Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Royce Stocky Stage

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

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

Why do some people think he's experiencing elder abuse?

So he's abusing himself then? It's your post but it's vague. Hence the request for clarification.

You asked why the thread is active again without doing any research for yourself. You could go back 10-12 pages and find out the topics that people are discussing, and therefore know why it's active again.

s7ryf3925pivug

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do some people think he's experiencing elder abuse?

So he's abusing himself then? It's your post but it's vague. Hence the request for clarification.

You asked why the thread is active again without doing any research for yourself. You could go back 10-12 pages and find out the topics that people are discussing, and therefore know why it's active again.

I don't know what the story is with the elder abuse. That's why I asked. I saw a comment suggesting it on this thread. Why don't you trawl back 10 or 12 pages to find it yourself?

Royce Stocky Stage

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

I don't know what the story is with the elder abuse. That's why I asked. I saw a comment suggesting it on this thread. Why don't you trawl back 10 or 12 pages to find it yourself?

Because you made the point of referring to it. Which I queried. Since you found the reference, and asked a question about it, the onus is on you to explain it... or better yet, quote the piece with the posters name associated. That way we'll have some idea what the question is about.

Come on. Seriously? I really needed to spell this out for you?

s7ryf3925pivug

Deleted User wrote: »

Because you made the point of referring to it. Which I queried. Since you found the reference, and asked a question about it, the onus is on you to explain it... or better yet, quote the piece with the posters name associated. That way we'll have some idea what the question is about.

Come on. Seriously? I really needed to spell this out for you?

onus on me? lol! I asked a question. You don't know the answer. A normal response would be to ignore it or say you don't know. Getting outraged about it is funny though. You sound like you should be a character in Viz or something.

Royce Stocky Stage

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

onus on me? lol! I asked a question. You don't know the answer. A normal response would be to ignore it or say you don't know. Getting outraged about it is funny though. You sound like you should be a character in Viz or something.

Ok. you're trolling. Fair enough. Won't be responding to you anymore.

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Genuinely do you know any transgender people?

I knew someone who was trans in secondary school who got an absolutely awful time of it. A couple of the guys in our year were gay and I can say those 5 years were easily the worst times of my life (and it's not like I'm that long out of secondary school) but they paled in comparison to what the trans person went through in our school. What kind of mindset do you need to have to think trans people are just looking for attention or trying to be cool. Who would willingly sign up for a life of being judged every moment of your life, knowing people are talking about you behind your back at all times, being a figure that for a very long time in mainstream media and still to this day you're nothing but the butt on the joke, a figure of fun. Why would anyone want that unless they were absolutely convinced they were born the wrong way, that maybe they could be happier living their life as the gender they believe they should be. You would have to be a monster with no empathy for another person to think they just want to be "cool."

So I'll reiterate, do you know, or have known, any transgender people in your actual life?

20Cent

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Exactly my point he throws out some descriptive information and doesn't apply it or express and opinion leaving the audience to fill in the blanks. In this case that women are asking to be harassed or assaulted. This is why incels love him tells them what they want to hear. Dangerous territory l, like how hard is it to say don't assault women.

s7ryf3925pivug

From a purely pragmatic point of view it's better that one person gets sick than lots and lots of people ruin their health. He advocated an absurdly restrictive diet of only beef and salt. His illness must undermine ideas that it is a good idea.

20Cent

TomSweeney wrote: »

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 ??

Cathy Newman is an excellent investigative journalist. She doesn't suffer fools gladly unlike the usual type of interviewer. American grifters go to Europe expecting an easy ride like they get in the US and are shocked when challenged. She was trying to contextualise and apply Peterson points to the real world but he wasn't having it.

There is no compulsory use of gender pronouns. The law Peterson was whinging about passed yet no one has been sent to jail for using the wrong pronoun. As experts said at the time he was wrong about the law. Managed to kick off a nice earner for himself though.

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Exactly my point he throws out some descriptive information and doesn't apply it or express and opinion leaving the audience to fill in the blanks. In this case that women are asking to be harassed or assaulted. This is why incels love him tells them what they want to hear. Dangerous territory l, like how hard is it to say don't assault women.

Telling people not to assault women, suggests that he believes that they will assault women. It's the same argument that males should not be told to rape. It's a ridiculous argument.

In any case, in most vids of his, there is a general expectation of showing respect to other people. As for women asking to be assaulted/harassed, you're dumbing down the suggestions and the reasons behind them. It's common enough with people who believe that victims have zero responsibility for placing themselves in dangerous positions. Just as any such discussions will swing between generalizations and demands for "some" people, to reinforce how unreasonable it is to ask people to be more careful. Not getting into such an argument here.. and I've no intention of defending JP for his points. He can do that himself, if you bother to watch the vids with a semi-open mind rather than seeking things to argue about. (which I suspect many of those objecting are doing)

As for dangerous territory... it's all dangerous territory. Everything he says or talks about can be reinterpreted/twisted. It's the nature of the feminist/SJW debates/discussions that happen. Most posters who argue in such debates will understand that feminist advocates tend to do it, to find justifications for their points.

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Cathy Newman is an excellent investigative journalist. She doesn't suffer fools gladly unlike the usual type of interviewer. American grifters go to Europe expecting an easy ride like they get in the US and are shocked when challenged. She was trying to contextualise and apply Peterson points to the real world but he wasn't having it.

There is no compulsory use of gender pronouns. The law Peterson was whinging about passed yet no one has been sent to jail for using the wrong pronoun. As experts said at the time he was wrong about the law. Managed to kick off a nice earner for himself though.

Cathy Newman was pushing a feminist agenda with regards to wage discrimination and was slapped down for being overly aggressive. She sought to lead her guest into traps for him to sacrifice himself on, and when he was intelligent enough to avoid them, resorted to reinterpreting his points.. Hardly excellent journalism. She might be a good journalist in other situations, but she messed up that interview big time.

Which is wonderful because it showed up just how unreasonable the feminist driven agenda towards employment and discrimination is. And so, JP was elevated to a high position and gained a massive following. TBH I'd never heard of him until someone sent me the link to the interview. I then watched all of his vids. Some were good, some excellent, many rubbish... but it was the Cathy Newman interview that really put him on the radar for a lot of people.

20Cent

Deleted User wrote: »

Telling people not to assault women, suggests that he believes that they will assault women. It's the same argument that males should not be told to rape. It's a ridiculous argument.

In any case, in most vids of his, there is a general expectation of showing respect to other people. As for women asking to be assaulted/harassed, you're dumbing down the suggestions and the reasons behind them. It's common enough with people who believe that victims have zero responsibility for placing themselves in dangerous positions. Just as any such discussions will swing between generalizations and demands for "some" people, to reinforce how unreasonable it is to ask people to be more careful. Not getting into such an argument here.. and I've no intention of defending JP for his points. He can do that himself, if you bother to watch the vids with a semi-open mind rather than seeking things to argue about. (which I suspect many of those objecting are doing)

As for dangerous territory... it's all dangerous territory. Everything he says or talks about can be reinterpreted/twisted. It's the nature of the feminist/SJW debates/discussions that happen. Most posters who argue in such debates will understand that feminist advocates tend to do it, to find justifications for their points.

Victims do have zero blame when assaulted yes, and making it explicit that assault and rape are wrong is actually a good thing from an influential person he should do it.

20Cent

Deleted User wrote: »

Cathy Newman was pushing a feminist agenda with regards to wage discrimination and was slapped down for being overly aggressive. She sought to lead her guest into traps for him to sacrifice himself on, and when he was intelligent enough to avoid them, resorted to reinterpreting his points.. Hardly excellent journalism. She might be a good journalist in other situations, but she messed up that interview big time.

Which is wonderful because it showed up just how unreasonable the feminist driven agenda towards employment and discrimination is. And so, JP was elevated to a high position and gained a massive following. TBH I'd never heard of him until someone sent me the link to the interview. I then watched all of his vids. Some were good, some excellent, many rubbish... but it was the Cathy Newman interview that really put him on the radar for a lot of people.

Silly woman being uppity need to be slapped down by superior man.
How dare she try and interpret what he is saying (which is nothing).

Wibbs

Collagen40 wrote: »

He said it worked for him, and it absolutely makes sense such a diet would result in less inflammation and other problems that people suffer from while eating a modern diet of grains and vegetable oils.

Actually the sense involved is well up for debate. Indeed other research shows a meat only diet can increase inflammation. The problem with this current exclusion diet stuff is that there is a lot of half truths and quackery on all sides. Ask a fruitarian acolyte and they'll dig up research that "proves' their position. There can be an awful lot of woo and food fetish to this stuff. Never mind the basic fact that modern humans(who aren't isolated hunter gatherers) are quite different to humans of 20,000 years ago, which makes fads like the "paleo diet" a bit of a nonsense. Never mind that there are vanishingly few foods you can buy in a shop that are like their wild cousins. Some of the biggest changes to the human genome have been adaptations to "modern" foods. If you gave a caveman a ham sandwich with a beer he'd get a woeful attack of the liquid sitdowns(he'd be missing the genes for lactose, gluten and alcohol tolerance).

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Victims do have zero blame when assaulted yes, and making it explicit that assault and rape are wrong is actually a good thing from an influential person he should do it.

Difference of opinion. I believe in a measure of personal responsibility for the situations that someone places themselves in, and people can avoid becoming victims by showing more awareness...

And no... that's a statement of belief. I'm not going down the rabbit hole of discussing it here. If you want to know what I feel about it, do some searching on boards. I've discussed it plenty of times before. And yes, I recognise that you believe differently.

As for making it explicit that assault and rape are wrong... why? Can't such a thing be assumed? Do you have to tell everyone you meet that you believe that X,Y,Z are wrong and that you would never engage in such a thing? Don't most people believe that assault/rape/violence/murder/etc is wrong and assume that you believe the same thing.... Should every prominent figure in society also make such a statement?

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Silly woman being uppity need to be slapped down by superior man.
How dare she try and interpret what he is saying (which is nothing).

He said nothing? Ahh yes.. we're seeing a trend with you about not watching vids or reading up on this subject, while still making judgmental comments on the material.

If you watched the video, he says a lot. He attempts to answer her questions..... when she gives him time to answer although generally she'll interrupt when he doesn't give the answer she wants, and then jumps to another question. Rinse and repeat.

20Cent wrote: »

Silly woman being uppity need to be slapped down by superior man.

Which is not what I said. Back to the reinterpreting to suit the points you want to make.. :rolleyes:

20Cent

Deleted User wrote: »

Difference of opinion. I believe in a measure of personal responsibility for the situations that someone places themselves in, and people can avoid becoming victims by showing more awareness...

And no... that's a statement of belief. I'm not going down the rabbit hole of discussing it here. If you want to know what I feel about it, do some searching on boards. I've discussed it plenty of times before. And yes, I recognise that you believe differently.

As for making it explicit that assault and rape are wrong... why? Can't such a thing be assumed? Do you have to tell everyone you meet that you believe that X,Y,Z are wrong and that you would never engage in such a thing? Don't most people believe that assault/rape/violence/murder/etc is wrong and assume that you believe the same thing.... Should every prominent figure in society also make such a statement?

Seems it can't be assumed by your reply that the victim has some responsibility for being attacked.

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Seems it can't be assumed by your reply that the victim has some responsibility for being attacked.

Which doesn't say that I think that males (or females) should harass/assault/rape other people.

Saying that a victim shares some responsibility for the position they put themselves in, doesn't stop them from being a victim. Nor does it seek to justify the behavior of the aggressor.

You really are doing a wonderful job in proving/showing my point about twisting/reinterpreting things to justify your own opinions.

nkl12xtw5goz70

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I knew someone who was trans in secondary school who got an absolutely awful time of it. A couple of the guys in our year were gay and I can say those 5 years were easily the worst times of my life (and it's not like I'm that long out of secondary school) but they paled in comparison to what the trans person went through in our school.

Nobody deserves to be bullied, including anyone suffering from gender dysphoria. So, of course we should take steps to protect such people when they are targeted in schools, etc.

But that's not the issue here. Trans activists' demands go far beyond the reasonable expectation that trans individuals should be protected from violence and discrimination. The demands have become ontological. People are the gender they identify as, so they believe. These activists want everyone to regard a biological male identifying as female as indistinguishable from a natural-born woman — they want us to refer to such a person as "she"; give "her" access to women's bathrooms, changing rooms, domestic violence refuges, and prisons; permit "her" to compete against women in athletic competitions; and tell lesbians that refusing to sleep with "women" who have penises is hate-filled bigotry.

Of course, all of us can tell the difference between a natural-born woman and a gender dysphoric biological male wearing makeup and a dress. Deep down, I suspect none of us genuinely believes that one is the same as the other — and yet few give voice to that doubt for fear of being accused of transphobic bigotry and hate.

We're deep into 1984 territory here. To quote Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense."

LineOfBeauty

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Nobody deserves to be bullied, including anyone suffering from gender dysphoria. So, of course we should take steps to protect such people when they are targeted in schools, etc.

But that's not the issue here. Trans activists' demands go far beyond the reasonable expectation that trans individuals should be protected from violence and discrimination. The demands have become ontological. People are the gender they identify as, so they believe. These activists want everyone to regard a biological male identifying as female as indistinguishable from a natural-born woman — they want us to refer to such as person as "she"; give "her" access to women's bathrooms, changing rooms, domestic violence refuges, and prisons; permit "her" to compete against women in athletic competitions; and tell lesbians that refusing to sleep with "women" who have penises is hate-filled bigotry.

Of course, all of us can tell the difference between a natural-born woman and a gender dysphoric biological male wearing makeup and a dress. Deep down, I suspect none of us genuinely believes that one is the same as the other — and yet few give voice to that doubt for fear of being accused of transphobic bigotry and hate.

We're deep into 1984 territory here. To quote Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense."

Literally had this debate yesterday, I really don't want to get into bathrooms/changing rooms/athletics again today. I only posted because of the assertion from Klaz that transgender people only exist to be "cool" or "seek attention" is so wide of the mark that I suspect he's never actually spoken to a trans person in his life.

20Cent

Deleted User wrote: »

Which doesn't say that I think that males (or females) should harass/assault/rape other people.

Saying that a victim shares some responsibility for the position they put themselves in, doesn't stop them from being a victim. Nor does it seek to justify the behavior of the aggressor.

You really are doing a wonderful job in proving/showing my point about twisting/reinterpreting things to justify your own opinions.

The victim shares some responsibility. You've stated it twice now.

20Cent

A fraction of 1% of the population. The chances of meeting a trans person, noticing they are trans are very slim. Even if you do just be respectful like one should be with everyone. How hard is that!

Hysterical reactions that this is like 1984 is hilarious.

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

The victim shares some responsibility. You've stated it twice now.

Yes. I did. Having some responsibility for what happens does not negate being a victim nor does it justify the actions of the aggressor.

What responsibility did I say the victim had? Or is it the case that being specific must be turned into a broad statement?

This is common with these kind of discussions. If I am specific in what I say, you'll come along and post an objection or question to have it cover every situation, thus making it unreasonable.

But as I said, I'm not going down that rabbit hole, and getting into a conversation about personal responsibility for victims.

sbsquarepants

20Cent wrote: »

The victim shares some responsibility. You've stated it twice now.

Say you and i are neighbours. We go away for the weekend, perhaps to see a Jordan Peterson lecture;) Both of our houses are robbed on the night.

You had yours locked up, alarm on - the usual.

I left my door and windows open, all the lights on and the blinds up.

Would you say we were equally blameless?

20Cent

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Say you and i are neighbours. We go away for the weekend, perhaps to see a Jordan Peterson lecture;) Both of our houses are robbed on the night.

You had yours locked up, alarm on - the usual.

I left my door and windows open, all the lights on and the blinds up.

Would you say we were equally blameless?

How does this analogy apply to women?
Lock up your house = don't make yourself look attractive.

And here we go... :rolleyes: stereotypical responses.

Folks, can we not have a discussion on personal responsibility or personal safety here on this thread. It's a circular argument, and it's extremely divisive. There have been plenty of other threads on the subject. Resurrect one of them, and leave this thread to dealing with JP related issues?

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

And here we go... :rolleyes: stereotypical responses.

Folks, can we not have a discussion on personal responsibility or personal safety here on this thread. It's a circular argument, and it's extremely divisive. There have been plenty of other threads on the subject. Resurrect one of them, and leave this thread to dealing with JP related issues?

You rambled for 8 pages yesterday about trans people and the dangers of bathroom access. I'd say somebody should remove themselves from their high horse fairly quickly.

nkl12xtw5goz70

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Literally had this debate yesterday, I really don't want to get into bathrooms/changing rooms/athletics again today.

My post was only peripherally about bathrooms, etc.

I'm noting that we can adequately protect the rights of trans individuals without insisting that a gender dysphoric biological male is ontologically female.

The core dispute is over the popular politically correct slogan that "transwomen are women." They are not women. A biological male might identify as female, might wear feminine clothes, take hormones, etc., but he can never actually become female. It's an insult to women when we redefine the very concept of "woman" to include men.

That said, people can be coerced into silence when trans activists (wielding various -ists and -phobics as clubs) insist that 2+2=5.

LineOfBeauty

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

My post was only peripherally about bathrooms, etc.

I'm noting that we can adequately protect the rights of trans individuals without insisting that a gender dysphoric biological male is ontologically female.

The core dispute is over the popular politically correct slogan that "transwomen are women." They are not women. A biological male might identify as female, might wear feminine clothes, take hormones, etc., but he can never actually become female. It's an insult to women when we redefine the very concept of "woman" to include men.

That said, people can be coerced into silence when trans activists (wielding various -ists and -phobics as clubs) insist that 2+2=5.

Dude my post was literally solely about Klaz saying trans people only do it because it's "cool" and to "seek attention" 2 things that I can absolutely assure you in my experience of actually talking to and being friends with different trans people that is absolutely not the case, and thinking it is ludicrous and makes me wonder if Klaz has ever talked to a trans person in real life before (something he hasn't answered).

The more in depth stuff I talked about yesterday (including with you), your messages have just gone off on some tangent that in no way relates to my actual comment.

Gynoid

20Cent wrote: »

A fraction of 1% of the population. The chances of meeting a trans person, noticing they are trans are very slim. Even if you do just be respectful like one should be with everyone. How hard is that!

Hysterical reactions that this is like 1984 is hilarious.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-42221629

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/09/one-50-prisoners-identify-transsexual-first-figures-show-amid/amp/

1 in 50 prisoners in the UK identifies as trans, 1500 people in total.
50% at least of those male bodied people who are in prisons with women are sexual offenders.

Fractions. Very slim. Never happens. All a storm on a tea cup. Flap flap flap shut your silly mouths you silly girls.