autumn

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
@autumn – But there are bound to be some authoritarians amidst all those people. In general, I think the cries of ‘authoritarianism’ strain hyperbole.

Yes. it is hyperbole. I think if we described a “pile on” as a form of bullying and “fake” SJW’s as bullies andor trolls then we would have a better descriptor of t…

[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
I’m talking about Puritans, whether religious or political.

I don’t include @autumn in that.  Far from all woke people are obnoxious.

Unseen wrote:
@autumn You wonder how to define the left?

Nope.

@autumn – But there are bound to be some authoritarians amidst all those people. In general, I think the cries of ‘authoritarianism’ strain hyperbole.

Yes. it is hyperbole. I think if we described a “pile on” as a form of bullying and “fake” SJW’s as bullies andor trolls then we would have a better descriptor of those engaged in such behavior.

[Read more]

@Autumn

You wonder how to define the left?

This is adapted from the Wikipedia entry on “Left-Wing Politics”:

The left-wing supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition of social hierarchy. Left-wing politics typically involves a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
@autumn – it’s true that people can exploit charges of authoritarianism to legitimise their horrible propaganda. But are you denying that the Left has an authoritarian element?

What ‘the Left’? That’s such a pointlessly vague category. The left has rapists, pedophiles, serial killers, and all manner of monsters in some pro…[Read more]

@Autumn – it’s true that people can exploit charges of authoritarianism to legitimise their horrible propaganda.  But are you denying that the Left has an authoritarian element?  How do you account for toxic pile-ons such as has occurred in the knitting and young adult fiction circles?  For ex…[Read more]

a) What with the oblique ad hominems and with both of us lapsing into what one of my best philo profs called “attempted proof by repetition,” and b) what with beginning to feel psychologically enmeshed, and c) because when two people go at each other like two cats fighting over territory it’s an implicit invitation for others to stand aside…I’m…[Read more]

@Autumn

At least all freethinkers should be able to agree that spreading the idea that perhaps we ought to consider ivermectin as a Covid treatment is just a opinion—and not perhaps a popular or well considered one—and not, as it’s been characterized by both the corporate Democrats and the radical left (e.g., the so-called “Squad”) a “da…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
@autumn I’m not the one who invoked the concept (if one can call it that) of “objective facts.”

No, but you are the one who tried to pair some half-assed implication of subjectivity with facts, thus the clarification.

There are no facts when it comes to Covid-19, just data. Data is as factual as the methods that produce it, and a…

[Read more]

@Autumn

I’m not the one who invoked the concept (if one can call it that) of “objective facts.” There are no facts when it comes to Covid-19, just data. Data is as factual as the methods that produce it, and all they can do is produce tentative data from one moment in time. And a parallel way of deriving data isn’t necessarily 100% congruent with…[Read more]

@Autumn

Ok, setting aside anymore she-said/I-say type argumentation, just be clear on some points:

1) If someone has the authority to decide who speaks, and a necessary criterion is that the speaker should have an adequate grasp of the subject matter to qualify, doesn’t it make sense that the authority making that decision have at least that…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
@autumn

You yourself said that in the past he had demonstrated no mastery of the relevant facts, which is a qualification it seems to me. Not to you, though? Do tell! If someone can keep him off, they must have the authority to do so, no?

What are you talking about? I was talking about being invited to be part of an academic panel.…[Read more]

@Autumn

Who said they should need a qualification to speak? It makes little sense that he’d be invited to an academic forum on a topic where he was a layperson with no relevant insight. It’s not ‘authoritarianism’ should someone suggest he is not suitable for the panel. Peterson had been spreading misinformation on the topic and that was known.…

[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
@autumn

A person shouldn’t need a qualification to speak as long as they are willing to suffer the slings and arrows of a Q&A session.

Who said they should need a qualification to speak? It makes little sense that he’d be invited to an academic forum on a topic where he was a layperson with no relevant insight. It’s not ‘…[Read more]

@Autumn

…Whether I knew what he’d say or not, he lacked understanding of the subject matter and had no relevant qualification. We’re not talking about a talk show, but rather an academic forum where one might expect a certain level of academic relevance to who is invited.

A person shouldn’t need a qualification to speak as long as they are wil…[Read more]

@Autumn

“…such as occurs when the government compels a certain expression of that kindness or university authorities exclude from campus a speaker with a minority view”

These two lines somewhat establish why the conversation feels irksome to me. When speaking in generalities, there is little wrong with what the author wrote here. But in p…

[Read more]

@Autumn  I’ll know more after seeing the doctor this afternoon. I think medical people become overwhelmed by other people’s problems, much as the world is getting tired of Covid mandates and restrictions.;

Unseen wrote:
@autumn We can have a singular word the slices a constellation of reasons in two general categories rather than lumping them all together incoherently.

At present, ‘homophobia’ doesn’t typically address reasons. It just describes antipathy and harmful attitudes toward homosexuality (or sometimes the broader LGBTQ+ grouping as a…[Read more]

@Autumn We can have a singular word the slices a constellation of reasons in two general categories rather than lumping them all together incoherently.