Weird "genders" and "sexualities"

Discuss the news, current events, politics, etc.

Re: Weird "genders" and "sexualities"

Unread postby Derek » 10 December 2021, 18:40

PopTart wrote:
poolerboy0077 wrote:
PopTart wrote:It's funny, because you talk about how comedians and soceity in general, need to be more mindful of the things they say and the perceived harms that speech causes, and yet, you yourself, continue to mock, ridicule and insult other people.

How did I insult? :squint: You’re taking mild banter waaaay too seriously.

Imagine, in the real world, you're in a conversation with a group of people and one of that group, turns to another and behind a raised hand, in faux conspiratorial fashion, mocks you to that person. With the full knowledge that you have heard them, because they meant for you to hear them. I don't know about you, but at the very least, I'd regard that as rude and disrespectful. You have done the same thing with me before and I normally ignore it.

But I don't feel like ignoring it today.

You're very tolerant if a lot of worldviews, but the second someone makes fun of Jordan Peterson, the funniest person alive, it's a bridge too far. I have a hard time imagining what it is that's represented in his body of work that's worth getting worked up over.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 7033
+1s received: 2753
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: Weird "genders" and "sexualities"

Unread postby PopTart » 10 December 2021, 19:54

Derek wrote:
PopTart wrote:
poolerboy0077 wrote:
PopTart wrote:It's funny, because you talk about how comedians and soceity in general, need to be more mindful of the things they say and the perceived harms that speech causes, and yet, you yourself, continue to mock, ridicule and insult other people.

How did I insult? :squint: You’re taking mild banter waaaay too seriously.

Imagine, in the real world, you're in a conversation with a group of people and one of that group, turns to another and behind a raised hand, in faux conspiratorial fashion, mocks you to that person. With the full knowledge that you have heard them, because they meant for you to hear them. I don't know about you, but at the very least, I'd regard that as rude and disrespectful. You have done the same thing with me before and I normally ignore it.

But I don't feel like ignoring it today.

You're very tolerant if a lot of worldviews, but the second someone makes fun of Jordan Peterson, the funniest person alive, it's a bridge too far. I have a hard time imagining what it is that's represented in his body of work that's worth getting worked up over.
I'll jave to keep this brief as I have company and it's rude to be on my phone when she has travelled 50 miles to see me.

That's just it Derek, I couldn't care less about Jordan Peterson. He isn't saying anything radical. He isn't saying anything particularly noteworthy. I don't disagree with a lot of what he says, but I don't much agree with it either, because most of what he says is fluff. He has little bearing on my understanding of post modernism or anything else.

What I have a bug in my ass about, is your assumption, that everything I know of post modernism and it's offshoot ideologies, comes from the man. Therefore, what I say can be disregarded.

It doesn't. It was Thomas Sowell and his writing that launched me into reading about post modernism and from there, several other scholars, thinkers and writers, who I have since read, who have shaped and informed my thinking on the subject.

I get that I have no formal education beyond state level and my neural plasticity is such, that I don't take to new ideas as readily as I once did. But there is nothing quite like having ones thoughts and opinions dismissed, because someone thinks they have divined the origin of them and found the presumed source lacking. To then be mocked under that framework is just... really really disheartening.

I freely admit you have better oratory and debating skills than I and I imagine discourse with me might be frustrating (just ask marmaduke) in the same way, that for someone who plays chess at master level, might become frustrated having to play against someone who is a novice. I freely admit in the past you have run rings around me and I have wound up arguing points I never meant to argue to begin with! When we talked about tone for example, what really bothered me had been what I felt was hypocrisy and a double standard I was sad to see you employing and felt was beneath you. But the discussion settled on tone and I wound up defending something I didn't even really mean to begin with. Because I'm a rambling cack handed conversationalist who struggled to counter your incisive and laser focused attack.

I'm now getting the lesbian eye and the occasional tut. I best hurry up.

I will tolerate a lot. I can get fighty and be abit of a Karen on occassion, when I feel directly attacked. If it turns out I'm wrong I apologise.

But by and large, I treat people with civility and respect. I grow weary of those small cruelties. Seemingly inconsequential in isolation, but in aggregate, they wear you down and chip away at something important.

I am quite thoroughly chipped away right now.

In a rare moment, I'm going to set aside my not inconsiderable pride and admit. I am struggling right now. All I have left is my fight and maybe I am being oversensitive. But not entirely without cause.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 3779
+1s received: 2860
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Weird "genders" and "sexualities"

Unread postby Derek » 10 December 2021, 21:13

I haven't read Sowell since my teenage libertarian days. I remember him as being very much like Jordan Peterson, except without the charm or inherent comedy. I think he followed a natural progression from Hayek, whose own criticisms of postmodernism were much more specific and not bogged down by decades of dysgenic political discourse that have made it a byword for anything conservatives don't like and don't understand. I always found it ironic that Sowell and Rothbard and the other scholars of their tradition were constantly citing people like Mises and Schumpeter, whose analyses of political economy were quintessentially postmodernist. Not because they were part of the same intellectual tradition as the usual boogeymen, but because postmodernism is a style of analysis that can apply very widely. To date I've never seen anyone take right-wing libertarians to task over their dirty postmodernist origins.

Anyways, I'm fully prepared to have a serious argument about postmodernism if and when criticism of postmodernism is actually relevant to what's being discussed, and that's shockingly seldom. Certainly it's not in this thread, where Brenden's angle was that the whole concept of gender was cooked up by, I don't know, Judith Butler - as if she's not vehemently opposed by feminist thinkers who come from an unambiguously modernist tradition, but still employ the concept.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 7033
+1s received: 2753
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: Weird "genders" and "sexualities"

Unread postby PopTart » 16 December 2021, 19:42

poolerboy0077 wrote:
PopTart wrote:It's funny, because you talk about how comedians and soceity in general, need to be more mindful of the things they say and the perceived harms that speech causes, and yet, you yourself, continue to mock, ridicule and insult other people.

How did I insult? :squint: You’re taking mild banter waaaay too seriously.

Perhaps so. Regardless, I shouldn't have responded by being rude in turn and with such a cheap shot too.

I'm sorry for suggesting you're a pedo.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 3779
+1s received: 2860
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Weird "genders" and "sexualities"

Unread postby PopTart » 16 December 2021, 20:06

Derek wrote:I haven't read Sowell since my teenage libertarian days. I remember him as being ...

I've been working my way through conservative authors, starting with Burke, but my focus has been largely on British Conservative thinkers. I find that, American conservatives are a different breed. Of Sowells work, that which I find most interesting, is his pretty exhaustive work regarding middle men minorities and the role of culture in society. His political attitudes tend to be highly Amerocentric. But You can appreciate that I don't really have as much interest in American political history, beyond the ways in which it copied or diverged from our own. So I don't get bogged down by a lot of that. The economics too, tend towards very American attitudes and practices, Rothbard was similar and while in places similarities with British interests can be found, there are just as many places where large differences exist. The attitude towards any form of socialism, for example. It's perhaps ironic, that for an economist, I think Sowell is far better suited to cultural anthropology than anything else. He may be dry and lacking in charm, but he does understand how people think and what motivates people.

Derek wrote:To date I've never seen anyone take right-wing libertarians to task over their dirty postmodernist origins.
Anything you might recommend, that might better illustrate your point, so can read for myself? It would appreciated.

Derek wrote:Anyways, I'm fully prepared to have a serious argument about postmodernism if and when criticism of postmodernism is actually relevant to what's being discussed, and that's shockingly seldom. Certainly it's not in this thread, where Brenden's angle was that the whole concept of gender was cooked up by, I don't know, Judith Butler - as if she's not vehemently opposed by feminist thinkers who come from an unambiguously modernist tradition, but still employ the concept.
I'm not looking for an argument on the subject (as yet, I'm still reading and have a lot more to do before I feel I have settled fully on a position, I just know which way I'm leaning) my bringing it up it, was only tangentially related to what I felt was another example of mockery, similar to what I was triggered about above.

But I'll remember your offer of discussion, though you might have to dumb down a little.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 3779
+1s received: 2860
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Weird "genders" and "sexualities"

Unread postby Derek » 17 December 2021, 06:08

PopTart wrote:Anything you might recommend, that might better illustrate your point, so can read for myself? It would appreciated.

I can't in good conscience recommend reading the Austrian School to anyone, it's a waste of time unless you want to understand libertarians better for some reason. I also wouldn't expect any serious academic writer to make my point that they are postmodernists, because serious academic writers understand how useless a vague a description it is. They are postmodernists is the most literal sense - their philosophy was developed after and in reaction to modernist philosophy, and articulates a skepticism of modernist methods and assumptions - and in that, they make some good points and some bad ones, none of which are made clearer by being labeled. Their crankish rejection of economics as a science greatly informs the intellectual tradition of right-wing libertarianism, insofar as it exists. It's very common when reading someone like Sowell that you'll see this exhortation of Enlightenment values like rationality and science, and then they'll go on to frame any kind of leftist critique as reactionary postmodernism, leaving out the part where the defining modernist contribution to economics was the concept of class struggle, and that in the present day libertarian economists have nothing to do except ignore any research that came out after WW2 and spit on the ground anytime someone says "Keynes".
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 7033
+1s received: 2753
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: Weird "genders" and "sexualities"

Unread postby PopTart » 17 December 2021, 07:29

Derek wrote:It's very common when reading someone like Sowell that you'll see this exhortation of Enlightenment values like rationality and science, and then they'll go on to frame any kind of leftist critique as reactionary postmodernism, leaving out the part where the defining modernist contribution to economics was the concept of class struggle, and that in the present day libertarian economists have nothing to do except ignore any research that came out after WW2 and spit on the ground anytime someone says "Keynes".
Yes, that is one thing I noticed with Sowell and a number of others. The pathological rejection of anything advanced by the left, is pretty strong, which is itself, rather irrational.

But I don't think that means that their take on things like, critical race theory and gender theory are wrong. Just as I think Sowells analysis of minority workers and cultural influences on success, hold water too.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 3779
+1s received: 2860
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Previous

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 21 guests