The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

[Thycidides]

Cultural Marxism/ post modernism or whatever you like to call it has mostly won. The USA military is still accepting GLBT recruits , Trump wasn't able to turn back the clock on that one and seems to have given up on it.

Sure Jeff Sessions is Attorney General but on most gender issues the left-liberals gains can't be pushed back.

 

[Rational Poster]

Cultural Marxism/ post modernism or whatever you like to call it has won. The USA military is still accepting GLBT recruits , Trump wasn't able to turn back the clock on that one and seems to have given up on it.

Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory.

Individualism reigns supreme in America.

Always has and always will.

 

[Der Eisbär]

Cultural Marxism/ post modernism or whatever you like to call it has won. The USA military is still accepting GLBT recruits , Trump wasn't able to turn back the clock on that one and seems to have given up on it.

Liberalism =/= cultural marxism. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Bamboozled]

I don't see how you get that by railing against cultural Marxism and voting for Republicans?

Likewise openly GLBT people are here to stay, so is gay marriage etc. People are also having less kids and not getting married as often, and I don't see how complaining about student activists will change that trend either.

Not sure about your firstppart.

There is nothing wrong with LGBT or being gay, but don't expect special privileges within society when we are already equal.

 

[21 Savage]

"Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon. It'll just knock over all the pieces, shit on the board, and strut about like it's won anyway."

all good fam i like u

 

[Thycidides]

Liberalism =/= cultural marxism. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Why don't you explain it to me? Explain why Medicare for all is a bad idea. It seems to me the right wing wants to distract people from this topic by yelling about cultural Marxism and collading liberalism with Marxism

 

[Der Eisbär]

Why don't you explain it to me? Explain why Medicare for all is a bad idea. It seems to me the right wing wants to distract people from this topic.

You ask me to explain the difference between cultural marxism and liberalism, and then you throw in a completely unrelated statement about medicare.

 

[Thycidides]

You ask me to explain the difference between cultural marxism and liberalism, and then you throw in a completely unrelated statement about medicare.

So do you have any economic policy you want to advocate for? That's what I'm interested in.

To my mind Marxism is mostly a critique of capital. This cultural Marxist stuff sounds unrelated to that. If you disagree explain why.

 

[Bamboozled]

So do you have any economic policy you want to advocate for? That's what I'm interested in.

There is no other viable economic option than Capitalism, we have about 60 years and millions of deaths to determine this.

 

[Thycidides]

There is no other viable economic option than Capitalism, we have about 60 years and millions of deaths to determine this.

Sure. But Chinese Capitalism is different than USA capitalism etc. Do you have a preference?

It seems to me USA capitalism needs to make some major changes if it is to stay competitive with the Chinese model, of course the Chinese capitalism could use some improvements too.

 

[Bamboozled]

Sure. But Chinese Capitalism is different than USA capitalism etc. Do you have a preference?

It seems to me USA capitalism needs to make some major changes if it is to stay competitive with the Chinese model, of course the Chinese capitalism could use some improvements too.

That's painting with very broad strokes, I don't see how USA capitalism is not competitive with Chinese. China has bought a good portion of the USA's debt to offset their future shortcomings. The USA still has the majority of it's debt owed to themselves. The USA also isn't going to be resource scared for a long time where China is already running out of resources to fund their infrastructure.

 

[Gunny]

Sure. But Chinese Capitalism is different than USA capitalism etc. Do you have a preference?

It seems to me USA capitalism needs to make some major changes if it is to stay competitive with the Chinese model, of course the Chinese capitalism could use some improvements too.

It’s hard to disagree with that statement on its face value but I am curious what you think Is driving China’s success and what changes you would prescribe for us to be competitive.

 

[Der Eisbär]

So do you have any economic policy you want to advocate for? That's what I'm interested in.

To my mind Marxism is mostly a critique of capital.

Right, that's what traditional Marxism is. It's also a sociological analysis that divides people by class. The economic and class based argument failed to produce a global marxist revolution. Marxist thinkers like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida realized that Marxism had failed so they removed the class based argument and replaced it with the race, gender, religious identity argument. That is cultural Marxism.

Economically I'm pro free markets with strong environmental regulations and a strong social safety net.

 

[Thycidides]

Right, that's what traditional Marxism is. It's also a sociological analysis that divides people by class. The economic and class based argument failed to produce a global marxist revolution. Marxist thinkers like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida realized that Marxism had failed so they removed the class based argument and replaced it with the race, gender, religious identity argument. That is cultural Marxism.

Economically I'm pro free markets with strong environmental regulations and a strong social safety net.

That's kind of an odd interpretation of Foucault. He didn't wrote a manifesto calling for people to unite around sexual or ethnic/ racial identity and take power. Most of what he writes about is instead how social and civic institutions are authoritarian and controlling. He writes almost nothing explicitly about race or ethnicity that I know off.

Some other authors do talk about race and nationality as being more relevant to group identity than social class but Foucault isn't one of them and neither is Derrida.


At this point in time the left seems to care more about free markets than the right wing. It was Trump that ran on repealing NAFTA not Sanders after all.

 

[Thycidides]

It’s hard to disagree with that statement on its face value but I am curious what you think Is driving China’s success and what changes you would prescribe for us to be competitive.

Companies like google, Apple and Amazon could actually re invest profits rather than stockpiling it in off shore bank accounts or using it to buy back shares.

USA could actually invest in green infrastructure as well as public health and education. The Chinese state invested in all these things and it paid off.

 

[Gunny]

Companies like google, Apple and Amazon could actually re invest profits rather than stockpiling it in off shore bank accounts or using it to buy back shares.

USA could actually invest in green infrastructure as well as public health and education. The Chinese state invested in all these things and it paid off.

I’m definitely onboard with the idea of public healthcare but are those the things you think are primary drivers of China’s economic success?

 

[Thycidides]

I’m definitely onboard with the idea of public healthcare but are those the things you think are primary drivers of China’s economic success?

Yes, as well as the massive population of the country and the fact that they had other countries to copy from that were more developed in the 80's. Of course Chinese growth will decrease one the population ages and it catches up to USA in terms of development.

Those circumstances don't exist in the USA, we can't rely on demographic growth.

 

[panamaican]

Yes, as well as the massive population of the country and the fact that they had other countries to copy from that were more developed in the 80's. Of course Chinese growth will decrease one the population ages and it catches up to USA in terms of development.

Those circumstances don't exist in the USA, we can't rely on demographic growth.

An excellent point. People point to China's growth but disregard that they're simply playing catch up to modern standards at this so the growth rate has to be put into context. With a population 4x that of the U.S. they can achieve massive economic leverage without coming close to maximizing efficient use of their population. Which they haven't done. Most of China is still backwards as fcuk. But with 1.4 billion, you don't need to raise all of them up.

At the risk of a derail - that is the real question about China. Can they get 80% of their population into 21st century standards?

 

[Gunny]

Yes, as well as the massive population of the country and the fact that they had other countries to copy from that were more developed in the 80's. Of course Chinese growth will decrease one the population ages and it catches up to USA in terms of development.

Those circumstances don't exist in the USA, we can't rely on demographic growth.

I think those things pale in comparison to two far more important factors (which we would find undesirable): the fact that they have the ability to compel their population in a way that western democracies cannot and that they have abused trade agreements with basically the entire world and are dumping their manufactured products across most if not all industries.

 

[sub_thug]

An excellent point. People point to China's growth but disregard that they're simply playing catch up to modern standards at this so the growth rate has to be put into context. With a population 4x that of the U.S. they can achieve massive economic leverage without coming close to maximizing efficient use of their population. Which they haven't done. Most of China is still backwards as fcuk. But with 1.4 billion, you don't need to raise all of them up.

At the risk of a derail - that is the real question about China. Can they get 80% of their population into 21st century standards?

It's also worth noting that the Chinese use their state-owned entities in entirely different ways that the rest of the world. Take, for example, their military. One of the things that the Chinese use their military for is cyber espionage in order to steal trade secrets, R&D, and other (expensive) proprietary information. Their military then turns it over to the Chinese Communist Party leadership, just like we might turn over normal espionage or intelligence reports. When we talk about defense in the US, those are really sunk costs. At best, we equate defense costs (like military aid to foreign nations) as investment for good relationships, treaties, openness in trade, etc. A less optimistic view is that we plop billions into places like South Korea to defend our own interests while also defending the interests of the South Koreans, and we're effectively paying for both of our lunches. The Chinese can actually make money with their military. It's interesting to think about creating different business models in the world today using state-level actors/agencies.