I went to school in the 80s in NJ and learned about Lincoln and Federalism, the state sovereignty vs state rights debate, laws he broke for wartime, etc, and that was out of a tattered 6th grade US history book from the 1950s. (I hope they got rid of those by now). But socialism didn’t exist then. Perhaps later socialists did a reading of Lincoln and found a lot that was favorable, or those who felt he overstepped put him in that light later, but either way is a rewriting of history.

I went to school [read full article]


Brandon, you keep sneakily trying to say that either me or Bret agree with Peterson-you (or you-Peterson). But clearly I do not and it appears neither does Bret. We don’t have a PM going to make sure we agree with each other. We don’t watch the same shows or read the same books, I don’t think. Yet we seem to agree about Peterson-you’s flaws. On the other hand, you and Zach have Peterson in common. Your agreement isn’t a surprise. But why do Bret and I agree?

Brandon, you keep sneakily [read full article]


I did 7 mins and I’m satisfied. I might finish. But this is what I see: Jordan brings up blank slate then denies it, while sliding religion into the shell game when there are other plausible reasons. Something like: If there was blank slate, then if you start with no religion, (and you do not acquire religion or you do then deny it), you will be only rational. But since you are raised in a society whose values are based on values that stem from religion, true denial of religion is impossible as your values will correspond to religious values (humanism). Maybe I’m reading it wrong. But if correct, he’s playing a shell game. a) By assuming society has all of the power, he asserts blank slate. b) If he brings up “god / religious feeling is hard-wired”, this does not mean god or religion but “awe” and “wow”,which you can get from many things – and that’s biological but not necessarily anything to do with religion or belief in god, but rather an experience. c) MOST IMPORTANTLY: What’s not said is what makes this a shell game. Where’s biological causes for these things instead of religion or belief in god? I guess if he doesn’t mention, it doesn’t exist. I’ll finish it now. I’m 1/2 way through his long Dostoyevsky-atheist juggling and tbh, I never thought Dostoyevsky’s view of atheism was correct but I also wasn’t much into him.

I did 7 mins
[read full article]

context – con-text – “with text”. Basic sarcasm is: “ha, I have said the opposite of what I really mean and that’s funny haha!” There’s usually very little in the text itself that indicates, “THIS IS SARCASTIC NOW” but there is often something. Online, it might be a   or   that tells you, “Switch this meaning into opposite mode”. But that’s all basic sarcasm. Higher levels involve using your pre existing knowledge to bear upon the conversation in order to interpret it properly, as the text itself is devoid of its full message.

context – con-text –
[read full article]