Then what relevancy has it in this conversation? I wrote a convoluted post and ended up scrapping it in favour of that. The way I see it is, here is a man gaining popularity/notoriety speaking from a position that he knows probably a lot better than most of us, then those of us who support him also get lambasted for listening to someone talking out his arse. Here's the thing, if thats what you truly believe, you must think his time at the university of toronto to be some fluke, despite being ranked #12 in the world for psychology, but no, he must be talking out his arse because you dont like the things he says because it doesnt fit your view of people. And its always the same, it comes from a place of contempt and condescension, rather than refuting with actual evidence and fact, the people who go out their way to present their opinion this way are hoping if they make people feel bad about their opinion that somehow that will be enough to change it, and that attitude highlights my biggest weakness, I am an argumentative cunt and I will respond in the same way that i feel i am being approached. Following on from that, in the absence of facts and evidence to support these opinions the conversation is tracked onto something unrelated, in attempt to discredit his character, and when group identity is paramount, that alone is enough for some people to accept that if he must be wrong on some things thats very hard to get wrong, especially something like climate change, then he must be a kook. That is the insinuation being made here. Heres the thing, I dont agree with everything that comes out JP's mouth, I disagree on his stance on muslims, climate change, and even that comment he made about being able to go to the police about sexual harassment 40 years ago, but that doesnt mean i discredit his work, or views in an absolutist sense. And im sorry, but more and more it seems to be socialist advocates that I see enter these conversations with the greatest amount of contempt, and as far as im concerned, good people dont convince others of their moral superiority from that position.
Heres a good interview between british socialist advocate russel brand and JP, and as good as this interview is, RB shows nothing but contempt to JP throughout the whole interview, whilst JP tries to re-conciliate the gap between them on multiple occasions without abandoning his own truths. There seems to be this misconception floating around that if you are arguing from a standpoint of perceived moral superiority that it automatically makes you a good person, but I do not see that at all.
