Deep Thoughts. Or Thots. Whatever.

[jamil]

Since we seem to like the general long form categorical threads, I thought I'd create this one for delving into some topics a little deeper. I had something in mind I wanted to get other people's thoughts on and it didn't seem to fit any of the other threads, and it really doesn't deserve a thread of its own, so...

Oh. And this is INGO so thots are welcome to.

Just kidding about calling them thots. I just learned a new internet slang and wanted to put it to some silly use. Anyway, Selma pics are always welcome.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Lol... "thots"

Yeah, I wondered if you knew what it meant.

 

[Route 45]

This is Elizabeth Turner. I've had some pretty deep thoughts about her.

 

[d.kaufman]

This is Elizabeth Turner. I've had some pretty deep thoughts about her.

Now im havin "thots" about her too!

 

[KG1]

I was gonna make a deep comment but I lost my train of thot.

 

[churchmouse]

I was gonna make a deep comment but I lost my train of thot.

What...????

 

[jamil]

So the thing I wanted to ask about is something Jordan Peterson has been talking about lately.

The way he puts it, people on the right have a pretty clear place to know when right-wing ideas start to go over the line. He asserts that it's at the point where people start talking about racial superiority. But, then on the left, there doesn't seem to be a clear boundary where the left can police itself for harmful ideas.

Okay, I agree with the idea that there needs to be boundaries. We should know when to start saying, whoa, you're going too far there, so knock that **** off. I also agree that the left doesn't really have a boundary. They were right there promoting "punch a Nazi", then calling everyone who disagrees with them "Nazis". That's clearly something that should be out of bounds, but the left just seems to think if it's "progressive" it's okay, if it's not, then it's a Nazi. Punch it.

Where I disagree with Peterson is a few points. First, with the idea that racial superiority is a right wing idea. Nazism, skin heads, today's White Nationalists, the fascism of the early half of the 20th century, yeah, those were arguably right wing ideas. But racial superiority in itself is not a right wing idea. Plenty of progressives believe in superiority of some races over others. So that's an inadequate boundary for that reason. Are we only going to call out right wing people for racists?

Another point, it's also an inadequate boundary because that's not the only idea that the right gets wrong. This isn't about that so I'm not going get into it here. Anyway, I think Peterson's right wing boundary is too precise to be completely useful.

He suggests that a boundary for the left might be the point where they advocate equality of outcome. I get why he uses that, given his dire warnings about repeating the mass murders of the 20th century. But it's also too specific. It would certainly cause them to call out Marxists, which would be a positive, but the far left also has other worrisome ideas that I won't detail here. So equality of outcome is also inadequate.

Alright. So what should be the boundaries for when ideas go too far? Well, as a starting suggestion I'd say we could sort of borrow a concept from Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Similar to Non-aggression Principle. This concept I'd call "preferential harm". If an idea proposes to harm some in society, against their will, for the betterment of some other group or the whole, the idea goes too far.

Using preferential harm as a boundary, ideas like white nationalism, forced human experimentation, any form of slavery, Nazism, Marxism/communism, equal outcomes, eugenics, pretty much all the bad things humans can force on other humans are out of bounds. You start dreaming up some utopian **** that forces harm on part of society for the sake of another part of society, you get figuratively, publicly flogged.

I'd like to hear some other ideas on this. It just solves some of the issues I have with Peterson's boundaries.

 

[jamil]

This is Elizabeth Turner. I've had some pretty deep thoughts about her.

Dude. Yer making me think of some thots.

 

[jamil]

Okay. Not that I want to distract from the deep thoughts with deep thots, but I googled Elizabeth Turner. Yeah. I think that's what pewdiepie had in mind when he said "twitch thots". Basically soft porn on twitch/instagram. Jeez. There's even a search result for Elizabeth Turner's feet on wikiFeet.

WTF? There's a wikiFeet?

Google is evil.

 

[mmpsteve]

I'm going to post a thoughtful response to this ... after I visit the Wild Turkey.

Seriously, though, boundaries, and group thinking that stretches boundaries, is a facinating subject I've not had opportunity to study, so I'll be interested in any responses shared by this group. I always thought boundaries were an instinctual, ingrained knowledge we all shared, but the more I see, the more I realize I'm totally FUBAR on that.

 

[jamil]

I'm going to post a thoughtful response to this ... after I visit the Wild Turkey.

Seriously, though, boundaries, and group thinking that stretches boundaries, is a facinating subject I've not had opportunity to study, so I'll be interested in any responses shared by this group. I always thought boundaries were an instinctual, ingrained knowledge we all shared, but the more I see, the more I realize I'm totally FUBAR on that.

There are some universal boundaries, but when you get into the realm of ideas, it gets pretty subjective.

 

[KG1]

Purely emotional thoughts and ideas have no boundaries. That’s when lack of boundary expands into irrational action.

 

[rob63]

I can see what you are saying, and generally agree with it. The one thing that jumps out at me is that the boundary you propose would inevitably lead to arguing over the definitions. What exactly is "harm'? Is it just physical, or does it include pyschological, monetary, etc.?

Example; some people would argue that your definition means you can't have taxes to pay for government because it harms one group for the betterment of others? I'm not saying that is a valid or invalid argument, just that people would inevitably stretch the boundaries you propose.

I would guess this is why Peterson focuses on very specific boundaries, even if it still leaves other problems unaddressed, at least there would be less arguing over what is meant by it.

Good idea for a thread by the way.

 

[Birds Away]

So what should be the boundaries for when ideas go too far? Well, as a starting suggestion I'd say we could sort of borrow a concept from Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Similar to Non-aggression Principle. This concept I'd call "preferential harm". If an idea proposes to harm some in society, against their will, for the betterment of some other group or the whole, the idea goes too far.

Using preferential harm as a boundary, ideas like white nationalism, forced human experimentation, any form of slavery, Nazism, Marxism/communism, equal outcomes, eugenics, pretty much all the bad things humans can force on other humans are out of bounds. You start dreaming up some utopian **** that forces harm on part of society for the sake of another part of society, you get figuratively, publicly flogged.

I'd like to hear some other ideas on this. It just solves some of the issues I have with Peterson's boundaries.

So how do you define "society"? If this term is inclusive of all humans irrespective of national borders than any exclusionary laws or practices at the border would fall into the category of "harming" a segment of society. Especially when the correlating "benefit" isn't acknowledged by all the players.

 

[BugI02]

To unwieldy. First thing that comes to mind, apply preferential harm to 'global climate change' - and then give up your car

To get to the 'Star Trek' society you have to get buy in from all the people. I think in the series the back story was a global war that pushed humanity to the brink, and the working together towards common goals that enabled the species to recover. We may still get there

 

[jamil]

I can see what you are saying, and generally agree with it. The one thing that jumps out at me is that the boundary you propose would inevitably lead to arguing over the definitions. What exactly is "harm'? Is it just physical, or does it include pyschological, monetary, etc.?

Example; some people would argue that your definition means you can't have taxes to pay for government because it harms one group for the betterment of others? I'm not saying that is a valid or invalid argument, just that people would inevitably stretch the boundaries you propose.

I would guess this is why Peterson focuses on very specific boundaries, even if it still leaves other problems unaddressed, at least there would be less arguing over what is meant by it.

Good idea for a thread by the way.

The thread could have been called “side discussions”. I was going to post the boundary question in one of the other threads, but it seemednlike it would just be a side discussion in any of them. So here’s a place we can have those side discussions. Instead of cluttering up threads with discussions of how full of [GLOCK] Marx was, that discussion could be taken here.

So about boundaries. Taxes were my first counter-argument. The modifier for “harm” is “preferential” harm. So if someone starts advocating everyone, including themselves, should have to be incarcerated, alright. That’s in bounds. Pragmatism would easily win that argument. We don’t have to shout down and condemn the oeople for advocating that.

It could be argued taxes are preferential harm. But “preferential harm” is only sort of a heuristic guideline for deciding when someone is expousing dangerous ideas. Is taxation a dangerous idea? It can be. But it has to be argued that it is.

The thing I really think is dangerous about the left is, in it’s thirst for virtue, it’s willing to settle for unearned virtue when real virtue makes them sacrifice something. They will vote to force other people to pay for the benevolence they want, and then think that satisfies their virtue. Their ideas about taxation are preferential harm. Bernie Sander’s ideas are preferentially harmful.

Taxes can be harmful from the right too. They carve out loopholes in laws so that they end up paying no tax, while middle class taxpayers are overburdened, and don’t make enough to availe themselves of those loopholes. So that’s preferential harm too.

Admittedly preferential harm as a boundary for deciding when an idea goes to far is very individualistic. It’s protective of the ideas of enlightenment and the personal sovereignty of the individual. There is a sane left that still believes in these principles. We have a few here on INGO. They’re on the sane left. But the insane left has failed to call out and utterly reject the insane left to the extent to which the right has.

When MSM brings a guy on a panel discussion to say punching “Nazis” is necessary, and he’s not shouted off the panel, that’s a clear indication the mainstream left is incapable of setting boundaries.

 

[jamil]

So how do you define "society"? If this term is inclusive of all humans irrespective of national borders than any exclusionary laws or practices at the border would fall into the category of "harming" a segment of society. Especially when the correlating "benefit" isn't acknowledged by all the players.

First. There’s no such thing as a society.

It’s an abstract, conceptual aggregation of individuals connected by a common context. So, the society I’m talking about is the scope of the context you’re idea fits in. Maybe it’s INGO. Maybe it’s conservatives, maybe it’s Hoosiers. Maybe it’s Americans. Maybe it’s the West. Maybe it’s all humans.

Say the idea is that ordinary individuals should not keep or bear firearms. That context extends to the scope of all humans. Or, maybe the idea is to ban AR-15s in Indiana. The society is Indiana. But one could argue that one at both levels.

 

[BugI02]

So, das ist alles? Politics

Was kind of hoping we'd go deeper. Like one of the things I might eventually thrash out with T. Lex (once we get done arguing about whether trend lines actually are allowed to indicate trends and sufficiency of interval length)
is:

Given the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why does energy seem predisposed to condense into matter

 

[mmpsteve]

I learned all the deep stuff once I joined INGO; E = m x 2 + Salma

So, das ist alles? Politics

Was kind of hoping we'd go deeper. Like one of the things I might eventually thrash out with T. Lex (once we get done arguing about whether trend lines actually are allowed to indicate trends and sufficiency of interval length)
is:

Given the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why does energy seem predisposed to condense into matter

 

[PaulF]

There are some universal boundaries, but when you get into the realm of ideas, it gets pretty subjective.

Yeah. This.

I've typed and deleted about half a dozen responses. At the extremes, both sides of the political spectrum have an unhealthy obsession with race. I think your Overton Window metaphor is applicable here, as it moves further to one side more extreme views become exposed. At the middle, some of these ideas may begin to normalize a bit, but at the other end of the spectrum, these things have a great power to disgust, offend, and motivate.

I keep coming back to violence. That seems the best place to draw the line on either end. Disgusting ideas are disgusting but, in a marketplace of ideas, should be relatively easy to counter with more attractive alternatives. Violence begets violence, and once that cat's loose it's really hard to contain again. Along those same lines, I think it is important to draw a line between the presented ideas and the people presenting them. I mention this, because racially-charged political rhetoric is often used (with some effect) as a way to dehumanize their political opponent, attempting to reduce them from an intellectual challenger to a martial enemy.

...and what about bad actors? Those who enter into the discussion for sinister purposes? Ideological and rhetorical boundaries are only really useful to those looking to reduce division between subgroups. Some people use those divisions for their own profit, greater social consequences be damned.

I don't know. It's a great question, jamil.