See at 1:44

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2QZU3rlEzo

Yup! Mental health care is important. Inpatient care isn’t a bad thing either… at the very least a temporary mental health hold can get someone off the edge of being suicidal and get them some resources for the future. I do think if mental health care was less underfunded, there would be less unpleasant experiences in inpatient wards… as it is even the good places have to try to stretch resources, and I think that can unfortunately result in people getting care that’s not what they need.

Still, resources like the one linked can be very useful… because it’s important for people to be able to trust the system enough to get the help they need, instead of trying to ‘stick it out’ because they’re scared. Of course, that situation as it relates to Patrick is quite different, because telepaths don’t exist in real life!

Jordan Peterson? I dunno if I’d call him near-telepathic.

I think even if someone has a condition that requires medication to treat, such as schizophrenia, it’s important to carefully consider their feedback and what they’re comfortable with. Because of how delicate brain chemistry is a lot of medications have potentially quite nasty side effects, and when you get one of those in the process of trying to figure out what you need, it’s understandable to want a break from shuffling things around! And I think people respond best to treatment when they’re respected and listened to… medication can be a wonderful boon but it’s not a cure-all. So we definitely agree on that.

As I know it this is an problem not with medicine, but with the institutions governing it.

Doing as you describe is grossly lucrative and tangentally does some good so it’s a “win-win.”

*snort* Depends on how well you do with understanding people who’s experiences you haven’t had. That is the basis of empathy, who’s lack means sociopathy.

I don’t know enough about you to say, but god if there aren’t a lot of people on the _loud_ left who openly proclaim their inability to feel empathy.

It was a progression from Empathy and what the radical left want people to think the general consensus is. He thinks its scorn, I think it’s sociopathy, and their proclamations fit the profile.

Ehh… sorta kinda maybe. Every source I can find online codifies Sociopathy with an inability or reduced ability to empathize paired with anti-social behavior, which is basically acting on that reduced or missing capacity to empathize.

I don’t think most lefties are sociopaths. I don’t even think most radical lefties are sociopaths despite their constant mouth-breathing about how they can’t understand what it’s like to be X because they’re not X which is the whole definition of Empathy, and their obvious anti-social brand of activism.

But its morbidly humorous nonetheless.

Actually my point was that they _proclaim_ themselves to be suffering from the basis of sociopathy. not that I’m interpreting them as such.

Im not sure what you’re going with in your last point either. Compassion is acting on empathy or sympathy. You feel for someone’s position and feel moved to aid them whether you are similar (sympathy) or different (empathy) to them. Having compassion is often conflated with having a conscience and similar to the definition of sociopathy many common definitions both colloquial and official note sociopathy as acting without conscience.

The absurdity of the situation is that they’re clearly acting with (misguided) conscience, but proclaiming from the rooftops to be lacking in the basis for such a thing, both in writing and in rhetoric.

Well, as I said a couple of times. Most of them aren’t. Alot of the radicals probably aren’t. But then there’s their rhetoric, Journalists, hosts and politicians who proudly proclaim their lack of empathy.

If you’re using ‘compassion’ as a utility you don’t feel and thus are moved by, then it’s not compassion, its merely utility. A masquerade.

On Ayn Rand, girl was a kook. No doubts. But Yaron Brook from the Ayn Rand Institute makes a *_DAMN_* good case for her philosophy.

Capitalism depends on voluntary transactions.

Voluntary transactions depend on the maker seeing it as less valuable and the buyer seeing it as more valuable than the set price.

This schism in perceived value creates excess wealth.

Excess wealth is the legacy of capitalism.
If: capitalism is greed

Then: Greed is Good
Enlightened self interest then means that taking care of yourself benefits others as a side effect.

This means that self interest which is taught as a moral flaw is a better means of selfless caring for others which is taught as a moral good.

The argument seems sort of circular, and Ayn Rand ate her own movement and shat it out the other end, but from a purely pragmatic standpoint, it’s sound.

Socialism/Communism are pretty much mirrors of this. Both in moral reasoning and in end result.

rofl. Where does your objection come from. Das Kapital?

Das Kapital is 100 years out of date in regards to a rapidly evolving system. Back in the 1910’s when company towns were a thing it may have mattered. Now? roflmao.

Have you ever been forced to buy something Todd? On the off chance you have, have you been unable to shop around and find what you consider the best combination of low price and acceptable/good quality? The only thing I can think of that you’d actually be forced to buy without choice of provider would be your Utility bills, which you could wave off by having chosen different living arrangements from the market. Sometimes even without that you have a choice.

The short of it is, what transaction have you had in a capitalist country that wasn’t voluntary or a tax? If you’re willing to pay for something, you consider having that thing to be more valuable than the money you pay for it. You would look somewhere else or decline to buy it altogether otherwise.

In a market with few regulations, this is the greatest level of calculus.

In a corporate market, this is still the primary calculus, but government BS plays a major role.

This is where force starts.

Socialism is more forceful than even corporate monopoly.

Fascist worse still, as it’s really the government who is the corporation, though at least they still act in economic interest.

The worst is Communist, where you ARE forced to buy and your ration card makes all the decisions for you.

I’m alot more concerned that reputable Economists have called Das Kapital out of date than anything any political talking head has to say on the subject.

Would you mind clarifying something, anything, you’ve been forced to buy? Your…vague…example only states that you bought something you didn’t want because the product you wanted wasn’t available at some store. You were hardly forced into it, you made a value judgement that you’d be better buying than not and that you’d be better buying now than searching for the right product.
This is not force.

As for being ‘forced’ to sell your labor, again, you were not forced, you chose to work for someone else rather than start a small business, not work at all, or go on wellfare. Certainly the first two are more honorable, but you still had a choice of four.

Unless you’re a con on probation/parole? Then you’d be forced. Or I suppose your family may have forced you, but eh system certainly didn’t.

Socialism/capitalsim force. Umm.. no. Capitalism doesn’t force you to work. You’re free to rot at the fringes of the system.

Ah, yes, we come to the “No True Scotsman” argument that’s always brought up with the failure and despotism of communist systems. While it is true that there has never been a proper communist country (only communist towns), that’s because they’re all in the proper communist transition period where the totalitarian state is brutalizing everybody so that they can learn the joys of being communist… or die trying. The problem is that so long as it is a communist STATE, it will NEVER be “true” communism, and no communist state will ever dissolve itself, so you’re endlessly shit out of luck.

PETA, yeah, I like my PETA better. People Eating Tasty animals. Real PETA bash the heads of dogs and cats with mallets because its somehow more cruel to be a pampered house-pet? And want to end Horse racing when they know it’ll send most horses living now to the meat factory? (though that’d probably up the breeding of horses, good meat gets demand) They also protest safari’s, knowing full well that when the parks get shut down the land is paved over for cities or farms and the animals shot for being a nuisance or harvested for Ivory.

PETA is stupid, self defeating and ineffectual.

As to Compassionate Conservatism… IDK. I really don’t. On one hand traditions are traditional BECAUSE THEY WORK, and Liberals trying to tear them down because they’re traditional is fucking retarded. OTOH, if there’s a better way and the old thing that is worse is in the way, it’s stupid to defend the old thing.
This is why I prefer science. It doesn’t just replace shit. It tries out new things and only goes for replacement when you find success.

“Telepaths may not exist, but Jordan Peterson and psychs of his caliber are pretty close.”

lol get a load of this guy

this fucking guy, for real, look at this guy

I’m not sure that ascribing mental illnesses to people who disagree with you actually requires much in the way of rebuttal.

Yes, I have, on all counts. And the fact that you think that it adds to up sociopathy makes it clear that you don’t know what the word actually means. Which is as far as I’m going to take this because, well, you’re the kind of idiot who describes mental disorders to people you disagree with. Attempting to reason with someone whose basic premise is unreasonable is rarely fruitful.

How about “Jordan Peterson is a regressive idiot and a shithead who is real dumb” how about that

His claim to mainstream fame is “women don’t belong in the workplace” lol. He’s a regressive shitbird, pretty open and shut.

lol you mean like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FfoLrGKHfI
HERE’S A RULE, HOW ABOUT NO MAKEUP IN THE WORKPLACE, ISN’T THAT SEXUALLY PROVOCATIVE???

lol

it’s a 2:40 minute spot and pretty much every second of it is him making flat assertions that are very dubious, and are in a roundabout way saying “women don’t belong in the workplace”, it’s plain as fucking day to normal humans. If you want to chase your tail looking for hidden meanings in long series of complicated questions go back to whatever right wing circlejerk turned you on to JBP in the first place.

Every word you just wrote is a clear example of “part of the problem”.

e: also funny that a) you’re calling yourself a centrist if you’re at all in doubt that women should be allowed in the workplace and b) you’re calling me a radical leftist for saying, yes, women should be allowed in the workplace lol

Seems like “doing nothing” is the new empathy. “I’m not going to oppress you with my smothering concern for your health and happiness when I can liberate you with my scornful indifference!”

Totally not a bad sign of a decaying social fabric, nuh-uh.

a) a bad first impression,

b) it amuses me to do so! ho ho ho.

I agree. And I generally respect Intersectionalism for having a legitimate point in the idea of “you don’t know what it’s like to be me” with a bonus multiplier for particularly marginalized people.

But there’s also a kind of looming arrogance to the proposition as it very quickly can mutate into “you can’t know what it’s like to be me” as though there were sincerely unique human experiences.

And that’s where I call bullshit. That’s a kind of magical thinking that turns every problem into a eternal monolith, into a monument to itself. Everyone might have a unique perspective, but no one is in a unique event.

I’ve had PTSS-case friends and the walls they put up to protect themselves end up being shrines to their damage and estrangement. “Stay out!” means no healing gets in and no infection drains away.

As a social movement it’s a disaster in the making. Denying empathy turns us into miserable hogs butting each other aside for a chance the scraps in the trough instead of breaking loose and claiming the actual food itself.