Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Havockk

I've just lost a little bit more faith in humanity after the guff that has been the last three pages. Embarrassing stuff lads.

buried

Bambi wrote: »

Anyway back on track to the topic at hand

The class of deluded hysterics that the evil Peterson is oppressing

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

f**inglol

That's like a teaser for a brand new season of 'Brasseye' 21st Century Edition or somethin

"What we want is respectfull debate, now go and get the F**k out of my face!!"

pumpkin4life

buried wrote: »

f**inglol

That's like a teaser for a brand new season of 'Brasseye' 21st Century Edition or somethin

"What we want is respectfull debate, now go and get the F**k out of my face!!"

This is the one thing we didn't want to happen.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Let's start with the proper definition of socialism which is this: All the means of production are in the exclusive control of the organised community. This and this alone is socialism. All other definitions are misleading. The Nazis also had their own interpretation described as Prussian Socialism and outlined in the Guardian by the man himself from a 1923 interview. During their maniacal reign from 1933 to 1945 they took control of Germanys means of production initially by means of price controls and then direct theft, murder and enslavement. The same economic system has happened in our lifetimes in Venezuela with the expected consequences for any regime that degrades private property rights to this extent.

The Nazis didn’t own all, or even most, of the means of production in peace. And during war time no more commanded the economy than Britain. Britain had price controls. And rationing.

Anyway (despite the eliding in your sentence there) price controls don’t lead to theft, murder or enslavement.

What makes the Nazis bad was not price controls anyway but their racism and in that they had more in common with 19C economic liberals than 20C socialists.

This argument is of the variety of Hitler was a vegetarian therefore vegetarianism is a form of, or related to, Nazziism.

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

I never made that claim either. I did say they borrowed heavily on the economic theory from Socialists as per evidence shows us.

The Nazi's were all for an interventionist, planned economy with important industries nationalised, the expansion of the welfare state and with a large emphasis of re-distribution of private profits.

Any modern day socialist would agree with all the above.

No, I wouldn't

Pa ElGrande

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The Nazis didn’t own all, or even most, of the means of production in peace. And during war time no more commanded the economy than Britain. Britain had price controls. And rationing.

Anyway (despite the eliding in your sentence there) price controls don’t lead to theft, murder or enslavement.

What makes the Nazis bad was not price controls anyway but their racism and in that they had more in common with 19C economic liberals than 20C socialists.

This argument is of the variety of Hitler was a vegetarian therefore vegetarianism is a form of, or related to, Nazziism.

Britain had rationing until 1954, while in West Germany it had ended many years before since they had embraced a market economy despite their economy being completely wrecked. Socialism came to Britain in WW II, and they continued with that economic policy until they had to call in the IMF in 1976 and they did not recover until the Thatcher revolution of the 1980s when they closed and offloaded many loss making and inefficient government sponsored enterprises.


Price controls were the lever they used to gain control of the means of production and implement the Wehrwirtschaft.


Leftists Become Incandescent When Reminded of the Socialist Roots in Nazism

In fact, authoritarianism was the common feature of socialists of both National and Leninist varieties, who rushed to stick each other in prison camps or before firing squads. Each faction loathed the other as heretical, but both scorned free-market individualists as beyond redemption. Their battle was all the fiercer, as Hayek pointed out in 1944, because it was a battle between brothers.

As for anti-Semitic racists here is Karl Marx & Friends in their own words

"Every provisional political set-up following a revolution requires a dictatorship, and an energetic dictatorship at that."
- Karl Marx, Neue Rheinische Zeitung 14. Sep. 1848

"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. ... What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man -- and turns them into commodities. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general."
- Karl Marx, "On the Jewish Question", 1844.

"As for slavery, there is no need for me to speak of its bad aspects. The only thing requiring explanation is the good side of slavery. I do not mean indirect slavery, the slavery of proletariat; I mean direct slavery, the slavery of the Blacks in Surinam, in Brazil, in the southern regions of North America. Direct slavery is as much the pivot upon which our present-day industrialism turns as are machinery, credit, etc. Slavery is therefore an economic category of paramount importance."
- Karl Marx to Pavel Vasilyevich Annenkov, (Letter, 28 December 1846)

"...the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terrorism."
- Karl Marx, "The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 7 November 1848.

"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."
- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels "Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung", Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 19, 1849

"This young lady, who instantly overwhelmed me with her kindness, is the ugliest creature I have seen in my entire life, with repulsive Jewish facial features."
- Karl Marx to Antoinette Philips (Letter, 24 March 1861):

"...the Jewish ******, Lassalle... it is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother had not interbred with a ******. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product. The obtrusiveness of the fellow is also ******-like."
- Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels (Letter, July 1862), in reference to his socialist political competitor, Ferdinand Lassalle.

"Russia is a name usurped by the Muscovites. They are not Slavs; they do not belong to the Indo-Germanic race at all, they are des intrus [intruders], who must be chased back across the Dnieper, etc."
- Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels, (Letter, 1865):

"The French need a thrashing. If the Prussians win, the centralisation of the state power will be useful for the centralisation of the German working class. German predominance would also transfer the centre of gravity of the workers' movement in Western Europe from France to Germany, and one has only to compare the movement in the two countries from 1866 till now to see that the German working class is superior to the French both theoretically and organisationally. Their predominance over the French on the world stage would also mean the predominance of our theory over Proudhon's, etc."
- Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels, (Letter, 20 July 1870):

"Well, then, to carry out the principles of socialism do its believers advocate assassination and bloodshed? 'No great movement,' Karl [Marx] answered, 'has ever been inaugurated Without Bloodshed.'"
- Interview with Karl Marx, Chicago Tribune, 5 January 1879:

Source

Professor Moriarty

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Britain had rationing until 1954, while in West Germany it had ended many years before since they had embraced a market economy despite their economy being completely wrecked. Socialism came to Britain in WW II, and they continued with that economic policy until they had to call in the IMF in 1976 and they did not recover until the Thatcher revolution of the 1980s when they closed and offloaded many loss making and inefficient government sponsored enterprises.


Price controls were the lever they used to gain control of the means of production and implement the Wehrwirtschaft.


Leftists Become Incandescent When Reminded of the Socialist Roots in Nazism




As for anti-Semitic racists here is Karl Marx & Friends in their own words

And your conclusion is?

Pa ElGrande

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

And your conclusion is?

Socialism as an economic system is a proven failure and as the most recent example from Venezuela shows socialism can be put into practice by methods which most socialists here disapprove. As I pointed out previously most mainstream democratic socialists are not willing to go that far, however the radical left if given the opportunity will absolutely go there.

Professor Moriarty

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Socialism as an economic system is a proven failure and as the most recent example from Venezuela shows socialism can be put into practice by methods which most socialists here disapprove. As I pointed out previously most mainstream democratic socialists are not willing to go that far, however the radical left if given the opportunity will absolutely go there.

Okay. And all the stuff about 'leftists', Marx and Jews? What's the point of all that?

Pa ElGrande

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Okay. And all the stuff about 'leftists', Marx and Jews? What's the point of all that?

There was an inference that the Nazis racism had more in common with 19th century liberals. The irony being Karl Marx own racism would not have been out of place in the Nazi party.

Professor Moriarty

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

There was an inference that the Nazis racism had more in common with 19th century liberals. The irony being Karl Marx own racism would not have been out of place in the Nazi party.

Indeed. Racism is racism left, right or centre.

Brian?

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

There was an inference that the Nazis racism had more in common with 19th century liberals. The irony being Karl Marx own racism would not have been out of place in the Nazi party.

Just to be clear. Racism or anti Semitism?

I can argue he wasn’t particularly prejudiced against Jews, he supported their political emancipation within Germany. In fact he argued against Bauer’s position that German Jews needed to renounce Judaism to achieve political emancipation. Marx did want Jews to renounce Judaism and concentrate on the emancipation of all Germans. But he also wanted Christians to renounce Christianity and Muslims to renounce Islam.

Pa ElGrande

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B74WowudoFg

Jordan Peterson advances an idea that the established media is driving polarisation since it's traditional audience is moving away from it.

Professor Moriarty

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B74WowudoFg

Jordan Peterson advances an idea that the established media is driving polarisation since it's traditional audience is moving away from it.

That interview is an hour and twenty minutes long. Won't be watching.

If that's the essential point then I disagree. It's because its audience is moving away (Facebook, Twitter etc.) that the mainstream media is becoming more polarised.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

No, I wouldn't

Your not a socialist though, you are a socialist libertarian who doesn't believe in any state.

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

Your not a socialist though, you are a socialist libertarian who doesn't believe in any state.

LIbertarian socialist.

Brian?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That interview is an hour and twenty minutes long. Won't be watching.

If that's the essential point then I disagree. It's because its audience is moving away (Facebook, Twitter etc.) that the mainstream media is becoming more polarised.

Agreed. The traditional media at least attempt to fact check reports. People who get their news from Facebook and Twitter fall deeper into echo chambers.

markodaly

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B74WowudoFg

Jordan Peterson advances an idea that the established media is driving polarisation since it's traditional audience is moving away from it.

I would be very sympathetic to this argument. Traditional media is a shadow of itself, so to compete in this information rich world, it has to hype and sensationalise everything. The reaction to Trump is proof alone of that.

However, more and more people are just tuning out.

Havockk

markodaly wrote: »

I would be very sympathetic to this argument. Traditional media is a shadow of itself, so to compete in this information rich world, it has to hype and sensationalise everything. The reaction to Trump is proof alone of that.

However, more and more people are just tuning out.

Watching an hour and 20's worth in 18minutes. Quare horsepower there

markodaly

Havockk wrote: »

Watching an hour and 20's worth in 18minutes. Quare horsepower there

I was responding to the comment, not the video.

JRant

Brian? wrote: »

LIbertarian socialist.

Splitter

Havockk

markodaly wrote: »

I was responding to the comment, not the video.

You're absolutely right, I've just had another wee read and I can't argue with that. I'll have to give ye a free dig for that one

pumpkin4life

Brian? wrote: »

LIbertarian socialist.

El_Duderino 09

I listened to Peterson's podcast today. It was his latest one about a message to school shooters. He just read a chapter from his book but it was all linked to God or bible stories. All the stories seemed to circle around to acting out due to rejection of God.

Are all his podcasts that way inclined? Is Peterson religious and is his philosophy based on a god?

Manic Moran

Saw his talk at Queens University posted two days ago, about Compelled Speech. The protesters basically did a lot of his work for him. (And they need to re-think what their security guards do).

He really needs to drop the whole "It's the ultra-leftist conspiracy" shtick. It turns off people from what he has to say, which is often quite thought-provoking and would be just as supportable on its own merits without the name-calling. I especially cannot, for example, fault his response to the question by a student concerned about receiving a lower grade from a professor of different opinion.

NinetyTwoTeam

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B74WowudoFg

Jordan Peterson advances an idea that the established media is driving polarisation since it's traditional audience is moving away from it.

That interview is an hour and twenty minutes long. Won't be watching.

If that's the essential point then I disagree. It's because its audience is moving away (Facebook, Twitter etc.) that the mainstream media is becoming more polarised.

no, you would be agreeing actually, your last statement is pretty much what he is saying.

Professor Moriarty

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

no, you would be agreeing actually, your last statement is pretty much what he is saying.

I wondered about that. You could interpret it both ways.

pumpkin4life

Manic Moran wrote: »

Saw his talk at Queens University posted two days ago, about Compelled Speech. The protesters basically did a lot of his work for him. (And they need to re-think what their security guards do).

He really needs to drop the whole "It's the ultra-leftist conspiracy" shtick. It turns off people from what he has to say, which is often quite thought-provoking and would be just as supportable on its own merits without the name-calling. I especially cannot, for example, fault his response to the question by a student concerned about receiving a lower grade from a professor of different opinion.

His book and YouTube channel are exploding in popularity right now. Close to 1 million subscribers and number one in a good few Europe book charts right now. Even my nan has heard of him like and shes not a big reader like. I'm not sure how many people he's actually turning off, though I agree, his "well its all down to the postmodernists like Lacan and Derrida" is a bit simplistic. He's right on how corrupt they are, but this shìte goes back a while, maybe even centuries. And maybe, from a Jungian point of view, you could argue that the collective unconsciousness had a demand for these kind of crazy philosophical positions so want for beliefs which tell you everything is permissable, lead to a bunch of french cùnts in your education system.

The lower grade thing is something I have a problem with though. The education system (non-STEM) is a fùcking joke, a corrupt mess, so much so that if you don't play the game, then your GPA gets destroyed and the job market get that bit more unpleasant for you. So your job prospects are fùcked, but you told the truth right?

I guess my point is that I wish Peterson would put more emphasis on the fact that telling the truth can destroy you. If you're a 150 IQ tenured ex Harvard Professor with your own clinical practice, sure you can afford to do that, but a lot of other people? Not so much.

Telling the truth is something you should do though, no doubt, and he's right, but there's a bit more to it than that.

evolving_doors

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I listened to Peterson's podcast today. It was his latest one about a message to school shooters. He just read a chapter from his book but it was all linked to God or bible stories. All the stories seemed to circle around to acting out due to rejection of God.

Are all his podcasts that way inclined? Is Peterson religious and is his philosophy based on a god?

Icons and repeated themes in myths ledgends from folklore... bible ... all the way to Harry potter.

I think he refuses to be drawn on religious affiliation.

Just tidy up yer goddam bedroom.

El_Duderino 09

evolving_doors wrote: »

Icons and repeated themes in myths ledgends from folklore... bible ... all the way to Harry potter.

I think he refuses to be drawn on religious affiliation.

Just tidy up yer goddam bedroom.

I’ve since watched him speak about religion in a few videos and he has an interesting way of talking for ages without actually answering the question. He slags off ‘new’ atheists for not thinking deeply enough about the question of god. Then goes on to muddy the waters by including transcendent things like love and hate and anger as evidence of ‘Something ‘.

I wondered if he was taking the p1ss out of his followers.

Listening to him waffle-on left me very sceptical of the rest of his preaching. But I’m going to give his podcasts another go.