Peterson, Harris, etc....

2 Man Midfield said:
I said they face little to no problems if they act white. Those who fit the stereotype I posted earlier have a rough time of it. And before you act all shocked, that isn't me saying it's good. It's a bad thing. I'm literally posting my interpretation of what I see, and you're acting like I hold those views. I don't.
Click to expand...

youre posting "black people that act white have it just fine" while simultaneously posting about how there isnt a major race problem in western society. its easy to connect the dots
 
Eboue said:
youre posting "black people that act white have it just fine" while simultaneously posting about how there
isnt a major race problem in western society. its easy to connect the dots
Click to expand...

Well it seems that way to me anyway.

I'm not sure there is a major problem with regards systemic oppression. I'm not going to deny the existence of individual racists, or groups like the EDL. However they're by far the minority.

vi1lain said:
The point is - that means that black people are treated differently, the moment you add a 'if' or 'but' doesn't take away from that fact.
This also applies for black people who 'act white', because that simply implies that they are being tolerated, not accepted - and they have to change themselves in order to be treated better.

So once again - it goes back to the main point.
Racism is still a big deal in the UK, obviously not as bad as the US, but still not some holy grail of racial equality either.

Whether or not you hold these views is irrelevant, because it sounds like you're trying to make a claim that black people don't face racial issues.
Click to expand...

This is all stuff I've posted above.

And I'm not saying black people don't face racial issues, I'm not quite sure how you managed to get that from my posts when I've said in literally every one that they do.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
That is because I feel it is illogical to defend that course.

Look I apologise if you felt I snapped at you if that is what bothered you. My position is this (so we can move past it as I doubt we will agree) I believe that teaching a course regarding the problem with "whiteness" and fostering extreme left views (Right would be even worse obviously) can lead to a huge group of kids going batshit crazy, taking over a school and screaming racist things at their hostages.

I believe that serves absolutely no purpose in moving towards my ideal world where as many people as possible are undivided in actually working together on each specific issue as it arises.
Click to expand...
I think the name of the course is meant to be a bit controversial, in order to attract at attention. Going by the description, the course doesn't really look to be trying to paint white people as a problem. Since I haven't taken the course, nor spoken to anyone that has, there's really not much more I can add. So yeah, better to just leave it.

And you didn't offend me. You views in general seems sensible enough (don't let the praise go to your head :D). I just felt it was a bit unfair of you to end a response to @vi1lain with the line I quoted, since her posts were civilized and reasonable. Other than that, I just tend to get snippy when I'm tired, and I'm a stickler for rules (I'm extremely anal when it comes to sex backing up claims.) So apologies if I came off as a bit of a shit.
SparkedIntoLife said:
I also like Jordan Peterson (but I much prefer his psychology/bible stuff than his political material).
Click to expand...
I can (sort of) understand people liking to watch Peterson and Shapiro when they debate others, given their ability to look calm and in control. I personally don't, because I think both are guilty of relying too much on logical fallacies and are too prone to intellectual dishonesty to be considered good at what they do.

They both hold some (to me) pretty abhorrent views as well, as I've mentioned earlier in the thread. I don't know whether or not what Peterson has to say about psychology is sound, because my knowledge of the subject is superficial at best, but I know that a lot of what he has to say about politics is basically worthless. I think a big problem with Peterson (and other intellectuals for that matter) is that since he has a fancy title, a lot of people will assume that he knows what he's talking about, even when he strays from his field of expertise.

Another scary thing, that was mentioned in an article linked by @Eboue earlier, is the fact that his "neo-Marxist and post-modernist"-talk is basically Cultural Marxism and the Cultural Bolshevism of Nazi-Germany mashed together and given a fresh coat of paint. It's meant to frame the left as enemies of Western society, looking to subvert it and implement communism. It also paints basically anyone holding leftist views as being brainwashed by the Marxist who have worked their way into governments and educational institutions. It's both completely dismisses the validity of leftist views and opinions, and at the same time frames them as a massive threat. It frightens me that people are having their views influenced by someone like him. More so because he's title might, to some, lend credibility to his views.

Shapiro is a bit more mainstream conservative. I disagree strongly with most of his views, and I'm not as impressed as others by his ability to debate. He's decent at it, I just don't see what the fuss is about. It's not like he takes on intellectual powerhouses. He also tends to go up against people who are emotionally invested in the subject at hand, thus making it easier for him to provoke them into an emotional response. Which, as it happens, is one of the techniques he employs to appear to be the calm and rational one.

I would probably have written this yesterday, when it was a bit more relevant to the discussion, but I was way too tired to be able to write more than a couple of sentences of (somewhat) coherent English.
 
Last 3 pages of this thread has been a disaster, can a mod get in back on track or delete the whole bloody thing
 
2 Man Midfield said:
Well it seems that way to me anyway.

I'm not sure there is a major problem with regards systemic oppression. I'm not going to deny the existence of individual racists, or groups like the EDL. However they're by far the minority.



This is all stuff I've posted above.

And I'm not saying black people don't face racial issues, I'm not quite sure how you managed to get that from my posts when I've said in literally every one that they do.
Click to expand...

I would disagree, I still think especially in America that systematic racism is extremely prevalent.
An example was posted earlier not sure if this was for UK or US but if it's for UK then it'll be even worse in the US & that's blacks more likely to get longer sentences than whites for the same crime. That is systematic racism.
 


^^ This sorta stuff annoys me. This incessant need to spin everything to be about left and right.
 
Stactix said:
I would disagree, I still think especially in America that systematic racism is extremely prevalent.
An example was posted earlier not sure if this was for UK or US but if it's for UK then it'll be even worse in the US & that's blacks more likely to get longer sentences than whites for the same crime. That is systematic racism.
Click to expand...
Men also get longer sentences than women for the exact same crime. But I don't think there's a systematic sexist bias against men.
 
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-***********

Shapiro scoffs at all claims that racism is a serious problem facing black people. This is in part because “I wasn’t an adult when Jim Crow was in place… and I would bet you money that the people in this room haven’t acted in a racist manner, that they haven’t held slaves, or voted for Jim Crow.” He says the idea that black people’s disproportionate poverty has anything to do with racism is “just not true,” and tosses out a few points to prove that the importance of race is overstated: First, Asian Americans are wealthier than white people, which would be impossible if racism determined economic outcomes. (Shapiro doesn’t mention that the vast majority of Asian American adults are immigrants, and they are disproportionately from the wealthier and more highly-educated segments of their own countries.) Second, he says, people of any race who work full time, are married, and have high school diplomas tend not to be poor, meaning that poverty is a function of one’s choice not to do these things. (In fact, this theory, widely cited by conservatives, turns out to be vacuous: of course people who have full-time jobs usually aren’t in poverty, the problem is that black people disproportionately can’t get jobs.) Next, Shapiro says that because black married couples have a lower poverty rate than white single mothers, “life decisions” are what creates poverty. (Actually, even when two black people pool their wealth in a marriage, “the median white single parent has 2.2 times more wealth than the median black two-parent household.”) Finally, Shapiro says that the disproportionately black population in America’s prisons say nothing about racism, because black people simply commit more crimes, and “if you don’t commit a crime, you’re not going to be arrested for it” because “the police are not going around arresting black people for the fun of it.” (I have some black men in Louisiana I’d like Shapiro to meet so that he can explain his theory that people do not get arrested for crimes they haven’t committed. But I’d also like to hear him explain why black men receive 20% longer sentences for the same crime as white men with similar backgrounds.)
Click to expand...
 
ben "not a racist" shapiro

“The Arab-Israeli conflict may be accurately described as a war between darkness and light. Those who argue against Israeli settlements—outposts of light in a dark territory—argue for the continued victory of night.” Arabs “value murder” while Israelis “value life,” and “where light fails, darkness engulfs.” Arabs are therefore, as an undifferentiated unit, a people of darkness. Palestinian Arabs are the worst of all: they are a “population rotten to the core… Palestinian Arabs must be fought on their own terms: as a people dedicated to an evil cause.” The “Arab Palestinian populace… by and large constitutes the most evil population on the face of the planet.”
 
what does ben shaprio think racism is

When it came to George Zimmerman, Shapiro concluded that “there’s no evidence of Zimmerman’s racism.” Bear in mind that Zimmerman: approached a stranger because they had a Confederate flag tattoo so he could brag about killing Trayvon Martin, got thrown out of a bar for calling someone a “nigger-lover,” ranted about his girlfriend sleeping with a “dirty Muslim,” tweeted that the lives of “black slime” don’t matter, labeled Barack Obama an “ignorant baboon,” posted memes comparing Michelle Obama to Chewbacca, and literally had a Confederate flag profile picture and sold paintings he did of said flag.
Click to expand...
 
For a man who cares about Facts rather than Feelings, Shapiro doesn’t seem to care very much about facts. There are plenty of minor mistakes that cast doubt on the Times quote that Shapiro “reads books.” Some are just the little slip-ups that come from careless writing, e.g. the U.S. abolished slavery in “1862,” “atheistic *********** Gilbert Pyle” [sic]. Others are suspicious unsourced generalizations, e.g.“Walk into virtually any emergency room in California and illegal immigrants are the bulk of the population.” But there are also major embarrassing bloomers, like Shapiro promoting the false rumor that Chuck Hagel received a donation from a group called “Friends of Hamas.” A New York Daily News reporter had made up the group’s name, as something so ludicrously over-the-top that nobody could possibly believe it, but Shapiro credulous enough to think the organization could exist, and published an article demanding answers. When it was pointed out that there was no such group, Shapiro did not retract the story. Instead, he doubled down, insisting that because he reported that sources said there was a Friends of Hamas, and the sources did say that, his reporting was sound. (Note: this is not how journalism works.)
Click to expand...
 
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


366pVks.png
 
He was strongly against a federal ban on using cellphones while driving, because it would take away drivers’ freedom of choice, yet he believes it is “morally tragic” that we no longer use the police to stop people from making and watching pornography, because it follows the “silly” philosophy that “as long as what I do doesn’t harm you personally, I have a right to do it.” (Shapiro said that if pornography is legal, there would be no logical reason not to legalize the murder of homeless people, without addressing the potential meaningful distinctions between “having sex” and “killing a person in cold blood.”)
Click to expand...
 
In defending the invasion of Iraq, Shapiro specifically praised imperialism, saying that for the United States, “empire isn’t a choice, it’s a duty.” Nevermind “weapons of mass destruction”: maintaining U.S. global power is an end in itself, even if 500,000 Iraqis had to lose their lives a result. Shapiro even endorsed invading countries that do not pose any immediate threat, suggesting that almost any Muslim nation could legitimately be attacked if doing so served the interests of our “global empire”:

Did Iraq pose an immediate threat to our nation? Perhaps not. But toppling Saddam Hussein and democratizing Iraq prevent his future ascendance and end his material support for future threats globally. The same principle holds true for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and others: Pre-emption is the chief weapon of a global empire. No one said empire was easy, but it is right and good, both for Americans and for the world.

(We could call this the “Better Kill Everyone Just In Case” doctrine.)
Click to expand...
 
What’s more, Shapiro doesn’t believe that criticizing the American government during a time of war ought to be legal at all. The champion of Free Speech has literally called for reinstating sedition laws. When Al Gore told a Muslim audience that he believed the United States’ indiscriminate rounding-up and detention practices after 9/11 were “terrible” and abusive, Shapiro called the statements “treasonable,” “seditious,” and “outrageous” and demanded that the law respond:

At some point, opposition must be considered disloyal. At some point, the American people must say “enough.” At some point, Republicans in Congress must stop delicately tiptoeing with regard to sedition and must pass legislation to prosecute such sedition…Under the Espionage Act of 1917, opponents of World War I were routinely prosecuted, and the Supreme Court routinely upheld their convictions…. During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment of hundreds of thousands of Japanese-Americans, as well as allowing the prosecution and/or deportation of those who opposed the war…. This is not to argue that every measure taken by the government to prosecute opponents of American wars is just or right or Constitutional. Some restrictions, however, are just and right and Constitutional—and necessary. No war can be won when members of a disloyal opposition are given free reign [sic] to undermine it.
Click to expand...
 
Eboue said:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-***********
Click to expand...
Ben Shapiro being intellectually dishonest? Well, I never!

Seriously, though, no person who isn't a racist would be trying this hard to convince others that black people only have themselves to blame, for not bootstrapping hard enough or whatever.

Also, a massive L O L at the idea that you can't be racist unless you've done a racism overtly, held slaves or voted for Jim Crow.
 
Rado_N said:
He's a racist piece of shit, surely that's beyond question?
Click to expand...
Several people in this very thread have defended him against the accusations of racism, which to me is ludicrous. No one dog-whistles that much by accident.
 
Halftrack said:
Several people in this very thread have defended him against the accusations of racism, which to me is ludicrous. No one dog-whistles that much by accident.
Click to expand...

I guess I should know better than to be surprised by that.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
I think that you described him as awesome and above is a list of not very awesome things he's said.

I'd probably just say I don't think he's awesome now I've heard more of him, if I were you...
Click to expand...

I also said I disagree hugely with a lot of what he says. I think he's a great debater, mind you.
 
2 Man Midfield said:
I also said I disagree hugely with a lot of what he says. I think he's a great debater, mind you.
Click to expand...
You did. I still think I'd be inclined to walk back from the 'awesome'.

Given it's not just that you disagree with him but that he uses inflammatory language and either doesn't research properly or is happy to lie.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
You did. I still think I'd be inclined to walk back from the 'awesome'.

Given it's not just that you disagree with him but that he uses inflammatory language and either doesn't research properly or is happy to lie.
Click to expand...

I think Luis Suarez is awesome, I don't have to like him personally to recognise that though.
 
2 Man Midfield said:
I think Luis Suarez is awesome, I don't have to like him personally to recognise that though.
Click to expand...
I'd say there's a difference. Shapiro's claim to fame is his mouth and what comes out of it. When a significant proportion of that is racism, I don't think he's a person non-racists should be finding awesome.

Also, you're either way to liberal with your use of the word "awesome", or you're terrible at picking people to admire.
 
Read a headline somewhere that his take on Native American genocide was riddled with inaccuracies and blatant lies. I was not able to read the link at the time and not having luck finding at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.