Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Brian?

JRant wrote: »

Indeed it has, never claimed boards was it's origin. Still a stupid phrase IMO.

It's nowhere near an accurate term to be used in this instance either. We allow the state use voilence but with some caveats, eg due process, legal representation, etc. When these are bypassed, for any reason, it's a worrying development whatever your political idealogy may be. It's as simple as that, no dog whistling need apply.

It's not a worrying development. It's being painted as some sort of new development, an increasing creep in state intervention. But it isn't new, the British government are probably doing it less now than they ever did. It just so happens this time they're locking up a white English man.

So what's inspiring the outrage? The lack of due process, which has been going on forever? Or the person they're locking up this time?

Keepaneye

Will people accept it if I call it satire?

JRant

Brian? wrote: »

The British justice system has always been a disgrace. People can be held at "her majesty's pleasure" at will.

The problem is that the UK has no written constitution.

The BNP and it's various children, like the EDL, were only too happy to see the system used against the Irish. Now they're outraged it's being used against one of their own.

I'd agree with you up to a point. While they don't have a constitution, they do have a few hundred years of common law precedent in the courts. Once convicted you can be held at their "pleasure" but up to then you have certain rights that shouldn't be railroaded. We can either agree with that, which is the point of his tweet, or we'll be back to the good old days of Internment.

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

He might be opposed to the way Robinson was treated but not support his views.

Doesn't he have the freedom to say that when posting the video? He's only too happy to speak his mind, why not clarify why he's sharing the video?

DickSwiveller Returns

Brian? wrote: »

Doesn't he have the freedom to say that when posting the video? He's only too happy to speak his mind, why not clarify why he's sharing the video?

Because maybe he doesn't want to explain himself to the thought police every time he posts something.

Brian?

JRant wrote: »

I'd agree with you up to a point. While they don't have a constitution, they do have a few hundred years of common law precedent in the courts. Once convicted you can be held at their "pleasure" but up to then you have certain rights that shouldn't be railroaded. We can either agree with that, which is the point of his tweet, or we'll be back to the good old days of Internment.

The days of internment never really stopped. They found ways to railroad people through the courts with a nod and a wink to due process.

"The point of his tweet"- is that your interpretation or has he clarified why he shares it?

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Because maybe he doesn't want to explain himself to the thought police every time he posts something.

No. It's because he'll have to actually take a clear stance for a change, IMO. The lack of comment or clarification Is exactly what makes it a dog whistle.

Brian?

Here are Dr Peterson's exact words:

" I don't care wha t you think of Tommy Robinson. This is not a good omen."


1st sentence, if he's not supporting Robinson why not say so?

2nd sentence, it's not an omen. It's been going on for decades. Does he need a quick history lesson?

IMO, he doesn't sympathise with Robinson's politics. But he knows a lot of his followers do. So he's censoring his own speech to keep his followers happy.

kubjones

Brian? wrote: »

No. It's because he'll have to actually take a clear stance for a change, IMO. The lack of comment or clarification Is exactly what makes it a dog whistle.

Why do you feel he has to Brian?

He has already denounced the Alt and Far right, as well as the far left.
He has also stated that he sympathizes with them because a lot are just misguided young men that need direction, which he attempts to provide with his lectures.

People keep making it political because of his involvement in one Bill in Canada. That's not what he's about.

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Because maybe he doesn't want to explain himself to the thought police every time he posts something.

Rule no 6*: be precise in your speech.






* I don't know what number it is

DickSwiveller Returns

Brian? wrote: »

Rule no 6*: be precise in your speech.






* I don't know what number it is

He is precise. I think anyone who isn't alt-right-phobic can see what he's saying. He doesn't have to add a disclaimer "I'm not a nazi" to everything he says.

Call Me Jimmy

Brian? wrote: »

Here are Dr Peterson's exact words:

" I don't care wha t you think of Tommy Robinson. This is not a good omen."


1st sentence, if he's not supporting Robinson why not say so?

2nd sentence, it's not an omen. It's been going on for decades. Does he need a quick history lesson?

IMO, he doesn't sympathise with Robinson's politics. But he knows a lot of his followers do. So he's censoring his own speech to keep his followers happy.

You should be aware of the history of attempted smears against Jordan Peterson. Look if you think he is some sort of extremist, or extremist sympathiser, you show you've only read hit piece articles about him. There's just too much evidence otherwise. Things he explicitly says.

You have said 'nothing new here regarding Tommy', as if that means it's okay or that it's a 'dog whistle'? to bring focus on the treatment of Tommy in this case. The government has already been complicit in covering up crimes to do with Islam, the judge in this case has already been found to have skirted the rules here(not to mention giving an almost unheard of sentence). A sikh guy who broadcast and spoke much more wrecklessly than Tommy wasn't so much as questioned in almost identitical circumstances. And the trends in the UK are not good, including the criminalising of a joke where that judge ruled 'context and intent are irrelevant', ie thought policing.

I said from the moment he was arrested that this stinks to high heavens. Tell me, have I then been dog whistling for the white nationalists?

Brian?

kubjones wrote: »

Why do you feel he has to Brian?

He has already denounced the Alt and Far right, as well as the far left.
He has also stated that he sympathizes with them because a lot are just misguided young men that need direction, which he attempts to provide with his lectures.

People keep making it political because of his involvement in one Bill in Canada. That's not what he's about.

I want him to take a clear stance, so I know what to debate

Brian?

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

You should be aware of the history of attempted smears against Jordan Peterson. Look if you think he is some sort of extremist, or extremist sympathiser, you show you've only read hit piece articles about him. There's just too much evidence otherwise. Things he explicitly says.

I've been very clear here. I don't think he's a white supremacist or any other flavour of alt right. I do think he has a lot of white supremacist, alt right etc followers. He's pandering to them. Feeding them.

You have said 'nothing new here regarding Tommy', as if that means it's okay or that it's a 'dog whistle'? to bring focus on the treatment of Tommy in this case. The government has already been complicit in covering up crimes to do with Islam, the judge in this case has already been found to have skirted the rules here(not to mention giving an almost unheard of sentence). A sikh guy who broadcast and spoke much more wrecklessly than Tommy wasn't so much as questioned in almost identitical circumstances. And the trends in the UK are not good, including the criminalising of a joke where that judge ruled 'context and intent are irrelevant', ie thought policing.

I said from the moment he was arrested that this stinks to high heavens. Tell me, have I then been dog whistling for the white nationalists?

No. You're not dog whistling. You're being very clear on what you believe the issue to be. That's grand, I'm ok with that. Peterson is doing the opposite. He's not saying what he actually thinks
He's throwing out a suitable vague comment while retweeting a video from someone very much on the alt right. He's not actually saying clearly what he thinks of the video or Tommy Robinson. That's what makes it a dog whistle.

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

He is precise. I think anyone who isn't alt-right-phobic can see what he's saying. He doesn't have to add a disclaimer "I'm not a nazi" to everything he says.

Are you redefining the word precise? There is absolutely nothing precise about his comment when sharing that video.

kunst nugget

Brian? wrote: »

The British justice system has always been a disgrace. People can be held at "her majesty's pleasure" at will.

The problem is that the UK has no written constitution.

The BNP and it's various children, like the EDL, were only too happy to see the system used against the Irish. Now they're outraged it's being used against one of their own.

They actually have a right to be outraged in this instance. I find them loathsome people but I think it does no one any good to agree with a shítty practice when it's used against someone you disagree with. As in your example, you never know when that shítty practice can be turned around and used on you.

DickSwiveller Returns

Brian? wrote: »

Are you redefining the word precise? There is absolutely nothing precise about his comment when sharing that video.

How so? It's obvious what he is saying. That people should be uncomfortable with the way Robinson was treated. Simple. You're reading too much in to me thinks.

Brian?

kunst nugget wrote: »

They actually have a right to be outraged in this instance. I find them loathsome people but I think it does no one any good to agree with a shítty practice when it's used against someone you disagree with. As in your example, you never know when that shítty practice can be turned around and used on you.

They do, absolutely have a right to be outraged.

It's the portrayal of this as something new I'm taking issue with. The selective outrage when it happens to a white English man.

DickSwiveller Returns

Brian? wrote: »

They do, absolutely have a right to be outraged.

It's the portrayal of this as something new I'm taking issue with. The selective outrage when it happens to a white English man.

Oh for Christs sake

JRant

Brian? wrote: »

The days of internment never really stopped. They found ways to railroad people through the courts with a nod and a wink to due process.

"The point of his tweet"- is that your interpretation or has he clarified why he shares it?

Of course it's obvious what his tweet is about. Not everything needs to be explained in 'Anne and Barry' terms like some sort of Hollywood movie.

benjamin d

Brian? wrote: »

They do, absolutely have a right to be outraged.

It's the portrayal of this as something new I'm taking issue with. The selective outrage when it happens to a white English man.

Jesus Christ man, the level of pedantry here is outstanding, even for you.

All Peterson was doing was commenting on an analysis of a worrying lack of due process and thoroughness in the court case against Robinson because it happens to be a pretty public case at the moment. But as far as you're concerned he's a Nazi because he hasn't commented in every similar case that's gone before? That's nonsense and you know it. But we all know you're never going to accept anything other than your own opinion in this thread.

It's like me calling you a racist or antisemite or islamophobe because you're wasting your entire life arguing with strangers on this thread about a white man but haven't spent 6 months spouting nonsense on every thread about black or Jewish or Islamic people.

kunst nugget

Brian? wrote: »

They do, absolutely have a right to be outraged.

It's the portrayal of this as something new I'm taking issue with. The selective outrage when it happens to a white English man.

Meh, most groups are going to see injustice as unique to themselves and their situation.

Brian?

JRant wrote: »

Of course it's obvious what his tweet is about. Not everything needs to be explained in 'Anne and Barry' terms like some sort of Hollywood movie.

That's quite the mixed metaphor.

It is obvious to me what his tweet was about. Feeding content to his followers. Stoking their outrage without overtly endorsing the content of the video, so he could deny supporting Tommy Robinson later.

Brian?

benjamin d wrote: »

Jesus Christ man, the level of pedantry here is outstanding, even for you.

All Peterson was doing was commenting on an analysis of a worrying lack of due process and thoroughness in the court case against Robinson because it happens to be a pretty public case at the moment. But as far as you're concerned he's a Nazi because he hasn't commented in every similar case that's gone before? That's nonsense and you know it. But we all know you're never going to accept anything other than your own opinion in this thread.

It's like me calling you a racist or antisemite or islamophobe because you're wasting your entire life arguing with strangers on this thread about a white man but haven't spent 6 months spouting nonsense on every thread about black or Jewish or Islamic people.

Actually, all Peterson did was share a video. He didn't really comment on anything contained in the video. That's my real issue with the tweet.

I have said many, many, many times that I don't believe Peterson is a Nazi or a right wing extremist or alt-right. I actually said it a couple of posts ago. So burn that strawman again if you want, it's still a strawman.

Brian?

kunst nugget wrote: »

Meh, most groups are going to see injustice as unique to themselves and their situation.

Absolutely. Would you not think that Peterson should be better than that though?

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

How so? It's obvious what he is saying. That people should be uncomfortable with the way Robinson was treated. Simple. You're reading too much in to me thinks.

Then why not say that clearly. Surely that's what it means to be precise in one's speech??


2 question marks, that's how perplexing I find this discussion.

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Oh for Christs sake

Yes? You have something to say?

Akrasia

JRant wrote: »

It's the same juvenile language you see over in the Donald Trump thread Pete. "Dog whistles", "playing to his base" and "alt-right" being thrown out willy nilly by the same folk as here. They can't just disagree with his point of view, he is "literally" Hitler.

The retweet about Robinson is quite unambiguous, when the State arrest someone, deny them due process and sentences them to 13 months in prison all in the space of 5 hours then it is very worrying indeed. In fact some might say it is a step in the wrong direction towards a police state. But no, it's a professor in Canada that's the real enemy of the people.

What? He admitted to being in contempt of court. He breached a court order. He was already on a suspended sentence for a previous contempt of court charge.

Newsflash, when you're on a suspended sentence and you commit another crime, that sentence stops being suspended and you go to jail.

The irony is that the vast majority of his supporters constantly whinge about immigrants committing crimes when they're 'not supposed to be here' and most of them are 'tough on crime' except when it doesn't suit them

kunst nugget

Akrasia wrote: »

What? He admitted to being in contempt of court. He breached a court order. He was already on a suspended sentence for a previous contempt of court charge.

Newsflash, when you're on a suspended sentence and you commit another crime, that sentence stops being suspended and you go to jail.

The irony is that the vast majority of his supporters constantly whinge about immigrants committing crimes when they're 'not supposed to be here' and most of them are 'tough on crime' except when it doesn't suit them

Is there not the same irony if you believe in the notion of due process but in the case of someone like Tommy Robinson you think 'Well, it's good enough for him!'

kunst nugget

Brian? wrote: »

Absolutely. Would you not think that Peterson should be better than that though?

Why would I think that? I wouldn't have that high an opinion of the fellow.