Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Brian?

Stoneriver wrote: »

You say women need a leg up and yet also complain that people say women are getting promotions because of their gender.

Personally I think women are just as capable as men and don't need a leg up in western society.

The most significant sexism in western society is against men.

I said people are saying women are getting promoted due to their gender, but there is no truth to it.

I don’t know if I’m being unclear or people are purposely misinterpreting what I’m saying.

Women need “a leg up”, not because they aren’t as capable as men. But because they is still a hang over cultural sexism. Especially in the STEM sectors.

Men who use positive discrimination as a reason for their own failures are abdicating responsibility for their own performance in my experience. They need to own their own destiny as Dr Peterson would say.

Brian?

Wibbs wrote: »

and hopefully they don't replace it with one of their own. Which tends to be the case historically. Every generation thinks they're right. But not for long.

Hopefully. If not, the generation after will fix it. Which also tends to be the case historically.

Pepefrogok

Brian? wrote: »

Childish name calling. Cop on.

Hang on a minute! I am maybe calling you out on some backwards thinking and opinion but I never called you names in the post you quoted! To be honest it's possible I am being hard on you but it just annoyed me to see people thinking women are week and have no agency and need lifted up by men like you! The world's changing mate, come with us or be left behind!

Brian?

Pepefrogok wrote: »

Hang on a minute! I am maybe calling you out on some backwards thinking and opinion but I never called you names in the post you quoted! To be honest it's possible I am being hard on you but it just annoyed me to see people thinking women are week and have no agency and need lifted up by men like you! The world's changing mate, come with us or be left behind!

In the past 2 pages you have called my posts misogynistic, condescending and compared me to a Neanderthal. That’s name calling.

I never said women were weak. You filled in the gaps with your own bias.

Pepefrogok

Brian? wrote: »

I said people are saying women are getting promoted due to their gender, but there is no truth to it.

I don’t know if I’m being unclear or people are purposely misinterpreting what I’m saying.

Women need “a leg up”, not because they aren’t as capable as men. But because they is still a hang over cultural sexism. Especially in the STEM sectors.

Men who use positive discrimination as a reason for their own failures are abdicating responsibility for their own performance in my experience. They need to own their own destiny as Dr Peterson would say.

Wow wow wow hoss! Who are you to tell women what field they should be involved in? Women are choosing to gravitate more towards the social sciences and care professions, girls and boys have equal access to STEM classes when compulsory at second level education then when down to their own choose to peruse it or not, why do you feel like you have to be a white night and guide them towards somthing they do not want? Does it make you feel better? Always a freking man pushing women around, just let them do what they want ffs. I am starting to notice a trend with you and how you view women like they are week and need you to guide them and lift them up.

Brian?

Pepefrogok wrote: »

Wow wow wow hoss! Who are you to tell women what field they should be involved in? Women are choosing to gravitate more towards the social sciences and care professions, girls and boys have equal access to STEM classes when compulsory at second level education then when down to their own choose to peruse it or not, why do you feel like you have to be a white night and guide them towards somthing they do not want? Does it make you feel better? Always a freking man pushing women around, just let them do what they want ffs. I am starting to notice a trend with you and how you view women like they are week and need you to guide them and lift them up.

I see what you did there. You’re responding to an imaginary post I didn’t write. Well done.

irishguitarlad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwXAB6cICG0&t=136s

A great video. Shows up Peterson for what he is.

cantdecide

irishguitarlad wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwXAB6cICG0&t=136s

A great video. Shows up Peterson for what he is.

For those that have something better to do on a Friday night, the speaker quite rightly observes some mental gymnastics on JP's part relating a Peterson own-brand version of 'truth' and features a stream where he tries and fails to evade the question of his belief in the resurrection. He goes on to conclude that JP has a "new age Christianity" agenda. Seems to hold up. Worth a watch. I subbed to the channel.

cantdecide

A "new age Christian apologist".

EDIT: it should be said that there should be a distinction between his psychological and philosophical commentary - he's a psychology professor, not a philosopher.

The Bishop Basher

robindch wrote: »

he said he was going to refer to transgender people by whatever pronoun he wanted to, because otherwise, his right to free speech was being denied.

You obviously only heard what you wanted to hear. Either that or you didn't understand his point. Either way your imaginary dialogue only serves to further demonstrate your lack of understanding of the issue.

His problem is with being compelled by law to use specific pronouns which may be chosen at random by any one of the 58 and growing number of "genders".

Now maybe you're ok with that but I would have an issue if our government tried to compel me by law to address people by specific pronouns especially when, along with their gender identity, they get to make up those pronouns pretty much any way they please.

I would certainly consider that an infringement of my "right" to free speech.

robindch wrote: »

Haven't listened to more than, I suppose, an hour's worth of his output

Maybe that explains why you've completely misunderstood the issue although to be fair 10 minutes should be enough to gain a decent understanding of his position on this regardless of whether you agree with it or not.

irishguitarlad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVeoYnQBuuM Another good critique of Peterson. As for the person who asked me what is he, he is a new age Deepak Chopra who uses post modernist techniques whilst debating to avoid questioning on his ideas. Which is funny because he supposedly hates post-modernism.

Dyr

irishguitarlad wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwXAB6cICG0&t=136s

A great video. Shows up Peterson for what he is.

Watched two minutes and the hippy english guy straight off the bat misrepresented a statement, called it a day. This is why the likes of Peterson only do live interviews, so they can't be editorialized by someone who edits and redefines statements

backspin.

irishguitarlad wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVeoYnQBuuM Another good critique of Peterson. As for the person who asked me what is he, he is a new age Deepak Chopra who uses post modernist techniques whilst debating to avoid questioning on his ideas. Which is funny because he supposedly hates post-modernism.

What exactly is your gripe against him. What harm is he doing in your eyes?

Pepefrogok

backspin. wrote: »

What exactly is your gripe against him. What harm is he doing in your eyes?

Honestly the reason some don't like him is because he is not on message for the progressives, it really is that simple! Look at the people here who don't like him, do you think it's just coincidence they are also liberal progressive sorts? You will find progressives are very intolerant people really if you break from their script.

irishguitarlad

Pepefrogok wrote: »

Honestly the reason some don't like him is because he is not on message for the progressives, it really is that simple! Look at the people here who don't like him, do you think it's just coincidence they are also liberal progressive sorts? You will find progressives are very intolerant people really if you break from their script.

I wouldn't call myself a progressive liberal and I actually like some of what Peterson says and his stand in Canada against the people who were trying to oust him is admirable. However he sorely misrepresents ideas by writers or thinkers like Orwell, Marx, Darwin and Derrida.

irishguitarlad

I also liked his idea that if your trying to break a bad habit think about yourself with that bad habit in five years time. It's a good idea because sometimes what people need to do to break a cycle is to get really scared. A bit like the once bitten twice as shy expression.

Wibbs

irishguitarlad wrote: »

However he sorely misrepresents ideas by writers or thinkers like Orwell, Marx, Darwin and Derrida.

IMHO putting a pretentious ballsology producing wanker like Derrida in that list does a great disservice to the other names.

irishguitarlad

Wibbs wrote: »

IMHO putting a pretentious ballsology producing wanker like Derrida in that list does a great disservice to the other names.

Haha yeah derrida wouldn't be my auld cup of tea at all.

JRant

Wibbs wrote: »

IMHO putting a pretentious ballsology producing wanker like Derrida in that list does a great disservice to the other names.

Can anyone "understand" Derrida really?
Complete mumbo jumbo as far as I can tell.

markodaly

robindch wrote: »

The funniest bit - or most annoying bit depending on taste - was that angry news report (I'm sure it's linked to above) in which he said he was going to refer to transgender people by whatever pronoun he wanted to, because otherwise, his right to free speech was being denied.

Well I see that your open minded about him, not! LOL

He is on recored many times about this. He does not want the Canadian government compelling him to use certain pronouns for the sake of it, however he did say many times that if a student asked him respectively as an adult to refer to them with a certain pronoun he would comply.

There is a difference but then again nuance and context are probably alien to yourself.

markodaly

Swanner wrote: »

Maybe that explains why you've completely misunderstood the issue although to be fair 10 minutes should be enough to gain a decent understanding of his position on this regardless of whether you agree with it or not.

Ignore him, he is one of those Atheists.

20Cent

If universities have been churning out radical marxists since the 60's how come there is no left wing party worth noting in the US?

markodaly

20Cent wrote: »

If universities have been churning out radical marxists since the 60's how come there is no left wing party worth noting in the US?

Where does power lie in the US?

20Cent

markodaly wrote: »

Where does power lie in the US?

The house, the senate the presidency, even local government all dominated by right wing parties. The socialists get a tiny percentage of votes.

cantdecide

20Cent wrote: »

The house, the senate the presidency, even local government all dominated by right wing parties. The socialists get a tiny percentage of votes.

Obama believed that the gender wage gap was a real problem that needed to be dealt with. This is astonishing and a symptom of the problem with the power of the leftist lobby in the state.

This video has some relevance to the thread and to the point at hand after you get past the clickbaity title.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r3H9--2nS0

Brian?

cantdecide wrote: »

Obama believed that the gender wage gap was a real problem that needed to be dealt with. This is astonishing and a symptom of the problem with the power of the leftist lobby in the state.

This video has some relevance to the thread and to the point at hand after you get past the clickbaity title.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r3H9--2nS0

That’s not an answer to the question 20cent asked. It’s a point I’ve made repeatedly in many threads now. Some people claim Universities are Marxist indoctrination centers, if they are they’re terrible at it. There is no viable left in the US.

The House, Senate and presidency are all GOP controllered. The Supreme Court is headed that way. The majority of governors and state governments are GOP controlled. The indoctrination is failing abysmally.

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

Where does power lie in the US?

Where do you think it lies?

I think it currently lies with right wing lobbyists. Like he Koch brothers, the NRA, the Heritage foundation and so on. The next most influential group are evangelicals.

The house, the senate and th presidency are all GOP. Delivered largely by the millions of dollars spent by the groups above.

Dyr

cantdecide wrote: »

Obama believed that the gender wage gap was a real problem that needed to be dealt with. This is astonishing and a symptom of the problem with the power of the leftist lobby in the state.

This video has some relevance to the thread and to the point at hand after you get past the clickbaity title.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r3H9--2nS0

Or you could just watch the original video (it's up on youtube and runs for over an hour ) rather than have the goonie beard kid edit it down to 5 minutes and mix it with his guff.:)

Charmeleon

20Cent wrote: »

If universities have been churning out radical marxists since the 60's how come there is no left wing party worth noting in the US?

Before the early 90s, U.S. universities leaned a little left but had a lot more diversity than they do now. The major ideological lurch to the far left happened in the late 90s up to today. The radical left is mostly centered around the humanities. Technology, engineering and business graduates are a much more rounded and reasonable bunch. Likewise, most blue collar workers that you would think would lean left, don’t. They work hard and don’t particularly like slackers or carrying other people’s load. They vote more to the centre left or centre right than the far left.

markodaly

20Cent wrote: »

The house, the senate the presidency, even local government all dominated by right wing parties. The socialists get a tiny percentage of votes.

Even if you were right, why is it that voters reject socialistic policies?

Note, that the left today in the US are not really engaged that much on the economic argument, like no one talks about Marx or any of that nonsense, they have instead focused on sexism, feminism and racism almost exclusively. There is a reason why more working class people in the US vote for the GOP. There is a reason why the rust belt, the old democratic stronghold, voted for Trump the last time out. They focused too much on all the 'ism's and intersectionality not enough on the real world and struggles of the working class.