Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Havockk

Jesus has Rob Ager moved to this next lol?

No doubt this was a car crash interview and it's a shame that someone better that Cathy Newman had not been pitted against Peterson. I really hope they manage to line up a debate with Zizek, for he will wipe the floor with him.

Pa ElGrande

Havockk wrote: »

Jesus has Rob Ager moved to this next lol?

No doubt this was a car crash interview and it's a shame that someone better that Cathy Newman had not been pitted against Peterson. I really hope they manage to line up a debate with Zizek, for he will wipe the floor with him.

Such an interview might be entertaining, I have doubts that that would actually be the case.

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

RDM_83 again

pitifulgod wrote: »

You'd think by the way people are talking that most of Europe doesn't effectively have healthcare systems that are entirely socialist in nature. Same for education. Versus the incredible costs associated with both in the US.

?

Most of Europe doesn't, they have mixed models where you of your employer is forced to get private insurance and the state may also provides coverage or similar systems.
The NHS is actually one of the most socialistic of the European health systems.

Pa ElGrande

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do-IXJzJhtQ

Radical leftist social justice jihadis banging on the windows in an attempt to intimidate people at a recent Peterson lecture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64MlP8mbJPo

Radio interview a few days afterwards in Australia.

Brian?

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Radical leftist social justice jihadis banging on the windows in an attempt to intimidate people at a recent Peterson lecture.

Social justice jihadis? What a ridiculous insult. Let’s take 2 thing we don’t like and jam together to make a new term.

Pa ElGrande

Brian? wrote: »

Social justice jihadis? What a ridiculous insult. Let’s take 2 thing we don’t like and jam together to make a new term.

It is a valid observation based on the actions and motivations of the some members of radical left, their tactics, their lack of civility and refusal to embrace adulthood. These are not warriors by any traditional understanding of the term and since Jihad is a crusade for a principle or belief it is a more appropriate term.

Havockk

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

It is a valid observation based on the actions and motivations of the some members of radical left, their tactics, their lack of civility and refusal to embrace adulthood. These are not warriors by any traditional understanding of the term and since Jihad is a crusade for a principle or belief it is a more appropriate term.

From Rob Ager to Social justice jihadis... checks out all right!!! LOL

HappyAsLarE

Just watched the latest video of Peterson posted above.

What a man. I hope his words of warning don’t fall on deaf ears. Unfortunately I see many left ideologies becoming a minimum “standard” of belief for the youth.

drillyeye

Very interesting interview.

Sums up current society very well, with one side (in this case) approaching debate with intelligence, wisdom and logic, while the other relies solely on soundbites, rhetoric, division and distraction.

I can only imagine the result if mainstream media were to adopt unbiased representation (at all levels).

It would be an ideological slaughter. But its in the post anyway, so it will be a slaughter. Theres only so long you outrun common sense.

Brian?

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

It is a valid observation based on the actions and motivations of the some members of radical left, their tactics, their lack of civility and refusal to embrace adulthood. These are not warriors by any traditional understanding of the term and since Jihad is a crusade for a principle or belief it is a more appropriate term.

It’s not a “valid observation”. It’s a slur, in a long line of slurs. If you believe in what you’re saying, slurs like that aren’t needed.

Add it to the terms loony left, cuckservative, libertard and Wingnut. They’re a great way to lower the standard of debate and make it into a childish game of name calling.

drillyeye

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Just watched the latest video of Peterson posted above.

What a man. I hope his words of warning don’t fall on deaf ears. Unfortunately I see many left ideologies becoming a minimum “standard” of belief for the youth.

While true to an extent, its simply because that's all they are subjected to. Whether through schools or media.

But its a fools game, because in the end, when they cop onto the realities of life (like "why cant I afford a home? Why cant I get a job?") the answer is staring them in the face, that they've been led wildly astray by left ideology.

Even now there is a ground-swell of pushback amongst young people. A "counter-culture".

After its all said and done, when left/liberalism dies like a wet fart in its current form, I imagine that the very words themselves will be avoided when these parties regroup under sane policy. You wont be seeing "left/liberal" again.

Just to add, I can see that certain words like "liberal" or "progressive" are increasingly met with rolling eyes, not just in my immediate circle, but much wider too. They are becoming dirty words.

professore

Havockk wrote: »

Only a legitimate moron would even think Antifa are fascists. They are literally the OPPOSITE of authoritarian nationalists. As far as the political spectrum goes, it's not possible to get farther away from fascism than anti-fascism.

LOL - It's hard to believe in this day and age that even has to be explained. It's like real life idiocracy.

It's hard to believe that someone can be so ignorant of 20th century history, how all movements that suppress free speech are authoritarian and genocidal in many cases, and how many deaths anti fascist movements have been responsible for - many multiples of the Holocaust.

It's no coincidence both the nazis and the Marxists burned books.

Havockk

professore wrote: »

It's hard to believe that someone can be so ignorant of 20th century history, how all movements that suppress free speech are authoritarian and genocidal in many cases, and how many deaths anti fascist movements have been responsible for - many multiples of the Holocaust.

It's no coincidence both the nazis and the Marxists burned books.

The greatest antifa coalition of all time, the Allies killed a great many Fascists between the years 1939 - 1945.

silverharp

Havockk wrote: »

The greatest antifa coalition of all time, the Allies killed a great many Fascists between the years 1939 - 1945.

they were made of stronger stuff compared to the middle class anti social dweebs that seem to be the backbone of antifa today

Havockk

silverharp wrote: »

they were made of stronger stuff compared to the middle class anti social dweebs that seem to be the backbone of antifa today

<insert matching bland retort here>

Brian?

professore wrote: »

It's hard to believe that someone can be so ignorant of 20th century history, how all movements that suppress free speech are authoritarian and genocidal in many cases, and how many deaths anti fascist movements have been responsible for - many multiples of the Holocaust.

It's no coincidence both the nazis and the Marxists burned books.

I am not arguing with the above. Terrible things were done by people who professed to believe in Marxism, but acted completely contrary to it's basic philosophy.

A large part of Anitfa are made up of anarchists. Are you accusing them of being authoritarian?

Brian?

silverharp wrote: »

they were made of stronger stuff compared to the middle class anti social dweebs that seem to be the backbone of antifa today

Again, the lazy insults completely undermine any serious point you have. Why bother? Why not debate antifa on their merits? Quite frankly, if you spent some time pointing out the issues with the modern Antifa movement, you'd be onto an easy winning.

Instead you, and other posters, call them dweebs, fascists, social justice warriors/jihadis etc. .

Arghus

And she may be fooled into thinking you are a regular human being - instead of a complete psychopath.

Great success.

SeanW

Brian? wrote: »

I am not arguing with the above. Terrible things were done by people who professed to believe in Marxism, but acted completely contrary to it's basic philosophy.

A large part of Anitfa are made up of anarchists. Are you accusing them of being authoritarian?

"Lock em in and burn it down?" If that's not authoritarian, I don't know what is. If anything, it sounds very jihadey.

Brian?

SeanW wrote: »

"Lock em in and burn it down?" If that's not authoritarian, I don't know what is.

It's violent thuggery.

You can't be authoritarian if you don't believe in a central government authority. Which anarchists don't.

I'll wait for someone to argue that authoritarian doesn't mean what is used to mean anymore.

silverharp

Brian? wrote: »

Again, the lazy insults completely undermine any serious point you have. Why bother? Why not debate antifa on their merits? Quite frankly, if you spent some time pointing out the issues with the modern Antifa movement, you'd be onto an easy winning.

Instead you, and other posters, call them dweebs, fascists, social justice warriors/jihadis etc. .

the poster i was responding to compared them to the allies , it forced my contrast. i cant really debate with a bunch of malcontents who wear masks and who seem to have a strange hatred of dumpsters, i dont find anything interesting about them

markodaly

pitifulgod wrote: »

You'd think by the way people are talking that most of Europe doesn't effectively have healthcare systems that are entirely socialist in nature. Same for education. Versus the incredible costs associated with both in the US.

This might be true but Europe is still a Capitalist system first and foremost. Sure there are many methods of re-distribution and strong social safety nets in existence, but to call it Socialist or even Marxist, is not true.

Pure Socialist systems where there are no open capitalism, no free markets are places like Cuba, the Old Soviet Union, China before they reformed. Even modern day Venezuela who tried to Socialise the entire economy ended up destroying it.

markodaly

Havockk wrote: »

Jesus has Rob Ager moved to this next lol?

No doubt this was a car crash interview and it's a shame that someone better that Cathy Newman had not been pitted against Peterson. I really hope they manage to line up a debate with Zizek, for he will wipe the floor with him.

I saw Slavoj Zizek at a talk once. He reminded me of someone who consumed copious amounts of speed, who realised he had a good vocabulary and began to talk and talk and talk, in a type of ramble, where you had no idea what his point was.

Havockk

markodaly wrote: »

I saw Slavoj Zizek at a talk once. He reminded me of someone who consumed copious amounts of speed, who realised he had a good vocabulary and began to talk and talk and talk, in a type of ramble, where you had no idea what his point was.

Aye marko, not surprised you had no idea what his point was.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

Social justice jihadis? What a ridiculous insult. Let’s take 2 thing we don’t like and jam together to make a new term.

Like calling Bannon a Fascist, or Trump a White Supremicist?

Who knew that the upper east side in NY was a hot bed for the Klan.

markodaly

Havockk wrote: »

Aye marko, not surprised you had no idea what his point was.

Oh, believe me, no one did. It was just like he swallowed a thesaurus and began to vomit it out. Terrible terrible communicator. At least someone like Chomsky can communicate. Also, compare and contrast to someone like Peterson. If you cannot effectively communicate your ideas the you need to re-evaluate your methods.

Havockk

markodaly wrote: »

Oh, believe me, no one did. It was just like he swallowed a thesaurus and began to vomit it out. Terrible terrible communicator. At least someone like Chomsky can communicate. Also, compare and contrast to someone like Peterson. If you cannot effectively communicate your ideas the you need to re-evaluate your methods.

Stick to Dr Seuss there horse

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

It’s not a “valid observation”. It’s a slur, in a long line of slurs. If you believe in what you’re saying, slurs like that aren’t needed.

Add it to the terms loony left, cuckservative, libertard and Wingnut. They’re a great way to lower the standard of debate and make it into a childish game of name calling.

Perhaps it isn a slur. However, the left are not exactly shy of using terms like racist, fascist, sexist, islamaphobic as a way to stifle pretty much any debate on the more contentious issues society faces.

Remember back to the George Hook incident? You would swear he killed someone live on air. The progressive's would not have his 3 apologises, he had to fall on his sword.

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

Like calling Bannon a Fascist, or Trump a White Supremicist?

Who knew that the upper east side in NY was a hot bed for the Klan.

I said I was wrong to call Bannon a fascist. Did you miss that?

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

Perhaps it isn a slur. However, the left are not exactly shy of using terms like racist, fascist, sexist, islamaphobic as a way to stifle pretty much any debate on the more contentious issues society faces.

Remember back to the George Hook incident? You would swear he killed someone live on air. The progressive's would not have his 3 apologises, he had to fall on his sword.

"The left" are not some homogeneous group who get together and decide tactics.

Lazy insults and slurs are used by both sides to stifle debate. Wouldn't it be better if everyone stopped? Surely you can't argue with that?

Or maybe you can indulge in more whataboutery and drag the debate down even further. We all have a choice here.