Boethius

I too am an American (living in New York) who is deeply disturbed by what is happening to my country. My own approach as a private citizen -- for whatever it is worth -- is to be kind, to be gentle, to speak truth to power when necessary, but to generally listen before speaking, and to seek consensus in whatever modest form it can take. I believe our country is on the verge of a very difficult cultural transformation (from Orange to Green, in the language of Spiral Dynamics), and we are as like gardeners tending to a plant that is ailing. This task requires a great amount of sensitivity and skillfulness. So aside from voting responsibly and supporting political changes that open the door to greater democratic representation, I think the key is to be present as fully as possible.

For whatever reason Youtube suggested this link to me from Jordan Peterson, where he says we must be cruel monsters who tame our monstrosity in order to survive in a world of even crueler monsters: I haven't listened to much Jordan Peterson over the years, though he has been on my radar of culturally significant voices. I thought his main message was about the importance of learning self-discipline (clean your room!), self help, and emotional control. I found useful his rhetorical question "how can a person hope to contribute to the management of a society if they cannot even manage their own lives?" But this message about cruelty and monstrosity seems a lot weirder and nastier, quite frankly. I agree, of course, that people shouldn't allow themselves to be bullied or be pushovers, and that a certain go-getter attitude (a healthily integrated Red sense of agency) is essential in a labor market where we are now generally expected to "sell ourselves". But I think the message that our young people should tap into their sense of cruelty and become monsters is poisonous to society at large. I mean, like begets like, and if people are pre-emptively cruel to one another it just leads to more cruelty overall. I guess I can see how this could make some sense from an individual's perspective, but from a collective perspective it is grotesque. So is this just an odd piece of advice from Jordan Peterson -- something that maybe he hasn't thought about as thoroughly as other pieces of advice -- or is this in fact representative of Jordan Peterson's program for personal development?

I'm looking the definition of "cruel" on dictionary.com: (1) willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others. (2) enjoying the pain or distress of others (3) causing or marked by great pain or distress (4) rigid; stern; strict; unrelentingly severe I don't see the positivity in this. I mean, yes, young people need to learn to toughen up, grow a thick skin, become resilient, stand up for themselves, and fight against injustice, but it seems to me that Jordan Peterson is suggesting something more: that we should view the world as being filled with a bunch of assholes, basically, that we own our own ability/propensity to be assholes, and that we are willing to "stand down" if other people stand down, but we are quick to "stand up" for ourselves if others do not stand down. I would not recommend that almost any young person adopt this view of the world (unless they're growing up in a neighborhood that has a lot of violence, in which case I would be humble in providing any advice to such a person). It seems to me that a person who adopts JP's view of the world as being populated with cruel monsters is (a) at best, going to end being very prickly and defensive and sensitive to the slights of others, or (b) at worst, enjoys being an asshole themselves since "everyone else" is an asshole already. This just doesn't seem to be a healthy, balanced, mature view of the world. But I don't know, maybe some other people would say that I'm being naive.

I agree. The expectations of polite society have shifted from personal achievement to empathy for others, even if we still aren't clear on how best to embody these "new" values.

Club soda with lemon/lime and soda are my go-to drinks when out with friends who are drinking alcohol.

Here's a relatively obscure political issues: boys are poorly served by our contemporary education system. By this I mean that they are more likely than girls to be diagnosed with attention deficit disorders and put on medication, less likely to be able to happily sit still than girls are in elementary school, more likely to be punished for misbehavior, and less likely to graduate high school or attend college. This is an issue that gets attention here and there (The Atlantic has written some articles on it) but it's kind of viewed as uncouth to talk about since the official Social Justice view of American society involves women overcoming the system of oppression known as Patriarchy. In other words, we "should" be focused on seeing women catching up to men and so we "shouldn't" worry about boys falling behind girls. The exceptions to this rule occurs when female journalists write articles for mainstream publications decrying the paucity of dateable men (by which they mean college-educated men) or anti-racism articles come out condemning the rates at which Black male youths are being disproportionately punished in school. In those contexts it's apparently acceptable to talk about the education problems facing males. This is an issue that I find important in itself, and also as a "canary in the coal mine" in terms of how much the Social Justice framework holds sway over what gets printed in mainstream media sites.

So I'm just too stupid to understand the racist dog whistling of some alt-right troll. OK.

Derek Chauvin was arrested and charged with third degree murder on May 29, 2020 -- back when Donald J. Trump was still president. So how does this trial have much of anything to do with Joe Biden?

I agree that conspiracies often help give voice to concerns that have been socially marginalized. For example, politicians who seem disingenuous and slick can be described as lizard people in human disguise. And one cannot "argue" with a conspiracy theorist who believes politicians are lizard people until one addresses their underlying concerns about politicians being deceptive liars. The problem, for me, is when conspiracy theories are used to provide cover for things like anti-semitism. Not only can you not argue with an anti-semitic conspiracy theorist about whatever fantasy they've latched onto (a cabal of Jewish bankers who are secretly pulling the levers of power, for example) but you also can't address their underlying concerns without engaging in anti-semitism yourself.

I've only ever done a bit of marijuana here and there but I've had some pretty intense experiences both with marijuana and sober. I'm thinking about a time, for example, when I was on campus on my way to hold office hours for my students as they were about to take a Calculus exam the next day. I was thinking about the problems I was having in my relationship with my partner and how I felt he was dismissing my emotions. Accepting that I have emotions that are not dependent on whether he does or doesn't find them to be "reasonable" was a huge thing for me, and in accepting that everything radically shifted/opened up. My perception of colors became super intense, everything felt connected, and as each student came and sat down at my desk across from me I felt about them "Wow, you are a giant!" It was the first time in my career I felt honored to be in the presence of my students (almost intimidated, even). Then eventually the experience faded, though I did learn a lot from it. I figure this is both a blessing and a curse: I am more open to these sorts of experiences, but also more prone to experiencing them at inconvenient times and without always knowing how to "get out" of them.

What communities do you see that really embody and embrace the New Age ethos or New Age values?

@Forestluv It seems to me that there are two ways a professor can conceive of course design (especially when it comes to the development of assessments like quizzes/exams and the assignment of grades): (A) the course exists to provide an arena of competition for students to demonstrate academic excellence, in which case exams should be "rigorous" and an A should signify that the student has out-competed their peers (B) the course exists to get students to meet a certain set of pre-specified learning objectives, in which case exams should be closely tied to those learning objectives and it would be "ideal" for all students to get A's I've come to believe that (B) is a more appropriate vision for college courses (and certainly for first year courses), not least of all because it makes it easier to implement the anti-racist institutional values with regards to curricular choices, classroom policies, the construction of assessments, and the assignment of grades. Presumably the vision of (A) still has a place, perhaps with higher level courses, but it seems like implementing the anti-racist values in a course that takes (A) as its vision would be much harder. Does what I'm saying here sound like it's in alignment with the sort of conversations your university has been having on these issues? I ask because I suspect a lot of older professors would chafe at (B) versus (A). It seems to me a lot of older professors have as part of their own personal identity the fact that they were the ones who excelled at school back in the day (so much so that they became professors!) And I would hesitate to share with them that my goal is to help as many students as possible get A's, lest they accuse me of simply "lowering standards".

I don't think we're going to get a more exhaustive analysis than the one John McWhorter has provided: https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/so-there-was-a-law-professor-at-georgetown Speaking as a college professor myself, this is something that has to be discussed very delicately, to say the least.

I don't think the human impulse to engage in violent warfare ever goes away. After all, every person must pass through the Red stage of development even in a Turquoise society. So instead, the best we can hope for is that it is transmuted into alternative forms of human expression that aren't as destructive. In our current society we see that transmutation take the form of professional sports including MMA, violent video games, violent movies, etc. So it may take a different form in the future but it will probably be necessary for people to have some place where they can (safely) let out those impulses to dominate and control others.

@Loba I hadn't considered that there might be a spiritual or sexual dimension to being otherkin (as I believe that's the label for that identity). With my comments I was more trying to map out how to relate to a person like a friend or family member should they declare themselves to be otherkin -- that I would want to relate to them empathetically but without "feeding" into their idea of being otherkin. To be fair, I suppose there is something judgmental in that from my end. After all, everyone has a right to pursue whatever spiritual path that feels right for them. So if a friend of family member declared themselves to be otherkin and viewed it as a positive thing then I would respect that decision of theirs. I probably wouldn't be greatly interested in talking about it (not least of all because my own religious beliefs allow no room for non-human souls) but it doesn't seem like something that would naturally come up much either. As far as finding a shamanic teacher, good luck with that! Truly. I know how hard it can be feeling like you're close to being on a personal spiritual path while not yet having found it ?

People internalize the values of being a "winner" in the competitive arena of capitalism. That is, everyone wants to be rich and famous. It is true that no one is obligated to adopt such values, but our culture at large encourages these values through advertising, tv shows, movies, etc.

The world will be re-enchanted, one way or another:

And you're in a good position to determine this from postings on an internet forum? Talk about being judgmental...

I don't think of them as savages either. I believe they are humans who are a bit confused and who have been greatly harmed by other people. In the second video included in the first post, the dragon lady recounts different stories of having been harmed by others (including an account of rape). My overall point is that -- insofar as we are capable -- we should try to be compassionate towards such people while still drawing them back to some understanding of themselves as being human like everyone else.

I try to take responsibility for my consumer choices, and I shop at a place that makes public declarations of being engaged on these issues: https://www.wegmans.com/about-us/making-a-difference/sustainability-at-wegmans/seafood-sustainability/ If I took Seaspiracy's claims at face value, I would have to believe that Wegmans is a part of the "conspiracy" as well. Which would be inconvenient given that I generally buy 1/2 pound of fish each week ? That's why I've been using this forum to "work out" my ideas on this topic (if you look at my initial posting I included a question about what it is we should be doing as individuals to help address the problem of over-fishing and then in a later post settled upon the answer of supporting organizations like the NRDC that have the resources necessary to petition the government to regulate the fishing industries). I have no criticism of the vegan lifestyle, but it's not for me. And so while my approach may not be perfect, at this point I do feel like I've done my due diligence in thinking through my participation in the larger fishing system. Edit: wrong link

I never said anything about "healing" people. I said my intent would be to support people. I would try to empathetically (and humbly) support people in coming back to some reasonable sense of shared reality.

I'm saying that market corrections will result to the same # of fish being harvested overall, so that the problem of overfishing quite possibly remains as much of a problem as it was before. And since I'm not an economist I don't know that for sure, so I could be wrong. It seems to me that the most effective thing an individual can do to address the problem of overfishing is to petition their government to regulate the fishing industry more stringently and to not subsidize an industry that is already over-harvesting. But if someone else wants to fight the problem of over-fishing by becoming a vegan, it certainly won't harm anything! So I do respect that decision even if it's not the one I am making personally.

It's important to have boundaries. I'm not going to pretend that drinking a couple bottles of wine a day is healthy and in a similar way I'm not going to pretend that extreme body modification for the sake of becoming a dragon is psychologically healthy. That being said, if a person doesn't want me to be in their life because they find me to be "judgmental" then that's a choice I would respect.

The argument I made above: "I am doubtful about the effectiveness of this (even as an individual action). After all, if I stop eating fish then sure the demand goes down, but so does the price of fish overall. And with a lower price other people might be more likely to buy fish than they were before. So are a fewer # of fish harvested overall?"

I'm not attempting to demonize veganism, honestly. I have total respect for a person who makes the choice to become vegan, whether that be as a moral choice, a religious choice, a personal choice, or whatever. But I'm also not going to pretend to agree that veganism is the only or best choice to the (very real) problem of overfishing. Because I don't agree with that claim and I don't believe his movie made an effective argument for that claim either.