Jordan Peterson interview on C4

20Cent

stunmer wrote: »

Haha! The paragraph you quoted from the article literally does exactly the same as the Cathy Newman did in the interview. It plainly misrepresents Jordan Petersen in a way to try to discredit him.

Replace the bolded bits above with "So what you're saying is" and you have another typical Cathy Newman style bullsh*t response.

It's a summary if Peterson's main points. Do you disagree?

yosser hughes

20Cent wrote: »

Good article lays out the arguments against Peterson.

Is Jordan Peterson the stupid man’s smart person?
http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/

Last paragraph sums up this thread:

What he’s telling you is that certain people—most of them women and minorities—are trying to destroy not only our freedom to spite nonbinary university students for kicks, but all of Western civilization and the idea of objective truth itself. He’s telling you that when someone tells you racism is still a problem and that something should be done about it, they are, at best, a dupe and, at worst, part of a Marxist conspiracy to destroy your way of life.

It's not a 'good' article, that's your opinion. The 'article' as you call it; does nothing to counter or even engage with Peterson's points.
To counter it, have a look at the below:

Charmeleon

The author of that article doesn’t seem to understand the concept of a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are specifically about secret plans and plotting to change the course of events. Marxists and other far-left travelers are extremely open about wanting to dismantle state institutions and traditions while undermining popular value systems. Unlike the ‘patriarchy’ which is a genuine paranoid conspiracy theory which insists men are doing this covertly to retain or regain their supposed grip on power to the exclusion of women.

Fr Tod Umptious

professore wrote: »

When my daughter was 15 her history teacher told them about the idea of socialism and how everyone got an "equal" share of everything etc and asked how many in the class thought that was a good system. Most of the class did, but she didn't and said it would never work as no one would be motivated to do anything. She hit the nail on the head IMO.

I bust my ass working trying to build a business and better myself - under any other system I'd stop doing that and just do as little as possible - as would 99% of people. It's human nature.

What's even worse is that under any other system if I did manage to make some money, the state would wade in and take it off me and give it to some bums sitting on their ass all day (in the ideal version) or in the real world version distribute it among the party apparatchiks and haul me off to the salt mines as an "enemy of the people".

IMO Ireland is already quite a socialist country - lots of handouts if you do nothing and lots of taxes if you do.

Caught the last few minutes of Question Time on BBC last night.

Last question was a about whether it was right that Alexis Sanchez a soccer player who moved to Manchester Utd from Arsenal this week gets paid £600k a week.

As it was the last question they just do a quick around the table and get a one sentence answer from each person on the panel.

One lady on the panel (no idea who she was) basically shouted
"There should be a commission on high pay, because high pay drives inequality"

And I thought to myself, "what a load of complete and utter rubbish"

Why should ones hard work and dedication not be rewarded at the level the market decides.

tritium

Brian? wrote: »

Tucker Carlson is a nasty piece of work. He’s not really a white supremacist, but he loves some identity politics. The GOP invented identity politics, lest we forget.

So the other poster was incorrect to use that term.


With respect to identity politics, regarding who invented it, the best answer I can find is that it’s was developed by the civil rights movement in the 70s. Either way, it’s become a tool for actors on all sides. Elements of the left have shown a particular propensity for it in recent years though the current US political model is such a cluster**** that everyone looks to be at it

Brian?

tritium wrote: »

So the other poster was incorrect to use that term.

Yes. That's why I said it.

With respect to identity politics, regarding who invented it, the best answer I can find is that it’s was developed by the civil rights movement in the 70s. Either way, it’s become a tool for actors on all sides. Elements of the left have shown a particular propensity for it in recent years though the current US political model is such a cluster**** that everyone looks to be at it

Look harder. It was the GOP in the 60s as a reaction to the civil rights movement. It started with Nixon's campaign using the southern strategy.

JMNolan

Brian? wrote: »

Look harder. It was the GOP in the 60s as a reaction to the civil rights movement. It started with Nixon's campaign using the southern strategy.

I looked harder, the GOP is mentioned no where here https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/

Earthhorse

Intothesea wrote: »

I have to wonder why Peterson is not making any attempt to analyse the reasons for and not just the apparent identity and effect of the movements he complains about. Also, common psychological sense would inform him that pure facts and logic can't win any ostensible wars against an ideological enemy. For that, there must be some compassion, and some positive regard for what the other side is responding to. Could Peterson be setting the west up for more polarization? Could his motivations be less than pure?

It's almost as if he is so caught up in the false dichotomy of left-right politics that he can't bring himself to blame the right for anything or else he knows his goose is cooked if he does or he just isn't the intellectual heavyweight he seems to believe he is.

Charmeleon

Brian? wrote: »

Yes. That's why I said it.



Look harder. It was the GOP in the 60s as a reaction to the civil rights movement. It started with Nixon's campaign using the southern strategy.

That's more your common or garden scapegoating and race baiting. Identity politics encourages people to perceive oppression everywhere they look due to the social group they belong to.

tritium

Brian? wrote: »

Yes. That's why I said it.



Look harder. It was the GOP in the 60s as a reaction to the civil rights movement. It started with Nixon's campaign using the southern strategy.

I assure you I’ve looked quite hard. Your view is not a common one even among the left

Professor Moriarty

tritium wrote: »

I assure you I’ve looked quite hard. Your view is not a common one even among the left

What's a "left"?

tritium

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What's a "left"?

Usually the left are considered to be ideological opposites to the right......,

professore

Brian? wrote: »

professore wrote: »

When my daughter was 15 her history teacher told them about the idea of socialism and how everyone got an "equal" share of everything etc and asked how many in the class thought that was a good system. Most of the class did, but she didn't and said it would never work as no one would be motivated to do anything. She hit the nail on the head IMO.

I bust my ass working trying to build a business and better myself - under any other system I'd stop doing that and just do as little as possible - as would 99% of people. It's human nature.

What's even worse is that under any other system if I did manage to make some money, the state would wade in and take it off me and give it to some bums sitting on their ass all day (in the ideal version) or in the real world version distribute it among the party apparatchiks and haul me off to the salt mines as an "enemy of the people".

IMO Ireland is already quite a socialist country - lots of handouts if you do nothing and lots of taxes if you do.

So you have a fundamental misunderstanding of socialism, therefore it doesn’t work?

Ireland isn’t a socialist country. The Irish state massively authoritarian. We still haven’t shaken off the yoke of the Catholic Churche’s influence on public policy.

I’ll say it again, the goal is a stateless society. No central authority. No coercion.

Socialism is authoritarian.
A stateless society? How's that going to work?

professore

20Cent wrote: »

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMrFgVVMqto

Professor makes uncomfortable observation of the Left: Any statement must be gauged not only on the basis of its truth-value, but on the basis of whether it is likely to offended perceived victims.

White supremacist Tucker Carlson is s fan big suprise.
Tell the truth, don't let your kids be assholes (Tucker nods his head and says very smart) his main piece of advice "pay attention to what you say". Like I said he states the bleedin obvious as if its some amazing insight he's discovered. The stupid persons smart person indeed.

Who is the smart person's smart person in your opinion then?

professore

20Cent wrote: »

My toddler spilt my coffee when he slammed his copy of the complete works of Beckett onto the table and announced that capitalism is not working.

That's the intellectual level we are dealing with ladies and gentlemen.

Brian?

professore wrote: »

Socialism is authoritarian.

No it isn’t.

A stateless society? How's that going to work?

Brilliantly.

Why am I responding to these same questions repeatedly. Can no one google anything? Even a cursory Wikipedia would do the job.

pumpkin4life

Brian? wrote: »

No it isn’t.



Brilliantly.

Why am I responding to these same questions repeatedly. Can no one google anything? Even a cursory Wikipedia would do the job.

No you're wrong. You're getting the terms mixed up again.

Socialism is the social ownership of economic productivity and the redistribution of resources for each according to their needs, in theory. Who chooses that? Who chooses where my money goes? The government? That is by the very definition of the word authoritarian. What you're thinking of is a communist society, where socialism makes the transition from socialism/the dictatorship of the proletariat to the stateless society, in the Marxist sense.

Professor Moriarty

tritium wrote: »

Usually the left are considered to be ideological opposites to the right......,

So what ideologies does a left have?

mariaalice

To me the nub of the matter is the difference between evidence and proof plus rationalisations in our modern society wants to eliminate any indeterminate and ambiguous elements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygmunt_Bauman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_modernity

Brian?

pumpkin4life wrote: »

No you're wrong. You're getting the terms mixed up again.

Socialism is the social ownership of economic productivity and the redistribution of resources for each according to their needs, in theory. Who chooses that? Who chooses where my money goes? The government? That is by the very definition of the word authoritarian. What you're thinking of is a communist society, where socialism makes the transition from socialism/the dictatorship of the proletariat to the stateless society, in the Marxist sense.

No. It’s not.

tritium

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So what ideologies does a left have?

Why are you asking about a left rather than the left?

pumpkin4life

Brian? wrote: »

No. It’s not.

Fine. Let's take a look at the definition of socialism from Webster's dictionary.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Definition of socialism:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods <- See above.

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property <- Private property is by definition, distinguishable from public property in that it is not owned by the state.

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. <- Fairly black and white this one.

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done <- What I said.

Like I said, you're advocating communism, not socialism.

Brian?

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Fine. Let's take a look at the definition of socialism from Webster's dictionary.

Definition of socialism:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods <- See above.

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property <- Private property is by definition, distinguishable from public property in that it is not owned by the state.

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. <- Fairly black and white this one.

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done <- What I said.

Like I said, you're advocating communism, not socialism.

I am advocating libertarian socialism.

The definitions above don’t take the anti authoritarian strands of socialism into account at all.

I’ve explained this all before. On this thread.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

Right. So you believe societies can only be organized through coercion?

Not at all but how does Socialism work without a state.
You said that socialists want a stateless society but how do we get there?

It seems you are just a libertarian but don't have the guts to call yourself one so stick, socialism on it to make yourself feel better about your choice.

Professor Moriarty

tritium wrote: »

Why are you asking about a left rather than the left?

Just because. What are the ideologies of the left?

s7ryf3925pivug

Genuine stateless post-scarcity Communism isn't possible without huge advances in technology and society. Maybe even then people just aren't going to organise themselves that way. In any real terms for the here and now the term is synonymous with police states such as the former Soviet Union.

tritium

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Just because. What are the ideologies of the left?

Which flavor of the left for a start? It’s not exactly a single homogenous concept, as you may already be aware

Edit: same rule applies the concept of ‘the right’

Professor Moriarty

tritium wrote: »

Which flavor of the left for a start? It’s not exactly a single homogenous concept, as you may already be aware

Edit: same rule applies the concept of ‘the right’

You said this:

"I assure you I’ve looked quite hard. Your view is not a common one even among the left"

What are the ideologies of "the left"?

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

Not at all but how does Socialism work without a state.
You said that socialists want a stateless society but how do we get there?

It seems you are just a libertarian but don't have the guts to call yourself one so stick, socialism on it to make yourself feel better about your choice.

It seems to me that you’ve no idea what you’re talking about. I am a libertarian. A libertarian socialist.

s7ryf3925pivug

Thread should be renamed 'glossary of political terms'