Dagney Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 I'm listening to this podcast, and am not an expert in either topic, but am familiar to some degree my own experiences in the economy, with the State, with the market. Peter is missing (at this point in the podcast) the point, in my opinion, that the "structural violence" he speaks of truly must be considered as a direct outcome of the State's interference with the free market. His continued attempt at belittling Stefan, even after being told over and over again, quite respectfully, mind you, feels to me like an intellectual mind run amuck in the keyword dictionary mentality of his own mind. He is insulting, and I am feeling a little frustration at his style of speaking. On the other hand, Stefan is so calm and patient, I find it almost laughable the longer I listen to Peter's voice, so much to say without really saying what is sort of provable, he is what is the word...pompous? I don't mean to be insulting. It is an interesting discussion, but the discussion part is difficult to follow at times due to the lack of a breath moment by Peter. People can certainly pause and take a moment without having to spew forth without pause in order to communicate the points within. Now I'm doing it. Taking a breath. Anyway, thank you for the podcast, you really are inspiring to me, Stefan.
Kevin Beal Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 Peter repeatedly assures people that these problems are inherent to any "market system" and that it would be the case with or without a state. However the only reasoning he provides in support of this conclusion are things he is ready to concede is due to state involvement. This is despite many repeated requests for Peter's reasoning. He has had several response videos to Stef's critiques and in every one Stef stresses this point and it is (among many other things) not addressed to any reasonable extent, usually dismissed with mere assertion. (A boringly common theme with Peter.) This is what is known as a "bigotry". The same kind of bigotry he falsely projects onto successful businesses, because they ignore the facts of things like "structural violence" and "greedily" "exploit" areas of profit. He is, predictably, ignoring the fact of state involvement in things like corporate subsidies and rent seeking in his evaluations of the "capitalist" system. Believing things despite the evidence. Stef's reviews: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1JcUBx2dxU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg5K07c72Tw
Culain Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 From what I understand about zeitgeist and Structural violence is that good entrepreneurship and advancements in technology will put weaker industries and people out of business. The people that go out of business will suffer depression and their family will fall apart as a domino effect (structural violence). In other words they want to create an environment in which consequences do not exist because consequences are tough and make people depressed. But what they're missing is that we learn most and evolve from these consequences. 2
SamuelS Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 I enjoyed those analyses Kevin and Culain...I've listened to that debate a few times -- extra because I wanted to share it with some people I know that had fallen for PJ's movies -- and it only gets funnier...the fact that PJ couldn't accept personal responsibility for his employment situation was the death throws of his arguments, IMO, Culain you summed that entitlement attitude up pretty darn well near the end Stef's response is perfect, something along the lines of "if it's the best, go do it, I'll join"and welcome to the board, higherself
cynicist Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 So the idea of so many people being so reactionary towards zeitgeist and just hurling text book capitalist tropes against their marxist tropes and broadly defining it all as Marxism, is a way of using shame to shut down the conversation on the ridiculous clusterfuck of ideas that Peter barely brushes over, of which many are hugely deserving of more independent objective insight outside the 'zeitgeist community', is just sort of a lawyer tactic. It's fascinating how much random nonsense you can stuff into a single sentence.
Kevin Beal Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 It's fascinating how much random nonsense you can stuff into a single sentence. Well, that's just because your frame of reference is narrow and truncated, Rob Also, what the heck is a "capitalist trope"? Is anyone here using clichéd capitalist rhetoric to combat Peter's assertions? I haven't seen it. Peter's points don't even warrant counter argument. He barely made any arguments at all and they were roundly crushed under the overwhelming weight of reality. I also don't think anyone said "Peter is simply a marxist, plain and simple, case closed, it's established".
J. D. Stembal Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 its no great heralding to have had one really poor debate that was 1/6th as long as it should have been, and neither individual was really willing to continue past the 30 minute mark, which was essentially with a poorly organized newly established hodge podge of techno-alternative ideas, sort of a chop suey of all sorts of leftist concepts mixed in with libertarian and futurist themes. If you can't agree on basic definitions, there's really no point in debating. Since a sophist like Peter Joesph will end up looking like a fool if he agrees on a set of definitions beforehand, he will not ever into a fair debate. Hence, your disappointment is a function of Peter Joseph's ability to bullshit like the sophist he is. I haven't seen a video of this debate on the You Tube channel. Where can I view it?
Kevin Beal Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 If you can't agree on basic definitions, there's really no point in debating. Since a sophist like Peter Joesph will end up looking like a fool if he agrees on a set of definitions beforehand, he will not ever into a fair debate. Hence, your disappointment is a function of Peter Joseph's ability to bullshit like the sophist he is. I haven't seen a video of this debate on the You Tube channel. Where can I view it? It's here! In it, Peter actually does offer some definitions. I didn't understand what the hell he was talking about, maybe because I'm daft, or maybe because it's bullshit, but he does offer some definitions to be sure.
Recommended Posts