Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Pero_Bueno

What a total c*nt that interviewer is !!!

Typical moronic lefty

El_Duderino 09

johnp001 wrote: »

Start the Week
Jordan Peterson on BBC radio 4 talking with a few others about 12 rules book.
Louise O'Neill comes across as spectacularly unselfaware.
Peterson doesn't get to say much but it was laughable when Peterson rejected some insinuations on the basis that they were unsupported by evidence but the insinuator defended his position by saying that Peterson couldn't prove that no evidence did exist.

Did she come across as unselfaware? She didn’t say much so which bits did you see as unselfaware?

Peterson didn’t offer an opinion on anything unless he was asked a direct question. But he did say there was ‘not a shred of evidence’ that right wing, angry white men are latching on to his message, then he straight away said that they do in fact latch on to his message and he has to keep telling them that he’s not one of them.

His whole schtick in that interview seems to be refusing to agree with anyone. He never offered an opinion unless asked a direct question, and then he would disagree with the question. Or say he’s only making an observation and he doesn’t endorse an idea when pressed something that suits the agenda but isn’t easy to support. The inherited systems is an example of that.

Arne_Saknussem

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

But he did say there was ‘not a shred of evidence’ that right wing, angry white men are latching on to his message, then he straight away said that they do in fact latch on to his message and he has to keep telling them that he’s not one of them.

What he said:

"People make the assumption that there is a disproportionate number of extremists among my followers, i don't think there's a shred of evidence for that"

"Well i think that because i've taken a stand against the radical left that it's been convenient for an equally reprehensible right wingers to assume i'm one of theirs but i'm not...and i'm an absolute opponent of identity politics whether it's played out on the left or on the right"

Outlaw Pete

Everytime that interviewer spoke to Louise it sounded like he was slowly stroking her face and gazing into her eyes.

El_Duderino 09

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

But he did say there was ‘not a shred of evidence’ that right wing, angry white men are latching on to his message, then he straight away said that they do in fact latch on to his message and he has to keep telling them that he’s not one of them.

What he said:

"People make the assumption that there is a disproportionate number of extremists among my followers, i don't think there's a shred of evidence for that"

"Well i think that because i've taken a stand against the radical left that it's been convenient for an equally reprehensible right wingers to assume i'm one of theirs but i'm not...and i'm an absolute opponent of identity politics whether it's played out on the left or on the right"

Because of his stance against the radical left it's convenient for radical right wingers to latch on. He breaks left wing Identity politics down in detail and sells books telling everyone why it's wrong, then in s throwaway line like above he says he's equally opposed to right wing Identity politics.

I don't suppose his flock has noticed that he's selling the message that women and gays and other races playing the victim is wrong for xyz reasons... the straight white man is the real victim. He's selling self help books to a particular identity, while railing against identity politics.

Arne_Saknussem

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Because of his stance against the radical left it's convenient for radical right wingers to latch on. He breaks left wing Identity politics down in detail and sells books telling everyone why it's wrong, then in s throwaway line like above he says he's equally opposed to right wing Identity politics.

I don't suppose his flock has noticed that he's selling the message that women and gays and other races playing the victim is wrong for xyz reasons... the straight white man is the real victim. He's selling self help books to a particular identity, while railing against identity politics.

I believe he's done videos on the dangers of right wing extremism. He's been quoted as saying that boys and young men particularly are in crisis and are refusing to grow up and that's who the book is aimed at. Which has got nothing to do with identity politics.

I don't agree with everything he has to say but i do think it's funny that almost everyone looking to have a go at him misquotes what he says, like your Cathy Newman moment above.

El_Duderino 09

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

I believe he's done videos on the dangers of right wing extremism. He's been quoted as saying that boys and young men particularly are in crisis and are refusing to grow up and that's who the book is aimed at. Which has got nothing to do with identity politics.

I don't agree with everything he has to say but i do think it's funny that almost everyone looking to have a go at him misquotes what he says, like your Cathy Newman moment above.

Ah no. Hold on. He freely admits that his message makes it convenient for reprehensible right wingers to latch on, but says there's not a shred of evidence that there are a disproportionate number of extremists among his followers. Well if there are a disproportionate number reprehensible right wing followers and some of the right wing extremists have referenced his message, then it's perfectly ligitimate to ask how far the connection goes between reprehensible right wingers and right wing extremists.

bnt

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't suppose his flock has noticed that he's selling the message that women and gays and other races playing the victim is wrong for xyz reasons... the straight white man is the real victim. He's selling self help books to a particular identity, while railing against identity politics.

Where do you get the "white" bit? Has Peterson said anything that would exclude black men? I think you need to explain how race comes in to this discussion at all.

edit: as for the "victim" bit, did you even look at the summary of his book? I haven't read the whole thing yet, but according to this critical piece by David Brooks:

Life is suffering, Peterson reiterates. Don’t be fooled by the naïve optimism of progressive ideology. Life is about remorseless struggle and pain. Your instinct is to whine, to play the victim, to seek vengeance.

Peterson tells young men to never do that. Rise above the culture of victimization you see all around you. Stop whining. Don’t blame others or seek revenge. “The individual must conduct his or her life in a manner that requires the rejection of immediate gratification, of natural and perverse desires alike.”

Instead, choose discipline, courage and self-sacrifice. “To stand up straight with your shoulders back is to accept the terrible responsibility of life.” Never lie. Tell your boss what you really think. Be strict with your children. Drop the friends who bring you down. Break free from the needy mother who controls you.

Arne_Saknussem

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well if there are a disproportionate number reprehensible right wing followers

"People make the assumption that there is a disproportionate number of extremists among my followers, i don't think there's a shred of evidence for that"

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

and some of the right wing extremists have referenced his message, then it's perfectly ligitimate to ask how far the connection goes between reprehensible right wingers and right wing extremists.

"Well i think that because i've taken a stand against the radical left that it's been convenient for an equally reprehensible right wingers to assume i'm one of theirs but i'm not...and i'm an absolute opponent of identity politics whether it's played out on the left or on the right"


It's not very hard to understand what he's saying here. It's just another attempt to smear his character by association.

For example, being anti-Nazi doesn't make you a Stalinist, even if they agree with you about the Nazis.

johnp001

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Did she come across as unselfaware? She didn’t say much so which bits did you see as unselfaware?
...

Sutcliffe framed the debate as a discussion on whether or not Peterson was correct to recommend changing ourselves as a prerequisite to changing the world around us.
O'Neill opened her contribution by saying that she agreed that people should take personal responsibility but before the end of the sentence started blaming society for various injustices that she perceives herself as suffering under and proceeded to blame external factors for everything that she talked about.

El_Duderino 09

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well if there are a disproportionate number reprehensible right wing followers

"People make the assumption that there is a disproportionate number of extremists among my followers, i don't think there's a shred of evidence for that"

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

and some of the right wing extremists have referenced his message, then it's perfectly ligitimate to ask how far the connection goes between reprehensible right wingers and right wing extremists.

"Well i think that because i've taken a stand against the radical left that it's been convenient for an equally reprehensible right wingers to assume i'm one of theirs but i'm not...and i'm an absolute opponent of identity politics whether it's played out on the left or on the right"


It's not very hard to understand what he's saying here. It's just another attempt to smear his character by association.

For example, being anti-Nazi doesn't make you a Stalinist, even if they agree with you about the Nazis.

As Peterson might well say, I’m not endorsing that idea, I’m simply pointing it oot.

El_Duderino 09

bnt wrote: »

Where do you get the "white" bit? Has Peterson said anything that would exclude black men? I think you need to explain how race comes in to this discussion at all

It’s less explicit and I suppose black people could be interested by his message, but it’s tailored to white men. He’ll do an hour long critique of why white privilege doesn’t exist, identifying all the ways that white people are either victims themselves or they simply inherited a system that happens to favour them (pointing out that he’s not endorsing the idea if pressed) If that’s not identity politics repackaged for whites, then what is?

Wibbs

bnt wrote: »

edit: as for the "victim" bit, did you even look at the summary of his book? I haven't read the whole thing yet, but according to this critical piece by David Brooks:

I have a few problems with Peterson's opinions, but I'd wholeheartedly endorse his views on the rise of the Most Holy Church of Victimhood. And that's across all political and socio-philosophical persuasions, not just the "left" and the "progressives". They can be more publicly whiny about it and are more supported by academia and media in their whining, but the "right" can be just as bad.

Too many people are looking for something or somebody to blame, anything but takin personal responsibility over themselves. So in gender politics on the one hand you'll have "feminists" blaming men and the "patriarchy" for everything, while the red pill/MGTOW/incel types blame women and "leftist society" for everything. And they all act like petulant bloody children egged on by their peers while doing so.

That Peterson's message is popular enough gives me some hope that this blindly bloody obvious idea of screw being a perennial lifelong victim will spread more and more.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Because of his stance against the radical left it's convenient for radical right wingers to latch on. He breaks left wing Identity politics down in detail and sells books telling everyone why it's wrong, then in s throwaway line like above he says he's equally opposed to right wing Identity politics.

I don't suppose his flock has noticed that he's selling the message that women and gays and other races playing the victim is wrong for xyz reasons... the straight white man is the real victim. He's selling self help books to a particular identity, while railing against identity politics.

have you noticed at least in the US, male and more often than not white male is the only group that is acceptable to hate or have a go at, every other slice and dice has some element of automatic sympathy and protection from generalised attacks. The whole "progressive stack" nonsense is creating a division I don't recall from the 90's or early naughties

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

have you noticed at least in the US, male and more often than not white male is the only group that is acceptable to hate or have a go at, every other slice and dice has some element of automatic sympathy and protection from generalised attacks. The whole "progressive stack" nonsense is creating a division I don't recall from the 90's or early naughties

So white men ARE the real victims? I just want to know what you mean exactly. If men are the last group it’s ok to hate it founds like they’re the group that are really put upon.

And apart from that, there are plenty of groups it’s fine to ‘hate’ as you put it. Travellers, single mothers, water protesters, the religious, the dole sponges, millennials. And that’s without mentioning your apparent favourite hobby horse, the dreaded feminists.

You’ll get pushback for hating any group, including men.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So white men ARE the real victims? I just want to know what you mean exactly. If men are the last group it’s ok to hate it founds like they’re the group that are really put upon.

And apart from that, there are plenty of groups it’s fine to ‘hate’ as you put it. Travellers, single mothers, water protesters, the religious, the dole sponges, millennials. And that’s without mentioning your apparent favourite hobby horse, the dreaded feminists.

You’ll get pushback for hating any group, including men.

"So white men ARE the real victims?" I never said that, the idea is to get away from being victims right? I was just commenting on what appears to be acceptable discourse in the US, I'm not sure Travellers are a big issue in the US

El_Duderino 09

johnp001 wrote: »

Sutcliffe framed the debate as a discussion on whether or not Peterson was correct to recommend changing ourselves as a prerequisite to changing the world around us.
O'Neill opened her contribution by saying that she agreed that people should take personal responsibility but before the end of the sentence started blaming society for various injustices that she perceives herself as suffering under and proceeded to blame external factors for everything that she talked about.

Ah but Peterson acknowledges that hierarchies are natural and tend towards corruption (of course he doesn’t endorse that, he’s just pointing it out). And he advocates self responsibility. And when LON points out the corruption and advocates self responsibility and desire to challenge the corruption she’s in the wrong?

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

"So white men ARE the real victims?" I never said that, the idea is to get away from being victims right? I was just commenting on what appears to be acceptable discourse in the US, I'm not sure Travellers are a big issue in the US

Substitute victim for maligned or whatever way you want to rephrase it. It amounts to the same thing.

I was referring to Ireland where it’s fine to ‘hate’ lots of groups including travellers. You’ll get pushback no matter what group you express ‘hate’ towards. but claiming men are the ONLY group it’s fine to ‘hate’ is just untrue.

johnp001

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah but Peterson acknowledges that hierarchies are natural and tend towards corruption (of course he doesn’t endorse that, he’s just pointing it out). And he advocates self responsibility. And when LON points out the corruption and advocates self responsibility and desire to challenge the corruption she’s in the wrong?

My point was that although she initially said she agreed that personal responsibility was important (albeit with immediate caveat) every subsequent statement she made contradicted this statement by focusing solely on societal injustices that she wanted to be changed and completely ignored the topic of the benefits of personal change as a necessary precedent to efforts to change society.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Substitute victim for maligned or whatever way you want to rephrase it. It amounts to the same thing.

they mean different things, one can be maligned and choose to not be a victim of it, but it begs the question who and for what purpose are people maligning a group? and you would agree I hope that it would be acceptable nay logical to question these people/motives etc?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I was referring to Ireland where it’s fine to ‘hate’ lots of groups including travellers. You’ll get pushback no matter what group you express ‘hate’ towards. but claiming men are the ONLY group it’s fine to ‘hate’ is just untrue.

I'm stressing the US, I'm sure lots of groups get hate, but the only socially acceptable combination of race and sex to hate is "white male" from what I can see, or are there universities promoting hate against " Asian woman" that I havnt picked up on?

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

they mean different things, one can be maligned and choose to not be a victim of it, but it begs the question who and for what purpose are people maligning a group? and you would agree I hope that it would be acceptable nay logical to question these people/motives etc?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I was referring to Ireland where it’s fine to ‘hate’ lots of groups including travellers. You’ll get pushback no matter what group you express ‘hate’ towards. but claiming men are the ONLY group it’s fine to ‘hate’ is just untrue.

I'm stressing the US, I'm sure lots of groups get hate, but the only socially acceptable combination of race and sex to hate is "white male" from what I can see, or are there universities promoting hate against " Asian woman" that I havnt picked up on?

Victim and maligned mean different things. You’re in the middle of making the point that white men are the only group that can be openly hated.

I don’t know if there’s u university having a go at Asian women, there’s a president who calls Mexicans rapists and has a pop st Muslims. But I’m sure that’s different too because white men are the real vic... I mean they’re the only group that’s maligned

Dyr

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So white men ARE the real victims? .

Every. ****ing. time


It's like a compulsion

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Victim and maligned mean different things. You’re in the middle of making the point that white men are the only group that can be openly hated.

I don’t know if there’s u university having a go at Asian women, there’s a president who calls Mexicans rapists and has a pop st Muslims. But I’m sure that’s different too because white men are the real vic... I mean they’re the only group that’s maligned

I did clarify race and sex, 2 things nobody has any control over unlike Mexican rapists :pac: , again I said nothing about "real victims" however you didn't answer my question, do you agree that people who have a problem with "white males" or the "toxic masculinity" crowd ought to be tackled, or do you endorse this particular kind of bigotry ?

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

however you didn't answer my question, do you agree that people who have a problem with "white males" or the "toxic masculinity" crowd ought to be tackled, or do you endorse this particular kind of bigotry ?

Tackle external bigotry? Yes I think that’s a good idea. But naturally you’ll agree with Peterson and say we shouldn’t blame external entities like society. Instead you should change yourself, make sure your own house is in perfect order before you criticise others. Right? (Or do you advocate change when you perceive society negatively affects you, and self improvement got other people when society negatively affect them?)

That’s one of the reasons I’m at odds with prophet Peterson and in agreement with LON on this point. I think you can both take responsibility for your self and improve yourself AND try to change society. They’re not mutually exclusive.

Do what go you think? Should we support societal change as LON says, or focus on yourself and stop blaming society as Peterson says?

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That’s one of the reasons I’m at odds with prophet Peterson and in agreement with LON on this point. I think you can both take responsibility for your self and improve yourself AND try to change society. They’re not mutually exclusive.

Except in those two examples they're close to it. Your general agreement with the O'Neill types clouds your judgement. In fairness common with acolytes of any philosophy and their "philosophers".

O'Neill almost exclusively blames society, in particular the "patriarchy" and "rape culture" for her woes. And all she bloody talks about is her woes, even when wider subjects are tackled she's near guaranteed to swing it back through her own ego. She is extremely subjective, oft to the point of solipism(being a writer and plugged into social media as exposition and promotion really doesn't help). It's one reason - and the ability to write a cogent opinion piece - why I have far more time for someone like Mullally than her. I may disagree, or agree with her, but at least I don't feel like my IQ is being eroded, or feel like I'm reading the musings of a moody teen.

Peterson has his subjective moments. His head wrangling around religion but one, how he views man/woman romantic relationships another, his post modernist reds under the bed yet another, though he is on a firmer footing there, but lays the blame entirely on postmodernism. I find anyone who lays the blame entirely on [insert oppressor here] is usually blinkered or a zealot. However of the two he is less exclusive as far as self improvement and societal improvement goes. His reaction to student protests is the usual "WTF do kids know stuff" of the middle aged and old, so pretty expected.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Tackle external bigotry? Yes I think that’s a good idea. But naturally you’ll agree with Peterson and say we shouldn’t blame external entities like society. Instead you should change yourself, make sure your own house is in perfect order before you criticise others. Right? (Or do you advocate change when you perceive society negatively affects you, and self improvement got other people when society negatively affect them?)

That’s one of the reasons I’m at odds with prophet Peterson and in agreement with LON on this point. I think you can both take responsibility for your self and improve yourself AND try to change society. They’re not mutually exclusive.

Do what go you think? Should we support societal change as LON says, or focus on yourself and stop blaming society as Peterson says?

Channelling Peterson he would probably comment that the people blaming society the most live in the most privileged time and place in world history, so the focus should be on changing or bettering oneself. We aren't even talking about the bottom rung of society here but largely middle class and technically well "educated" people.

Maxpfizer

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do what go you think? Should we support societal change as LON says, or focus on yourself and stop blaming society as Peterson says?

I would say it depends on who we are aiming to help and why. I mean, what are the goals here?

A big problem with LON and the like is that they adopt the problems of people who are WAY worse off than they are and use it as a vehicle to further their own careers.

A big problem with Peterson is that he gives advice on how to work on yourself but there's a certain level you need to be above before the advice is really relevant.

Both seem to be appealing to people who are already quite well off. Peterson appeals to those who want to say "I am unhappy but I will take responsibility for myself" and LON appeals to those who want to say "I am unhappy and it's all someone else's fault". Both have an audience.

However, their respective audiences are not really the people in society with the most severe problems.

This is just two people making money off other folks, who happen to have disposable income, under the guise of making the world a better place somehow.

20Cent

There's a reason a lot of people have to ask "so what you're saying is..."? in relation to Peterson.
It's because he's not really saying much and leaves his ideas hanging without applying them to anything.
The listener just hears what they want to hear.
For example the stuff about women's makeup intending to make them look sexually aroused. Then he just stops, like what is his point?
Sad alt right cartoon aficionado reads it as being the women's fault when he leers at them.

Maxpfizer

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't suppose his flock has noticed that he's selling the message that women and gays and other races playing the victim is wrong for xyz reasons... the straight white man is the real victim. He's selling self help books to a particular identity, while railing against identity politics.

So what he's saying is...

You'd think that in the almost 4 months that this thread have been active, especially considering the content of the first few posts, that people would have learned to stop doing the following.

Insisting or claiming that Peterson is saying something he isn't actually saying.
Insisting or claiming that Peterson is doing something he isn't actually doing.

Yet, it comes up over and over again on page after page.

Yes, he's just selling self help books to straight white men. Well done. You've figured it out.

Nope. Wait. That's not what he's doing. Wow, big plot-twist surprise there.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

Channelling Peterson he would probably comment that the people blaming society the most live in the most privileged time and place in world history, so the focus should be on changing or bettering oneself. We aren't even talking about the bottom rung of society here but largely middle class and technically well "educated" people.

That’s grand but would you chance answering the questions I asked?

Do you think you should challenge society if you perceive it up be wrong ala LON, or should you focus on self improvement ala Peterson. Specifically in reference to the point you raised about toxic masculinity