Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

White Pride

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

"I stopped supporting him after he aligned himself with the fake news industry..."

I supported him earlier on, then I stopped.  What is unclear in that ?

What fake news outlets has he aligned himself with? Please don't trot out Rebel as that has been easily explained.  But I am not sure we are on the topic of this alleged white pride stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rebel is listed as 'Fake News' on Rational Wiki:

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fake_news#The_Rebel_Media

They even have their own section.  Example of their "news" is '"Backlash over Trump’s leaked tape is really an attack on masculinity"'

 

Even "Dr." Joyce Brothers didn't join up with fake news sites in the 1970s when she was on Match Game...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The Rebel is listed as 'Fake News' on Rational Wiki:

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fake_news#The_Rebel_Media

They even have their own section.  Example of their "news" is '"Backlash over Trump’s leaked tape is really an attack on masculinity"'

 

Even "Dr." Joyce Brothers didn't join up with fake news sites in the 1970s when she was on Match Game...

 

The rebel thing has been explained, but you are stuck on that one tidbit which is not even really true. He is not alt-right and he is not associated with The Rebel in anyway. Argus has explained it, and there is no need to repeat it as it clearly states what happened.

HAHAH  I went to rationalwiki and the one thing that does not pass the smell test is their banner log on every page that says ' You gotta spin it to win it'.   Yeah seems all on the up and up there.

Edited by GostHacked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

The rebel thing has been explained, but you are stuck on that one tidbit which is not even really true. He is not alt-right and he is not associated with The Rebel in anyway.  

 

I don't think he IS 'alt right', which is exactly why an explanation is not needed.  There is no waving this one away, unfortunately.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Which of Oprah's ideas would you say are 'wrong-headed' ?  It's not that they're incorrect, it's that it's just a long plaint.  I wouldn't even expect a cite for his claims, it's all emotional stuff... 

I couldn't cite Oprah's ideas either. I really don't follow her or watch her so I suppose I'd treat some idea of hers with whatever respect that idea or suggestion had. As I would with anyone else. 

But that's not how you feel about Peterson. You despise him. Any time he's mentioned I get the idea yours eyes bug out and a rage fills you. You can't pass up the opportunity to hiss and sneer and cut him down. Yet you can't cite a single thing he's said that offends you or a single thing he's wrong about

 

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, that's the answer so....

So anyone who has ever been given money by the Rebel or appeared in the Rebel or is liked by the Rebel is now a non-person, an enemy of mankind? Have I got that right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Argus said:

I couldn't cite Oprah's ideas either. I really don't follow her or watch her so I suppose I'd treat some idea of hers with whatever respect that idea or suggestion had. As I would with anyone else. 

Agreed.

 

9 minutes ago, Argus said:

But that's not how you feel about Peterson. You despise him. Any time he's mentioned I get the idea yours eyes bug out and a rage fills you. You can't pass up the opportunity to hiss and sneer and cut him down. Yet you can't cite a single thing he's said that offends you or a single thing he's wrong about

You are putting words in my mouth.  I have no rage.  I find it confusing that he is getting the kind of attention he gets.  I do want to cut him down because I feel a better class of intellectual is likely standing right behind him.  

I can think of nothing (at the moment) that he says that is offensive, or wrong... it's just not relevant.  "Women need a strong man".  Is that something one hears from a professor and thereby declares him useful ?

Edited by Michael Hardner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Argus said:

So anyone who has ever been given money by the Rebel or appeared in the Rebel or is liked by the Rebel is now a non-person, an enemy of mankind? Have I got that right?

No, you have it wrong.  I want you to imagine a principle here, and imagine that you would buy into it.  Then state it, and see if you can make one we agree in regarding his conflict of interest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-profound-sadness-in-jordan-petersons-antidote-to-chaos/2018/05/09/8e1be3a4-53bd-11e8-9c91-7dab596e8252_story.html?utm_term=.94abbc2ec169

 

This article captures it:

Quote

Peterson’s teachings are the sort of thing you would expect to learn from a parent, mentor or religious tradition while growing up. Peterson’s role is like that of a clear-eyed friend: someone to whom you can ask questions, with whom you can reflect upon the difficulties of your life. 

He's another self-help guy, basically.  I think it's great for people who need it, but it's not really informative to the rest of society or to those who don't ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You are putting words in my mouth.  I have no rage.  I find it confusing that he is getting the kind of attention he gets.  I do want to cut him down because I feel a better class of intellectual is likely standing right behind him.  

What would make you think that? None has arisen of late. I admit I was slow to have any interest in him. He's not as appealing a speaker as Haidt, for example. He can be grating. But some of what he says needs to be said. And he seems genuinely emotionally involved in issues like freedom of speech and intellectual diversity. There aren't enough voices stating what you claim to be the obvious, and certainly none in the mainstream media, whereas there seems to be whole choruses of people saying the opposite.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I can think of nothing (at the moment) that he says that is offensive, or wrong... it's just not relevant.  "Women need a strong man".  Is that something one hears from a professor and thereby declares him useful ?

I find some of what he's saying to be very relevant. When he talks about the motivation of people to act how they act, and of the need to counter certain types of behavior, and allow diverse viewpoints and freedom of speech I find that quite relevant. Why do you think so many people attack him so strenuously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interview I saw a while back with Joe Rogan where Peterson explains how statistical understanding helps us understand the reasons behind gender disparities in different types of jobs, and also explains how ridiculous the attacks on that google engineer were that got him fired. You might think this is obvious or you might disagree, but you rarely see this on the MSM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHXi9g54v7Y&t=123s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Argus said:

Here's an interview I saw a while back with Joe Rogan where Peterson explains how statistical understanding helps us understand the reasons behind gender disparities in different types of jobs, and also explains how ridiculous the attacks on that google engineer were that got him fired. You might think this is obvious or you might disagree, but you rarely see this on the MSM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHXi9g54v7Y&t=123s

We kind of did, but we got some stupid with that Channel 4 , Cathy Newman. 'So what you are saying is' ..   NO that is not what I said. I swear people hear what they want to hear. Mike's made up his mind, so I don't really think it's him that is in need of convincing.

But I am still wondering what this has to do with this white pride bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) None has arisen of late. 

2) There aren't enough voices stating what you claim to be the obvious, and certainly none in the mainstream media, whereas there seems to be whole choruses of people saying the opposite.

3) Why do you think so many people attack him so strenuously?

1) He has arisen of late.  The people pushing him probably are new to academic perspectives.

2) The National Post is full of such voices.

3) Because we have the National Post, which is better.  But like I say, a better JP is waiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

We kind of did, but we got some stupid with that Channel 4 , Cathy Newman. 'So what you are saying is' ..   NO that is not what I said. I swear people hear what they want to hear. Mike's made up his mind, so I don't really think it's him that is in need of convincing.

But I am still wondering what this has to do with this white pride bullshit.

Did you read the OP? I don't think it is bullshit. I think it's part of the culture wars. As the OP stated, the way governments and progressives insist on dividing us all into different identity groups is bound to produce tribal behavior. Yet while all the separate groups are encouraged to feel pride in themselves whites are told they must never do so and are constantly  denigrated. This, unsurprisingly, is producing some pretty angry people. The only thing this has to do with that is that the same people who are reducing everyone to a separate identity group are also desperately determined to prevent anyone who argues against what they're doing from being heard, much less respected, thus Jordan Peterson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) He has arisen of late.  The people pushing him probably are new to academic perspectives.

And he is alone. I've seen no others, at least not in Canada.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) The National Post is full of such voices.

I read the Post, as well as other newspapers. They certainly have some conservative voices, but I haven't seen one able to articulate things like I posted as authoritatively. They're journalists, after all, and not academics. And the medium of a newspaper doesn't lend itself to lengthy speeches, much less long interviews.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

3) Because we have the National Post, which is better.  But like I say, a better JP is waiting.

I would welcome any such voice, but I won't denigrate him simply because you're irked he took money from a Rebel incited crowdfunding effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Argus said:

Did you read the OP? I don't think it is bullshit. I think it's part of the culture wars. As the OP stated, the way governments and progressives insist on dividing us all into different identity groups is bound to produce tribal behavior. Yet while all the separate groups are encouraged to feel pride in themselves whites are told they must never do so and are constantly  denigrated. This, unsurprisingly, is producing some pretty angry people. The only thing this has to do with that is that the same people who are reducing everyone to a separate identity group are also desperately determined to prevent anyone who argues against what they're doing from being heard, much less respected, thus Jordan Peterson.

I get it now. Seems like a weird concept as my parents taught me that I should be proud of who I am and what I do. I also never went to university so I might have avoided a lot of this social idiocy by default.  Again, just seems foreign.

But on the concept of divide and conquer, yeah I've pointed that out here to that we would be divided down to the individual level to the point where there is no unity anywhere. These powers that be, love the fact we are doing this via social engineering and not understanding that it allows us to be distracted while they go do something evil.

Also is white pride not also associated with anti-semitism? Or would that be mostly in the neo-nazi types?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, GostHacked said:

But on the concept of divide and conquer, yeah I've pointed that out here to that we would be divided down to the individual level to the point where there is no unity anywhere. These powers that be, love the fact we are doing this via social engineering and not understanding that it allows us to be distracted while they go do something evil.

Also is white pride not also associated with anti-semitism? Or would that be mostly in the neo-nazi types?

I'm using the term figuratively. Anyone who walks under the banner of 'White Pride' is obviously of doubtful intelligence and morality. Nevertheless, the only time the politicians ever speak of Canada's history is to denigrate it. And whenever they talk about race it's to proclaim their devotion to advancing the interests of this or that identity group - and never white people. In fact, to advance the interests of that group at the expensive of white people. This is the sort of thing which drives people to radical parties and groups. If you look at how Trudeau's endless fixation with portraying himself as the great protector and respecter of women, and how he pushes for more females in all positions and jobs, you shouldn't be surprised his support among males has plunged. Similarly, I think there is a wide, deep pool of resentment building among particularly blue-collar white people towards the never-ending proclamations about how racist they are and how this or that other identity group has to get special treatment. I can see that building among professionals, as well, given the way government, academics, media and the like keep pushing for more minorities and women in all job areas - regardless of merit.

Recently, I was talking with a colleague who was looking to recruit for a mid-level professional role. She lit up when I told her about a good prospect she might want to consider.

That was until I told her what “he” was looking for. The mere mention of “he” clearly pushed him to the bottom of the list. And yes, “he” is also white – and middle-aged.

While it remained unspoken, it was evident that the picture of the ideal candidate was based less on skills and experience than on “diversity.” It’s as if colour (white) and gender (male) were the first filters. Only then would skills and experience be considered.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/careers/management/article-in-pursuit-of-diversity-qualified-job-candidates-can-be-too-easily/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, GostHacked said:

1) Seems like a weird concept as my parents taught me that I should be proud of who I am and what I do.

2) I also never went to university so I might have avoided a lot of this social idiocy by default.   

3) But on the concept of divide and conquer, yeah I've pointed that out here to that we would be divided down to the individual level to the point where there is no unity anywhere.  

4) Also is white pride not also associated with anti-semitism? Or would that be mostly in the neo-nazi types?

1) I don't agree with being "proud" of attributes you were born with.  You should be "proud" of achievements and actions you have undertaken.  The kind of pride that comes from being satisfied with your heritage really comes from "non-shame" (as it should have been called, in the 1960s) that was fomented in a response to racism.  The opposite of shame is not necessarily, however, pride.

2) Over 50% of the population now attends post-secondary, and many individuals, groups, faculties are not focussed on politics so the impact of campuses on politics is likely overblown IMO.

3) Agreed.  

4) Yes, as a backlash to the aforementioned movement which itself was an incomplete (IMO) backlash against racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) Nevertheless, the only time the politicians ever speak of Canada's history is to denigrate it. And whenever they talk about race it's to proclaim their devotion to advancing the interests of this or that identity group - and never white people. In fact, to advance the interests of that group at the expensive of white people. 

2) ... I think there is a wide, deep pool of resentment building among particularly blue-collar white people towards the never-ending proclamations about how racist they are and how this or that other identity group has to get special treatment.  

1) This is hyperbole.  You have kept me in check with regards to hyperbolic posts, so I am doing the same.

2) On this I say 'maybe'.  I do think that people are sick of Trudeau's portraying himself as a moral beacon, however I don't think people are being called racist directly, and I believe it's the politically focused that are more sensitive to how they are called in the public light.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) This is hyperbole.  You have kept me in check with regards to hyperbolic posts, so I am doing the same.

I don't know. I hear neverending stories about the government pushing and celebrating indigenous culture and, and celebrating every other kind of culture without a hint of criticisms.  You don't see them go to a Chinese or Arab festival and chide them for showing too much pride in their culture given the many inequities and injustices their former nations perpetrated on others. You don't see Trudeau ever lamenting the state of misogyny and bigotry of India while he's celebrating their culture. Yet he goes to the UN and talks about how awful a place Canada has been towards everyone. We can't even have a 150th birthday without him sniveling about indigenous mistreatment. And it's certainly true that whenever you demand affirmative/preferential treatment by government for one identity group it's at the expense of another - usually white males. 

If you really want to reduce this to separate tribes, then the white male tribe has accomplished more in human history than all the rest combined. So if everyone else is encouraged to feel pride in their history and culture why should white males be constantly denigrated?

53 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) On this I say 'maybe'.  I do think that people are sick of Trudeau's portraying himself as a moral beacon, however I don't think people are being called racist directly, and I believe it's the politically focused that are more sensitive to how they are called in the public light.  

When you say 'people' what you mean are 'men'. Women are still as supportive of Trudeau as ever. It's men who are moving away from him.  And while I haven't seen any statistics broken down on this subject by race, I bet white, straight men are the biggest group dropping in support numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) Yet he goes to the UN and talks about how awful a place Canada has been ....

2) If you really want to reduce this to separate tribes, then the white male tribe has accomplished more in human history than all the rest combined.

3) So if everyone else is encouraged to feel pride in their history and culture why should white males be constantly denigrated?

4) When you say 'people' what you mean are 'men'.  

1) Hyperbole

2) Need a cite on this.  Were the Mesopotamians 'white males' ?  Was Christ one ?

3) You missed my post about the mislabelling of pride as non-shame.  Nobody should be proud of non-accomplishments IMO.

4) No I don't mean that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) I don't agree with being "proud" of attributes you were born with. 

This goes back to Argus's notion that whites cannot have pride in themselves because they are white.  Fuck that. I am who I am because I am white and I am also proud of my achievements because my parents did the best job they could. And I don't want to hear a damn thing about my so called 'white privilege'.  Which has not helped me at all in life. My hard work has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

1) Fuck that. I am who I am because I am white ...

2) And I don't want to hear a damn thing about my so called 'white privilege'.  Which has not helped me at all in life. My hard work has.

There seems to be a contradiction in these two statements.  Unless you are saying that your whiteness made you a failure ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

There seems to be a contradiction in these two statements.  Unless you are saying that your whiteness made you a failure ?

NO, I am saying it was never a factor in my success or in my failures.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...