Interesting claim of him.
You see, I don’t know how difficult it is to find CP as I don’t look for cp. If he knows that it is getting more difficult to find CP, he needs a reference to which he compares it.
Why is Jordan Peterson regularly looking for cp on Twitter?
**by subscribing to the service, you agree to the user agreement, which states that you can’t hold us liable for any damages.
Interesting response to a point that invalidates the response.
Also you understand that the nature of the discussion in this situation is vastly different to a normal conversation, or a non-ml forum. This forum is a very political, primary ml, environment. You are primarily talking to people who generally agree with you. My critic is about how people who currently don’t agree with you, maybe due to ignorance, will experience this meme, or the actions promoted in it. Making it bad agitprop. Unless your aim is to alienate the in-group from the out-group and not to recruit the out-group into the in-group.
Completely missing the point are we?
I am saying, if you intend to correct their misunderstanding, you should care for what they understand because then you can probably explain to them how they are wrong. If you don’t consider what they understand, you will talk pass each other and leave them as ignorant as they started.
I am not saying, they are right about their definition. I am saying, if you don’t approach then where they are, they won’t follow you.
That is my critic. Yes, obviously you can feel differently about it. That is how criticism usually works, people having different concerns and expectations.
But as usual with opinions on things based in reality, either I am right about my concerns that it promotes a way of conversation harmful to the cause that It want to promote, or I am wrong. If I am right, then framing it as “up to my standards” is obviously dishonest as yes, it wouldn’t be but because it is factually bad. “So capitalism isn’t up to your standards.”, you would probably say “yes, look at the fucking harm that it does”.
Obviously I could be wrong, but that doesn’t make the framing any better. Because either you know that I am wrong and you could respond with a proper argument, or you don’t know that I am wrong and then you should consider the possibility that I am right and argue the point, instead of dismissing it by framing it as “my standards”.
Please look at this conversation and ask yourself if you are engaging in the conversation with the intention to explore what kind of communication is best to promote your ideals, or just to dismiss my point. if it is dismissal, would I be justified to return the dismissal? Is that good for your cause? I think the answer is obvious.
There are 2 issues.
The response in the meme is. That is my point. If I would think you guys didn’t want to teach, I would argue that given your desire to teach, you should be care to approach something like “capitalism is human nature” more carefully and generously than in the meme as you could change some minds with it.
They should be corrected but you should correct them and not just tell them that it is only 500years old as it ignores the misunderstanding and avoids having a proper conversation.
Saying “technically capitalism is only 500 years old and human societies are much much older, what exactly do you mean when you say capitalism?” Is encouraging communication, understanding and knowledge seeking.
Saying “it is only 500 years old” sounds like you tell them that it is 500 years old as a theory and not necessarily as a practice. Which is obviously not the point that the person is interested in, as they would be interested in the age of the practice and not theory. So they perceive you as dodging the claim with a distraction. (Important: I am not saying it is older as a practice but that someone could easily understand it as that)
Sorry to be like that but ignorance towards what your conversation partner expresses can only be solved by education. And without proper conversations, no education is possible.
Well, there we have a disagreement. I don’t think people press on like indicates a careful consideration of the argument and understanding of the argument presented. Look at how popular some of e.g. Elon musk’s dumbest posts are.
I am judging the comments as their display some understanding and you are probably right that there is a bias in the dataset.
In the end of the day, my argument boils down to, Do you believe that the average person saying “capitalism is human nature” uses your definition of capitalism? Or that they are just vaguely reference something that they don’t really want to argue?
I don’t know what you are trying to tell me.
Why is the ratio important? Is a anti-capitalism take on .ml being popular evidence for anything that is relevant to my comment or the discussion at large? If I had to guess, I would say you imply that people who up vote understand the difference between trading with currency and capitalism, which I would generally doubt that assumption. People liking trump posts probably don’t understand traffics. You get my point. Additionally, my confusion about the relevance of ratio is properly best highlighted by the fact that my critic was about the meme in general, how that meme gets perceived in e.g. this community is beside the point. Deportation memes are probably well received in trump communities. That doesn’t make them good arguments or an good thing to express. Could you assist me in understanding the relevance?
The second part, I agree with you and I disagree with the statement. Obviously it isn’t without alternatives.
I think this meme is a little unfair. For the sake of this comment, I am assuming that op is 100% correct about his definitions and I want to stress that I don’t claim that “capitalism” is human nature.
Op basically admits in his comments that the general public doesn’t have a good understanding of communism or capitalism and consequently how do define them. E.g. He keeps having to explain the difference between capitalism and trade with currency, highlighting the lack of understanding of what capitalism is.
This should make you question what a person means when they say that capitalism is human nature. Do they mean capitalism or their understanding of it? The answer is obvious.
So what do they mean? Given that people don’t just walk around saying “capitalism is human nature”, it is probably fair to see it as what it attempts to be, a justification. A justification usually follows a critic. And what is that critic? I think it is fair to roughly assume that it is a justification for the usual critic of capitalism. The degradation of human life by encouraging a competitive environment which leads to exploitation and hierarchy. That exploitation is powered by the violence of controlling limited resources.
So the question becomes, could the person saying “capitalism is human nature” mean that humans are competitive hierarchical animals who will use any means to control, oppress and exploit it’s environment, including economical violence. If yes, then the age of capitalism is irrelevant and ancient Rome is probably what the person would identify as what they believe to be human nature.
In short, I think the response in the meme doesn’t accurately engages with the challenge of the claim and would probably fail to convince anyone and probably makes you seem intellectually dishonest from the perspective of the conversation partner.
I don’t believe cowbee is intellectually dishonest, but that they fail to consider the issue from a different perspective, as we all do daily.
As a man, it is insane to me that this is real.
I have a difficult time imagining malicious intent towards women by all these people. But given how common these stories are, there is something true about it. I just don’t understand why.
Is it really an unconscious cultural thing? Or am I naive about how my fellow men (I guess maybe women too) feel towards women?
Something in me refuses to believe that these people knowingly and intentionally harm women. But it sure as hell looks intentional.
I am not defending them. I am expressing my struggle with the reality of this shit.
A memes get shared, consequently removed from context and consequently misunderstood. And removed from context, op isn’t around to explain and most people aren’t willing to read or write this much.
You are right that a meme has to be somewhat simple. Which is why I believe memes should be seen as a somewhat dangerous medium to communicate politics. The radicalization of the right wing was heavily powered by memes.
As the meme depictes a conversation, it could encourage people to have the conversation like that, and such a conversation wouldn’t be productive.
Edit: op btw made it clear to me that they wanted to reach the people “here” with his message and seemingly don’t care about possible consequences. Their audience was exclusively intended to be “here”, what I would call the in-group and I am considered about the conversation of out-group and in-group.