• 1(current)
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 7
  • Next 
Ideology/Politics on The Ray Peat Forum (Charlie's)
#1
I am happy to see an alternative to Charlie's forum.

This is a complex subject matter, and I will likely return to it to try to untangle knots,
but perhaps the biggest complaint I have against TRPF (Charlie's "The Ray Peat Forum") is the way it became more and more suffused with political ideology.

And it is unmistakable that those strands of politics were of the far right variety. 

I will declare myself here and say that I am a Democrat who likes both Sanders and Clinton.  
Here's the thing though: I'm pretty sure I never started a single thread on Charlie's forum pushing either of those politicians or for Democrat politics in general.

When I entered into political threads on Charlie's site, it was because I felt something like a duty to speak out against political extremism of the right.  To bring some balance.

Charlie's forum became home to a politics shot through with all manner of nutty and even dangerous conspiracy theory.  There were frequent, thinly veiled evocations of anti-Semitic tropes--which went unpunished even when repeated by the same posters.  There were clear statements of outright white supremacy that went similarly unpenalized.

A huge difficulty with what goes on on that site is that Charlie and his cohort there (and there are a lot of them-just take a look at his current Trump-Hillary Poll, if we can believe he has not tampered with those numbers...another story...) is that they believe they are entitled to their own set of facts.
You have heard that old maxim, I believe it comes form Daniel Patrick Moynihan:
"Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not to their own set of facts."

Well, that is a big part of the problem at TRPF:
Charlie and his cohort believe they ARE entitled to their own set of facts.
For example, when I would post excerpts of articles from respected newspapers and magazines like The Washington Post, or The New York Times, or The New Yorker, Charlie (or another of his gang) would blaze back in their foaming right-wing rage: "Enough with your lies from the lame-stream media!"  And then I would be banned or the thread would be locked or disappeared.

Charlie and his posse insist on "their own set of facts," inevitably drawn from Breitbart.com or some other Alt-Right sites or other sites specializing in various conspiracy theories.

Now, this is a real difficulty.
On the one hand, I do not want to insist that only information from "the mainstream media" can be trusted and posted on a forum.
But on the other hand, I saw what happens when there are no standards, when anything will fly, and when there is even a preference for Alt-Right types of information, and a prejudice against time honored journalistic sources.

The result was an upside-down website where weirdos poured out of the woodwork telling us Jews are taking over the world, that climate change is a plot deployed upon the world by Jews, that the buildings felled in the 9/11 attacks were the work of...I don't know, I never really figured that one out, who exactly the evil villains behind the scene was in their minds... And on and on and on.

Maybe most of this could have been much different without an Alt-Right type of administrator pulling the strings--and pulling them secretively: posts are vanished, posters are banned, threads are disappeared or locked, and most with out any review. And with no real method for review.  tara, a good, thoughtful mod, has been over-run by her boss.  She tries, but she simply does not have the real power needed.  The other mods shrink from confronting Charlie, or are of a similar political mindset as him.

So...how to avoid the kinds of problems I've been describing?
-how about an owner who is not a political extremist pulling strings secretly?
-how about some mods who have real power and are of sound judgement?
-how about a degree of respect for sources of information which have earned respect as being truthful over a period of time?
-how about an agreement that certain notions won't fly: like anti-Semitism, white supremacy, etc?
-how about a system of review: if a post is banned, can we know about it?
-how about a system of transparency: if posts are deleted or posters vanished, can we know about it?

Part of the difficulty in navigating these questions will be that Peat himself is most definitely an alternative source of information.  And an alternative source whose ideas have not been vetted by traditional standards for veracity. Indeed, I myself have recently raised questions about Peat's political leanings.  Listen, for instance, to the January Herb Doctors show, and you will hear pretty strong clues that Peat takes his climate change/global warming ideas, at least in part, from Sir Christopher Monckton--as does the host Andrew, indisputably.  This is not a good thing in my mind, as I think Monckton's is a very thin and suspect science.  Listen also to the June (or perhaps July?) Herb Doctors show, where Peat sits quietly by while Andrew dog-whistles pretty obviously just about every pet meme of the Alt-Right.  Well, Peat does speak up to support Andrew by denouncing Hillary Clinton.  Does this mean that Peat supports Trump, as Andrew seems to? Does it mean that he shares Andrew's pretty clear Alt-Right affinities?  I don't know.  But it is troubling to me, as someone on The Left.

At a certain point I just threw up my hands in disillusionment with Charlie's forum, Andrew Murray, and Ray Peat, believing or suspecting they are all part of the Alt-Right cabal--and that explains the obvious problems I was having on Charlie's forum, as I've outlined above: the answer was right in front of my eyes! From the Very Top Down, including Peat! they are all, my racing mind suspected,  Alt-Right, pocket-Nazi, frog-meme-ing extremists!!??

Well...in a more considered state, I have to say I don't really know about Peat.
There is room to believe he is not part of that dangerous silliness.

Again--and as I have noted above--I am not advocating for a Peat site which caters only to my Leftish politics and disallows any far-right views. As I said, on Charlie's site, I don't think I ever started any threads boosting Hillary or Bernie or any Dem.  Rather, I was drawn as a matter of principle to speak out against the over-running of the site by extremism of a far-right variety. 

But there is a place on a Peat forums for discussion of things political.  You know the radio show called "Politics and Science," which has hosted a lot of great Peat interviews, right?  Well, as the host of that show stated at the beginning of one of his interviews with Peat (and I will paraphrase from memory), "I've always thought those two topics are strongly intertwined."  To which, I think, Peat agreed.  How could he not!?  Much of his coolest writing is the exposure of submerged ideology (read "politics" in some cases) in science and medicine.  Some, like Such_Saturation over on Charlie's site, bemoan the discussion of politics--like my wonderings about Peat's leanings.  But I think that kind of investigation and questioning is the essence of Peatness, if I may put it that way.  Skepticism and sniffing about for hidden ideology is at the heart of what Peat has been about--and it should be applied to Peat himself as well.  For instance, as things stand now, I feel pretty clear in seeing Peat's climate change/global warming stances as mostly ideologically driven--versus scientifically founded. 

At any rate...I have laid out some of my central complaints with that big Ray Peat site (Charlie's) on the web.  Now this site has arisen.  I am encouraged by the option and I salute those responsible.  But I am also raising some questions: how to avoid the pitfalls manifest on Charlie's site. Huh
#2
(10-30-2016, 04:36 PM)Pdarley Wrote: I am happy to see an alternative to Charlie's forum.

This is a complex subject matter, and I will likely return to it to try to untangle knots,
but perhaps the biggest complaint I have against TRPF (Charlie's "The Ray Peat Forum") is the way it became more and more suffused with political ideology.

And it is unmistakable that those strands of politics were of the far right variety. 

I will declare myself here and say that I am a Democrat who likes both Sanders and Clinton.  
Here's the thing though: I'm pretty sure I never started a single thread on Charlie's forum pushing either of those politicians or for Democrat politics in general.

When I entered into political threads on Charlie's site, it was because I felt something like a duty to speak out against political extremism of the right.  To bring some balance.

Charlie's forum became home to a politics shot through with all manner of nutty and even dangerous conspiracy theory.  There were frequent, thinly veiled evocations of anti-Semitic tropes--which went unpunished even when repeated by the same posters.  There were clear statements of outright white supremacy that went similarly unpenalized.

A huge difficulty with what goes on on that site is that Charlie and his cohort there (and there are a lot of them-just take a look at his current Trump-Hillary Poll, if we can believe he has not tampered with those numbers...another story...) is that they believe they are entitled to their own set of facts.
You have heard that old maxim, I believe it comes form Daniel Patrick Moynihan:
"Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not to their own set of facts."

Well, that is a big part of the problem at TRPF:
Charlie and his cohort believe they ARE entitled to their own set of facts.
For example, when I would post excerpts of articles from respected newspapers and magazines like The Washington Post, or The New York Times, or The New Yorker, Charlie (or another of his gang) would blaze back in their foaming right-wing rage: "Enough with your lies from the lame-stream media!"  And then I would be banned or the thread would be locked or disappeared.

Charlie and his posse insist on "their own set of facts," inevitably drawn from Breitbart.com or some other Alt-Right sites or other sites specializing in various conspiracy theories.

Now, this is a real difficulty.
On the one hand, I do not want to insist that only information from "the mainstream media" can be trusted and posted on a forum.
But on the other hand, I saw what happens when there are no standards, when anything will fly, and when there is even a preference for Alt-Right types of information, and a prejudice against time honored journalistic sources.

The result was an upside-down website where weirdos poured out of the woodwork telling us Jews are taking over the world, that climate change is a plot deployed upon the world by Jews, that the buildings felled in the 9/11 attacks were the work of...I don't know, I never really figured that one out, who exactly the evil villains behind the scene was in their minds... And on and on and on.

Maybe most of this could have been much different without an Alt-Right type of administrator pulling the strings--and pulling them secretively: posts are vanished, posters are banned, threads are disappeared or locked, and most with out any review. And with no real method for review.  tara, a good, thoughtful mod, has been over-run by her boss.  She tries, but she simply does not have the real power needed.  The other mods shrink from confronting Charlie, or are of a similar political mindset as him.

So...how to avoid the kinds of problems I've been describing?
-how about an owner who is not a political extremist pulling strings secretly?
-how about some mods who have real power and are of sound judgement?
-how about a degree of respect for sources of information which have earned respect as being truthful over a period of time?
-how about an agreement that certain notions won't fly: like anti-Semitism, white supremacy, etc?
-how about a system of review: if a post is banned, can we know about it?
-how about a system of transparency: if posts are deleted or posters vanished, can we know about it?

Part of the difficulty in navigating these questions will be that Peat himself is most definitely an alternative source of information.  And an alternative source whose ideas have not been vetted by traditional standards for veracity. Indeed, I myself have recently raised questions about Peat's political leanings.  Listen, for instance, to the January Herb Doctors show, and you will hear pretty strong clues that Peat takes his climate change/global warming ideas, at least in part, from Sir Christopher Monckton--as does the host Andrew, indisputably.  This is not a good thing in my mind, as I think Monckton's is a very thin and suspect science.  Listen also to the June (or perhaps July?) Herb Doctors show, where Peat sits quietly by while Andrew dog-whistles pretty obviously just about every pet meme of the Alt-Right.  Well, Peat does speak up to support Andrew by denouncing Hillary Clinton.  Does this mean that Peat supports Trump, as Andrew seems to? Does it mean that he shares Andrew's pretty clear Alt-Right affinities?  I don't know.  But it is troubling to me, as someone on The Left.

At a certain point I just threw up my hands in disillusionment with Charlie's forum, Andrew Murray, and Ray Peat, believing or suspecting they are all part of the Alt-Right cabal--and that explains the obvious problems I was having on Charlie's forum, as I've outlined above: the answer was right in front of my eyes! From the Very Top Down, including Peat! they are all, my racing mind suspected,  Alt-Right, pocket-Nazi, frog-meme-ing extremists!!??

Well...in a more considered state, I have to say I don't really know about Peat.
There is room to believe he is not part of that dangerous silliness.

Again--and as I have noted above--I am not advocating for a Peat site which caters only to my Leftish politics and disallows any far-right views. As I said, on Charlie's site, I don't think I ever started any threads boosting Hillary or Bernie or any Dem.  Rather, I was drawn as a matter of principle to speak out against the over-running of the site by extremism of a far-right variety. 

But there is a place on a Peat forums for discussion of things political.  You know the radio show called "Politics and Science," which has hosted a lot of great Peat interviews, right?  Well, as the host of that show stated at the beginning of one of his interviews with Peat (and I will paraphrase from memory), "I've always thought those two topics are strongly intertwined."  To which, I think, Peat agreed.  How could he not!?  Much of his coolest writing is the exposure of submerged ideology (read "politics" in some cases) in science and medicine.  Some, like Such_Saturation over on Charlie's site, bemoan the discussion of politics--like my wonderings about Peat's leanings.  But I think that kind of investigation and questioning is the essence of Peatness, if I may put it that way.  Skepticism and sniffing about for hidden ideology is at the heart of what Peat has been about--and it should be applied to Peat himself as well.  For instance, as things stand now, I feel pretty clear in seeing Peat's climate change/global warming stances as mostly ideologically driven--versus scientifically founded. 

At any rate...I have laid out some of my central complaints with that big Ray Peat site (Charlie's) on the web.  Now this site has arisen.  I am encouraged by the option and I salute those responsible.  But I am also raising some questions: how to avoid the pitfalls manifest on Charlie's site. Huh
[quote pid='222' dateline='1477845399']

I have no idea how you are managing to put Peat into the far right basket,you don't even elaborate on it,your only conclusion of sort is he interacts with the herb doctor who with his wife found defeatist and high in a kava kava. Peat interacts with many outlets possibly in the hope of reaching 1 out of 1000 with his message,the medical establishment is corrupted and needs to be removed.

Charlie and the others are mainly men as has been pointed out on the rpf.com ,they are defeated men in society looking to elevate their importance by playing the victim to the Jewish led conspiracy or whatever they string into this nowadays,these men including Charlie are here to save everyone,it's classic deluded pathological narcissism/psychopathy.
they will go to extraordinary lengths to reinforce their believes so as to not address the underlying pathology.
they are essentially zombies to their underlying emotions,authoritarians with the mask of heroes save the day,our system will be better as long as my believes are respected.

somebody needs to hack the forum and remove all the studies to anther forum or he needs to be pressured to release the cache were they are stored,he has become a pathological authoritarian.

The poll he is running has been cited on by his other pseudo indentities on the forum,said identities have stopped posting lately as he probably read this thread,such is his pathological narcissism.

All your current candidates are deplorable shit,all of you should boycott the elections,either way trump or Clinton are the next dictator who will remove American rights under the guise of protection.

s
[/quote]
#3
(10-31-2016, 03:18 PM)cantstopeating Wrote: [quote pid='222' dateline='1477845399']
I have no idea how you are managing to put Peat into the far right basket,you don't even elaborate on it,your only conclusion of sort is he interacts with the herb doctor who with his wife found defeatist and high in a kava kava. Peat interacts with many outlets possibly in the hope of reaching 1 out of 1000 with his message,the medical establishment is corrupted and needs to be removed.

Charlie and the others are mainly men as has been pointed out on the rpf.com ,they are defeated men in society looking to elevate their importance by playing the victim to the Jewish led conspiracy or whatever they string into this nowadays,these men including Charlie are here to save everyone,it's classic deluded pathological narcissism/psychopathy.
they will go to extraordinary lengths to reinforce their believes so as to not address the underlying pathology.
they are essentially zombies to their underlying emotions,authoritarians with the mask of heroes save the day,our system will be better as long as my believes are respected.

somebody needs to hack the forum and remove all the studies to anther forum or he needs to be pressured to release the cache were they are stored,he has become a pathological authoritarian.

The poll he is running has been cited on by his other pseudo indentities on the forum,said identities have stopped posting lately as he probably read this thread,such is his pathological narcissism.

All your current candidates are deplorable shit,all of you should boycott the elections,either way trump or Clinton are the next dictator who will remove American rights under the guise of protection.

s

[/quote]

@cantstop

I will leave for another time the issue of Trump vs Clinton, and your view that they are both "deplorable shit."
It is a momentous subject, but--really--it is not my main concern in this thread.

The same is true of the question of Peat's politics: while this too is a momentous subject to me personally, it is not at the core of my concerns in opening this thread. 
In response to your statement, "I have no idea how you are managing to put Peat into the far right basket, you don't even elaborate on it," I will just say that I've have spent a lot of my energies on Charlie's forum over the past 4 years or so, in arguing against presumptions that Peat is a fellow-traveler in right-wing extremist politics.  So I understand quite well your perplexity at my suspicions that Peat may align himself with those kinds of views.  I did not elaborate on my line of thinking in this regard because it is not my main concern in this thread.  But I did create and manage a multi-page thread on precisely those suspicions on Charlie's forum--which he locked down (did he erase it?...I don't know: I am banned).  It was odd that Charlie locked it down, because it seems to me I was making the argument that Charlie and all the other Breitbartians wish to be true: that Peat is one of them.  Believe me, it was a bummer to have to add fuel to that raging fire, but in doing my due dilligence and following the evidence where it took me--I came to the very depressing view that Peat likely does sympathize with a far-right kind of politics, and that he may indeed support Donald Trump. The two crucial pieces of evidence are the January Herb Doctors show called, I think, "Water Quality"; and the June or July Herb Doctors show called, I think, "Authoritarianism."
If you listen very carefully to every bit of those two shows, I will open a separate thread and we can discuss Peat's politics.  Before I studied them, I felt much like you do--that it is preposterous to see Peat as a man of The Right. I had always suspected he probably leaned more to The Left.  Anyhow, I look forward to continuing that investigation here on this forum--assuming, perhaps too hopefully :>), that whoever is in charge here will support and not block/ban/lock down and otherwise suppress a reasonable exploration.

And I share your anger toward Charlie. I don't know that he is a psychopath. Maybe he is--I don't know.  I actually found him to have a kind, normal side in some of my dealings with him.  But as time passed there on his forum, I felt more and more that he and his minions were hounding me, censoring me, suppressing me.  Do you remember...what was her handle...?...she had for a while a lion or something as an avatar..."4peatssake"? was that it?  She really got on my nerves--following me around, harassing me, threatening me.  And the reason she did that was because I dared to question Peat--she didn't want any questioning or skepticism in that direction. So weird, given Peat's insistence upon skeptical inquiry.  And then there was another growing current on that forum: the proliferation of a right-wing, conspiracy theory brand of politics, which contained distinct anti-Semitic elements.  Over time, I noticed that Charley never intervened strongly against those kinds of posts/posters.  I began to feel that he secretly sympathized.  Then, starting about a year and a half ago, the whole Trump phenomenon emerged.  Charlie became increasingly vocal on the forum about his Love for Trump.  He started threads with many many images portraying Trump as some kind of Hero/Savior.  And those kinds of over-the-top, full-retard (I do apologize, but) threads by Charlie started drawing to the forum, like a magnet, all manner of right-wing posters.  Most of them seemed to share quite blatantly a White Grievance/ White Nationalist/White Supremacist politics.  And a fervent Trump support.  To me, those two strands are obviously, clearly, indisputably interwoven.  Hey: sorry Trump supporters, but even if I will grant that not all Trumpsters have those kinds of views, a hell of a lot of them do.  And you shouldn't be supporting that kind of candidate or politics.  Even if you are mad as hell and want to shake things up.  No excuse for it.  That is my view, and I say that while being fully aware of the Dem candidate's weaknesses.  But those weaknesses are nowhere near being in the same category as Trump's.  Whole different ballpark.

Okay, so those are my political orientations. You may disagree with them.  That's okay with me.  But say what you will about them, they are within the mainstream of American values.  And this goes to the heart of why I started this thread. As someone on The Left, maybe center-Left, I got damn sick and tired of being discriminated against, silenced, suppressed, censored, partially banned, secretly banned, and finally completely banned.  There was not a fair-minded arbiter in charge on that forum.  Okay: it is a private forum.  Charlie can do what he wants.  Doesn't mean he should do that. He chose to paint his extreme and dangerous politics all over his forum, and to suppress those who did not share his views.  That pissed me off in a big way, and that is the main motivation for this thread--to discuss where Charlie's forum went off the rails, and to keep that from happening here.
#4
I'm not angry at Charlie: he's done good work. It just hasn't been so good lately. Hence this forum. With regards to Ray, i think he's a very careful person and only allows himself conclusions he can verify. Also I think he has a lot of people get angry at him and want to categorize him, i'm sure he's adapted somewhat to it as he's the main figure in opposition to the Rockefeller-Carnegie industrial medical system. If he debated every little thing he'd have no energy left. He's done so much good but people can't give the man a break. Charlie's done some good, too, just at this point it's changing from raypeatforum.com to charliesforum.com. If he doesn't change he won't survive. The principal thing i dislike is the creeping in of mainstream medicine. That's bound to happen when you ban people for swearing, being shocking, saying uncomfortable things, &etc.
[color=#222222][size=medium]"I have no religion, no political affiliation: I believe in me, above everything else." -Chasing Good & Evil[/size][/color]
#5
(10-31-2016, 10:03 PM)ChasingGoodandEvil Wrote: I'm not angry at Charlie: he's done good work. It just hasn't been so good lately. Hence this forum. With regards to  Ray, i think he's a very careful person and only allows himself conclusions he can verify. Also I think he has a lot of people get angry at him and want to categorize him, i'm sure he's adapted somewhat to it as he's the main figure in opposition to the Rockefeller-Carnegie industrial medical system. If he debated every little thing he'd have no energy left. He's done so much good but people can't give the man a break. Charlie's done some good, too, just at this point it's changing from raypeatforum.com to charliesforum.com. If he doesn't change he won't survive. The principal thing i dislike is the creeping in of mainstream medicine. That's bound to happen when you ban people for swearing, being shocking, saying uncomfortable things,  &etc.

I agree about Charlie.  I'm a little riled up now, but stepping back from that I do think you're right about Charlie doing some good things.  His forum has many things to admire. To tell the truth, if you read some of his most recent postings about Trump, the election, etc...I get the feeling he may have some kind of manic-depressive thing going on. He seems like he gets so high on the certainty of Trump's coming victory...he really sounds detached from a grounded reality.

About your view on Peat, that "He's done so much good but people can't give the man a break"...
I think it may be more like the opposite way around.
Looking back over my approximately 4 years of being into Peat, I do believe that at times I have been guilty of "drinking the Kool-Aid." I think it is very important not to slip into regarding Peat as some kind of deity.  Important to stay skeptical.  When I listen to those two Herb Doctors shows noted above, and I strap on my Skeptical Cap, I hear many things that make me prick up my ears and do an inward shout of WTF!?  That's me, with my Leftish political orientation.  Those on the right, like say those on the Climate Change Denial Right, will likely be tickled pink.  Those who are Trump fans will feel that they have a new ally. 

And so, from my political perspective, I don't feel that I should give Peat a break when it starts to sound pretty clear that he takes his climate change science from Sir Chris Monckton.  (And it is plain as day that Andrew Murray swallows Monckton's "science" hook, line, and sinker.)  This was a shocking realization, for me.  And it made me really step back a few hundred yards and re-evaluate how credulous I've been about Peat's ideas in general.  So...my experience lately has been just the opposite of how you think people should regard Peat--by giving him a break.  I've felt here lately that I've been giving him way too much of a break.
#6
Yeah i agree it's good to be skeptical. I believe human-caused global warming is bullshit. Coral and the ocean ks a hige source of CO2 and i think solar radiation is heating the surface of the ocean and changing equilibrium kinetics of CO2. Carbonates are anomolous in that they are less soluble in hot water. The sun heats the ocean, releases all this carbon dioxide. Ray never said increased CO2 isn't happenjng. Coral is a huge source: coral is dissolving. Why wouldn't more coral be forming if humams released more CO2 into the atmosphere? There's no end to the public canpaigns asking people to make do with less: it's been the same throughout all wars and all periods. When you're being told it's selfish to live a good life, and you sbould feel guilty, don't trust the person telling you that message. It's like humanitarian missions to africa: we have money for stealth bombers and vaccines but we can't feed those poor people? Sally struthers is like 400lbs asking us to give money to hungry kids. Don't trust those messages.
[color=#222222][size=medium]"I have no religion, no political affiliation: I believe in me, above everything else." -Chasing Good & Evil[/size][/color]
#7
(11-01-2016, 12:22 AM)ChasingGoodandEvil Wrote: "...There's no end to the public canpaigns asking people to make do with less: it's been the same throughout all wars and all periods. When you're being told it's selfish to live a good life, and you sbould feel guilty, don't trust the person telling you that message. It's like humanitarian missions to africa: we have money for stealth bombers and vaccines but we can't feed those poor people? Sally struthers is like 400lbs asking us to give money to hungry kids. Don't trust those messages."

My take on your view of Climate Change is, Chasing, that I suspect it is animated more by political ideology than by science.  Now, maybe, maybe you are a PhD in climate studies. And maybe your years of disciplined study have given you the genius insight to legitimately dispute the consensus findings of like 95% of the world's top specialists. Maybe...

But what I think is more likely is that you're a layman like me, and you have certain basic political, ideological workpoints which drive your "scientific" rationale.  For starters: 1. "Big Government" connives to make us feel guilty for simply wanting to live the bountiful lives we deserve, and 2. all materials and means to live said bountiful lives are there for the having if lazy liberals will just get off their butts and work for it, and if liberals would stop distracting people by hypnotizing them into being Envious of people with money.

Do you think Sir Christopher Monckton is pretty much on target with his ideas about climate change/global warming?
#8
darley,  Ray Peat has made it pretty clear that he's not right or left, whatever those words mean to you.

He's only opposed to the power of authoritarians of any kind (on the right or on the left, or in the middle, but especially in science) that would seek to control our way of discovering.

Toward that end, Ray Peat would be opposed to the admin or mods at the wrongly named raypeatforum.com banning people as they frequently do.
#9
(11-01-2016, 01:08 AM)darley Wrote:
(11-01-2016, 12:22 AM)ChasingGoodandEvil Wrote: "...There's no end to the public canpaigns asking people to make do with less: it's been the same throughout all wars and all periods. When you're being told it's selfish to live a good life, and you sbould feel guilty, don't trust the person telling you that message. It's like humanitarian missions to africa: we have money for stealth bombers and vaccines but we can't feed those poor people? Sally struthers is like 400lbs asking us to give money to hungry kids. Don't trust those messages."

My take on your view of Climate Change is, Chasing, that I suspect it is animated more by political ideology than by science.  Now, maybe, maybe you are a PhD in climate studies. And maybe your years of disciplined study have given you the genius insight to legitimately dispute the consensus findings of like 95% of the world's top specialists. Maybe...

But what I think is more likely is that you're a layman like me, and you have certain basic political, ideological workpoints which drive your "scientific" rationale.  For starters: 1. "Big Government" connives to make us feel guilty for simply wanting to live the bountiful lives we deserve, and 2. all materials and means to live said bountiful lives are there for the having if lazy liberals will just get off their butts and work for it, and if liberals would stop distracting people by hypnotizing them into being Envious of people with money.

Do you think Sir Christopher Monckton is pretty much on target with his ideas about climate change/global warming?

Haven't read Monckton but just because I'm anti-government doesn't make me conservative. I'm not anything. i don't like being controlled and liberal/conservative republican/democrat (republicrat) is all about control. people like having ideology given to them because they want to belong to a group, they like the familiar, they like understandinwbich category someone belongs to. But power hs defined all the categories towards its own ends. I'm a "conspiracy theorist". Long ago priests controlled thwir subjects with knowledge of the heavens. People don't think of global warming or alien invasion the same way, they presume they are real possibilities, and that you must trust powe to solve them. now about this Lord Monckton, i haven't read his whatever regarding global warming, maybe he speaks a lot of truth, but the lord or sir part lets me know he's not to be trusted. Once you understand 9ur university system, a ph.d. is nothing impressive. rockeceller and carnegie, and ford &etc made our universty system. ray just got a ph.d. to use the lab equipment. 
[color=#222222][size=medium]"I have no religion, no political affiliation: I believe in me, above everything else." -Chasing Good & Evil[/size][/color]
#10
(11-01-2016, 04:29 AM)VoS Wrote: darley,  Ray Peat has made it pretty clear that he's not right or left, whatever those words mean to you.

He's only opposed to the power of authoritarians of any kind (on the right or on the left, or in the middle, but especially in science) that would seek to control our way of discovering.

Toward that end, Ray Peat would be opposed to the admin or mods at the wrongly named raypeatforum.com banning people as they frequently do.

Hey VoS!

Well...so he may say.
But I have come to the point where I'm not giving him a pass on this.
That is to say, I have come to the point where the evidence points me to the view
that Peat may indeed have rightward-leaning (to put it judiciously) politics,
and those politics--that ideology--may, in part, drive his views which we label "scientific."

Just listen to the two interviews I noted above, in their entirety
After that, tell me that Murray does not buy whole hog the climate "science" of Sir Christopher Monckton.
And tell me that Peat does not seem pretty strongly to do likewise.

Why should we automatically declare that Peat is above politics?
Will we next declare him to be an entity who operates outside of history? Wink
  
  • 1(current)
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 7
  • Next 


Forum Jump: