Cheers I find it fascinating. just crazy times hey. I was going to post this lecture next but my submissions aren't going to move for a couple days. lol. curious what you think. Feel free to submit it if you'd like

Yeah, well she says we're born into not being human and are all demons too.
My only question would be why is this group listening to an obvious crazy person lecture them?

It is a permanent transformation; people are frightened by this because they just don't have a clue (of how awesome it is)- and neither did you before you experienced what that meant lol

Terence Mckenna (rip) is still the best psilocybin/DMT/philosophy/pharmacology guru/poet/lecturer in my opinion.

This is far from taking 30 sec off a much longer clip. Its taking 3:00 off a 3:30 clip(85%ish less). There is a sift talk post about it somewhere. I think there was some ratio that came out of it. thought it was 3 to 1. Replacing a 3:31 video with a 27 sec partial clip imo is far from enough to be considered the same video. There are plenty of lectures and tons of random vids where long videos have had small segments resifted. Anyway i guess best to let lucky be the decider.

Interesting. When I was in college, I got good mileage out of (in order of preference):

1: Not buying the book listed on the syllabus at all. LOTS of courses didn't assign any homework from the book, and covered all the information that would be on tests in lectures. So I never bought a book before it became clear that I would actually have to use it.

2: Buying used books, if at all possible directly from a student who took the course the previous semester. I never ran into the "new edition" problem mentioned in the video, and my major was Computer Science, which I'd think would tend to change more in a short period of time than most disciplines.

3: Sharing a single book (and the purchase price) between 3-10 other students. Even in the few courses that did have homework (Engineering Physics and Calc 2 had a lot for me), it was quite helpful to share a book with several other students and work through the problems together whenever homework was assigned.


So this never really seemed like a big problem for me, although I guess that doesn't help much for High School textbooks, where we generally only have to pay for them in the form of taxes.

@Asmo @Phreezdryd

i get his arguments using historical precedent,and i actually agree,but i dont see how c-160 in its current form can be used as a bull whip.there would have to be heavy complicity from the judiciary to abuse which in essence is simply an addendum to an existing human rights statute.

and as i stated,or thought i did,i really enjoy his arguments for free speech and the usage of language in cultural and societal dynamics.

if you take away the more rabid of protesters who rallied against peterson,without really even listening to his lectures.a.k.a muglypuff.those people are true believers,and their minds will never be changed,because they refuse to even allow a discourse to even transpire.

the only actual abuse i saw was by his his own employer:university of toronto.

many of the protest i saw against him were fairly tame in comparison to other supposed "anti=sjw",because if you listen to peterson he is nowhere near an anti-sjw.

in my opinion,it was the decisions of the university of toronto that created this false image in regards to peterson,and for those who are unfamiliar with dr petersons take on free speech,and the misuse and abuse of the current trend of pronoun-political-footballing you really should give him a listen.

he certainly has a libertarian lean to his lectures,but his arguments are sound.

thanks you two for clearing some things up for me.
much appreciated.

when radical right wingers,who lean towards an authoritarian,dogmatic way of approaching certain subjects,yet will attempt to disguise their bigotry,prejudice or hatred under the banner of "free speech",or nationalistic pride" and even sometimes "common sense" (because in THEIR world view,thats what it is to them:common sense).

they receive pushback,and rightly so,because you have to allow them to express their ideas in a public forum for the diseased and twisted philosophy to be exposed for the shit ideas they were in the first place.

but if you disagree with their philosophical viewpoint,and deal with that disagreement by shouting them down,calling them horrendous names,disrupt their chance to express those ideas you disagree with,and in some cases..engage in violence..you lose the moral high ground,and whatever solid argument you had to either destroy,or at least reveal their position for the shit idea you think it may be.will be automatically dismissed by those looking from the outside in.

because you have engaged in tactics that lessen what could have been an extremely important point by becoming the very thing you state you oppose.

you do not fight authoritarian fascism.....with authoritarian,and sometimes violent...fascism.it does not work,in fact the only thing it does it weaken your position and make you look like the very thing you are opposing.

in the free market of ideas,philosophies,ideas,viewpoints,political positions all need to be openly aired in this market to be either accepted as 'good' and "worthwhile" or "of substantial consideration",or be rejected for the shit ideas they are,but they need to be openly spoken and/or written in order for people to even consider those ideas.

when you shut down any and all opportunities for a person to even SPEAK about these ideas,and using tactics that can only be considered "bullying' and "shaming".you shut own any and all conversation without the idea itself being challenged,and BOTH sides go to their respective corners still convinced of their own "righteousness",and nothing was actually addressed.

both the ultra left and the ultra right are guilty of this tactic,and in the end we all lose,but especially those players in their particular realm of ideologies.

because now they can sit happily and contentedly in their own little,tiny echo chamber bubble with their other,like-minded people,and congratulate themselves on their own righteousness.even though they were the ones who shut down all challenge,all criticism and all scrutiny.

if your ideas,and/or philosophies cannot withstand a modicum of scrutiny or criticism,then maybe those ideas were shit to begin with.

so shouting someone down,and being so disruptive as to make it impossible for that person to even begin to articulate their position,is not a "win".you did not strike a blow for equality or justice,because you pulled a fire alarm,or violently attacked a person you disagreed with.

you lost your moral high ground,and anybody who may have been on the fence,or was simply curious and wanted to hear a differing opinion.saw how you behaved when your ideas were challenged,and they outright dismissed you and your cause.

the only people you have left in your circle are the very same people who agree with you already.so enjoy the circle jerk of the self-righteous,but do not delude yourself for one second that you are "right",or have struck a blow for "justice" and "fairness".

i have been accused of being "anti-sjw", a 'closet bigot" and (this is my favorite) 'a cis-gender white privileged oppressor".

as if the goals i seek are not dissimilar as everybody elses:equality,fairness and justice.

but when i point out the wrong headed tactics of attacking innocent people just trying to listen to a persons opinions,which may possibly be:racist,bigoted and antithetical to a fair and just society.that is when i am attacked,and it is done so with the most arrogant of presumptions,with little or no evidence to back up their personal attacks upon me.

because i had the audacity to question the tactics of the protesters,and defended that speakers right to free speech.

you are free to express whatever little thought pops into your pretty little head,and i have the right ridicule you relentlessly.you are free to espouse your opinions and philisophical ideologies,but you are NOT free from offense.

because,ultimately,in the free market of ideas,if your ideas are shit.someone WILL call you out on them,and if you think the tactic of shouting people down,disrupting their lecture and/or attacking the attendees somehow makes you "right" or your cause "morally justified".it does not.it just makes you look exactly like the people you are disagreeing with,and not for nothing..it kinda make you look fucking stupid.

so let those people talk.
let them make their ill-thought arguments.
allow them to spew rhetoric and propaganda,and do what should be done in a free market of ideas.

destroy their argument,with logic,reason and a sense of fairness and justice that appeals to the majority of us.

and i mean,come on,let's be honest.there are certain portions of the population that are true believers.you are not going to change their minds but for those who are NOT fundamentalist,dogmatic thinkers,use your brains,talk to them,destroy those who propose ill-thought and bullshit arguments to reveal them for the sychophants they are.

don't be attacking them.
do not engage in violence,or disruptive behavior.
because then you lose any credibility before you have even begun.

that's my .02 anyways,take it for what it is worth.

I feel shame, just not for what I eat.
You can try to shame me, you'll just fail. You can annoy, however, with the constant vegan proselytizing, in the same way some religious zealots annoy but don't make atheists fear hell.
You succeeded with the insult, though, intentionally or not. I don't like the implication that we are all junkies, even cheese junkies.

You know full well I never said any such thing, and adding quotes as if you cut and pasted it is not honest. What I have said is your guru, an often discredited, exaggerating, data misrepresenting, cherry picking, hyper biased, internet "Dr" that makes his living selling pro-vegan lectures, books, and videos was not a good source for reliable science....you made up the rest. The internet was invented for science.

I happen to have a close friend who teaches neuroanatomy at medical school.

She says she'd fail any student who understood as little about the human brain.

First, memory is not perfect. That is a myth. No amount of prodding will get a patient to remember the entire text of a novel verbatim unless they'd already spent a huge amount of time purposely memorizing the text. The human brain is all about shortcuts and workarounds so we remember important content without having to store massive amounts of data. There is no such thing as photographic memory.

Secondly, you can't just stick a probe in someone's head to extract information. You could trigger memories randomly, but you'd never know what memory you'd get from one time to the next.

He shows a fundamental lack of understanding on how the brain works.

Just looking at his Wikipedia article because I was curious. It says he nearly flunked out of medical school but suddenly turned things around when he stopped attending lectures (he claimed to be self studying). Sounds a lot like a pattern of cheating on tests if you ask me. Certainly he has no idea what he's talking about now, so he either forgot everything he learned for the tests or he never really learned it.

*promote

https://videosift.com/video/Thomas-Paine-Christopher-Hitchens-Lecture-Full
https://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-On-NPR-discussing-Thomas-Paine-2007

Because you're talking to me as a person, maybe?

I would counter, the constant and continuing barrage against the center and left didn't erode support for the right or numb them, it built it and constantly reenergized them. I'll take America as my example, thanks, they represent America MUCH better than anywhere else.

Edit: I do find it a bit funny being lectured on American politics by a non American who thinks they know Americans better than we know ourselves and uses foreign examples to make points about our culture.

The non far right is not so lacking in attention that something important like illiteracy is somehow a meaningless red herring, or that it's exposure would be wasteful and numbing.

Not being able to read well is not the same as ridiculous meaningless missteps or insanity, although they matter too, it's a basic requirement and absolutely central to any ability to lead or govern. The implications are staggering, not laughable.

ok....i come to you for your opinion on my new favorite political scientist.this is the man who predicted brexit and trump,and his ability to depoliticize complex political and economic dynamics is just beautiful.(or maybe i just like the fact that it sounds like i am getting schooled by shrek)

i have watched pretty much every one of his lectures,and i cannot find a flaw in his logic.he appears to have his finger on the pulse of our global economic situation.

but economics has never been my strong suit.i have always struggled with economics.so i come to you,hat in hand,and ask if maybe my adoration is misplaced.

totally worth the time:
https://videosift.com/video/mark-blythe-global-trumpism-lecture

good to see you posting again my friend,you have been missed.(by me anyways)
check out my new favorite political scientist:
https://videosift.com/video/mark-blythe-global-trumpism-lecture

i am crushing on this dude.watched every one of his lectures,and he predicted trump and brexit.he is adept at keeping the politics out and his way of expressing complicated dynamics is so fucking refreshing.
totally worth the time:
https://videosift.com/video/mark-blythe-global-trumpism-lecture