I think the current understanding is that humans have been around about 300,000 years.
And no humans exist outside of culture- it’s what we do. And that culture is the environment that shapes our evolution.
8 Likes
Not just the book. Bailey openly admitted to not having read even the specific claim. Which explains why her information, though interesting, has little relation to Peterson’s lobster reference.
As the previous poster mentioned, if you’re going to address a specific point, it is really is helpful to at least give the original point a quick read first.
1 Like
Word; that is the essence of delusions of grandeur.
Tools and opposable thumbs dude; those are the only things that gives us a leg up. That’s why we fear AI just as much as we are obsessed with it, because deep down we know our dominance is not ‘guaranteed.’
3 Likes
9 Likes
And it seems the same might be true about lobsters. A follow up thread to the article’s:
10 Likes
I’m right there with you. In my experience (vast!), lobster exists solely as a conduit for butter, and possibly lemon.
2 Likes
Agree with Loudon Hillbilly. Most attacks on Peterson are not even directed at his actual positions and disappointingly frequently (this boing boing article as a case in point) by people who have not even read and admittedly don’t even understand exactly what it is they’re attacking.
One attack format is the ‘so what you’re saying’ model in which the attacker takes Peterson’s actual position and tries to reframe it as something more easily attackable. (Ie the notorious Cathy Newman interview). Another format is the Fox News style attack edit, in which quotes are taken out of context or spliced together, again to create an artificial target which is easier to attack. (Ie NYT). Then there’s the ‘satire’ which is less funny when it is built on secondary (and flawed) analysis of a target.
There are a lot of points Peterson raises which could do with some robust, honest debating. But to date I have not seen many situations where who actually gets in the ring with him (including professors, authors, students, activists, reporters…) and has an open, unedited discussion, causes Peterson to even lose a point. And converse to the popular straw man, the guy is hardly ‘alt right.’ Peterson’s span of commentary includes criticizing Republicans for trying to impeach Clinton and a wide range of other positions which are hardly right-friendly.
4 Likes
Sorry for the i-phone grammar there, and with a cracked screen in the mix too 
8 Likes
I can see how my statement might have been misinterpreted as a claim that he’s chosen to be the respectable face of the alt-right. But in a way it’s more sordid than that.
Peterson makes a somewhat convincing* effort to explain that he’s not part of that cesspool. However, as part of his attention-seeking schtick, he simultaneously goes out of his way to give shout-outs to their various noxious hobbyhorses and plead that they deserve a hearing by serious people. And then he acts shocked when he’s told that the core of his fan base is composed of people who are already involved in some sub-culture of the alt-right or who found their way into it through one of his videos.
I mean, I get it. He’s a charlatan and he’s raking in decent money every month from these weak-willed and entitled losers. But he can’t expect to be taken seriously by his own peers in the academy or in his social circles or by the reputable press anymore, either.
[* I’d say very convincing, but he’s definitely imbibed some of his own Kool-Aid about traditional male and female roles that would be on the menus in MRA and incel forums]
9 Likes
I rather doubt Peterson himself, for all his tough-guy bravado, would actually debate someone who’d be any good at cutting through the stale cream cheese he’s selling.
So why do so many alt-right/wannabe fascists flock to him? If what you’re saying is true – that they just misunderstand him – then that right there would be saying that he’s doing a shit job of getting his message across.
But really, having watched some of his videos, you’re coming across to me as yet another Jordie Bro who won’t fess up to his more toxic ideas.
14 Likes
Professional chefs don’t favor electrocution. It’s as impractical in a commercial kitchen as it is at home. Those who are squeamish about cooking lobsters advocate it. And a few commercial processors use it. Cutting the lobster in half doesn’t do much more to kill the lobster than the knife to the head. And is more often done just as part of prep, or to make breaking down the lobster easier.
Most often if they do anything commercial cooks will knife the lobsters head. But that simply makes it easier to handle. Cause though it stays a live for a good while after. It’s pretty incapable of controlling it’s movement. It’s more about making it easy to handle than humane handling.
Boiling is a shit way to cook lobster, And it’s not a common method of prep in big lobster areas. Steaming is the most common way of preparing them. And knifing them before hand is common. But not as common as not bothering.
It was never really the best way to cook them. And in terms of practical ways to quickly dispatch the thing it’s not particularly good either.
For the some of same reasons. Boiling water isn’t too efficient at transferring heat into food quickly. And boiling water limits you to a pretty low temp.
Steaming the heat transfers a lot faster. The lobster cooks a bit better. And because proper steaming knocks out the whole nervous system roughly at the same time. It actually kills the lobster pretty quick.
Electrocution, And rapid, large increase in water pressure can do that too. But they’re really hard to pull off. So steaming is still just about the best way to kill the whole lobster as quickly as possible. If that’s the concern.
6 Likes
Please. You don’t need to know an enemy’s strategy in any detail when they throw a grenade at you with the pin still in it.
16 Likes
That was really interesting, thanks
3 Likes
No so much. Theres 2 factors. Shipping seafood off the coasts adds cost. And the less shelf life that item has the more cost. Lobsters and oysters have to be shipped and prepared live to maintain quality. And without modern live storage oysters have maybe a week out of the water. Lobsters couple of days. Lobster can still be crazy cheap by the water in the high season.
Dock prices for paper lobster (fresh molted) this time of year in maine and the Canadian maritimes cans be a dollar or less a pound. I can local wild caught oysters here for less than 50 cents each (and that’s comparatively pricey).
The other factor is fisheries collapse. The once major oyster port in my home town used to put on 300 tons of oysters a week. Now it’s a couple hundred pounds a year. Our local lobster typically cost between a quarter more and double the Maine and Canadian lobster. Because the fishery here collapsed. Something like 5 active lobsterman left here from what uses to be dozens. And before the 70s, hundreds.
That increasing rarity drives up prices.
So between the luxury and expanse of say. Fresh Maine lobster and blueprint oysters. In Las Vegas. Or earlier places like Chicago. And supplies that don’t meet demand. You get a reputation for expense.
Sure … except … oysters went upmarket about a century ago.
1 Like
For you, maybe. I could give a shit- he makes unprovable, untestable claims, particularly the claim of his own superb rationality, a blind-spot he shares with Sam Harris and kinda taints anything else he’s got to say (for me, personally.)
I save my largest share of skepticism for thin-skinned know-it-all shouters, if for no other reason than I was once quite like that.
9 Likes
As far as I have been told, the women made the important discussions at home and for the tribe (North American Natives) and the men did the work. When the Europeans settled and expanded in the “New World” they didn’t want to negotiated with females, only males which the natives thought was unusual since they as men had no right or ability to make treaty’s. True or not, so I have been told by my Elders. Thank you Mother Earth.
3 Likes
And where did they go up market? Major European oyster fisheries began to collapse a little over a century ago. The major fisheries around NYC too. Though many were still producing. Oyster carts selling fresh shucked shellfish cheaply were still a major feature of the NYC streets through the 20s. And in coastal regions of the US, where fisheries further out from major cities were still producing in volume, oysters remained cheap common food. It was less coastal cities where shipping fresh oysters by rail (or via canals rivers and lakes) where they were expensive. And often in Europe where fisheries collapsed heavily, and didn’t start to recover until aquaculture based around the Pacific Oyster replace wild caught European Oysters for most of the market.
You had a successive string of collapsing fisheries in US. The NY area you had turn of the centuryish. 20’s. Huge collapse in the 60s. And then further collapses in the 70’s and 80’s. With very little sign of recovery until late in the 90’s.
They certainly had a fine reputation as a delicacy since Roman times at least. But they weren’t really expensive until stocks started to fall. Except in places that were pretty distant from oyster fisheries.
And even now in a lot of places its farmed, branded oysters that are pricey. Wild caughts are often cheap. Especially from high producing and warm water areas. Virgina and gulf wild caughts are often dirt cheap. And sold cheaply, in volume at bars and oyster houses in the regions they’re caught in.
1 Like
I don’t even think they are that, unless you’re starving…
Is there a word for people who don’t eat arthropods? Besides weirdo. I already got that title.
3 Likes
