Hate Crime Hoax is by Wilfred Reilly. Eye opening.
As a lifelong progressive liberal, I was seriously shocked to find out how deeply misleading or inaccurate much of what I had assumed for many years to be well documented truths, turned out to be. And then to see how determined some fellow progressives are to avoid…
Hate Crime Hoax is by Wilfred Reilly. Eye opening.
As a lifelong progressive liberal, I was seriously shocked to find out how deeply misleading or inaccurate much of what I had assumed for many years to be well documented truths, turned out to be. And then to see how determined some fellow progressives are to avoid acknowledging that, to discount anybody who has the temerity to put truth above reinforcing tribal narratives.
It's so nice to find others seeking truth.
I too have had to remove some of my talking points, when they turn out to be either false, or at least credibly challenged and uncertain enough that I need to do more checking before presenting them again. And like you, I appreciate when someone helps me overcome a blind spot or misinformation.
One of the hardest things to do is to double check the items which you want to believe because they help you make your point - in order to compensate at least partially for confirmation bias.
I have no desire to be sucked into another tribal narrative on the right, so I'm going to hang out in the grey zones and look for what seems true from either side, no trust for either. It's great to have companions like you.
I am also blessed with a partner with very similar tendencies - we have both become opponents of critical social justice ideology (as former progressive liberals for most of our lives) in recent years - but we also try to help each other not to over-react or over-shoot. Basically, trying not to be captured by another narrative, even an anti-woke bias. I might feel a lot more lonely if my partner were not with me on this journey.
Always happy to engage with those in the Murky Middle, where we don't always like the company we keep - which is occasionally extremists or people who are sorta loose cannons like Jordan Peterson - he's all over the board from insightful to religious whack job. The extremists aren't part of the Murky Middle but sometimes an idea or two of theirs is.
Sometimes we can't know what we don't know. I just updated a blog article of mine about OJ & Nicole, in which I'd said his first wife claimed he never hit her. I tried to find anything that might challenge this but I couldn't. Having just finished a book on OJ's & Nicole's marriage, I find that OJ's circle of friends in his first marriage widely believed he was hitting her although they couldn't be sure. But Marguerite always wore sunglasses inside & outside, bit suspish.
So I updated it to say that Marguerite may in fact have been beaten by him, and, well, lied about it to the media. It messes up my speculation that some men only abuse women who will tolerate it (I still believe that, actually) but Marguerite ain't the poster child for not tolerating his shit.
I went on a bit of a rant yesterday morning on Facebook as some of my friends think I'm too hard on the 'woke'. I wrote that the reason why I disliked them as much as the Trumpers is because of their authoritarianism. I got deplatformed again from a social media platform yesterday morning for an article challenging the science behind 'gender affirming care' for kids and noting how much Europe, including the most liberal countries, are pulling back on it. Guaranteed that's what they meant by 'hate speech', which is what the woke call 'truth' now.
I am really, really fed up with the truthphobic on both sides. But I also recognize how hard it is to get to the truth when you can't even trust the experts anymore, including the alleged science-based. I can't wait to see American doctors and 'gender therapists' getting their fucking asses sued off once the country removes the trans blinders from its eyes. In particular I want to see the AMA and the AAP go down in fucking flames.
I agree with most of what you say. And yes, it can be hard to get lefty friends to pay attention to the authoritarian themes becoming entrenched in the Critical Social Justice ideology narratives and framings.
"All worship *The Narrative* of oppression and righteousness. From The Narrative flows all of our power. The prime directive is to reinforce The Narrative - suppress any information which might cast doubt, remove any dissenting perspectives, condition all people - especially kids - to believe as we decree".
---
I wanted to understand more about your characterization of Jordan Peterson, tho. I followed some of his earlier stuff when he as becoming popular, and continue to see a clip of him now and then. But I'm far from knowing his full content to date.
The criticism I found most relevant was that he slips back and forth between the science of psychology and the, um, mythopoetic Jungian stuff which is not science; and that this interweaving could mislead readers to give the latter unearned credibility as "evidence based". (This is not to say that he was consciously attempting to deceive, just that incautious readers could wind up being somewhat misled about science vs non-science based views).
I also get (from some clip I watched) that he is a Christian (albeit considerably more thoughtful than the typical Christian from my youth). I am not Christian, but I don't consider Christians to inherently be wacko. Of course, some are. (As are some non-Christians)
Perhaps in some speeches or interviews which I have not encountered, Peterson really does earn the characterization "religious whack job". I'd like to know more about that. What source convinced you that his message is in part religious wack-job stuff?
I'm not a huge follower of JP. I listened to a few of his talks on YouTube a few years ago and appreciated his comments on personal responsibility, esp re women as certain feminists seem to think they bear no responsibility for themselves, their behaviour, their reactions, their actions, or their feelings. He never went Andrew Tate-level crazy, like 'women bear responsibility for their own rape'. (I believe women sometimes unconsciously collaborate in their own rapes but my answer is, 'Don't have sex with guys like Andrew Tate' rather than 'If you're raped, it's your fault. No, it's ALWAYS the rapist's fault, but women don't have to help by doing dumb shit like getting blind-ass drunk at a party.)
I don't follow JP as much anymore (never really did, just liked his talks about personal responsibility and the weaknesses in victim feminism) but then, awhile back, he started going more Judaeo-Christian - I think he's Jewish, don't know if he identifies as a Christian now - and I don't know where he stands today. But a few years ago, don't remember the context, he was coming over as a little too religious for me. Coming from the States as I do, having grown up not in religious whackjobbery but in Ohio, where fundamentalist Christianity was popular, I have a dim view of conservative religion. (I was raised progressive Lutheran and I don't regret it even if I don't ID as a Christian anymore).
JP has also struggled with a (prescription, I think) drug problem and even wound up being hospitalized a few years back - in fact, I think he was in an induced coma. I don't remember the details and can't be arsed to look them up - you can if you like. I think he's an interesting character - emphasize on 'character' - and he's offered many intelligent talking points in the past. Sometimes he sounds rational and other times he sounds religious nutty, and it's just sort of a flag in my head when he says something weird. I hope he's getting his shit together because I think he has some valid ideas to contribute to the culture wars,
Thanks for responding. We are not that far apart on JP - neither of us being a devoted follower (in attitude or consumption of his material), both of us having seen some things from him which make a lot of sense, and neither of us resonating well with the Judeo-Christian facets of his approach. (I think he's Christian rather than Jewish, tho).
As I said, I do find his intellectual approach to Christian themes more interesting than the Christians of my own youth. His thesis is "this is valuable wisdom to hear and consider" rather than "the bible says so and you can't question it". But I'm still not a Christian (nor really an anti-Christian).
I thought he was Jewish by birth but I might be wrong - I did a quick Google but didn't find anything. I didn't look too hard. I seem to recall he's gone down the path, at least in the past, of supporting Biblical attitudes about women. But I don't follow him that closely.
Great response! Respect!
Hate Crime Hoax is by Wilfred Reilly. Eye opening.
As a lifelong progressive liberal, I was seriously shocked to find out how deeply misleading or inaccurate much of what I had assumed for many years to be well documented truths, turned out to be. And then to see how determined some fellow progressives are to avoid acknowledging that, to discount anybody who has the temerity to put truth above reinforcing tribal narratives.
It's so nice to find others seeking truth.
I too have had to remove some of my talking points, when they turn out to be either false, or at least credibly challenged and uncertain enough that I need to do more checking before presenting them again. And like you, I appreciate when someone helps me overcome a blind spot or misinformation.
One of the hardest things to do is to double check the items which you want to believe because they help you make your point - in order to compensate at least partially for confirmation bias.
I have no desire to be sucked into another tribal narrative on the right, so I'm going to hang out in the grey zones and look for what seems true from either side, no trust for either. It's great to have companions like you.
I am also blessed with a partner with very similar tendencies - we have both become opponents of critical social justice ideology (as former progressive liberals for most of our lives) in recent years - but we also try to help each other not to over-react or over-shoot. Basically, trying not to be captured by another narrative, even an anti-woke bias. I might feel a lot more lonely if my partner were not with me on this journey.
Always happy to engage with those in the Murky Middle, where we don't always like the company we keep - which is occasionally extremists or people who are sorta loose cannons like Jordan Peterson - he's all over the board from insightful to religious whack job. The extremists aren't part of the Murky Middle but sometimes an idea or two of theirs is.
Sometimes we can't know what we don't know. I just updated a blog article of mine about OJ & Nicole, in which I'd said his first wife claimed he never hit her. I tried to find anything that might challenge this but I couldn't. Having just finished a book on OJ's & Nicole's marriage, I find that OJ's circle of friends in his first marriage widely believed he was hitting her although they couldn't be sure. But Marguerite always wore sunglasses inside & outside, bit suspish.
So I updated it to say that Marguerite may in fact have been beaten by him, and, well, lied about it to the media. It messes up my speculation that some men only abuse women who will tolerate it (I still believe that, actually) but Marguerite ain't the poster child for not tolerating his shit.
I went on a bit of a rant yesterday morning on Facebook as some of my friends think I'm too hard on the 'woke'. I wrote that the reason why I disliked them as much as the Trumpers is because of their authoritarianism. I got deplatformed again from a social media platform yesterday morning for an article challenging the science behind 'gender affirming care' for kids and noting how much Europe, including the most liberal countries, are pulling back on it. Guaranteed that's what they meant by 'hate speech', which is what the woke call 'truth' now.
I am really, really fed up with the truthphobic on both sides. But I also recognize how hard it is to get to the truth when you can't even trust the experts anymore, including the alleged science-based. I can't wait to see American doctors and 'gender therapists' getting their fucking asses sued off once the country removes the trans blinders from its eyes. In particular I want to see the AMA and the AAP go down in fucking flames.
I agree with most of what you say. And yes, it can be hard to get lefty friends to pay attention to the authoritarian themes becoming entrenched in the Critical Social Justice ideology narratives and framings.
"All worship *The Narrative* of oppression and righteousness. From The Narrative flows all of our power. The prime directive is to reinforce The Narrative - suppress any information which might cast doubt, remove any dissenting perspectives, condition all people - especially kids - to believe as we decree".
---
I wanted to understand more about your characterization of Jordan Peterson, tho. I followed some of his earlier stuff when he as becoming popular, and continue to see a clip of him now and then. But I'm far from knowing his full content to date.
The criticism I found most relevant was that he slips back and forth between the science of psychology and the, um, mythopoetic Jungian stuff which is not science; and that this interweaving could mislead readers to give the latter unearned credibility as "evidence based". (This is not to say that he was consciously attempting to deceive, just that incautious readers could wind up being somewhat misled about science vs non-science based views).
I also get (from some clip I watched) that he is a Christian (albeit considerably more thoughtful than the typical Christian from my youth). I am not Christian, but I don't consider Christians to inherently be wacko. Of course, some are. (As are some non-Christians)
Perhaps in some speeches or interviews which I have not encountered, Peterson really does earn the characterization "religious whack job". I'd like to know more about that. What source convinced you that his message is in part religious wack-job stuff?
I'm not a huge follower of JP. I listened to a few of his talks on YouTube a few years ago and appreciated his comments on personal responsibility, esp re women as certain feminists seem to think they bear no responsibility for themselves, their behaviour, their reactions, their actions, or their feelings. He never went Andrew Tate-level crazy, like 'women bear responsibility for their own rape'. (I believe women sometimes unconsciously collaborate in their own rapes but my answer is, 'Don't have sex with guys like Andrew Tate' rather than 'If you're raped, it's your fault. No, it's ALWAYS the rapist's fault, but women don't have to help by doing dumb shit like getting blind-ass drunk at a party.)
I don't follow JP as much anymore (never really did, just liked his talks about personal responsibility and the weaknesses in victim feminism) but then, awhile back, he started going more Judaeo-Christian - I think he's Jewish, don't know if he identifies as a Christian now - and I don't know where he stands today. But a few years ago, don't remember the context, he was coming over as a little too religious for me. Coming from the States as I do, having grown up not in religious whackjobbery but in Ohio, where fundamentalist Christianity was popular, I have a dim view of conservative religion. (I was raised progressive Lutheran and I don't regret it even if I don't ID as a Christian anymore).
JP has also struggled with a (prescription, I think) drug problem and even wound up being hospitalized a few years back - in fact, I think he was in an induced coma. I don't remember the details and can't be arsed to look them up - you can if you like. I think he's an interesting character - emphasize on 'character' - and he's offered many intelligent talking points in the past. Sometimes he sounds rational and other times he sounds religious nutty, and it's just sort of a flag in my head when he says something weird. I hope he's getting his shit together because I think he has some valid ideas to contribute to the culture wars,
Thanks for responding. We are not that far apart on JP - neither of us being a devoted follower (in attitude or consumption of his material), both of us having seen some things from him which make a lot of sense, and neither of us resonating well with the Judeo-Christian facets of his approach. (I think he's Christian rather than Jewish, tho).
As I said, I do find his intellectual approach to Christian themes more interesting than the Christians of my own youth. His thesis is "this is valuable wisdom to hear and consider" rather than "the bible says so and you can't question it". But I'm still not a Christian (nor really an anti-Christian).
I thought he was Jewish by birth but I might be wrong - I did a quick Google but didn't find anything. I didn't look too hard. I seem to recall he's gone down the path, at least in the past, of supporting Biblical attitudes about women. But I don't follow him that closely.