Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

There is much less intellectual diversity now than there was 100 years ago

bonald.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 43 posts

Re: There is much less intellectual diversity now than there was 100 years ago

#31

Post by locopati »

ruslanbogan wrote: post #28
ATsch wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

I don't think we should tolerate nazis more, there's a wide range of intellectual diversity out there the problem is that people like you think anyone who slightly disagrees with you on anything must be a nazi. Unfortunately intellectual diversity includes people who think that way

[dead]

Re: There is much less intellectual diversity now than there was 100 years ago

#32

Post by insickness »

bawolff wrote: post #14
ruslanbogan wrote: post #10

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.

Did you not read the article? In the very first paragraph he lists all the different brands of socialists that existed pre-war.

Re: There is much less intellectual diversity now than there was 100 years ago

#34

Post by ATsch »

insickness wrote: post #32
bawolff wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author is literally using nazi germany as an example of intellectual diversity.

Did you not read the article? In the very first paragraph he lists all the different brands of socialists that existed pre-war.

Sure, but then continues on to decry the de-nazification of Germany and the shadowy "cosmopolitans" who imposed that by force and not the suppression of leftists by the US military, CIA and McCarthyism.

That's the trick, you just gotta put half a sentence about "both sides" into your article and then suddenly you're a centrist and your right wing drivel is now serious intellectual writing.

Re: There is much less intellectual diversity now than there was 100 years ago

#35

Post by bawolff »

ruslanbogan wrote: post #21
bawolff wrote: post #14

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.

If that's the point of the article, then its a pretty terribly argued article.

If the author wants to argue that we have less intellectual diversity now and its bad, finding some examples of ideologies that don't want to mass murder specific ethnic groups would go a long way to making the argument convincing.

[And i'm starting from a place where i believe intellectual diversity is a good thing, although i think we have more now than we did in the past. Its not like i disagree with the author on that point, I just don't think s/he actually cares about intellectual diversity and instead just likes nazis. ]

Re: There is much less intellectual diversity now than there was 100 years ago

#36

Post by pps »

unFou wrote: post #15
peteretep wrote: post #5

> 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?

I hope you're standing straight now, because... you know... "To stand up straight with your shoulders back means building the ark that protects the world from the flood, guiding your people through the desert after they have escaped tyranny, making your way away from comfortable home and country, and speaking the prophetic word to those who ignore the widows and children."

As much as I love metaphors ("Metaphors of Movement" concept and therapy by Andrew Austin or in general metaphors explained by Lakoff in "Metaphors We Live by") - Peterson is simply fantasizing. It might seem to be deeply thought out, but it's not. Would love to share with you great article about his book, but it's unfortunately in Polish. If you care to know then google translator might help https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=https:/...

Re: There is much less intellectual diversity now than there was 100 years ago

#38

Post by Melchizedek »

peteretep wrote: post #5

> 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…

They're not the same of course but it's common to regard them both as left-wing ideologies. They are both descendants of the ideologies of those who sat to the left in the French National Assembly, as opposed to the conservatives who sat on the right. (Confusingly, the people who call themselves conservatives in the US are really mostly free-market liberals.)

Re: There is much less intellectual diversity now than there was 100 years ago

#39

Post by peteretep »

Melchizedek wrote: post #38
peteretep wrote: post #5

> 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…

They're not the same of course but it's common to regard them both as left-wing ideologies. They are both descendants of the ideologies of those who sat to the left in the French National Assembly, as opposed to the conservatives who sat on the right. (Confusingly, the people who call themselves conservatives in the US are really mostly free-market liberals.)

As neo-Naziism and centre-right European movements both right wing ideologies, but you’d be a blockhead if you meaningfully tried to tie them together as the author has done.

Re: There is much less intellectual diversity now than there was 100 years ago

#40

Post by ATsch »

bawolff wrote: post #35
ruslanbogan wrote: post #21

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.

If that's the point of the article, then its a pretty terribly argued article. If the author wants to argue that we have less intellectual diversity now and its bad, finding some examples of ideologies that don't want to mass murder specific ethnic groups would go a long way to making the argument convincing. [And i'm starting from a place where i believe intellectual diversity is a good thing, although i think we ha…

Indeed, there's no lack of good faith arguments for what you could call "intellectual diversity".

For example, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky talk at length about how the way our media is interlinked with corporations and governments steers the discourse toward a narrow range of ideas approved by those groups in their book "Manufacturing Consent". Mark Fisher decries a climate in which most people consider markets as the only possible solution for all problems in "Capitalist Realism".

However, because these authors can just be upfront about what their beliefs are, they aren't forced to argue for vague concepts like "intellectual diversity" and can instead be specific about the type of restrictions that are occurring and in the case of Herman and Chomsky even track them with real numbers, making for a much better argument.

Post reply on HN