Steven Pinker Explains Political Correctness And The "Redpill"

Steven Pinker, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University and Canadian-born Jewish liberal, explains how rampant political correctness in western society is driving people to what the media has dubbed the "alt-right".

Believe it or not I'm actually inclined to agree with him. The system has gone so far to the left that anyone who considers themselves to be a centrist, classical liberal, or an individualist with differing opinions than the status quo are quickly labeled as a fascist or nazi or "alt-right" and essentially excommunicated. And those who have been told for so many years that the world is one way but then get exposed to the cold hard facts find themselves disillusioned.

Think of it as a football field, and at one end there is the far-left and the other there is the far-right... with everyone else in between. Both sides are throwing rocks at each other. So you can imagine who is going to get hit the most. The difference is that the far-left has been doing this for so many years under the protection of the referees and the announcers that the people who call foul on them are typically ignored, which drives them either farther or closer to one end of the spectrum in an attempt to shield themselves. This is the great divide.

a reply to: Konduit


Live an Learn. PC has lost it proverbial mind.

originally posted by: Konduit
Believe it or not I'm actually inclined to agree with him.

/looks at your avatar

YOU DON'T SAY

a reply to: fiverx313

That's the irony. If you watched passed the first 3 minutes you would see why someone who's a far-right nationalist would ignore his opinions, like you did.

The fact is I'm not really a far-right nationalist. If I had to put a term to it I would call myself a Libertarian who's sick of Cultural Marxism.

a reply to: Konduit


It is one of the reasons why "MGTOW" is growing as it is and many people are simply opting out of what it now means to live a western life style. People that have any ounce of savvy are simply saying enough is enough, as the racist sexist neo nazi slurs come falling down all it does is create a situation where the person being belittled is forced to f#ck off out of society and that cause many issues, just look at the male suicide rate..

Women are turning themselves away from the current Third wave of feminism who intern seem to have little issue turning themselves into wa#k fodder on instagram. I believe that level headed women have seen just how idiotic it has all become..

We also have a rise in people that claim they are communist but have sweet f#ck all knowledge or any idea of what it actually means..


Bull sh#t and buzzwords is what we see daily..

I am currently located 6000 miles away from any western country in a location where PC would be looked at as laughable, it is very refreshing.....



RA

originally posted by: slider1982
a reply to: Konduit


It is one of the reasons why "MGTOW" is growing as it is and many people are simply opting out of what it now means to live a western life style. People that have any ounce of savvy are simply saying enough is enough, as the racist sexist neo nazi slurs come falling down all it does is create a situation where the person being belittled is forced to f#ck off out of society and that cause many issues, just look at the male suicide rate..

Women are turning themselves away from the current Third wave of feminism who intern seem to have little issue turning themselves into wa#k fodder on instagram. I believe that level headed women have seen just how idiotic it has all become..

We also have a rise in people that claim they are communist but have sweet f#ck all knowledge or any idea of what it actually means..


Bull sh#t and buzzwords is what we see daily..

I am current located 6000 miles away from any western country in a location where PC would be looked at as laughable, it is very refreshing.....



RA

I assure you that level headed women have been turning away from the rising tide of feminism for a long time.

"Alt-Right" technically encompasses everyone any and all 'anti-SJW' / 'counter-SJW'...

Which DOES include the most hardcore of the lot the Neo-Nazi etc slants.

...meaning my works would fall into there somewhere on this 'technical level'...

...despite the fact my 'Alt-Alt' philosophy is pure anti-Identity Politick making me the same kind of pure enemy to them as even the Neo-Nazi type (yet to them I'm the same degree of threat).

When you get down to it, SJW is Pure Identity Politick just the same as would be Neo-Nazi / KKK / etc. "Same cloth just different stripes" as I say. Both are Supremacist Ideologies hell bent on Inter-Group Supremacy, obsessed with RACE of particular note. On many levels SJW is even more hardcore than base Neo-Nazi group obsessionism if anything with all the gender sex sexuality etc etc specifics it drips with, thus my initial reactions to the front last summer was to call it the "Nu-Nazi".

Of course they all shrieked in response, but this is all categorical Social Movement stuff. Most find are quick to call them out as Communist instead of Nazi Playbook style. Which they do have many Communist appeal angles mixes into the Ideology itself, and do employ certain Social Movement angles from the Communist Social Movement Playbook, but here when it comes to the OG Nazi's they took the Social movement lessons from the Commie's just before them and mastered the social group appeal arts and its this playbook that the SJW most closely emulates.

I mean like verbatim. Because here we're speaking outside of ideology itself. Their only claim to being different is that their IDEALS are different than 'the Nazi'. Which is true. Totally different ideals. Yet the Thinking, especially at what I call the 'Primal Tribalist Layer' is absolutely identical.

Of course right on the surface the SJW appeals to the 'Globalism' ideal. Since Nazi's are 'Nationalist' they've convinced themselves they're just some totally different 'thing'. Yet even here, this tribalist appeal that falls outside of race, sex, etc its just an alternate "World Identity Tribe'. If anything its even more grandiose, even more ideologically extreme on a primal tribalist level appeal, than base nationalism.

An irony here is I actually like the concept of the 'Global Village'. But what's happened here is the notion of it has been weaponized. And Weaponization is the term to grasp here. None of this SJW was an accident; liberalism didnt evolve naturally across society. It poured out of the sociology / social psychology departments of critical universities... the very top experts in our society on such 'Nazi Social Engineering' & 'Communist Social Engineering' PLAYBOOKS... they knew precisely what they were doing with all this stuff if my punk ass could emerge from a 5 year 'political coma' and almost immediately call it out. And all that made me 'special' was studying social movements for many years before drifting off into my 'time capsule' which just so happened to fall in line with the years where SJW emerged in 2011 and climaxed in the Trump Rally Riots. It took trying to put those riots into social perspective, in large part, to even draw me back into the world of BS Left/Right politics. Many of the base SJW ideals, if anything, I'm more in support of is something they'd never expect, yet I have a loathing of "Moral Emotional Wedge Issues being the basis of national politics so 'they had to troll me damn hard' to get me to even look, and when I did oh my did I RECOIL LOL. Stuff about our society that should be criticized, well that was pure gospel now while the stuff that could eviscerate our social fabric (not even talking about this "Social Group Warfare" design itself), being the platform above the tribalist urge dynamics.... ARGH.

This thing was only ever designed to set fire, plain and simple from my view....

Which brings about the question of WHY....

a reply to: Ameilia

Exactly. We have.

I love having a job, being respected by my husband and the freedom to do all that. I was a high caliber athlete, had no fear of competing in any scholarly pursuit I chose and was often the only female along on those bus/car rides and felt no intimidation for it. I knew my worth.

To me, that was being a feminist, but today's feminism is nothing I recognize or want any part of. For one thing, I love my husband and my son. I like being a mother. I don't feel like I am somehow a lesser part of this family because I only work part-time. The two of them would be lost without me. I am the main home coach for my own son. He works best for me and respects me and my authority because of my own athletic background.

There is no oppression in my life at all, and I pity the fool who would try.

But I am in no way what modernity considers a feminist anymore.

It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. Yes, the crazy and dysregulated shaming of radical liberals obviously provokes a negative response from "conservative" minds. Its precisely this obviousness - this provoking and antagonizing of other people that compels me to consider the political establishment in the western world to be a game.

If you actually haven't read Hegel or appreciate the complexity of this perspective, my words will mean nothing to you. But, for those people who understand the nature of the thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectic, the fact that mainstream liberals and mainstream conservatives are absolutely polarized from one another and constantly speak past one another is NOT A COINCIDENCE - but a design: Hollywood and other mainstream "intellectuals" i.e. postmodern critical theorists, are constantly training their pupils in how to respond to situations in life; and what they're given, or shown, will necessarily provoke a counter-response from people who do not share your view, but even more importantly, are not likely to be persuaded with liberals YELLING and SHAMING them. Such loud-mouthed hectroing will not resolve our conflicts with our enemies.

That said, I don't have much respect for Steven Pinkers intellectual history - from his cognitive linguistics, to his philosophy, to his opposition to "safe-spaces": the problem with Pinker is that he imagines he is able to consider human thinking and being without considering the ecological effects of development, so that applies a standard that suits his upper-middle class background in Montreal as the son of two lawyers, but doesn't much care for people who've endured intense trauma most their lives, and hence, in a university context, are somewhat needy of a "kids-gloves" approach to their problems.

People who deny this - deny the neediness of the self, and the fact that some selves are not as advangeously equipped by life-experiences to tolerate negative situations as others are - Pinker doesn't accept this, and probably because it doesn't exactly jibe with his metaphysical dualism.

a reply to: Astrocyte

They don't want people who aren't afraid to be their own person. They need people who are most comfortable conforming.

Do you recall the psychological experiment where participants were sat down and told to deliver electric shocks where a person in the other room made mistakes at a task? Essentially they delivered punishments? They were directed to do so by authority.

What they discovered is that it was very, very hard for people to go against that authority even when they could hear the other person howling and screaming in pain, possibly even dying because they were receiving instruction from an authority figure and no one else in the room was objecting. They were not told that everyone but them was in on the experiment.

Which sort of person do you think would be the most likely to break authority programming?

The comformist or the strongly self-actualized individual?

Why do you think they are so invested in creating a society that is so invested in tribal groupthink rather than individuality?

Be careful when asking questions: sometimes we limit ourselves too much by assuming that there are only two options, ala:

1. The comformist or the strongly self-actualized individual?

This is not what matters, in my opinion.

People can wax all day about how "loving they are", but in my experience, being loving without an education in what it is your interacting with (i.e. a science-based education) is useless.

People trigger one another; thus, without understanding yourself, you will never know how to relate to the other.

So...the answer to your question is NEITHER. What you call the "strongly self-actualized" individual is not even defind. What do you mean by that? Conversely, people who "know" reality truthfully may conform to the same way of doing something, in teh same way that we've all figured out that stop-signs make sense, lanes on highways make sense, and seat belts make sense. But in the latter situation, we wouldn't be motivated to describe our "equal obligation" as 'conformism' - but as sanity: as something which is in your self-interest to do.

I think, therefore, that self-actualization and conformity to a moral way of being are one and the same.

The person who thinks there is no continuity here between self and other, however, believes in a dualism. A patchy, nonsensical mythos which suits their existential needs - i.e. given their early life context - but overall appears to be irrational and unreal, and therefore, probably not an optimal solution to our problems.

a reply to: ketsuko


I think you got the right idea.

Since this is a Pinker thread, his sister wrote a book touching on just this subject: the double standard or hypocrisy in setting 'feminism' and its interests with reference to MALE VALUES.

Its a fairly astonishing thing that so many feminists do not realize that what they're really doing is demonizing and disparaging motherhood and nurturing, while seeking all those things that males like: sex, equal pay, etc.

Don't get me wrong - equal pay is an obviously legitimate thing to want. But even this issue seems to take a backseat to "sexual liberation" politics i.e. clearly, these sorts of issues are operating as distractions from the real issues - economic, and moral, that need to be addressed.

a reply to: Astrocyte

It's about understanding who you are and not allowing yourself to be defined by others because you lack the confidence in that knowledge to stand up for it.

Do you like the name brand jeans because you really like them -- they are comfortable, fit you well, etc. -- or do you like them because everyone around you is wearing them and you want to fit in with the crowd of others? Sometimes, both instincts can be satisfied at once and that's great. But what is most important to you? Would you rather wear comfortable jeans that fit well or wear that label like everyone else?

Either answer tells you something about yourself and who you are.

I think it's most important to understand yourself in life and not be afraid to be that person rather than let the world around you constantly define who you should be.

a reply to: ketsuko

Do you like the name brand jeans because you really like them -- they are comfortable, fit you well, etc. -- or do you like them because everyone around you is wearing them and you want to fit in with the crowd of others? Sometimes, both instincts can be satisfied at once and that's great. But what is most important to you? Would you rather wear comfortable jeans that fit well or wear that label like everyone else?

I wear jeans; and I also buy nice pairs - Jack & Jones. I'm not too comfortable with their labor infractions against their workers, but yes, for the most part, I consider it an understandable thing to want to wear nice clothes.

To me, the issue is not whether we want to dress nicely: but whether or not we judge others on such superficial criteria i.e. how we respond, for instance, when exposed to others who wear "bad" clothing.

It is inherently possible to keep track of your awareness and so not succumb to tawdry judgements. But with that said, we always judge people according to what it is we value: so if I come to value Jack & Jones type outfitters so much so that anyone not wearing that brand or style appears to me as "wrong" - and this most assuredly HAS occured to me - then I simply take note of what it is I am experiencing, and remind myself that this isn't sa fair way to judge someone.

I think it's most important to understand yourself in life and not be afraid to be that person rather than let the world around you constantly define who you should be.

Oh absolutely. There is nothing like being negatively judged by another person.

For me, at 13, it was the irrelevant feature of my height; but for the bully, my height stood for his own experience of weakness. Even more unfair was that at the same time as I was being bullied (this ultimately #ed my whole life-course up) my mother was going through a major depression, my father was demoted at work, and my sister, my best friend growing up, was going out all day.

It's a truism that nobody mistreats another person without having an ulterior motivation for being mean. The kid who bullied me came from an incredibly traumatic background; and unfortunately for me, his solution for dealing with his problems was abreacting towards others who expressed the bullies own dissociated self-states. Thus, in grade 8, being short, being depressed (because of the craziness at home) and having no one to process these emotions with ultimately led to a life-long developmental trauma disorder which to this day I am not entirely free from.

Being able to be who you are pertains to issues like voice and body, but can also include sexuality.

Most people are not comfortable in their bodies, and the degree to which they are uncomfortable would seem to be expressed by the way and manner that they act around others. I don't simply mean they "don't like something" about themselves. I mean, even being unable to enjoy the presence of others is itself a form of unresolved trauma.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Being comfortable being who you are is important for this reason:



One person in this picture dared to not agree.

That doesn't mean he was the only one who didn't agree. It just means he was the only one who knew himself and was strong enough in that to go against the urges of the moment and the crowd. To openly show his disagreement even in the face of the apparent agreement of all the others. That is a powerful social force, and it takes strength of character to go against.

How many of the others there also disagreed but did not have the strength of personal character to openly defy the moment?

This is the type of force Political Correctness attempts to create.