Destroy your tabula rasa delusions

He was on the Joe Rogan Podcast. Veeky Forumss favourite

Huh?

>>destroy your tabula rasa delusions
He does not destroy shit, he strawmans an entire field of science. Then again he's an evo psych fanatic so it would be surprising if he didn't.

isn't this the prof whose whole life work was demolished by a computer nerd named moldbug

>thinks capitalism has saved the world from violence and suffering
>the majority of deaths in the last 200 years have been deaths from starvation

BUT BUT THATS NOT VIOLENCE THATS AN ACT OF GOD I MEAN NOT GOD I MEAN BLIND NATURAL FORCE oh fuck shit HUMANISM IS CORRECT KAY fuck ive been exposed

Nothing and no one has lifted more people out of poverty and hunger than capitalism

>writes Bill gates' (200 IQ) favourite book

and the other way around of course

nice capitalist propaganda

lets see the proof

...

Why do you have to bait like this? Shitty fucking beta soyboy manlet.

Where does he attribute the decline in violence to capitalism? He attributes it to the spread of moral ideals like female emancipation, religious tolerance, et cetera.

And what better alternative do you propose?

>have a farm but no dollar
>YUH SUH POH!!!
>have a dollar but no farm
>You are progressing, and on a timescale fed by expert-guided algorithms you are relatively rich compared to last year. Things are improving, look on the bright side of freedom!

Do you enjoy making strawmen out of imagined opponents?

In America, the most capitalist country, the biggest public health problem is obesity.

How is that a straw man?
>capitalist bureaucrats determine the poverty line at making a dollar a day
>if you lose your farm but now make a dollar you are effectively lifted out of poverty
>billions have lost their livelihoods for ZioCoins
>this somehow shows the strength of capitalism
>this is the reality of wealth for capitalist brainlets

this really isn't an argument, a lot of those people (probably most) are poor
if your point is that even if they're poor they're not hungry, obesity still isn't a gift, it's, as you said yourself, a health problem

it also has one of highest rates of homelessness

oh but i forgot >muh efficient distribution of resources

*nothing and no one has lifted more people out of poverty and hunger than modern agricultural techniques

It also has more people in prison than the rest of the world combined and uses convicts for slave labour.

>commies bringing up starvation

Strawman was the wrong word. I apologize. I haven't slept all that much, so try to suffer me
Your scenario was completely out of bounds with reality. No one that owns a farm is making less than a dollar a day. The whole poverty line is bullshit on an individual level, I agree, but you have to determine what constitutes poverty somehow
>billions have lost their livelihoods for ZioCoins
Fucking "billions"? Hyperbole does you no service
>this somehow shows the strength of capitalism
Never said it did. Capitalism having flaws does not equate to it being unwanted
>this is the reality of wealth for capitalist brainlets
You just want to fight, don't you

Now, I'm not one to sit here and pretend like I know everything, but from what I've seen in practice, capitalism is the best thing we have, my man. What viable alternative is there?

>it also has one of highest rates of homelessness
it's actually one of the lowest tho

our police works

>anyone that opposes capitalism is automatically a communist

Communists would never throw people in prison or use slave labor, good point

>What is the gini index

>this really isn't an argument
isn't the whole point of this argument STARVATION?
people don't really starve in big meany capitalist america

When I said capitalism causes starvation I meant it causes starvation in other places, namely the 2nd and 3rd world.

Yeah. Communism also sucked. Good job on pointing it out.

"poverty and hunger"

>It's the fault of western capitalism if those countries didn't have an industrial revolution propelled by a protest work ethics
Why did you think China switched to capitalism in 1978?

Ass

protestant

Anyway, no offense but I'm tired and i don't to waste the night arguing with yet another economically illiterate commie. Good night.

>in capitalist countries even our poor people have more than enough food
>yeah well why don't your poor people have better eating habits
this is how commiecucks argue, assuming this is meant unironically
the first statement is literally false. the second is supposed to bad somehow?

>capitalism is the best thing we have

It is the fault of Western capitalism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_of_developing_countries

>Capitalism is the best thing we have
You can only say this in terms of the recent past and shortly into the future. Eventually, capitalist production will inflict critical levels of overexploitation and pollution, and on top of that technological innovation will soon put most workers out of stable employment, turning them into paupers living in slums.

Read more on the conditions of 19th century capitalism, it's not always been the best thing we have. There's a reason that communism became so popular back then.

>hurr durr what is hyperbole
America holds 22% of all prisoners in the world

Communism was never popular. Trade unionism and the welfare state in an overall capitalist were and are popular. Also exploitation is a spook and the world is much cleaner than in the past. In the 1970s American rivers were so polluted that caught on fire. Indian used to have to heat their homes by burning wood and dung.

>says something untrue
>gets called out on it
>hurr durr you didn't realize i didn't actually mean it!

>communism was never popular

/r/shitliberalssay

>America holds 22% of all prisoners in the world
So what?

>There's a reason that communism became so popular back then.
And there is certainly good reason why it fell out of style. I guarantee that if given the choice between you living in west or east Berlin in 1980, you'd choose west. Of course, that isn't really an argument, but it should make you think, right?

Look, I'm not saying that capitalism is ideal, but we don't live in an ideal world, and I have yet to see any other system implemented better than ones that have the base components of capitalism

#
Uff someone's butthurt. It's not my fault that your country is shit.

#
It's just odd that 1% of people in "le land of le free" is in prison.

The west is much cleaner than it was in the past. Just because you can't see the factories anymore doesn't mean they don't exist.

The only reason it fell out of style is because capitalist societies adopted mass consumerism and the welfare state to keep the underclass from chimping out. The problem is that the welfare state is financed by a massive amount of debt, and consumerism is pulverising the natural environment.

I won't deny that post WW2 capitalism is the most comfortable system man has ever developed, but I cannot see how it is sustainable. The conditions needed to maintain it are like walking on a tightrope, and if it does fail we'll have a whole load of commies and nazis chimping out, and now that we have the bomb I fear this will lead to the end of civilisation itself.

>It's just odd that 1% of people in "le land of le free" is in prison.
Why is that odd?

>The only reason it fell out of style is because capitalist societies adopted mass consumerism and the welfare state to keep the underclass from chimping out.
I think it has more to do with the Soviet Union being unsustainable, both culturally and economically. People who lived in the union had no desire to. The west had more products that they could pick between, had more freedom to do what they wanted, had less severe punishments for infractions, had better economic power on a person to person basis. The gulags were also some scary fucking shit, and you could be sent there for the merest suspicion.
>won't deny that post WW2 capitalism is the most comfortable system man has ever developed, but I cannot see how it is sustainable.
I, too, think that we're reaching some kind of breaking point, which will either destroy us or radically change us.

I honestly think that human biology is almost incompatible with the way western civilization operates

>and you could be sent there for the merest suspicion.
maybe in the heyday of the intraparty purges but I doubt it was that bad later

Nothing wrong there uncle Sam. Please continue. And make sure to test 1000 more atomic bombs in Nevada. I'm sure nothing bad will come from that either. I'd bet that you're just keeping those people in prison safe from the radiation.

Probably not by the end, no

You couldn't answer my question

The reason why it fell out of style is that most european communists realized by 1986 that communism had failed in every iteration.
Obviously americans, not having an history of marxists intellectuals, haven't catched up to this yet, and so they write things who read like they've been taken straight from a marxist pamphlet from 1931.

he can't. he's just baiting you.

Ahh.... There's no right or wrong in ideology. The whole point is that they're preaching about freedom while they have a fuckton of people in jail. They were shitting on Russia for having a police state, but now they're no different. Now please ask me what is wrong with a police state.

He's baiting me you nigger

America doesn't put people in prison for not liking the president. The number would be upwards of 50% if that were the case.

I know that. Americans are mostly in prison because they don't have the money to pay for things. You either function within the system or you're useless/imprisoned.

>Americans are mostly in prison because they don't have the money to pay for things
Are you comfortable with making such a reductionist statement? You really shouldn't be

k

>not trimming your nosehair for an official portrait

Come on, man

>humans are not yet immortal

fucking libtards!

got a new book coming out

>hehe, my ideology is so obscure it has never even been attempted to put to the task, therefore it remains free of criticism >:)

Why do Americans always try to debate the virtues of anarcho-capitalism vs Stalinism while the sweet spot is obviously some mix between market economy and welfare state?

Nordic approach minus the naive self-destructive immigration policy is the best system yet.

I had seen this image posted several times over the years and legitimately thought this was just a slightly unsettling stock photo that became mildly popular because it's so just barely off that it's kinda funny
No idea who this lad is and no intention to ever find out if this thread is anything to go by to be desu

The only way to fund it is via immigration. It's either no immigrants or no/reduced welfare state, you can't have it both ways.

>The only way to fund it is via immigration
I hope you're not suggesting these immigrations provide a net economic gain to these countries because that would be incredibly naive.

Immigration can be beneficial if you have a strict policy that only allows people that have something to offer, it doesn't work if you let violent 60iq savages walk in and collect welfare forever because you feel bad about privilege.

>The only way to fund it is via immigration
What do you base this on?

The budget of all western economies that I know of is only payed for by deficit spending in the hope that increased growth will make enough money to pay back the debt.

The best way to increase growth is by increasing the level of population. Since westerners don't have enough children to do this, this means the population has to be increased by immigration. There are plenty of Indians, Chinese etc in my country that aren't violent 60iq savages, they all have skilled jobs.

>There are plenty of Indians, Chinese etc in my country that aren't violent 60iq savages, they all have skilled jobs.
Sure, I'm not arguing for zero immigration, just for selective immigration. Letting in a bunch of Somalis and Arabs and expecting them to be upstanding citizens doesn't work.

Even then natalist policies would be better than outsourcing reproduction to the third world though, less cultural conflict and social tensions.

this person has done actual research and is respected academic, dont compare them retard

>hi im 12 and everything i dont like is capitalism :dddD

How hasn't Peterson done actual research?

have an updoot fellow redditor

I believe he's talking about reasearch in shit they're talking about
peterson hasn't read shit about postmodernism other than hicks' strawman book, and he sure as fuck hasn't read anything about marxism other than the gulag archipelago
harris has probably read some philosophy shit (he's got a BA after all) but he's still dumb as fuck

peterson is a backwater teacher who only got recognition for not saying xer. sam harris is pseud who only got a quick neuroscience degree so he can say he has it while writing atheist polemics.

pinker is a legitimate intellectual that also happens to write books for the general public.

addition: if you want to compare his position to anyone he's more of a sapolsky

>peterson is a backwater teacher
What does this mean?'
>who only got recognition for not saying xe
What does this have to do with whether or not he's done actual research? Also a very reductionist view of what Peterson does, and really says nothing about his competence

>Also a very reductionist view of what Peterson does, and really says nothing about his competence
pinker got known for his competence, peterson got known for a 'scandal'. that doesn't exclude him from being competent, but him being known certainly doesn't warrant concluding that he is.

the research peterson did in clinical psychology also has little to do with the crap he spouts in public most of the time.

Will you be attending his book tour, Veeky Forums?

Gives the native poputlation that already doesnt contribute more incentive to not do so or for some to drop out as contributors as well.

>that doesn't exclude him from being competent, but him being known certainly doesn't warrant concluding that he is.
Fair enough
>the research peterson did in clinical psychology also has little to do with the crap he spouts in public most of the time.
The topic was never specified. Also, I highly disagree about the last part. He often talks about psychology and the clinical test he has both been involved in and read about.
I don't know if the initial post was yours, but it's also presumptuous to conclude that Peterson hasn't done the research, when we can't possibly know what content he has consumed, beyond what he lets on

Peterson doesn't deserve this board's ire. He mostly gets shit on because of his popularity and the meme status his followers have bestowed him. Peterson is clearly an intelligent man, even if his use of the word "post-modernism" is rapid fire

the book title/subtitle is the most spooked thing I've ever read

How much HBD knowledge does he internalize?

Joe Rogan

me irl desu

if there's going to be free riders i'm going to be one of them.

>even if his use of the word "post-modernism" is rapid fire
his use of the word "truth" is even worse.

All of it, like a good Ashkenazi.