Online free K-12 education, online free college, etc., etc.
Just do an end-run on the whole corrupt mess, and get a real education - instead of the indoctrination being sold now.
If Mr. Peterson can get even one person to think, it's worth it.
From Tom C's link to The Atlantic article on Jordan Peterson:
When the top man at The New York Times publishes a sober statement about a meeting he had with the president in which he describes instructing Trump about the problem of his “deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric,” and then three days later the paper announces that it has hired a writer who has tweeted about her hatred of white people, of Republicans, of cops, of the president, of the need to stop certain female writers and journalists from “existing,” and when this new hire will not be a beat reporter, but will sit on the paper’s editorial board—having a hand in shaping the opinions the paper presents to the world—then it is no mystery that a parallel culture of ideas has emerged to replace a corrupted system. When even Barack Obama, the poet laureate of identity politics, is moved to issue a message to the faithful, hinting that that they could be tipping their hand on all of this—saying during a speech he delivered in South Africa that a culture is at a dead end when it decides someone has no “standing to speak” if he is a white man—and when even this mayday is ignored, the doomsday clock ticks ever closer to the end.
And there's more... has The Atlantic been slowly jumping off the leftie Titanic?
Another lift from Tom C's link:
" . . If you think that a backlash to the kind of philosophy that resulted in The Nation’s poetry implosion; the Times’ hire; and Obama’s distress call isn’t at least partly responsible for the election of Donald Trump, you’re dreaming. And if you think the only kind of people who would reject such madness are Republicans, you are similarly deluded . . "
I concur. The author also pointed out that 'the left' frequently dismisses Peterson's work as merely common sense. They reject common sense because . . because what?
My favorite bit of the Atlantic article on why the left has to neutralize Jordan Peterson:
The young men voted for Hillary, they called home in shock when Trump won, they talked about flipping the House, and they followed Peterson to other podcasts—to Sam Harris and Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan. What they were getting from these lectures and discussions, often lengthy and often on arcane subjects, was perhaps the only sustained argument against identity politics they had heard in their lives.
That might seem like a small thing, but it’s not. With identity politics off the table, it was possible to talk about all kinds of things—religion, philosophy, history, myth—in a different way. They could have a direct experience with ideas, not one mediated by ideology. All of these young people, without quite realizing it, were joining a huge group of American college students who were pursuing a parallel curriculum, right under the noses of the people who were delivering their official educations.
Peterson teaches that the thought tradition of what we call "the West" discovered that the remedy to bloody tribalism (now called identity politics) is the elevation of the individual as an agent with ownership of and responsibility for one's own life. It's what a faction of the Left wants to negate.
The author of that article has written several other articles that question some of the left's favorite shibboleths.
One matter she brings up is the left's "unpersoning" of Peterson, the tactic of attacking the individual harshly enough to get the sheep to ignore what he says.
It's their favorite tactic against those who make effective arguments to which they have no rational response. We should be on the watch for that tactic, point it out, and see it for what it is.
IQ is a real thing with real consequences in real life. There are limits to the possibilities of "overcoming" a low IQ to live a full and independent life.
EG, it's just not true that every individual can make a living through gainful employment.
The Dangers of Ignoring Cognitive Inequality
Simply wishing away the fact that the genetic and environmental circumstances of a person’s birth inevitably endows everyone—for better or worse—with a personality, a level of sociability, and an intelligence is a form of denialism that serves only our urge for moral exculpation. Pretending that those burdened with low IQ are just lazy, or lack the appropriate motivation, is a way of absolving ourselves of responsibility to help them. Accepting that intelligence exists, that intelligence matters, and that the less intelligent are equal to us in moral worth and value and thus ought to be helped, constitute the first steps in addressing this increasingly urgent need to fully accommodate the cognitively underprivileged.
I hated the move Forrest Gump for its implication that cognitive ability has nothing to do with competence, inventiveness, and achievement.
"Stupid is as stupid does" may be a great thing to teach a child of any intelligence level, but its insight is mostly a caution for the cognitively competent. As President Obama famously said, "Don't do stupid s**t."
I must say, it amazes me that Peterson should be controversial at all, since up until quite recently what he’s saying would have been considered simple common sense by pretty much everyone.
As one shouting protester was escorted out, Peterson told the audience matter-of-factly: “That’s pure narcissism at work, by the way.”
Amen to this:
“To hijack an event like this,” Peterson continued, “that other people put time and effort into and to use the civility of the crowd and the civility of the organizers as an excuse to blatantly yell out your ill-informed opinions is no way to conduct a civil dialogue. It’s absolutely appalling. The people who do that should be embarrassed.”
This column by Deirdre McCloskey explains why I now call myself "liberal" when asked where I am on the political spectrum.
Why You Are Not a Conservative
All points on the conventional spectrum, Hayek continued, "lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment." That's why they think they need to extend the government's monopoly of violence: to compel the barbarians and blockheads to get organized. "The [real] liberal," by contrast, "accept[s] changes without apprehension, even though he does not know how the necessary adaptations will be brought about."...
The evolutions of the past two centuries have been splendid for poor people, raising real incomes by a factor of 30. What Adam Smith called in 1776 "the liberal plan of [social] equality, [economic] liberty, and [legal] justice" inspired ordinary people to have a go. Contrary to the beliefs of our conservative or socialist friends, the government was mainly, in the story of liberty and its material fruits, an obstacle: enforcing slavery and Jim Crow, imposing regulation and planning, marshalling armies to clash by night...
A liberal believes that as much as possible, no one should push others around, standing over them with a gun or a fist to force them to do his will. The liberal abhors hierarchy of men over women, masters over slaves, politicians over citizens...
Plain liberalism is the great movement since the 18th century that has freed us to prosper in body and spirit. It was distorted into slow socialism by the New Liberals in the U.K. and the Progressives in the U.S., and into fast socialism, nationalism, and national socialism eastward.
liberalism promises a "negative liberty" to be left alone—not a so-called "positive liberty" to be benefitted by a tax or protection extracted by governmental violence from other people. It is ethical, and in the modern world of toppled hierarchies it is viewed as quite ordinary good behavior.
I'm a liberal: I don't want to use the power of government to boss other people around or take their money and give it to my friends or anyone else. I do want the institutions of government to facilitate the spontaneous interactions and transactions of self-directed, free people in a light-touch framework of ordered liberty and equality before the law.
Ditto! Thanks! I have been telling people that the true Liberals believe in Liberty and unalienable rights. No Kings, no royalty, none that are more privileged than others. The current Progressive party and all that surround them are the new elitists - the new royalty. Time to resist again!
MM: The modern word for that kind of liberalism is Libertarian.
The liberal end of the spectrum is gone, along with the conservative.
While liberals and conservatives battled, sometimes very intensely, in the previous half-century over various policy agendas, they could usually at least agree on the objective being sought: the preservation and further advancement of the ideals America was founded on. This end not only defined conservative causes but also liberal ones as well – women’s suffrage, the New Deal, the civil rights movement, and others. However, today, this is increasingly no longer the case.
Progressives, in their bid for revolutionary social change, have captured, corrupted and weaponized nearly every significant institution of American culture – the press, the entertainment industry, academia, big business, etc. – to advance their vision and marginalize all who oppose it. Trump has been the anti-progressive, populist response to this elitist, progressive takeover, and in winning the White House, he has firmly entrenched in politics the new “anti-progressive versus progressive” paradigm.