place) depending on the society around them changing, rearranging itself to suit their needs, etc. If you see an emaciated, deeply-miserable addict smoking Fentanyl on the streets of Vancouver, protected now by the law, you have Dr. Maté to thank in part. He fought for their legal right to destroy themselves unimpeded, and I wonder if he wasn't somewhat motivated by the hope of inflicting a sense of guilt on Vancouverites.
A therapist of any sort must of course be capable of profound empathy (Peterson finds himself fighting back tears when talking about people's pain to his audiences), but in my view Maté speaks a language of victimization which makes himself a crusading hero and afflicted people a sort of supporting cast. The way he diagnosed Prince Harry with PTSD and multiple other afflictions on the spot (!) during a live-streamed interview this year was beyond stagy. Many mental health professionals were shocked and appalled by what they saw as his recklessness. Prior to the interview he had only read Harry's book.
I hoped to find him an authentic genius of redemption and recovery with a gift for imparting strength. Instead I found him at best deeply misguided, at worst a sneaking low-key mountebank, and this interview only reinforces that view. If you tried to cross a Canadian lake in a canoe made of his maunderings you'd soon be swimming back to shore, if you could.
7
-
7
-
7
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
@drjulief If he does indeed view it that way I think it's regrettable, because whatever one's views, it should be allowed that this type of person has always been with us and always will be. To me that fact itself constitutes or automatically generates a claim of an irrefutable sort, just as being gay, lesbian or bisexual does. The claim, and by claim I mean justified claim, is having the right to be what one is.
But I don't hear anyone threatening that. I hear some howling over what they see as the grosser intrusions on ordinary decency, yet I don't hear anyone saying 'You people have to follow special rules,' let alone 'You people have to disappear.' I could be wrong, that's just my opinion.
———————————
At the same time, there could be a view that the murderer, the stabber and the ravisher* will always be with us too, yet we are not in much doubt about how to handle them. After all, we unanimously agree they're acutely bad for the civilization. So if it's about ineradicability, ineradicability looks like a pretty dubious criterion. So where is the line between what's unhealthful for the civilization and what's just people living their lives? (Turns out there's a line, the same as most places in life.)
Yes, I'm saying there's an argument that a civilization's future dims if norms alter too fast or too far. Civilizations are fragile. When you're talking about liberal democratic societies, think of sprinting with an egg on a spoon. And they are prone to neurosis, as well as political capture by very narrow interests.
The more famous and big-time ones, if history has any truth to it, survive long enough to get depressed and really corrupt, and they exhibit behaviors of wanting not to carry on.
Anyway, it ends at some point and the last tide a civilization sees is the one which strands it on the rocks because it refuses to stand up and walk ashore.
There are ways to prolong it, though. Just about all the famous civilizations you've heard of made one or more comebacks. Often, historically, a ruler of particular intelligence, talent and vision may turn things around. (Diocletian is the most famous example.)
That's what some people say.
* Excuse the archaic stealth word for it. It's in order to sidestep moderation.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1