Hierarchy - Is This at the Center of the Lib/Con Debate?

[_Some Schmo]

I'm still unclear as to what you may mean about the contention being the effect. Could you use an example or something to help me out?

As I understood what you were saying, conservatives understand the value of and want to preserve hierarchies, while liberals don't and want to flatten them out. I'm just trying to say that the desire to preserve or flatten those hierarchies comes (either way) as an effect of the way you perceive and process the world, and your intrinsic values.

It's one of many landmarks along the road of left/right contention. It's a manifestation, or emergent property, perhaps, of the aggregate of everyone's brain chemistry. Things are only controversial if both sides have reasonable arguments (or at least, internally logical), and it's those controversial things that are born out of people's varying mental tendencies. There are many such examples. The death penalty. Gun rights. Abortion. Immigration. Unions. Minimum wage. Etc etc etc. All of these issues have arguments on both sides that are compelling. The management of hierarchy is one of many.

The human mind represents a wide palette of potential perspectives. It's why we all can't stop arguing.

[_honorentheos]

I'm still unclear as to what you may mean about the contention being the effect. Could you use an example or something to help me out?

As I understood what you were saying, conservatives understand the value of and want to preserve hierarchies, while liberals don't and want to flatten them out. I'm just trying to say that the desire to preserve or flatten those hierarchies comes (either way) as an effect of the way you perceive and process the world, and your intrinsic values.

It's one of many landmarks along the road of left/right contention. It's a manifestation, or emergent property, perhaps, of the aggregate of everyone's brain chemistry. Things are only controversial if both sides have reasonable arguments (or at least, internally logical), and it's those controversial things that are born out of people's varying mental tendencies. There are many such examples. The death penalty. Gun rights. Abortion. Immigration. Unions. Minimum wage. Etc etc etc. All of these issues have arguments on both sides that are compelling. The management of hierarchy is one of many.

The human mind represents a wide palette of potential perspectives. It's why we all can't stop arguing.

Ah. I agree where the differences in approach arise from, and that's a good point. But I think Peterson's point, and one I agree with, is the liberal tradition hasn't been defined by wanting to flatten hierarchies so much as defend people from corruption of the hierarchies. The desire to see hierarchies flattened so there is equality may be overextension and extreme rather than a moderate liberal view.

A corrupted hierachy is one where those reaping its benefits are doing so because of the structure of the hierarchy alone rather than due to it representing a meritocratic organizing of society in its various forms. The weak and powerless aren't just left behind by it, but those benefiting from it are doing so only because there is a hierachy in place making it possible rather than their earning their place in it.

But wanting to reduce all hierachies into a place everyone gets gold stars and blue ribbons for participation is also a form of corruption. It's not a corruption of the hierarchy, though. Instead it's a corruption of the liberal tradition needed to protect the health of society.

I think listening to what Peterson has to say would benefit our discussion, Schmo. It would help set up some background concepts in a way that allows us to communicate a little more easily.

[_Some Schmo]

I think listening to what Peterson has to say would benefit our discussion, Schmo. It would help set up some background concepts in a way that allows us to communicate a little more easily.

As I was reading your post, I thought the exact same thing. I'll have a listen. What you were saying was good stuff I more or less agree with.

[_Some Schmo]

I've listened to about 40 minutes of it, and it's one of his more interesting discussions.

He's really talking about things that have been a part of humanity's DNA for millennia, but organizing his explanation within the framework of hierarchies. He's modeling what's going on culturally.

Yeah, it's interesting.

[_honorentheos]

That's how I felt as well. I was kinda hoping it would attract the attention of someone like Dog or ceebs because it includes a version of the liberal perspective I recognize but also asks questions I thought related to ceebs thread. Maybe it still will.

[_Ceeboo]

Logged back on after a few days off the board and it seems like one of my biggest fans, honor, really enjoys typing "ceebs." I think he has typed it about 4 times in this young thread alone.

I was kinda hoping it would attract the attention of someone like Dog or ceebs because it includes a version of the liberal perspective I recognize but also asks questions I thought related to ceebs thread. Maybe it still will.

Your hopes will have to rest with dog engaging, because Ceeboo has a grand total of zero interest in discussing things with you.

The divide is unbridgeable! No doubt about it.

In addition the the recent walls of text that you shared on the public board describing details of your personal feelings about Ceeboo, Ceeboo's motivations, Ceeboo's phycological sate of mind, Ceeboo's insincerity and Ceeboo's unwillingness to discuss topics in this community, there was one particular comment that you made - in addition to all the other comments you made about me specifically - that really spoke volumes to me about you. by the way, unlike you, I do not feel the need to post walls of text on the public board describing all of my feelings and personal opinions about you. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Anyway, here is the comment:

You're a ____ hypocrite, Ceeboo. Go ____ yourself. You're full of ____ and I'm tired of your idiotic moralizing.

____ you, douche bag.

I'd put in a smiley to make it look like I'm joking but that's too moronic for anyone to actually believe is sincere.

ETA: In case you're pathetically excusing your self-deluding behavior by saying this is part of the political divide you're whining about, I can assure this is all about you, Ceeboo, being a ____ hypocrite and nothing to do with whatever ____ you believe.

You're a passive aggressive moron who has no idea how full of ____ you demonstrate you are every time you come around and start whining.

I don't feel Schmo was really out of line

I'm sorry if it is offensive to say this, but frankly the quality of content in his posts went up after he erased them. That's how little actual content was there before.

For any human being on planet earth to read that quote and come to the conclusion that they "don't feel Schmo was really out of line" - No matter what political motivations they may or may not have - is a significant part of the problem facing this country and it is also a huge reason that the divide within this country is absolutely unbridgeable at this point.

So yeah, not interested - Perhaps dog will be willing.

[_Chap]

... not interested ...

Not interesting.

[_honorentheos]

For any human being on planet earth to read that quote and come to the conclusion that they "don't feel Schmo was really out of line" - No matter what political motivations they may or may not have - is a significant part of the problem facing this country and it is also a huge reason that the divide within this country is absolutely unbridgeable at this point.

I disagree. I think the problems with our country come down to people not being willing to engage others with sincerity. And that is why I stand by that comment, ceebs. It is an honest expression of my view that you seemed only interested in having a particular bias confirmed. Were you interested in actual dialog, I think the discussion started in this OP would be a place that would allow for that. It doesn't confirm the Prager-based claim but it does show that the current conflict in our nation between extreme left and right is damaging the country in serious ways that should concern both conservatives and liberals alike.

Sorry to not sugar coat it for you. You're an adult not a kid. You can recognize your own part in making your thread into what it became or you can claim all old bridges are burned and there are no new ones to be built. But that's on you, buddy. That's all on you.

[_Ceeboo]

For any human being on planet earth to read that quote and come to the conclusion that they "don't feel Schmo was really out of line" - No matter what political motivations they may or may not have - is a significant part of the problem facing this country and it is also a huge reason that the divide within this country is absolutely unbridgeable at this point.

I disagree.

Yeah - I know!

You're an adult not a kid.

Another good shot. Unfortunately, I'm not surprised.

Among the ever-growing list of things that we disagree on - Our definitions of what constitutes an adult and/or a kid can certainly be found on said list.

Again, not interested in discussion. The divide is unbridgeable. Perhaps dog will engage on your OP.

[_Some Schmo]

Again, not interested in discussion. The divide is unbridgeable. Perhaps dog will engage on your OP.

We can always count on you to discuss how you won't discuss anything.