Welcome to The Duncan Trussell Family Hour Center for Self-Optimization

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

85 posts in this topic
On 2/3/2017 at 2:07 AM, SimonLee said:

Thanks for responding--I'll try to thoughtfully respond to all of your points.

Biopower is more complicated than that--and I think Foucault would not attribute it to capitalist states, but instead any state with a central government. It's a difficult concept to explain, and certainly, reading Foucault can be difficult work as you know. I wonder what you read that was his worst work? I love all of it! On topic though, what I believe Jordan is not grasping is the distinct differences between Marxism and the postmodern issues Foucault brought into the picture. Consider Louis Althusser--a Marxist scholar. He came up with the idea of "Ideological State Apparatuses" (ISAs) Now this term, on its own, seems like nonsense. But it is an important term to Marxism and to what Dr. Peterson is talking about. ISAs were supposed to be tools of the government that were not overt, but subversive. Tools like education, the church, television, the media, etc., and these tools told us how to live ideologically. In many ways, I can see why Dr. Peterson brings up Marxism in his argument, but you'd assume he'd be on the side of Marxists--as they argued the government used these tools to oppress. The issue here is: Peterson seems to think Marxists caused the current issue, which may be non-existant. And he seems to equate Marxism with postmodernism. The two theoretical perspectives are opposed. If you read Bourdieu, Althusser, Gramsci, or even Marx himself--a singular theme runs through all the text: the working class is oppressed. If you begin with Foucault and track through postmodernism, the oppression becomes much more muddled. I can't remember the term "working class" ever coming up in postmodernism.

Postmodernists ultimately fall on the Marxists side of the fence, but they have inherently different views about how the power structure works. A person like Dr. Peterson should understand this. He is a tenured professor. I am still working on my grad degree, and I get the difference. I understand he is a clinical psychologist and out of his depth, but he needs to get into his depth if he is going to speak on these issues. Postmodernists would never advocate for placing "evil white people" in roles of subjugation. 

In terms of capitalism vs. communism/socialism/marxism--I would argue Capitalism is as big a failure as the others. Not for us, I suppose, but for the people around the world who suffer from it. I spent time in Guantanamo Bay assisting in the torture of innocent men--and many were innocent, they were just picked up for various bullshit reasons and held for years without trials--but because our capitalist society was threatened we caused pain and havoc around the world in terrible fashion. Mothers and children and father separated and killed for no reason except they lived where we decided to bomb. Awful, awful things.

Let the gender fluid have their fucking pronouns, I say. Given everything else wrong in this world--let this happen.

And despite everything I typed, I agree, capitalism, communism, etc., ARE economic. It's nuts how easily co-opted they are by the rich and powerful.

And finally, as for art in communism? Of course there is room for it. Richard Wright was a famous communist--and he is one of my favorite writers. He was an American turned communist during the 60s, I believe, an African American who, as a child, grew up in the south during the height of segregation. His memoir, Black Boy, is spectacular. In communist countries themselves, you will find amazing art. The difference is--artists won't make "fat stacks" over there. Art is pursued...for art. Tolstoy, you must remember, came from that era.

@SimonLee I've been meaning to reply, and had a draft written up, but lost it in the ether.  

I'll do my best to circle back and respond before the weekend is out.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, pattmayne said:

This is almost as bad as Harper's "barbaric cultural practices" bullshit. Murder is already illegal. So it religious discrimination. We don't need a new law!

The gender stuff is so interesting that I wish we could have a non-political conversation about it. Primarily, if anyone can just pick a new gender, does gender become meaningless? Writing laws guarantees polarization.

So, (1) we can pick a gender. I'm a male but I could be a lady if I want, and ask to be called "she." (2) I can reject gender altogether and choose to be called nhe. (3) I could choose both genders, I'm a gender Bender, cross-gender, and choose to be called zhe. But (4) to pick a new gender???? I think that's silly. Is that somehow a human right? What are your thoughts on (4)???

I think Jordan Peterson touches on this alleged new anti-islamiphobia bill nicely in his latest video.  If we eliminate the ability to criticize those who seek to oppress women/the LGBTQ community, and rape those who cannot defend themselves then who will stand against their regressive values.  The immigrants we have in our country are not those people, but that isn't a reason to stifle intelligent arguments.  Besides, the ones who need to be dealt with don't care about gag laws, and they aren't the people to be trifling with anyways.  True militant racists are seriously scary individuals.

The right to make sovereign decisions about oneself is, in my opinion, the highest right anyone has.  As long as the choices made for oneself do not infringe on the rights of anyone else.  If you choose to be wormself, be wormself.  It seems to me however, that this whole gender exercise seems to be a little limiting considering how difficult it is to find a suitable mate under the most ideal circumstances; but people fuck pop can vaginas and sexy ass robots so what the hell do I know.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, softwarmpretty said:

Can we keep our eyes on the g'damn ball?

I agree. I assume with dr Peterson it's because he had to deal with this more directly. And we shouldn't necessarily get slack on "small stuff" just because there are other things too.

But yeah, we need to get more animated about economics and resources.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is truly one of the best Duncan podcasts. With a guest who speaks to the hearts of many men in the western world (and other places, apparently with an 80% male audience).

And another thing, I love the controversy it has created - this topic is 4 pages.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jordan Peterson is probably suppressing his own desire to become a woman. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@duncanThank you from the bottom of my heart for this wonderful interview. I've been working on something like self-authoring program privately (in an esoteric game manual  format) and I got very excited when I heard about it. I looked on a whim and the program was at a massive discount for a pair. So now my wife and I are doing the self-authoring program. 

You're saving and improving the quality of countless lives with your work, @duncan

Dinner's on me if you're ever in AZ.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no non-binary people.  There are intersex people, but there are positively zero nonbinary people who were born male or female.  It's not a thing.  There is nothing special in these people's brains that makes them neither male or female - well, maybe there are some plastics and endocrine disrupters.  Transsexuals transition between male and female or female and male.  They are not non-binary, they are switching between the two binary options.

 

For this reason, no, I will not use madeup pronouns.  Anyone who supports the Canadian law, supports forcing people to be complicit in others mental delusions.  You can be delusional, that's your right, but forcing others by law to agree with your delusion is ridiculous.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now