Jordan Peterson

Unless everyone wants it to happen. This is ideals we're talking about, something to aim for, not necessarily a practical solution.

At it's heart communism is about equality, all people being equal

yeah but, I think problem is that to get here you have to engineer and subjugate the shit out of the population, so you need a bunch of more important people to manage this process and...

Yeah I read animal farm

No chinos, no children.

Whether the idea behind the ideology is a good one, once it's been put in to practice we can see whether if it's good for humanity, or bad.

For me, communism works well on paper, but once you put humans in there with all their complexities and multitude of motivations, it always becomes a horror show. It doesn't matter if the idea itself didn't cause those killings, once people were involved it did.

I'm not drawing an equivalent of Nazism and Communism. I'm saying they are both are extreme and both should be avoided for the good of humanity.

I think the things we like about Communism, in theory, are laudable. It's just that in its implementation, it pretty much necessitates a lot of the terrible shit that has been discussed, so much so that it's generally just a question of extent.

There's more than a whiff of the 'no true Scotsman' about it all. We want to believe in it, but it tends to go 'wrong' almost by design.

I agree. But I don't believe that someone saying they're a communist means they want to resurrect the USSR, especially a young person who's grown up in this country with a failing economy and declining public services.

Then you have to kill yourself.

I’m sure if you discussed politics online this will have been covered already.

As for Jordan Peterson, it bugs me how Red Dread is still a thing over in the USA and people use the USSR et al as an justify being a thinly veiled nationalist.

Playing devil's advocate here...

If you; 1) didn't treat the "other" group in society in an objectively bad way - i.e. harming them, etc. and 2) as a result of the policy no harm came to the other group; is there anything intrinsically wrong with prioritising the citizens of a nation, and using the nation as a construct to unify and create solidarity in society?

Also out of curiosity (as an ideal) do you think employing communism would be positive because it creates economic equality / is inherently equitable, or because it would result in a happier more cohesive society? (if both, is one more important?)

didn't treat the "other" group in society in an objectively bad way

non-inclusion is objectively bad

There's more than a whiff of the 'no true Scotsman' about it all.

That goes both ways though.

Whenever I get into similar discussion about socialism, colleague always say; "give me an example of where it's worked", followed by, "no, that isn't socialism".

I've now taken to; "give me an example where capitalism has worked" followed by listing examples of why whatever country isn't truly capitalist.

It’s quite possible to go and live in a communist way. Living in a proper self-sufficient community, on some peninsula of NZ or something. Nobody needs to die.

..... however you could make the same argument for National Socialism.

Democratic Socialism FTW.

[ goes orders some chinos ]

The person I replied to originally actually answered quite calmly above, and explained the different/deeper meaning of the word, which is actually very helpful and clears up my misunderstanding of what they were saying.
Please do not forget not everyone on this forum was born in the UK/ is a native English speaker.

With your username, how can you not agree?

#facistdad

;)

I'm not a native English speaker too but it is the height of idiocy to seem to support your view with the question at the end of your post. There was no need. Think about it.

Not looking to argue on the internet at all, but I think using that particular photo to suggest the man is racist is just wrong. Since when is Islam a race?

Also out of curiosity (as an ideal) do you think employing communism would be positive because it creates economic equality / is inherently equitable, or because it would result in a happier more cohesive society? (if both, is one more important?)

I don't believe employing communism is actually possible but I do believe embracing more socialism would help this country a lot.

Really? National Socialism relies on their being an "other" to be better than. If it was just a bunch or aryans on an island together they would have to find something else to hate on or think they're better than.

This discussion about Daddy Peters Peterson has gone almost exactly how I thought it would: massively off course and having to explain basic parts of philosophy and history.

Peterson is the philosophy equivalent of BLB: looks good when you’re first getting into the field but the longer you stick around the more surface you realise it is. People on the outside think that BLB is a good example of ‘that thing you’re into’, but you try explaining how a good steel bike with a campag shifter from the 1970s is actually shizznits now and they are going to act all confused.

Yeah, I'm sure they're grim. But it happens.

Communes also tend to fail. Clustered communes can and do work, but then you're into territories and eventually nations, you see where this is going?

10/10 post. Would read again.

The little of JP I've seen included a lot of Fisher Price assumptions on how societies are structured - seemingly ignoring successful societies with different structures that survived far longer than modern social democractic ones have so far. Not that that inheritantly disproves him, but it seems like they have been ignored.

I'm not too sure hate speech laws decrease hate

[citation needed]
They sure as hell give vulnerable people some sort of recourse when they're being verbally assaulted because of their gender.

and actually somewhat contribute to the rise of the dog-whistling tactics discussed itt which make it bloody hard to distinguish between people genuinely tackling the hard subjects and people just being hateful -ist/-phobic cunts

Neofascists have been dog whistling white supremacy, islamophobia and anti-queer rhetoric for years and will continue to do so regardless of legal advances made for trans rights. You're not going to change these people's minds by sitting down and engaging them in debate and 'tackling the hard subjects'.

If you have really good, sorted, laws, I'm not sure you need protected classes (that the hate-laws require). It would avoid the most dangerous unintended consequences. I also totally understand UK laws are typically a messy kludge, and that what really matters is effective reduction in abuse.

The laws wont reduce hate, but they almost certainly do deter harmful expressions of hate.

I think in education, if you have really sorted ethics regards how people treat PEOPLE you can actually circumvent criticism (usually of 'promotion of a lifestyle' etc) from social-conservatives, religious organisations etc.

You can call me a neofacists and deplatform block me now.

I'm about as "in-group" as you could get, so it's hard for me to comment.

But do you think that the greatest impact to minorities' daily lives is acceptance by wider society or attack by marginal extremes?

Also in fairness to Festerban it's the idea that hate speech laws decrease hate that needs evidence, not the other way around.