tomlock

Has there been a generation where the elders haven't accused the kids of some moral fault?

Their share price seems to be doing ok.

The totally literal reading would be that someone actually got chewed out by their father for being a Benthamite.

Sure, but the idea that texts have different readings depending on perspective is a pretty postmodern one. I was criticizing the claim that the text was likely specifically directed at American liberals.

As a smug postgraduate I find it kinda odd I'd be called out as an undergraduate, since I found the article funny. Cheers.

That's a very postmodern take! I personally think that most people will read this as a criticism of religious schisms, particularly considering the obvious implication that it's a parent talking to a child, rather than peers within an ideology. Also interesting it'd supposedly be taken as a criticism of a particular political ideology when all ideologies have schisms.

I think a more straightforward reading is that it is satire directed at religious people.

The amount of hate crimes, and remember, the fbi has said white supremacy is now the majority of terrorism arrests it does, have also surged, so it's more a case of the issue on the right being greater in magnitude than there being a left wing bias.

Right wing extremists have killed more people in the last ten years than any other political group.

Oh for sure there's been an increase in extremist activity in Europe, as Anders Breivik and many others provide evidence for.

> Or simply interact with reality.

I have and I've noticed that by far the easiest and most obvious demographic correlation with terrorism is men.

In my interactions with reality I've noticed that there's an inordinate/biased fear of Islam over and above a fear of men, in demographic terms, particularly among the men who tend to proclaim Islam is some immanent threat to Europe.

Maybe there's a useful word we can use, in reality, to describe an inordinate fear of Islam?

> it denies the reality of an Islamic offensive in Europe

Stopped reading here.

There's no evidence of this.

Ok here's my answer.

> Why don't these "equal outcome" groups make a fuss about that? What about trying to get more men into nursing or day care?

They do. They are.

Not only is it true, the fact that you're parroting the claim that construction isn't trying to address the gender imbalance of its field demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. You haven't seen the "fuss" because you aren't educated, and haven't made an effort to educate yourself, on the topic.

I question this result, since:

https://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-id...

tl;dr: In Thailand, 45-ish percent of people say they use facebook, 30-ish percent say they use the internet.

When questioned directly about what Marxists he believed represented what he's characterising, he couldn't name a single one. This lends more evidence and fact to the pile of facts that demonstrate he has no clue what he's talking about.

Considering that academic rigour is at stake - given we need to trust he's made a rigorous survey of the academic consensus surrounding this topic - it is a very related subject.

Given that none of these papers prove that women are better or worse at programming than men, perhaps you can demonstrate your academic rigour to me, too?

If you think the reason there are fewer women on construction sites is that they don't want to work there, I'd encourage you to work on a construction site, like I have, and talk to the very few women that work there about their experiences.

Over the last few years there's been a marked increase in women working on construction sites.

For years Mr. Peterson has criticised people as being Marxists but didn't read the Communist Manifesto until about two weeks ago. I'm not sure he's best positioned to offer commentary on complex topics like this one.

There used to be more male lawyers than female lawyers.

It is honestly incredibly funny that this comment, about factual probabilities, would get downvoted.

The average board has 9 members. If we were to randomly flip a coin 9 times, we'd expect to see 9 of tails/heads about 0.2% of the time.

I feel like an extreme view would be to say any ethics board is better than no ethics board.

If you disagree with that statement then I think the question is: Was this ethics board bad enough that it was worse than no ethics board?

And, I trust that you're being charitable enough to believe that the people that wanted the board removed asked the same, very basic, ethical question.

On the other hand - it might be easier to think they didn't ask or think about that question and discard their position based on what could frankly be called a strawman.

That simplistic view is not the consensus of modern biologists.

Ah, so you agree that gender isn't binary.

Actually the implication is he has seen delusion at Yale, which I think is easy to disagree with, especially if you're one of the "deluded".

> I have seen the effects of overidentifying with one’s group and witnessed mass delusions up close

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure if the unification efforts or the author are going to be successful if he's putting passages like this in his book.

> That’s clear in the book itself, which makes unmistakable allusions to the Yale ugliness. “I have seen the effects of overidentifying with one’s group and witnessed mass delusions up close,” he writes. He rues America’s intense polarization, which perhaps makes this “an odd time for me to advance the view that there is more that unites us than divides us.” But advance that view he does.

Is it strange to anyone else that there'd be a run on sentence that starts with discussing how deluded some people are and ends with trying to claim a moral stance for unification?

Seems like a reasonable comment to me, and not an objection to the finding.

I'd ask everyone who came to this article with the assumption that someone would object to or get offended by this finding, to actually observe if anyone does.