Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility
 

SHIT'S WEAK

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility
 

Power is moving energy.

Speech is Emotional Vocal Conveyance.

Responsibility is the ability to be responsive in an emotional Intelligent way.

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility
 

Didn't see this actually had responses at the time, though that bump there is sort of "wtf" but on the off chance it comes back up:

Actually yes, he went around thoroughly exploiting the labour of people who generate him billions of dollars and receive such little compensation that they're also on food stamps, or live in their cars, or aren't allowed to go to the bathroom on shift and have to piss in jars.

You can't earn a billion dollars, let alone a trillion dollars. You can only exploit the labour of other people and take their value for yourself.

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility
 

Who's to say you can't? What if I said you can't earn a million?

Exploitation implies their labor is being used unfairly, which invokes the question of: relative to what?

If they're being used unfairly for labor, then they should stop being used unfairly for labor and get a relatively better occupation where they do not feel so exploited.

And if such an occupation isn't available, then they can (a) work on their skills until it does become available so that they can change career paths, (b) negotiate with their bosses or otherwise increase their productivity so that a raise or promotion results, (c) leave the company and take a similar job with better pay/benefits at another company, or (d) accept that they are not willing to better themselves, negotiate, or leave and look for a new job, and thus accept that the situation they are in is already as fair as possible.

Since it is possible to perform one of those options at any time, there is really no excuse but to say that a voluntary contract of employment (at will, etc.) is an admission that such an arrangement is the best possible way that a person has chosen to currently utilize their labor in exchange for money.

Who is to decide what is or isn't a fair net worth? It is arbitrary to place a cut-off point, and price controls tend to create shortages. So if you're willing to accept a less productive world in which there are shortages, lack of innovation, and a lower average quality of life for everybody, then I suppose it is a good idea to place limits. But in a world of exponential fractals, it's hard to say that any particular individual shall be barred of their property rights at some arbitrary cut-off, through the use of force and threat of violence directed collectively at those whose monetary worth we are jealous of.

Sometimes, expansionist government policies create the very shortages and food stamp dependencies we are trying to stamp out.

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility
 

If you value your time more than the more you're being paid then you should obviously quit.

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility
 

few people have the luxury to just quit a job and job hunt until they find something they believe they're suited for.

y'all gotta understand here, employees of major corporations, at least the ones on the lower rungs, are often living paycheck to paycheck and don't have much wiggle room for negotiation. if they do, their and their families' lives are at stake

talking points like this one come from a place of privilege.

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility
 

So you're saying they value the pay more than their time. Good, they shouldn't quit their job. It's not 'privilege', it's common sense.

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility
 

no i'm not. i'm saying they could value their time more than the pay, but even if they do, they're not in a position to change that

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility
 

what do you think peterson's beliefs are?

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility
 

It's been a while since I made this thread and I know he's not doing well lately so I've kind of been ignoring him. However, from memory:

I really do think he sincerely believes in a lot of what he's saying. He DOES seem to follow the Jungian paradigm (almost to a T... way more than is accepted by the scientific community at large). I really do think he believes a lot of what he wrote in "12 Rules." I also think he (at least at as within his capacity as a therapist) DOES derive sincere satisfaction and pleasure from helping people, especially disenfranchised young men. This is perfectly valuable.

Things get a little muddy when you consider his position as a celebrity and pop-science leader.

I feel like a lot of people in his position compromise their integrity to appeal to more people. (Grifting) I'd need to look at some of his claims but Peterson almost certainly has done this and had profited off of it. (Not totally sure, but I do not totally think "12 Rules" falls in this category.)

One immediately obvious logical failure is in how he applies the basic tenets of Jungian thought. Jung never really dove into psychologies that emerge from actual SYSTEMIC, OPPRESSIVE societal structures. Most of it essentially treats all psychology under the same umbrella, which whitewashes almost all cases where "pick yourself up by your bootstraps!" logic flatly cannot work.

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility
 

yeah i can agree that the whole 'pick yourself up by your bootstraps' mentality, while useful, doesn't work for everyone in the face of overriding circumstances.

that said, from what i've seen of him, although there's stuff i disagree with, he doesn't have any 'evil' beliefs, and has legitimately helped people. I think he was using lobsters to show that hierarchies exist in nature and isn't something that has been invented by our human society, which is true. I don't think he was trying to condone 'systems of oppression'

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility
 

I don't really buy into the whole idea of there being universal archetypes etc. that he's always talking about. I think he's helped plenty of people find meaning in life, though. He's a good man.

'Systematic oppression' is such a useless term. On a personal level, to believe that everything is beyond your control is to sabotage yourself. Instead, focus on what you can control and do something about it. And if you actually want to address something in the system that you think is unjust, then you should identify it specifically. If you're too vague about it, you're intentionally obscuring the actual issues that you want to be resolved. I'm not sure why victimhood is such a currency these days.

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility
 

huh? it's common sense to stay at the shitty paying job if it is necessary to pay bills/rent etc. until a better paying position is secured. especially in certain industries where finding a relevant job might be harder. im one of the privileged ones to never have been in this position luckily but saying "if you value your time more than getting paid you should obviously quit" is obviously incredibly stupid advice for a large percent of the working class.

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility
 

Well obviously they wouldn't quit if they need the money, that's my point.

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility
 

ah ok my bad. your first statement just seemed kind of dumb which prompted funny's response. like a lot of people value their time a lot more than what they're getting paid, but don't have the ability to quit

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility
 

What's going on here?

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility
 

im honored to know that my thread was relevant enough for bots to post in it

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility
 

accurate username