It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fake Virtue

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Everyone seems to be discussing the recent Jordan Peterson interview on Channel 4 and I'm starting to get a bit sick of it but I just got finished watching it and something the interviewer said right at the end really struck me as a critical point relating to why the left and right are drifting so far apart ideologically. She says "Aren't you just whipping people up into a state of anger?". This question left me flabbergasted, she had just listened to Peterson explain the logic and reasoning behind his positions and he made it very clear his intentions are to help people and in fact he has counseled many women to help improve their careers. All he was trying to explain is that women and men when left to make their own choices will naturally select certain jobs over others and that accounts for a large part of why there are less female CEO's and why women have lower paying jobs overall. She then immediately takes this as him saying women should just give up and accept their fate, when clearly what he is trying to do is encourage women to be more assertive and have more confidence, he's trying to empower them and prove they can achieve anything they want to achieve in life if they have the right mindset.

The single largest flaw in SJW thinking is they assume anyone who opposes them must have beliefs opposite to them, meaning they hate minority groups and they love inequality. This could not be further from the truth, we simply realize the fact that constantly treating people like oppressed victims enforces the idea that's what they are. You cannot simply assume a person is a troll because they don't instantly jump onto the social justice train, Peterson is a well educated philosopher and he has deep, well formulated and well thought out reasons for having the stances he has. After I finished watching that interview with Peterson I saw another Channel 4 interview with Richard Ayoade in the suggested videos and my god was it hilarious. I absolutely love and adore Richard Ayoade, if you're not aware he was the black guy in The IT Crowd (best show ever btw). The interviewer begins prodding Ayoade and asking why he wont enthusiastically support the SJW movement as a black man... "you are young, Cambridge educated, black British, I mean that's quite rare", and Ayoade simply responds "yes it's a hell of a medical form"... the interviewer asks "but you're not going there?", he responds "where should I be going?"

The interviewer continues "well no what I mean is you know Lenny Henry and David Harewood and all those people, other black people in the entertainment industry", the response: "there are others, yeah". Every time the interviewer brings up his "blackness" and tries to frame the discussion around that you can tell Ayoade is annoyed because he is defined by much more than simply the color of his skin, he is a human being and I'm sure he'd much prefer to be treated like any other person rather than part of a victim group. He is a very successful man and he did that with hard work, people around the world love him and they don't care for a single moment what color his skin is. This is what really irks me about so much of the virtue signaling I see, it's so fake and superficial with no real good will behind it, and they often take it so far that they end up offending the very people they want to help. It's like if you treat a disabled person as if they were a child when mentally they are an adult, it's condescending because they just want to be treated like everyone else instead of having some group identity lodged upon them and constantly told they will never be anything outside of that.



Best comment:

Guru blatantly trying to steer the conversation into a debate about race and inequalities and Mr Ayoade was far too intelligent and morally superior to court it. Guru ended up looking like a fool.

edit on 23/1/2018 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 11:04 AM
link   
"Don't thank me, I've done nothing for you." Brilliant.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT
"Don't thank me, I've done nothing for you." Brilliant.

Lmao I know, best ending to an interview ever.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 11:24 AM
link   
idk if you've watched much with ayoade, but he rarely gives a straight/serious answer to anything... and picking out one celebrity who isn't throwing in with racial justice doesn't prove that you've arrived at a superior understanding of the topic, either.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: fiverx313

I didn't "pick out" anyone as an example, I wanted to make a thread about the Peterson video and I just happened to see that video in the suggested bar and it fit with this discussion very well. Are am well aware of how Ayoade behaves in interviews but that doesn't take away from anything he said, especially near the end when the interviewer really tried to dig into the issue and put him on the spot. He may always be sarcastic but there is great wisdom behind his jokes, they say comedy is one of the most powerful forms of political commentary. Also I'm not claiming to have a "superior understanding", it's not about trying to out-virtue-signal, it's about simply taking a stance which I believe is the most ethical and most human approach.
edit on 23/1/2018 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: fiverx313

On a side note, I was going to mention to how Dave Chappelle takes a similar approach, doesn't define himself by the color of his skin, and doesn't jump on the SJW bandwagon, and how he got burned hard for saying give Trump a chance. However I knew someone would counter that argument by saying how he roasted Trump on his recent Netflix special. He explains how everyone harassed him for not being anti-Trump and why his opinion on Trump has changed and why he now thinks Trump is doing a terrible job. Honestly it was the first time I've felt any degree of cringe while watching his standup, I think he's probably the best comedian ever but when he started to make fun of Trump it was honestly just bad. And I'm not just saying that because I support Trump, I've watched a lot of people roast Trump and I enjoy a lot of it, this was just plain bad and it shocked me. However I think a large part of him roasting Trump was just him trying to recoup a bit of respect from his friends and colleges and reduce the level of anti-Trumper hate directed at him. But that would be seen as a wild conspiracy theory and so I chose not to include this part of my argument.
edit on 23/1/2018 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder


it's about simply taking a stance which I believe is the most ethical and most human approach.


...and calling those you disagree with, fake. no, i don't get any sense of implied superiority out of that at all.


edit on 23-1-2018 by fiverx313 because: how does quotes work



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 11:56 AM
link   
As far as 'fake virtue on channel four' , or any other channel, what did you expect?

The 'news' is back to back cacophony of murder, rape, death and mayhem, all_day_long. Then they have an interview in a different 'segment' and pretend they are holding the high moral ground.

What kind of virtue does non stop reporting on crime and violence inspire in ordinary people by repetitive conditioning?

Theres your criminal organization. wolves in sheeps clothing.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: fiverx313
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

...and calling those you disagree with, fake. no, i don't get any sense of implied superiority out of that at all.

I'm not saying it's all fake, but a lot of it is and yes maybe in some sense I do believe I'm above those people who use virtue signaling as a tool for social manipulation... but I mean it is quite a low brow thing to do. Also the fact that almost every person I see doing it is some fake Hollywood personality or morning talk show host really drives home the point for me. These people don't know what real hardship is... ask yourself why the most popular people on YouTube are personalities like PewDiePie, H3H3, and iDubbbz, even Peterson is becoming quite famous now, that Channel 4 interview is still trending. They are crude and often push the limits of what is politically correct, they are real human beings and that's why people are drawn to them, despite the fact YouTube constantly tries to push fake obnoxious personalities by rigging the trending videos and other methods.
edit on 23/1/2018 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Is it weird that I think of him more as the guy from Garth Marenghi's Darkplace? Is this a sufficient second line?



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Your mistake is you're declaring all SJWs to have the same thinking.

When what you're doing is taking the really extremist SJW thinking that is out on the wacky fringe, and saying 'Ergo all SJWs are just like this.'


Which is the same as pointing to the Nazis of Charlottesburg and saying 'All right wing people are like this.'

Not fair. Not true.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 12:13 PM
link   
And no one dare take on Jordan Peterson.
Point taken.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Painterz

Fair enough point, usually I try to make a point of saying "far left" or "fanatic SJW's" or something that doesn't generalize everyone on the left. When I use the term SJW I'm not necessarily talking about all of them although I feel it's a vast majority of them, just based on the fact they've chosen to label themselves as a warrior for social justice. Anyway I have to be off for a while, I'll check back later.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zelun
Is it weird that I think of him more as the guy from Garth Marenghi's Darkplace? Is this a sufficient second line?


Not weird at all.
Dark place was inspired stuff and I still watch it on dvd from time to time.



Also, OP
Agreed. Sometimes they dig themselves a hole they can't get out of. That interview was awful.


edit on 23-1-2018 by Tulpa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Also before I go here's a new video from Prager University which helps my argument some what. In it a black women explains how historically the Republicans have been behind a lot of real social change, how democrats have often aligned themselves against the will of minority groups, and how the first black senators and congressman were all Republican as were the first Asian and first female senators and congressman. Obviously things have changed since then and she acknowledges that. At the end of the video she explains why Republicans tend to treat blacks and other minorities as equals instead of giving them special treatment, and how democrats tend to "treat blacks and women as victims who aren't capable of succeeding on their own, the truth is this is just a new type of contempt".



Best comment:

A democrat sees a black man and says "You poor, oppressed victim! Vote democrat and we will take other people's money and give it to you!"
A republican sees a black man and says, "Good morning! How are you today?"







 
8

log in

join