RedDave2 wrote:

Yeah, I suppose I'm looking at this in the wrong way. That type of shit is simply unacceptable. I just sometimes feel that the idea of pre-conception is automatically seen as 'bad' in some ways and I dont think this is the case. But maybe I'm just not quite getting this in the way its intended.

It’s natural to develop biases. If every black woman you met had a certain personality trait, your brain would associate that trait with black women. You can’t necessarily stop that, but what you can stop is acting on that. You can stop yourself from making the false assumption that all black women share that trait. You need to be aware of your bias, and not make decisions based on it, such as refusing to employ black women because you assume they’ll have that trait. And if that feels different when you substitute black women with Eastern European male chefs, you need to recognise that bias, too.

Biases can be helpful. They make up a significant portion of our gut-reactions to people, and that can be useful. But they can often be wrong. I have a general bias towards women for anything health related, physical or mental; given a choice, I’ll speak to a woman. But the truth is I’ve had good and bad female therapists, a good male therapist, and my dentist (male) and dental hygienist (female) measure as highly as each other on the condescending-twatometer.

RedDave2 wrote:

Yeah, I suppose I'm looking at this in the wrong way. That type of shit is simply unacceptable. I just sometimes feel that the idea of pre-conception is automatically seen as 'bad' in some ways and I dont think this is the case. But maybe I'm just not quite getting this in the way its intended.

Well in this case it seems to be the obviously bad kind of prejudices, so it just doesn't seem relevant in relation to it to discuss bias as a general concept. Of course we all internalise various little assumptions and preconceptions, but this it talking about widespread attitudes that would have social effects. A different, much bigger kettle of fish.

This doesn't fit the thread really, but did you see the Charlie Sheen trending stuff? Haven't read owt other than Reddit posts.

Corey Feldman film named him as one of the guys who raped/abused him, film was pulled for I don't know what reason, but had one showing in a theatre.

Ah right. Got you. Corey Feldman is such a weapons grade fuck-up now though, I think he's going to struggle with any claims he makes about anyone.

g.man wrote:

Ah right. Got you. Corey Feldman is such a weapons grade fuck-up now though, I think he's going to struggle with any claims he makes about anyone.

I read one hot take that was something like, ofc people who were abused as kids are going to be messed up, which I can give some time to.

Apparently (again, just comments from interfolk) Corey F hasn't changed a single detail of his story in years and years, and has had elements backed up.

I'm doing a proper Chinese whispers here tho as I don't have any links.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/feb/06/corey-feldman-nobody-wants-to-go-after-the-bad-guys

Sure he's fucked up, but having been immersed in this kind of world, I'm not surprised.

His defence actually tried to claim his sentence should be reduced because of his contribution to film. Pretty much saying that he should be allowed to get away with rape because he’s famous. I’m glad that went nowhere fast.

Ref Feldman.

I tend to lean towards believing victims but I have my questions over Feldman. He has been sitting on this film for fucking ages now. He claims he cant release it because he would get sued, which isnt unbelievable. There comes a point though where the bullet must be bitten.

There is a pattern with Feldman where he starts pushing this film to the press, does various interviews and such, sets a release date, then pulls the plug. Give it a few years and the cycle starts again.

I dont disbelieve him as such but if he is a victim or not I feel he has established a a way of using this film to upkeep a lifestyle without ever releasing it.

nick_md wrote:

The man was in a wheelchair for god's sake.

I particularly enjoyed his performances in ‘frail old man who can’t stand without his walking frame’ on the way in to court, swiftly followed by the walking frame literally being left behind in the courtroom afterwards.

Meh. I'll read the article, but no amount of quarantine will make me watch the vid.

Most intellectuals I find aren’t really saying anything *that* interesting or novel in my view. But the critical thing is that they are saying it. The skill is not finding something new but finding something old or primal and saying it. Marx stating in plain words that a business owner must be making cash between the value of a persons work and the price that work is sold for is only retrospectively obvious in my view but it is retrospectively obvious.

I find it intriguing also how often philosophers are almost to a one inevitable failures as they get wrapped in their own dogma and ideology. In fact the pattern I see is that a lot of famous philosophers are really only famous after someone has revised and interpreted the choice bits of their work.

Anyway the point of me posting tha was more that it was an interesting for approaching someone like Jordan Peterson. The perception of the man is memefied to the point of instinctual which i think is a critical mistake and it’s good to observe these apparently orthogonal perspectives. One thing I think is worth always remembering about him is that his day job was to help people and I think pretty successfully but I think people paint him too monsterously because of his audience.

I think the problem of saying the response to him is memeified is that it hand waves lots of thorough criticism that has been penned, some of which specifically aims at why “get up and make your damn bed” is a pointless aphorism.

I make my bed more now.

I too make my own bed. And my wifes bed. Its a good start to do. But it wasnt Jordan Petterson who made me do it, no sir. 


T'was John Cena