Jordan Peterson interview on C4

sbsquarepants

Franco Baresi55 wrote: »

Blame is the wrong word, neither are to blame for the crime, however one of you needs to be more personally responsible for your own well being.

Exactly. It is complete nonsense to suggest that you have every right to put yourself in harms way and yet expect no harm to come from it.

20Cent wrote: »

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

The analogy applies to any situation where a bit of foresight or self care could have helped.

"Be careful" is never bad advice, but these days suggesting that maybe getting shít faced drunk and staggering through the inner city dressed like hookers is anything other than the birth right of women everywhere and you may as well be wearing a Larry Murphy for President t-shirt.

You should be able to go wherever and do whatever the hell you want without consequence, but you aren't - that's just a stone cold fact of life. Denying that, is at best very stupid and at worst potentially extremely dangerous.

LineOfBeauty

Gynoid wrote: »

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.

How woefully misleading this is. The percentage is lower than what you've made out given that the article says it doesn't account for short stay, likely non sexually related cases and also it makes clear in order for a trans person to be placed in a prison of their gender they need to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate, something that, the article says, is very difficult to get (5 years). It's not a case of a guy walking into court that morning and saying "I identify as a woman."

Actually reading the article from the 1st link it seems to outline that it's mountain out of molehill stuff, basically a non-issue that certain groups try to target in the guise of caring about the welfare of women when in reality it's a not very subtle attack on a vulnerable minority. Weird article to link to when you're trying to make an argument basically against what the article says.

Wibbs

Franco Baresi55 wrote: »

Modern humans may be quite different to humans of 20000 years ago however they clearly haven't adapted to a diet of grains and vegetable oils that we eat today. These foods quite commonly have awful effects on the human body.

"Clearly haven't adapted" is a nonsense, because outside of isolated populations and those with actual food allergies(not the tanorexics claiming one to cover their eating disorders), the adaptations are written into our DNA. We can even date their spread through populations. The Mediterranean diet contains lashings of both and has been proven to be one of the healthier diets out there, by actual science over many decades.

Like I said there's an awful lot of quackery and BroScience and ChickThink around this subject peddled in the media, offline and on, which changes with the breeze. I mean when such nutritional giants as Joe bloody Rogan are wheeled out you know the woo is wooing. Peterson fell for one such example of BroScience woo. Going to Russia and getting put in a coma for a week was the icing on the gluten free, organic animal fat cake.

20Cent

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Exactly. It is complete nonsense to suggest that you have every right to put yourself in harms way and yet expect no harm to come from it.



The analogy applies to any situation where a bit of foresight or self care could have helped.

"Be careful" is never bad advice, but these days suggesting that maybe getting shít faced drunk and staggering through the inner city dressed like hookers is anything other than the birth right of women everywhere and you may as well be wearing a Larry Murphy for President t-shirt.

You should be able to go wherever and do whatever the hell you want without consequence, but you aren't - that's just a stone cold fact of life. Denying that, is at best very stupid and at worst potentially extremely dangerous.

Difference between be careful and saying the victim has some responsibility. Sex offenders often use the same excuse. They were asking for it.

sbsquarepants

20Cent wrote: »

Difference between be careful and saying the victim has some responsibility. Sex offenders often use the same excuse. They were asking for it.

The attacker is always to blame, i don't think i've ever heard anyone argue otherwise.

Bu the fact remains, you ignore danger at your peril.

Stay away from dodgy areas, lock your doors, keep your wits about you - it's all rock solid advice!

Wibbs

Franco Baresi55 wrote: »

Most people today have worse teeth than prior to the agricultural revolution, if we have adapted I would expect that not to be the case.

Common misconception though oft repeated. While there was some shift after the agricultural revolution tooth decay (and jaw development) show their biggest change when sugar became a commodity in 15th century Europe. Death from tooth infections started to be noted in local records, where before it was almost unknown. Before that teeth were much healthier(with some localised differences such as ancient Egypt where the sand in the cereals wore down enamel). Romans and Greeks had pretty good teeth overall and considering the lack of dentists likely better than many people today. Rates of gum disease were also lower.

20Cent

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The attacker is always to blame, i don't think i've ever heard anyone argue otherwise.

Bu the fact remains, you ignore danger at your peril.

Stay away from dodgy areas, lock your doors, keep your wits about you - it's all rock solid advice!

Don't wear makeup or revealing clothes seems to be what Peterson is implying though.

sbsquarepants

20Cent wrote: »

Don't wear makeup or revealing clothes seems to be what Peterson is implying though.

I don't think so. My take on it was what he was saying is that revealing clothes etc will have a certain effect regardless of whether you want them too or not. Merely wanting things to be different, or expecting things to be different doesn't make things different.

It's not a moral or an ethical stance, it's just biological fact.

Tony EH

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.

To be fair, she didn't come off well in that interview and her line of questioning against Peterson's vague shtick was quite poor. I've no doubts she regrets not being better prepared.

But, I understand why she went down that road. It's an easy one to do, when the interviewee spurts out a lot of nebulous waffle and you try and pin them down on just what it is they mean.

The lobster bollocksology is a prime example of that.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

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.

You’re very sore about it being discussed, aren’t you?

B0jangles

Tony EH wrote: »

To be fair, she didn't come off well in that interview and her line of questioning against Peterson's vague shtick was quite poor. I've no doubts she regrets not being better prepared.

But, I understand why she went down that road. It's an easy one to do, when the interviewee spurts out a lot of nebulous waffle and you try and pin them down on just what it is they mean.

The lobster bollocksology is a prime example of that.

She fell right into the classic Peterson trap - he's a great man to say two things close together but not explicitly link them, then when the interviewer says something like 'so you're saying x and y are connected?" he gets super-offended and says he never said that.

https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/961461529555210240?lang=en

See this clip - he links women in the workplace, women wearing makeup, wearing heels, to decreased happiness in the workplace, and to sexual harassment. He explicitly says he's not actually saying these things are linked, but by talking about these things as a group he is effectively linking them.

If he's not, why then is he talking about these things one after another?

Why not say workplace satisfaction is dropping, also keurig coffee machines are on the increase - is pod coffee is making people unhappy?

He leaves it up to the audience to draw the obvious connection but he always leaves himself a degree of plausible deniability.

Tony EH

Franco Baresi55 wrote: »

Most people today have worse teeth than prior to the agricultural revolution, if we have adapted I would expect that not to be the case.

The Mediterranean diet is healthier the the standard western diet, that doesn't mean it's anywhere close to optimal.

Sugar.

Tony EH

B0jangles wrote: »

She fell right into the classic Peterson trap - he's a great man to say two things close together but not explicitly link them, then when the interviewer says something like 'so you're saying x and y are connected?" he gets super-offended and says he never said that.

See this clip - he links women in the workplace, women wearing makeup, wearing heels, to decreased happiness in the workplace, and to sexual harassment. He explicitly says he's not actually saying these things are linked, but by talking about these things as a group he is effectively linking them.

If he's not, why then is he talking about these things one after another?

Why not say workplace satisfaction is dropping, also keurig coffee machines are on the increase - is pod coffee is making people unhappy?

He leaves it up to the audience to draw the obvious connection but he always leaves himself a degree of plausible deniability.

Yes, Peterson's usual line of approach often involves non sequitur leads that can trap the listener into looking for clarification and he's very adept at it. It's a large part of the gig he's created for himself.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

B0jangles wrote: »

She fell right into the classic Peterson trap - he's a great man to say two things close together but not explicitly link them, then when the interviewer says something like 'so you're saying x and y are connected?" he gets super-offended and says he never said that.

https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/961461529555210240?lang=en

See this clip - he links women in the workplace, women wearing makeup, wearing heels, to decreased happiness in the workplace, and to sexual harassment. He explicitly says he's not actually saying these things are linked, but by talking about these things as a group he is effectively linking them.

If he's not, why then is he talking about these things one after another?

Why not say workplace satisfaction is dropping, also keurig coffee machines are on the increase - is pod coffee is making people unhappy?

He leaves it up to the audience to draw the obvious connection but he always leaves himself a degree of plausible deniability.

Wow, Peterson is creepy in that clip. Bone-chilling stuff.

xckjoo

B0jangles wrote: »

She fell right into the classic Peterson trap - he's a great man to say two things close together but not explicitly link them, then when the interviewer says something like 'so you're saying x and y are connected?" he gets super-offended and says he never said that.

https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/961461529555210240?lang=en

See this clip - he links women in the workplace, women wearing makeup, wearing heels, to decreased happiness in the workplace, and to sexual harassment. He explicitly says he's not actually saying these things are linked, but by talking about these things as a group he is effectively linking them.

If he's not, why then is he talking about these things one after another?

Why not say workplace satisfaction is dropping, also keurig coffee machines are on the increase - is pod coffee is making people unhappy?

He leaves it up to the audience to draw the obvious connection but he always leaves himself a degree of plausible deniability.

Jesus he is awful in that clip. Constantly throwing leading questions at the guy and never giving him a chance to reply beyond a single word. All based on the initial, unproven assumption that relationships between men and women are deteriorating at a rapid pace.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

xckjoo wrote: »

Jesus he is awful in that clip. Constantly throwing leading questions at the guy and never giving him a chance to reply beyond a single word. All based on the initial, unproven assumption that relationships between men and women are deteriorating at a rapid pace.

And actually, with what he’s implying there, he’s actually being pretty insulting to men too like the sight of a slick of lipstick or a heeled leg will mean that they can’t control themselves. The Hollywood revelations of two years ago were relentless but that was an environment where it makes sense that sexual harassment thrived. I suspect in most industries, sexual harassment levels are way lower. I worked with many men in my life. The amount of sleazy men I encountered could be counted on one hand with fingers to spare.

Arghus

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Wow, Peterson is creepy in that clip. Bone-chilling stuff.

He comes across as a madman in that clip.

Tony EH

Franco Baresi52 wrote: »

Sugar damages teeth externally, grains damage teeth by binding to vitamins and minerals and preventing the body from using them.

The fossils of farmers and hunter gatheres who lived side by side thousands of years ago show evidence that the farmers teeth were in much poorer condition compared to the hunter gatherers who would have eaten a lot less grains.

Sugar damages teeth externally FIRST. The decay then attacks the inner portions.

However, you stated that people's teeth are worse today. One of the primary reasons for that is our use of sugars in far too much of our food these days.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with Jordan Peterson.

Ulysses Gaze

xckjoo wrote: »

Jesus he is awful in that clip. Constantly throwing leading questions at the guy and never giving him a chance to reply beyond a single word. All based on the initial, unproven assumption that relationships between men and women are deteriorating at a rapid pace.

The full interview is no better. He also rambles a lot in it and really offers no answers. After the makeup clip was released, a lot of his supporters claimed it was selective editing by Vice.

It really wasn't at all.

It wasn't even, as some of his supporters said, a thought experiment.

Peterson is not an intellectual heavyweight by any stretch of the imagination.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

xckjoo wrote: »

Jesus he is awful in that clip. Constantly throwing leading questions at the guy and never giving him a chance to reply beyond a single word. All based on the initial, unproven assumption that relationships between men and women are deteriorating at a rapid pace.

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

The full interview is no better. He also rambles a lot in it and really offers no answers. After the makeup clip was released, a lot of his supporters claimed it was selective editing by Vice.

It really wasn't at all.

It wasn't even, as some of his supporters said, a thought experiment.

Peterson is not an intellectual heavyweight by any stretch of the imagination.

Guys, don’t you get it? We’re too stupid to understand the point he’s making.

Brian?

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 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."

What point do you think Orwell was trying to make in the section you quoted?

Man is woman sounds like newspeak if ever I heard it..

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Man is woman sounds like newspeak if ever I heard it..

Superficially it does.

Without the Totalitarian regime enforcing orthodoxy it doesn't though.

Interesting choice of words..do you think transgenderism is superficial?

Gynoid

Lookit, can we all just agree that in 2020 times are really, really tough

https://twitter.com/bbcthesocial/status/1224664146257620994?s=19

Arghus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Interesting choice of words..do you think transgenderism is superficial?

Clearly that's not what he's saying.

20Cent

Gynoid wrote: »

Lookit, can we all just agree that in 2020 times are really, really tough

Insightful video.
Interesting the problems trans people face which most people would never think about.
Thanks for sharing.

suicide_circus

Gynoid wrote: »

Lookit, can we all just agree that in 2020 times are really, really tough

https://twitter.com/bbcthesocial/status/1224664146257620994?s=19

this level of navel-gazing and self obsession must be exhausting. being that unique and special must take up most of ones day.

Wibbs

Gynoid wrote: »

Lookit, can we all just agree that in 2020 times are really, really tough

https://twitter.com/bbcthesocial/status/1224664146257620994?s=19

Oh for fuk's sake.

Look we all know whinging self involved eejits of all stripes. It's the way of the world. Doesn't mean we need to start kowtowing to them. Best ignored.

As a man with long hair who sometimes goes to a hairdresser that video spoke to me..