21–30 of 43 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes "Everyone I disagree is a racist sexist antisemite". Instant argument winner for anyone with a low IQ
The author is literally using nazi germany as an example of intellectual diversity.
> The communists won World War II, and imposed an ideological purge of unprecedented savagery, universality, and thoroughness ... Liberal democratic cosmopolitanism didn’t win any arguments; it won a war, and got to impose itself by force. That feeling when you’re so het up about the Modern World you conflate communism and “liberal democratic cosmopolitanism” as “tHE lEFt”. The true travesty in intellectual diversity…
I've only read one of Jordan Peterson's books - 12 Rules of Life. Haven't reread recently, but it was interesting at the time, and sort of helpful for keeping me motivated to get myself out of a bit of a rut. What parts of his writing did you find to be indicative of abandoning intelligent debate?
It’s a set of truisms glossed up with some long words?
Although I suspect it is true that we live in a deeply oppressive time that neither produces or tolerates ideas different from the liberal consensus, I find this argument and the frequency with which it is made to be part of this insufferable intellectual monoculture. Did you learn anything new after reading this article? Where have you read the same argument? Is it even true that a 100 years ago there was more diver…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author is literally using nazi germany as an example of intellectual diversity.
It is an example of intellectual diversity even though nazis are monsters but I think the overarching point of the article is that despite the fact that monsters exist intellectual diversity is good.
(Cue the "I don't support nazis I just think that for the good of mankind, unfortunately, we need to do everything we can to support nazis, incidentally of course" script.)
"Intellectual diversity" of course as always being a code word for acceptance for racism, sexism and antisemitism, etc. in society, cloaked in progressive language. In that sense, yes, the "diversity" has decreased and I hope this continues for many years to come.
It reads like the writer is trying to say something, but isn't really concrete about what that is.
Without any concrete criticism of "Liberal democratic cosmopolitanism" it's hard to know what this is trying to say. As others have done in the comments, this vague language leads one to guess what they mean. The principle of charity should be used, but it's hard when the same complaints are often used as a dog whistle by the extreme right.
What exactly is the problem with de-nazification? Explicitly violent and genocidal isms like Nazism should not be tolerated in good faith discussions. They should not be "debated" as Equal viewpoints.
To call it brainwashing is a stretch. Nazism has lead directly to millions of deaths in the name of Nazism and not something else. If that's not something we can agree to fight, then what is?
My world view is not even remotely 'left wing', and yet I have no difficulty whatsoever in detecting neofascist propaganda. It's really not that hard, and yet it's prevalence seems to be driving us to the brink of chaos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is an example of intellectual diversity even though nazis are monsters but I think the overarching point of the article is that despite the fact that monsters exist intellectual diversity is good.
Curious, how the conclusion of the "intellectual diversity" argument is always that we should tolerate nazis more and never anything else, really makes you think. (Cue the "I don't support nazis I just think that for the good of mankind, unfortunately, we need to do everything we can to support nazis, incidentally of course" script.)
Isn't that natural? The cone of possibilities is large when we know nothing. As we become more knowledgeable, we eliminate hypotheses. So, for instance, while you might have believed all sorts of nonsense about the size of people's heads and whatnot a hundred years ago, you no longer can. Hell, a thousand years ago, maybe you could have hypothesized the existence of dragons. No, the space of hypotheses is massive, an…
The simple backpropogation approach is most common and IMO accounts for much less diversity in ideas. The idea that every choice was right/wrong based on the side that won ignores that with a different geography some of the choices and the winner would have been entirely different. It also tends to remove options that may have been superior but were not chosen by either the winner or loser of a historical conflict.
"Intellectual diversity" of course as always being a code word for acceptance for racism, sexism and antisemitism, etc. in society, cloaked in progressive language. In that sense, yes, the "diversity" has decreased and I hope this continues for many years to come.
[flagged]