Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Second time you’re responded to somebody like this in this thread AND you have also claimed that anyone who criticises Peterson doesn’t understand him much like that poster has said about Zizek. Hypocrite, much?

Well..to see 20cent resorting to that in defense of Zizek, while he doesn't see how the same is relevant to Peterson is actually funny..

And when he brought up the toilet issue again after ignoring quite a bit was funny too...

buried

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Agreed. He has spoken about the need to accept our tortured mortality. That's a trait we also see in Shakespeare, Milton, Dostoevsky, Dickinson, and other Western writers that the postmodern Marxists feel obliged to disparage.

The empty, pseudo-profound verbal diarrhoea offered up by arrogant ideologues like Žižek offers nothing whatsoever to anyone attempting to come to terms with the human condition.

Ahh I wouldn't be that harsh on auld Žižek in that aspect either, he's done some commentary on the likes of modern artistic creators such as David Lynch who have also touched on these themes of the darkest aspect of the human condition.

No point in anybody looking at any of this as a battle ground. Both people have good points to make on a wide scope. It's good. It's a hell of a lot better listening to the two of these people discussing things than the majority of vapid trash that gets peddled into peoples brains on a daily basis.

Just have to find a balance within it all I think.

nkl12xtw5goz70

20Cent wrote: »

Not in the field so wouldn't understand that particular quote. It uses a lot of language and references I'm not familiar with like most journal articles. This is a very silly road to be going down by the way.

It's not a silly road at all. It gets right to the heart of the problem — the disturbing levels of reverence that people have for postmodern BS artists such as Žižek, who fill books and articles with pseudo-profound nonsense that their adoring acolytes believe is somehow more meaningful and relevant than the genuinely important writers and philosophers of the past.

Anyone who spends too much time reading this kind of tripe won't be able to think clearly about anything, which of course is the goal.

20Cent

Deleted User wrote: »

Well..to see 20cent resorting to that in defense of Zizek, while he doesn't see how the same is relevant to Peterson is actually funny..

And when he brought up the toilet issue again after ignoring quite a bit was funny too...

I don't claim people don't understand him just that he doesn't actually say anything.

Tell me something profound and insightful he has said.

20Cent

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

It's not a silly road at all. It gets right to the heart of the problem — the disturbing levels of reverence that people have for postmodern BS artists such as Žižek, who fill books and articles with pseudo-profound nonsense that their adoring acolytes believe is somehow more meaningful and relevant than the genuinely important writers and philosophers of the past.

Anyone who spends too much time reading this kind of tripe won't be able to think clearly about anything, which of course is the goal.

There's another forum for conspiracy theories on this website somewhere.

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Tell me something profound and insightful he has said.

Lobsters' nervous systems are designed to respond to a heirarchical social structure in much the same way as ours are..

And..just to be clear..I am claiming you don't understand him..

20Cent

Deleted User wrote: »

Lobsters' nervous systems are designed to respond to a heirarchical social structure in much the same way as ours are..

Em ok.........

buried

20Cent wrote: »

Isn't that Peterson's argument?
That you shouldn't comment on society or anything unless your own life is in order. Bit ironic now all things considered.

Yeah, that is a kind of absolute statement that he wasn't wise in saying.

Nobody on this earth has their life in any sort of order. Chaos exists around the corner for everybody, even those that may think they have it all under control.

There is no 'control' really.

But at least we are talking about it, so there is that.

Arghus

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

It's not a silly road at all. It gets right to the heart of the problem — the disturbing levels of reverence that people have for postmodern BS artists such as Žižek, who fill books and articles with pseudo-profound nonsense that their adoring acolytes believe is somehow more meaningful and relevant than the genuinely important writers and philosophers of the past.

Anyone who spends too much time reading this kind of tripe won't be able to think clearly about anything, which of course is the goal.

No doubt that quick Google search brought you to that perfectly incomprehensible Zizek quote.

Reads like a quote from Finnegans Wake. A book you deeply admire, if I remember correctly.

But there's literally hundreds of other quotes out there by the same man on a variety of subjects that are perfectly clear.

I'm not a hater of Jordan Peterson as a man. I don't agree with plenty of what he says, but there's definitely something to chew on what he says. But Zizek made him look foolish in their debate/discussion.

20Cent

buried wrote: »

Yeah, that is a kind of absolute statement that he wasn't wise in saying.

Nobody on this earth has their life in any sort of order. Chaos exists around the corner for everybody, even those that may think they have it all under control.

There is no 'control' really.

But at least we are talking about it, so there is that.

His academic record seems good and his peer reviewed publications.

It's when he goes off that track into other areas and says stupid stuff like humans are hard wired to hierarchies. Things like that give succor to some horrible viewpoints.

Arghus

Arghus wrote: »

I'm not a hater of Jordan Peterson as a man. I don't agree with plenty of what he says, but there's definitely something to chew on what he says. But Zizeck made him look foolish in their debate/discussion.

You see..this is kind of bullsh!t too,,the issues with that debate were in the format..a half an hour each with a title of capitalism and whatever..they were talking at cross purposes for the first hour and then could have a discussion and had quite a positive conversation..

Keyboard warriors everywhere overlooked everything that was positive in the conversation and took to the internet to proclaim 'Zizek/Peterson destroyed Zizek/Peterson'..my guy totally won..it was a kind of tragic symptom of what is wrong these days..

buried

20Cent wrote: »

His academic record seems good and his peer reviewed publications.

It's when he goes off that track into other areas and says stupid stuff like humans are hard wired to hierarchies. Things like that give succor to some horrible viewpoints.

Yeah true, I would agree that is also another total absolute he came out with that plainly isn't true. I mean if it was, there would have been no progression, no revolution, artistically or politically wise if the human condition was just blindly aligned to whatever 'hierarchy' that has existed all throughout known history.

If we were or are hardwired to hierarchies then we'd still be under the thumb of medieval warlords masquerading as 'Royalty'. Some still are mind, but a good cross section of us in the western hemisphere are not because we chose to break away from all that.

20Cent

He makes a lot of descriptive claims like women wear lipstick to look sexually aroused and attract men. But stops there and doesn't go into if this is good/bad right/wrong. He leaves that to the listener/reader to fill in. The listener/reader then fills in the meaning they want to hear.

20Cent

buried wrote: »

Yeah true, I would agree that is also another total absolute he came out with that plainly isn't true. I mean if it was, there would have been no progression, no revolution, artistically or politically wise if the human condition was just blindly aligned to whatever 'hierarchy' that has existed all throughout known history.

If we were or are hardwired to hierarchies then we'd still be under the thumb of medieval warlords masquerading as 'Royalty'. Some still are mind, but a good cross section of us in the western hemisphere are not because we chose to break away from all that.

Can see why the far right like him. If we are hardwired to hierarchies then everyone is in their right place and should shut up and not criticise their "betters". He actually says that as well that young people shouldn't be activist or contribute opinions because they haven't the same experience as their "leaders".

Junkyard Tom

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Žižek is one of these people himself...

He may well be but the simple question he asked had Peterson sort of tripping over his own words.

Also, I doubt that Zizek would have a long thread on boards.ie with a phalanx of acolytes defending him because his Venn diagram off bullshit intersected theirs.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Also, I doubt that Zizek would have a long thread on boards.ie with a phalanx of acolytes defending him because his Venn diagram off bullshit intersected theirs.

Is it the people defending him or those attacking him that are driving the thread do you think?..The only people I've come across attacking Zizek have happened to be on the left too..

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I actually think it's some weird subject-object distortion.. like, beautiful women have been put on pedestals in our culture, and kind of been worshiped..I think it's a distortion of identification where the person wants to become the object of such adoration..

And I think there's a more societal thing now where it's just another label.. people are very quick to label themselves and to try to find something to identify as, that might explain why they're not happy and are kind of anxious..and this is the latest.. like to be cutting edge (pardon the pun) now in your late teens you probably have to have gender issues..

I think the movement pushing it politically is purely sinister..

You think transgender people are doing it for attention?

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Maybe if there's a discrepancy between your mental state and your physical body you're mentally ill as opposed to being in the wrong body..

And if the only way to treat this mental illness is to have gender reassignment surgery? How does that change the debate around transgenderism?

The end result is exactly the same. People need to be given the freedom to choose their gender or to choose their own treatment, same same.

Gynoid

https://www.hgi.org.uk/resources/delve-our-extensive-library/interviews/mysterious-jung-his-cult-lies-he-told-and-occult

A talk about Jung as a self styled religious prophet. Mithraism being his religion. He saw himself as deified. Though elsewhere I have seen Gnosticism credibly argued. To me he is somewhat akin to Madame Blavatsky, he did for psychology what she did for esotericism. Both self important gurus with unpleasant personalities. With incredible influence to this day. Amazing how much idiosyncratic religions masquerade under cover in the modern mind.

Zubeneschamali

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

the disturbing levels of reverence that people have for postmodern BS artists such as Žižek, who fill books and articles with pseudo-profound nonsense that their adoring acolytes believe is somehow more meaningful and relevant than the genuinely important writers and philosophers of the past.

BS artists such as Zizek and Peterson.

Gynoid

Brian? wrote: »

And if the only way to treat this mental illness is to have gender reassignment surgery? How does that change the debate around transgenderism?

The end result is exactly the same. People need to be given the freedom to choose their gender or to choose their own treatment, same same.

Ray Blanchard and Kenneth Zucker are 2 very experienced psychologists who have been treating gender dysphoric people since the 70s. Blanchard especially pioneered the treatment of gender change surgery to treat a certain cohort of patients. He was very compassionate around the whole area. He and zucker are persona non grata because they have theories that are unacceptable to gender theorists, especially developed theories on the large prevalence of autogynophilia. Their dismissal by TRAs is odd given how they have been intimately involved for decades in the clinical treatment of hundreds if not thousands of transgender people.

Reminds one of present day resignations of senior people from gender treatment clinics in the UK because of bullying by trans rights activism.

https://quillette.com/2019/11/06/what-is-autogynephilia-an-interview-with-dr-ray-blanchard/

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

He makes a lot of descriptive claims like women wear lipstick to look sexually aroused and attract men. But stops there and doesn't go into if this is good/bad right/wrong. He leaves that to the listener/reader to fill in. The listener/reader then fills in the meaning they want to hear.

He makes references to the artificial aspects of a women's' sexuality, that women get a free pass on from society, but leaves it up to his audience to decide whether they're right or wrong to do so, because his audience are representatives of that very society...

You think he's wrong to mention that lipstick, high-heels, lingerie, perfume, etc were all intentionally designed to affect a males subconscious and attract their attention? ......and that while women today might (some are, some aren't) not be interested in attracting that type of attention, the triggers remain for the males. And that males should be aware of those triggers, because conscious awareness of triggers tends to lessen their automatic effects, giving a person more control over their situation, and thus, giving more choices in how to behave.

He leaves it to the listener because to do otherwise would make him a target for every instance a female got assaulted/abused/rapes/insulted etc and people said her appearance was a factor. Line up the expert, and tear him to pieces because many people (especially those on social media) are looking for absolutes and extremes these days.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

You think transgender people are doing it for attention?

I think some teenage or early adults might be doing it as a result of peer pressure, or peer related social media pressure. Instagram (and similar apps) pressure to show photos of different behavior because being normal isn't particularly cool. Being gay/lesbian isn't much of a statement anymore, nor is it rebellious, so there's an element of needing a different gesture of resistance.

My sister needed to put a parental block on my nieces phone (aged 11) who was posting inappropriate photos of herself.. because all her friends were doing the same. Caused a ruckus with all the parents when they found out, because these days many parents don't know what children are doing with their phones, and what content they have access to. My niece knows that there are people who are gender fluid, in that they change their gender. She's a bit vague on full trans but the knowledge is there for the other forms of trans behavior, because there are adults plugging the message towards children.

I do think there are some minors who are dabbling with Trans because that's what's cool these days. Most of us sought our own ways to rebel when we're young. I went through a period of dressing in a very feminine way in my first year of college because I was exploring what it meant to be gay/bisexual. So, we should recognize that some people will be looking at transgender, and seeing it as a way to explore other options. Whether they stay that way or decide to revert to traditional genders, is up to them.

With the case of adults, I'd imagine there are a lot of people reacting to the unhappiness in their lives, and the downward success of dating. Dating apps, and the changes in the perception of dating, have decreased the success of people getting into relationships. They might be considering their physical attractiveness and wondering whether they should be gay instead. I certainly felt the same way when I was turned down so much by females, and turned to males who appreciated my far more. It was only later that I encountered females who found me attractive, and so, I became bisexual. Availability of partners is a very influential aspect of how we develop sexually. And so I would imagine that there are people out there who are simply unhappy with the state of their lives, and figure that being transgender will solve some of those problems. After all, it is a club of a kind. There are support groups, and clubs for Trans people online, and a community to interact with... that is often easier than the traditional straight communities which are less convenient. I found it pretty much the same when I joined the bisexual communities on IRC and began going to their meetups. So much easier to find open minded people who appreciated what I was going through.

So, I would suggest that there are people who go trans because of popularity, peer pressure, rebelliousness, or simply because they're unhappy with the standard life/pressures of being traditionally male/female. I've no idea how many would remain trans, but I suspect that for a large percentage it's just something they do for a while, and then revert to the standard later. Also because trans includes those who can change gender without any physical change, I would imagine that some are just faking it so that they can fit in with a particular social group.

Either way, the numbers of those who identify themselves as trans will increase because they can change whenever they wish. It provides complete freedom to them because nobody is allowed to place any structure/limitation on them regarding gender identity.

TomSweeney

So the people on here that hate JP, what did you think of the interview with Cathy Newman ?
did you agree with her ?

Do you at least agree with Peterson on his basic points that men and women do TEND to be different ?? ... that compelled use of prounouns is a slippery slope ??

TomSweeney

Gynoid wrote: »

I mean did you ever think you would see the day when a senior UK politician says on a mainstream tv program that babies have no sex.
It is fcuking bewildering what we have arrived at.

See my above post, the JP haters on here do you defend this above crap ???

s7ryf3925pivug

TomSweeney wrote: »

See my above post, the JP haters on here do you defend this above crap ???

No, the comment about babies' sexes stupid - if she actually even said it. Don't know why you'd get angry about it anyway.

I don't remember much about the Cathy Newman interview. My recollection is that I thought she did a bad job. But I could do a bad job arguing that people need to eat food to live. It doesn't mean you don't need to eat food... I don't actually remember what they spoke about tough, just that she seemed agitated which cast Peterson in a flattering light.

Don't care about use of pronouns. Doesn't affect me at all. I agree that men and and women have intrinsic differences. Slippery slope to what?

Why is this thread so active again? Why do some people think he's experiencing elder abuse?

TomSweeney

It's active again as JP is very ill and the angry left mob are loving it, maybe not here, but elsewhere.

Why would I get angry about an MP saying that babies don't have a sex ???

It's a politician - someone with power, would you be concerned if a politician was suggesting the Earth was flat ?

Royce Stocky Stage

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

No, the comment about babies' sexes stupid - if she actually even said it. Don't know why you'd get angry about it anyway.

I don't remember much about the Cathy Newman interview. My recollection is that I thought she did a bad job. But I could do a bad job arguing that people need to eat food to live. It doesn't mean you don't need to eat food... I don't actually remember what they spoke about tough, just that she seemed agitated which cast Peterson in a flattering light.

Her interviewing style was/is typical of the media of the time, which pushed feminist driven agendas and aggressively attacked those who resisted the agenda.

You should watch the vid. It's a pretty defining moment. Up until then, most people simply rolled over and allowed female interviewers to walk all over them, projecting the feminist line without objection.

Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

Why is this thread so active again? Why do some people think he's experiencing elder abuse?

Elder abuse? Who are the elders?

As for being more active, some reading could tell you that.

s7ryf3925pivug

I wouldn't like it if people referred to me as 'she'. I accept transgenderism is a real thing. Therefore it's not nice to call them by the pronoun they don't identify as.

s7ryf3925pivug

Deleted User wrote: »

Her interviewing style was/is typical of the media of the time, which pushed feminist driven agendas and aggressively attacked those who resisted the agenda.

You should watch the vid. It's a pretty defining moment. Up until then, most people simply rolled over and allowed female interviewers to walk all over them, projecting the feminist line without objection.

Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54




Elder abuse? Who are the elders?

As for being more active, some reading could tell you that.

He is the elder. But some reading could tell you that.