Another post without any solid argument and presenting good evidence. Solid work.

Why do you think there is no such peer reviewed studies? That is such a ridiculous standard for the kind of topic at hand. Talk about grasping at straws.

Are you dumb or can you not comprehend that post? Because this is utter rubbish for a response lol.

Why are you asking for peer reviewed studies then? You look like a total moron doing so.

Ok, so you are dumb.

I didn't ask for peer reviewed studies. Next time try reading the thread a little more.

This is what I thought you were referring to, if not then what peer reviewed studies could foldn not find?

Yes, I was referring to that.

Now where did I ask for him to provide a peer reviewed study?

He admitted he's making up his argument on the fly with that statement. Do I need to slowspain it anymore to you?

If you do post such studies, it's not good, they'll find some other way to discredit you.

Are you serious? You were pretty much saying that he was pulling the argument out of his ass since he could not provide peer reviewed studies = setting an unreasonable standard for discussion.

Thanks for proving my point.

Marn, there's no point. They do not engage honestly. If you provide evidence, or reading lists, or studies, or anything else, they will literally just find other ways to pour scorn.

etc etc

You two, please remember this is a content thread and Foldn you need to make sure you're discussion about SJWs does not become about posters or 2+2. Find examples from elsewhere world and stick to them please. Also Foldn your image response about opinions is OTT for a content thread



You two are on final warnings. Don't forget.

Not the place for grumbling about posters, Lord. Keep it in the !!! threads please

Paul, you can't post this way in a content thread. They're not about posters or your opinions on them.

He has been pulling his argument out of his ass since the Safe Space thread. I'm so so sorry that you feel a need to protect your bff. But he is the one who mentioned peer reviewed studies. He has never been able to show any basis for his arguments through links in the Safe Space thread with links. He makes empty statements like "the kids hate you!".

The only point you guys ever make is you're not interested in intellectual honesty.

He argues a lot more convincingly than you do! In fact you mostly just nitpick and obfuscate other peoples arguments. You are so blinded by ideology and tribalism that it is sad to witness quite honestly.

You don't even know my ideology. So you're grasping at straws and harping on me because of your own confirmation biases, Marn.





And @Chez, quit pretending like this particular thread is a content thread when it is just your bff doing his usual mastubatory process of flaming SJWs and liberals without actually backing it up.

Paul. Keep any gripes you have about the modding, forum or other posters out of the content threads please

Lol, okay. It is irrelevant to showing your claim is true. Right?
No it isn't. It has not been part of my criticism of your arguments at all. This is a genuine question on my part. I often criticize how people engage in politics. If I find out I'm doing the same thing I criticize other people for doing, I try to stop. I normally think of this as an implication of normative claims. Do you not agree?

As for changing equilibria, I agree we should pay attention to these things. Increased polarization and social media as well as the changing political landscape (most obviously the replacement of the Cold War/communism rhetoric with War on Terror/Islamist rhetoric) have changed how the parties relate to each other. I do find LordJvK and your attitude towards the right bizarre in that you seem to infantilize them such that only the left has real agency or responsibility for maintaining conversational norms.

Good.

Well, I've made other arguments, but I'm happy to focus on these two. Do you think they are insufficient to warrant skepticism about your claims?

Also, I haven't misunderstood your arguments. At several points in our conversations, I've restated what seem to me the main claims and arguments for your position, which you have agreed were fairly accurate statements of your viewpoint or at least didn't object to. On the other hand, I have repeatedly told you that you misunderstand my viewpoint, as has most everyone else arguing with you in these conversations.

Hold on, I thought you were the guy arguing that it didn't matter if you horrendously misrepresent someone?

Here are some books on SJWs:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/make-Social.../dp/B00IRUW8J6

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Social-Just...ustice+warrior

https://www.amazon.co.uk/SJWs-Always...ustice+warrior

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Digital-Wil...ustice+warrior

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Leftists-Le...ustice+warrior

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/06928472...ustice+warrior

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Understandi...ustice+warrior

https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Trump-S...ustice+warrior

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Free-Speech...ustice+warrior

https://www.amazon.co.uk/SJWs-Someti...ustice+warrior

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dear-Femini...ustice+warrior

How many books need to be published in order for Original Position and others to accept that the SJW is a thing?

Fair enough but that's still a 24 hour timeout for you. Please don't post in this thread for 24 hours.

Also please don't repost anything that has been ruled against please.

Zero.

EDIT: Remember, I'm opposed to SJWs as I think you and FoldnDark understand them.

The claim that rampant abuse of PC is driving people nuts and they're running away from it so hard that many may have fallen into the arms of a demagogue who stands up and sticks his middle finger up the ass of those who most represent it is at least supported a little bit by showing evidence of tens of millions of people who subscribe to and view tens of thousands of videos saying just that.

This reminds me again of the arguments I have with people who claim Al Sharpton is a race baiter just in it for the fame and fortune. A silly claim, but whether it's true or not is beside the point. If the problems he goes on and on about didn't exist in some shape or form, he'd be broke.



I do hold the left, or specifically liberals in higher esteem than conservatives, and probably to higher standards, but (like the same observation you made of me about religion) much of what you're observing has more to do with the fact I'm arguing with mostly leftists in here.

What it really comes down to though is that the liberal left has been winning since somewhere around the days of The Enlightenment, and it's not actually very easy to elucidate why. We just seem to keep making progress, slowly but surely in the West. This guy tries to explain it in a very interesting and long essay I link to every chance I get:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23...-civilization/
This is not what growing factions of the left believe these days, and I don't think they realize what they're doing.



Not at all. Everyone should be skeptical.

I'm also skeptical of the claims that after decades of progress, our country has somehow become so much more bigoted in four years.

What are your answers to how we went from nominating a couple of qualified Republican gentlemen and then twice electing another qualified Democratic gentleman to the White House... to nominating and then even electing a buffoon who's only actual talents are breaking social norms and trolling?

Foldndark, I've read a lot of broad sweep history books, and from every angle that I look at it, the Enlightenment is a truly exceptional outlier event / seismic shift in history.

There are other big huge changes, of course, for example 1453 is a year of great change when the Ottomans take Constantinople and Mehmed II inadvertently triggers the Renaissance (scholars flee to Italy -> Copernicus, Silk Road closed forcing traders to use sea rather than road -> Columbus)

But the changes that come after The Enlightenment make that seem like small fry. I think the last set of changes of that scale and significance for humans would have been right back when hunter-gatherer tribes first developed agriculture.

Everything shoots up after the Enlightenment: technology, population, wealth, health, productivity, everything. Every metric, through the roof. It is the first time in history in which a real, genuine, meaningful gap emerges between the East and West. This has been called "The European Miracle": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_European_Miracle

I have long been fascinated by this.

Jared Diamond, Germs, Guns, and Steel has one answer (geography)

David Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations has another one (culture)

Ian Morris, Why the West Rules -- For Now has a third (mostly geography but also some culture)

What's the real breakthrough? I think back to when Haidt talks about the development of WEIRD people, and wonder if it is actually just that. This is basically Landes's thesis too.

He argues, for example, that you can draw a direct correlation between the economy of a nation and how it treats its women.

It's clearly some combination of:

- geography
- Protestant work ethic
- capitalism
- science
- individualism

And (more controversially):

- empire

One thing that I'm musing on though is ... given all of this, why should it be the case that people have become more compassionate over time in this general mode of being (eg in Western capitalism)?

Why did this way of thinking invariably lead to what Haidt calls "WEIRD"?

It's puzzling and certainly not a given. I'd include in this:

- ending slavery (people tend to think only of black slaves sent to Americas, but EVERY civilisation kept slaves, the Islamic ones especially)
- universal suffrage (for men)
- women's rights
- rights of property ownership for everyone
- eventually gay rights

None of these things necessarily or inevitably had to happen. And in other cultures these developments either don't seem like they have happened or will happen unless imported by western powers.

I actually think it's a great mystery how and why these things came about. As in, what gave the impetus for them in the first place? What drove them? And why did these things ONLY happen in the conditions created after the Enlightenment?

Huge question, I know, but it's something to ponder. I think it is really overlooked what a massive, massive outlier we are in this present moment to the rest of history. In terms of our values, our outlook, and virtually everything.

To put this another way, if you took me and Foldndark and dropped us into 1535 London (for example), we'd be insufferable SJWs. We'd actually be insufferable SJWs if you dropped us in modern-day Saudi Arabia or wherever. Our entire modern Western way of seeing the world is completely different to all other known cultures.

"WEIRD" is the right word for it. But how and why is really puzzling.

You don't understand the argument. If someone tells me they became a Republican because Democrats are ugly, do I believe them? Well, I believe they might believe that's true. I also think if they made some YouTube videos showing a bunch of ugly Democrats that lots of Republicans would go, "Yeah! Democrats are ugly!" regardless of their own experience of ugly Democrats. However, I think it more likely that their belief that Democrats are ugly is caused by their opposition to Democrats rather than vice versa. Thus, I'm not going to claim that all these people became Republicans because of ugly Democrats. I certainly am not going to conclude from these videos that Democrats have a real ugly people problem. For that conclusion, I'll do what you should be also be doing - look at data about Democrats, not just watch videos made by political opponents.

Sometimes scam artists are just scamming people. Everyone wants something.

You should stop, it weakens your message.

Okay.

Republican voters no longer trust their political leadership and parties are weak right now, so a businessman/TV actor celebrity was able to get enough support to win the GOP primary through a combination of luck and a innovative media strategy even against opposition from party leadership. Then, in the general, people mostly just vote for their party, regardless of the candidate, so he won an extremely close election. This is just a guess though.

Anyway, I have a fairly low opinion of voters' ability to choose wisely, so I don't need to significantly revise my opinion because they chose poorly in Trump. Where I have changed my opinion is about the structure of the American political system.

I don't know if the country is more bigoted now, tend to think not, but also think I probably wouldn't know if it was.