Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Brian?

take everything wrote: »

So maybe read the thread more carefully in future and not be getting people to check things for you.

You have a problem with being asked to support your accusations? I suggest boards may not be for you.

take everything

Brian? wrote: »

You have a problem with being asked to support your accusations? I suggest boards may not be for you.

I have a problem with people asking the obvious.

Inability to read threads would suggest to me boards may not be for you.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Brian? wrote: »

It’s genuinely he worst test of its kind I’ve ever seen.

It's a silly test.

How about this: Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy "traditional family values."

If I say they should be praised, does that make me more or less of a right-wing authoritarian?

El_Duderino 09

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

It's a silly test.

How about this: Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy "traditional family values."

If I say they should be praised, does that make me more or less of a right-wing authoritarian?

The test was designed in the wake or ww2. So back then gays and women expecting to be treated equally was obviously the opposite to a right wing view.

Test is both American centric and out of date.

Tony EH

Brian? wrote: »

Liberal doesn’t mean anything anymore. People regularly call anarchists and communists liberals on here r. It’s hilarious.

Dr Peterson refers to himself as a classic liberal.

"Liberal" has become bastardised by its silly American usage. Unfortunately it filters through to online yap across the globe.

The thing is I find none of these American shouty people "Liberal" or "left wing" either. They are usually folk who've attached themselves to a single cause and go gangbusters for it, often with the wildest of results. But there is nothing really left wing about them in any kind of real sense. There are just as many people on the Left that look at these so called "Liberals" and just as bemused and appalled as Conservatives - not these Alt-Right monkeys now, just actual Conservatives.

This side of the Atlantic a Liberal is a very different kind of animal indeed, which you probably already know. But in the States, because there is no real left wing, their so called "Liberals" become "Left wing" figures of hate for the Right. But, to actual Left wing people they remain unrecognisable.

The arguments around speech illustrates this perfectly, in that it was the Left that fought for free speech throughout its existence against efforts on the Right to shut it down. Traditionally, in Western Europe, is was Socialists and Left wingers of various hues that had freedom of speech as a basic tenet and it was Right wing Conservative elements that were in favour of shutting down, banning and censoring things.

In America, however, because there never was a Left wing, their so called "Liberal" elements (which is really just a lighter version of their Right wing) adopt censorship platforms to silence free speech, which to the Western European Left looks off.

We live in a bizarre time and it's largely down to shitty American political/cultural divisions creeping into the younger generation through the web.

Brian?

Tony EH wrote: »

"Liberal" has become bastardised by its silly American usage. Unfortunately it filters through to online yap across the globe.

The thing is I find none of these American shouty people "Liberal" or "left wing" either. They are usually folk who've attached themselves to a single cause and go gangbusters for it, often with the wildest of results. But there is nothing really left wing about them in any kind of real sense. There are just as many people on the Left that look at these so called "Liberals" and just as bemused and appalled as Conservatives - not these Alt-Right monkeys now, just actual Conservatives.

This side of the Atlantic a Liberal is a very different kind of animal indeed, which you probably already know. But in the States, because there is no real left wing, their so called "Liberals" become "Left wing" figures of hate for the Right. But, to actual Left wing people they remain unrecognisable.

The arguments around speech illustrates this perfectly, in that it was the Left that fought for free speech throughout its existence against efforts on the Right to shut it down. Traditionally, in Western Europe, is was Socialists and Left wingers of various hues that had freedom of speech as a basic tenet and it was Right wing Conservative elements that were in favour of shutting down, banning and censoring things.

In America, however, because there never was a Left wing, their so called "Liberal" elements (which is really just a lighter version of their Right wing) adopt censorship platforms to silence free speech, which to the Western European Left looks off.

We live in a bizarre time and it's largely down to shitty American political/cultural divisions creeping into the younger generation through the web.

I’d like to thank that twice. I find it genuinely hilarious when an Irish person calls me a liberal lefty.

But on a more serious note, it’s a symptom of the dumbing down of political discourse. Like people who quote Orwell as an argument against socialism or people who tell you what’s wrong with Marxism having never Marx, but listened to someone telling them what’s wrong with Marxism.

I’m sure there are confused people on the left who do the same, but I don’t come across them here.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Akrasia wrote: »

Bill c-16 just added gender identity to the list of protected classes in Canadian anti discrimination law.
It was no more compelled speech than forcing someone in authority at a university to not refer to black students with the N word

It was a well intentioned harmless piece of legislation that became politicized by Peterson such that he used it to gather a large support base and a platform from where to launch his very conservative agenda

In England a few years ago, a woman was told by a judge during a court case to refer to her accused attacker as she and her. Think about that for a second. She was asked to accommodate her attacker (the person was convicted). As far as she was concerned her attacker being a biological male mattered as it was an assault and she also felt it amounted to making her lie under oath. I would use somebody’s preferred pronouns if they asked me generally but an instance like the above makes me deeply uncomfortable. I think that it’s an incredibly complex topic, nothing like referring to somebody by a racial epithet.

Tony EH

Brian? wrote: »

I’d like to thank that twice. I find it genuinely hilarious when an Irish person calls me a liberal lefty.

But on a more serious note, it’s a symptom of the dumbing down of political discourse. Like people who quote Orwell as an argument against socialism or people who tell you what’s wrong with Marxism having never Marx, but listened to someone telling them what’s wrong with Marxism.

I’m sure there are confused people on the left who do the same, but I don’t come across them here.

Orwell was a committed Socialist until the day he died. Gobshites like to talk about him and they've neither read about the man or why he wrote what he wrote. Orwell's cautionary tales were about totalitarianism, which can raise it's ugly head not matter which wing of politics is in place.

As for Marx, there's never been a man in existence who's had so much said about him by people who have absolutely zero understanding of what he said, did or wrote.

20Cent

Oldest grift in the book.

Make a big deal out of something that isn't a big deal.
Get on tv, radio etc talking about it.
Write some books cash in big time.
Make money whatever way possible.

Then the detox from drugs in a Russian clinic.

Brian?

Calculon6000 wrote: »

It should obvious to most what is wrong with socialism.

Thanks for reinforcing the point I made in the post you quoted.

Calculon6000

Calculon6000 wrote: »

It should obvious to most what is wrong with socialism.

The same could be said for any political, moral, social (or however you want to categorize it) system to extremes. There's plenty of good within socialism. Just as there's plenty of good in capitalism. Or even Marxism. It depends though on how it's applied and the extreme that it reaches over time. This is something I find a lot of people not thinking through on. Just because something is initially introduced in a certain way, doesn't mean that it's going to be that way, in twenty years time. Most founding "fathers" of nations had great intentions with the laws, or ideas they implemented but most of those laws/ideas were changed/corrupted within a decade or two of being implemented. Nothing remains pure and sterile, except for some peoples ideas.. and even then.. different interpretations cause conflict.

Akrasia

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

It's a silly test.

How about this: Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy "traditional family values."

If I say they should be praised, does that make me more or less of a right-wing authoritarian?

Less Authoritarian according to Altemeyers explanation in his book.

Akrasia

Tony EH wrote: »

As for Marx, there's never been a man in existence who's had so much said about him by people who have absolutely zero understanding of what he said, did or wrote.

People including Jordan Peterson

Brian?

Akrasia wrote: »

People including Jordan Peterson

It was glaringly obvious he wasn’t well versed in socialist theory when he debated Zizek

nkl12xtw5goz70

Akrasia wrote: »

Less Authoritarian according to Altemeyers explanation in his book.

I don't think there's much praise owed to feminists and homosexuals who defy traditional family values. It's not the 1950s anymore. It takes more bravery nowadays to state publicly the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, or that a child needs a mother and father living under the same roof, than it does to call for abortion on demand or acceptance of gay marriage.

ILoveYourVibes

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

I don't think there's much praise owed to feminists and homosexuals who defy traditional family values. It's not the 1950s anymore. It takes more bravery nowadays to state publicly the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, or that a child needs a mother and father living under the same roof, than it does to call for abortion on demand or acceptance of gay marriage.

I think you are missing the point.

It takes a lot of bravery to live as a single mother facing that alone.

It takes a lot of bravery to get yourself an abortion.

It takes a lot of bravery to life in a minority kind of family such as two dads.

Stating something doesn't take bravery. Its just a sentence. People have a reaction end of. That's not a thing.

sbsquarepants

Akrasia wrote: »

Just for the laugh, here’s a link to a RWA test if you’re interested in your own score

https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/RWAS/

(My score was 9.66%)

Wibbs wrote: »

Mine was also 0%, mainly because I'm not an American. That "test" is so culturally based it's mad Ted.

I got 10%

I feel dirty now!

Questions are a bit bizarre to say the least, some of them are like something you'd be asked if you were applying to join ISIS!

ILoveYourVibes

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

It takes a lot of bravery to live as a single mother facing that alone.

It's a result of making a mistake and living with that mistake. Hardly a case of bravery when you have no choice. If she chose to be a single mother right from before getting pregnant, then it's not really bravery either.. unless she's in a traditional country with narrow morals. In the west? It's become so commonplace, nobody raises an eyebrow.

It takes a lot of bravery to get yourself an abortion.

Not in China, or many other countries. I've had students who unashamedly admitted in class to having 3 abortions before they were 20.. and the class wasn't terribly shocked. It depends entirely on the person, and what they consider life to value. You seem to think all females think the same. They don't.

It takes a lot of bravery to life in a minority kind of family such as two dads.

Again, it's dealing with life, not bravery. Unless they're of an age to leave, then they're simply stuck with it until they decide for themselves whether it's right or wrong.. and that's where the bravery kicks in. When they have a choice.

Stating something doesn't take bravery. Its just a sentence.

Yup. Agreed. As you have just done.

It's dealing with the consequences of that statement, and the awareness of those consequences (before committing yourself), that takes bravery.

nkl12xtw5goz70

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I think you are missing the point.

No, I think it's you who are missing the point.

People who will openly stand up for traditional family values are now a minority in Irish society, especially among the under 40s.

It's much easier nowadays to defy the Catholic Church (how many young people even bother going to mass?) than it is to defy vocal feminist/LGBT campaigners.

The moral police in today's society are no longer the priests and bishops. They are the politically correct left, and one defies them at one's peril.

Woke Hogan

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

No, I think it's you who are missing the point.

People who will openly stand up for traditional family values are now a minority in Irish society, especially among the under 40s.

It's much easier nowadays to defy the Catholic Church (how many young people even bother going to mass?) than it is to defy vocal feminist/LGBT campaigners.

The moral police in today's society are no longer the priests and bishops. They are the politically correct left, and one defies them at one's peril.

It’s literally laugh out loud funny when I read so-called “right wingers” whinging about being suppressed by “the left” after advocating suppressing homosexuals, single mothers etc. Yes, the ones who disagree with you are the bad guys.

xckjoo

Woke Hogan wrote: »

It’s literally laugh out loud funny when I read so-called “right wingers” whinging about being suppressed by “the left” after advocating suppressing homosexuals, single mothers etc. Yes, the ones who disagree with you are the bad guys.

It's both to be honest. The extremes on the "left" and "right" shut down all difference of opinion with cries of discrimination and use of intimidation. There's a lot of sh1tty people in the world that just want to force people to think like them. The ideological side they sign up to if often irrelevant.

Woke Hogan

xckjoo wrote: »

It's both to be honest. The extremes on the "left" and "right" shut down all difference of opinion with cries of discrimination and use of intimidation. There's a lot of sh1tty people in the world that just want to force people to think like them. The ideological side they sign up to if often irrelevant.

“Both sides are bad” is a cod. “The Left” in this particular case are advocating the breaking of barriers for single mother, homosexual couples and “The Right” want to suppress that. In my view crypto-fascists have no right to civility.

Woke Hogan

Woke Hogan wrote: »

It’s literally laugh out loud funny when I read so-called “right wingers” whinging about being suppressed by “the left” after advocating suppressing homosexuals, single mothers etc. Yes, the ones who disagree with you are the bad guys.

And we're back to the extremes. The funny thing is that few of those who are against the left (apart from the far right) have advocated suppressing homosexuals, single mothers, etc because of who they are. There might be some consideration for the circumstances regarding how they came to be that way, in the case of single mothers.... but society has moved a long way in the last 20 years (although those on the left seem very selective in recognizing that)

You see, I'm in the middle on most things, although I'd swing left or right on a variety of issues. Traditionally speaking (following the older model) I'd be conservative, with some liberal tendencies (being bisexual would prevent me from being a true conservative). But in this day and age (along with people like yourself), I'm being pushed into the right. I couldn't be left because I can't agree with their dreamy outlook of life without responsibility, so I'm now on the right.. although I wouldn't be a traditional right.

Yes, it's hilarious, how fcuked up the whole thing has become. And here's the rub. It's not that they disagree that's the problem. It's that they're unwilling to justify themselves beyond emotional morality (their morality, naturally, which is the only acceptable morality allowed). Every justification is aimed to tug at the heart, rather than deal with the specifics and use facts. When they do use facts, they often win quite handily but instead, there's a push to insult/demean the opposition, or label them as the right so as to diminish their value.

Those who disagree aren't the bad guys. Those unwilling to tolerate others opinions and refuse to engage in a mature attempt to find common ground are the bad guys. It's this all or nothing attitude that is bad.

Wanderer78

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote:

It's much easier nowadays to defy the Catholic Church (how many young people even bother going to mass?) than it is to defy vocal feminist/LGBT campaigners.

What's the problem with not going to mass?

Woke Hogan

Woke Hogan wrote: »

“Both sides are bad” is a cod. “The Left” in this particular case are advocating the breaking of barriers for single mother, homosexual couples and “The Right” want to suppress that. In my view crypto-fascists have no right to civility.

Time for some specifics. "in this particular case are advocating the breaking of barriers for single mother, homosexual couples and “The Right” want to suppress that." expand on that. I actually went back a few pages, and couldn't see what you were referring to. And what exactly do the supposed right want to suppress?

So....?

20Cent

Deleted User wrote: »

Time for some specifics. "in this particular case are advocating the breaking of barriers for single mother, homosexual couples and “The Right” want to suppress that." expand on that. I actually went back a few pages, and couldn't see what you were referring to. And what exactly do the supposed right want to suppress?

So....?

The right and the Catholic church were against same sex marriage, abortion laws, and even sex outside of marriage. The fought against contraception even. There are real things that affect peoples lives. The worst that happens from the "left" is some tweets criticizing them. Making them out to be equivalent is not true.

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

The right and the Catholic church were against same sex marriage, abortion laws, and even sex outside of marriage. The fought against contraception even.

Ahh we're going to lump a hundred years of social change all together for convenience sake then?

The RC is a religious body with political leanings run by a foreign group. As for "The fought against contraception even", they still do... and female priests... and priests that can marry.. and a host of other changes. They're a bastion of retarded thinking. Not really sure why you're referring to them in the context of this thread.

There are real things that affect peoples lives.

Err.. most things affect peoples lives... what's your point? No, seriously, I'm trying to understand your pov but it seems rather simplistic and yet, I'm not quite getting it. Surely, you're not dumbing down social issues this much?

The worst that happens from the "left" is some tweets criticizing them. Making them out to be equivalent is not true.

The equivalent of whom? The far left and the far right are rather similar in their intolerance of other peoples opinions. The "left" and "right" are different but I'd be hard pressed to really identify zones of interest anymore. Although, I'd definitely include SJW/Feminism in the left. They tend to go hand in hand these days.

For me, it's more about leftist/right principles on different topics. It's not the case anymore of always being on the left or right.

Leftist attitudes on Trans issues, for example, say "lets bring it all in regardless of the negatives because everyone has their individual rights except for the people who don't agree with us. Because they're bigots. Talking about consequences is bigoted because you're being negative. Let's all be positive! All the time!".

The right says "Trans are messed up, physically, morally and psychologically. Why are we pandering to a minority? There should be laws to regulate the behavior of these oddballs, beyond what they do to themselves."

Fair?

Gynoid

Woke Hogan wrote: »

“Both sides are bad” is a cod. “The Left” in this particular case are advocating the breaking of barriers for single mother, homosexual couples and “The Right” want to suppress that. In my view crypto-fascists have no right to civility.

I so fèel like saying LOL but I am honour bound never to use that word
You would swear the way some people talk and think that tis the yuff socialist activists of today who are inventing social justice for all of us crypto-fascist gombeens that have been around the block a few times before.

Having never voted for any party (always Independents) I at least know that the Social Welfare Act of 1990 which brought in the Lone Parents Allowance and improved circumstances very significantly for single mothers was brought in by the famous crypto fascist Charlie Haughey's government, with SS Officer Brian Kenihan as his Tanaiste and the bould nazi Michael Woods as Minister for Social Welfare.

How have we managed to get to where we are with all these right wing authoritarians oppressing us for so long?!

LineOfBeauty

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

No, I think it's you who are missing the point.

People who will openly stand up for traditional family values are now a minority in Irish society, especially among the under 40s.

It's much easier nowadays to defy the Catholic Church (how many young people even bother going to mass?) than it is to defy vocal feminist/LGBT campaigners.

The moral police in today's society are no longer the priests and bishops. They are the politically correct left, and one defies them at one's peril.

Maybe one should live life how one wants to live life and one shouldn't judge other ones for living their life openly and freely.

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Maybe one should live life how one wants to live life and one shouldn't judge other ones for living their life openly and freely.

Insofar that living their own lives does not require the (forced/unwilling) support of other people to exist.. or that their free life is not detrimental to other people who have no choice about it.