Jordan Peterson interview on C4

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

]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.

I said I side with LON ON THAT POINT because I think it’s appropriate to challenge societal injustice. (Silverharp asked about a specific instance of toxic masculinity). I think it’s grand to work on self improvement and societal improvement. But it seems difficult for a Peterson fan to want to change an aspect of society without being the exact thing he spends sooo long speaking against.

Tidy your room.

Maxpfizer

20Cent wrote: »

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.

No. It's because certain people have put themselves in the position of essentially arguing against nuance in discussions and ideas because they think the speaker is "alt right".

So no matter what he says you can't agree because it means you agree with the alt right.

I think at worst we could agree that womens make up intends to make them look, I don't know how to put it, "better".

We could ask why the red lips or the slightly redder cheeks and we could look into it or discuss it or throw ideas around but we can't because there's a danger that "sad alt right cartoon aficionado reads it as being the women's fault when he leers at them". So we have to say no way this Peterson chap is nuts and the alt-right supports him so we need to just be against him no matter what.

Worse than that we really have to put a spin on everything he says with the so "what you're saying is" because we are utterly afraid of agreeing with the guy in some ways.

The lobster thing is a great example. He's actually really only stating facts about lobsters. That's problematic because if I have to agree with facts about lobsters then I'm agreeing with the alt-right. So what spin can I put on that...? Haha! This eejit thinks we should build our societies along the lines of the lobsters!

The only reason I can see to make that kind of leap is that people just don't want to say "OK so maybe he is right about somethings" because they are afraid of being accused of the same things Peterson is accused of.

The alternative there was for the interviewer to say "actually that's pretty fascinating about the lobsters and maybe let's talk about how that could potentially give us insight into human behavior" but that would see her branded "alt right" so she has to argue against nuance by twisting his words into something she can easily disagree with such as he wants to "organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters".

All this in service of not agreeing with the guy because the "alt-right" (which must be, what, a few thousand clowns on the internet?) say they agree with him too.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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

in fairness you didn't answer my one directly about the acceptable hate? do you wince when you hear it or nod approvingly? or am I just bitching and moaning?

As for your question there will always be a discussions to be had regarding "society", personally i'd be more interested in economic discussions on the basis that if the economy is wrong then your society breaks down or doesn't reach its potential, but no doubt that would send LON of to the land of nod. Also if you want to challenge society, it should have a sound basis or your attempts will fail, as LON I assume has a "blank slate" view of people, her mechanism for change is deeply flawed so is pushing an ideology which is doomed to fail. As for "toxic masculinity" I wouldn't treat it as a serious topic but maybe the gender studies brain trust will put their best scientists on it and develop a vaccine

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

in fairness you didn't answer my one directly about the acceptable hate? do you wince when you hear it or nod approvingly? or am I just bitching and moaning?

As for your question there will always be a discussions to be had regarding "society", personally i'd be more interested in economic discussions on the basis that if the economy is wrong then your society breaks down or doesn't reach its potential, but no doubt that would send LON of to the land of nod. Also if you want to challenge society, it should have a sound basis or your attempts will fail, as LON I assume has a "blank slate" view of people, her mechanism for change is deeply flawed so is pushing an ideology which is doomed to fail. As for "toxic masculinity" I wouldn't treat it as a serious topic but maybe the gender studies brain trust will put their best scientists on it and develop a vaccine

I said I would be fine with opposing bigotry (so neither quince or nod but oppose it).

So you’re ok with advocating to change society, but you still get to stick the boot into LON for being too stupid to keep up with all your clever financial talk. But doesn’t that go against Peterson’s mantra of getting your own house in order, and agree with LON’s activism to change society?

tritium

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?

Generally while I like Peterson’s message around responsibility I think his message gets focused too much on young males. Louise o’neill however is an awful name to associate with the idea of prrsonal responsibility - basically her vision of the world asks some groups to take responsibility and other groups to assert rights, with no overlap. It’s a glaring weakness of o’neills -And, to a lesser extent of Peterson.

You can’t ask a groups to take responsibility for their lives without asserting their rights also. Equally you can’t instill rights on a group without responsibilities- the two go hand in hand. They also cant be massively disparate between different groups who share the same social space. It’s easy to understand why a certain demographic flocks to Peterson when they’re repeatedly told that they’re responsible for both their actions and the actions of others. Then in the same breath they’re told they’re privileged and so their rights can be ignored. Even when all the economic and social evidence points to that privilege being a sad illusion. Add an American slant to that, with for example the kangaroo courts that title IX brought to us campuses and suddenly the rise of people like Donald trump becomes much easier to understand.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I said I would be fine with opposing bigotry (so neither quince or nod but oppose it).[:b]

So you’re ok with advocating to change society, but you still get to stick the boot into LON for being too stupid to keep up with all your clever financial talk. But doesn’t that go against Peterson’s mantra of getting your own house in order, and agree with LON’s activism to change society?

Well, that’s a bit Jesuitical tbh. It’s great that you’ll always oppose bigotry, but could you clearly state if you believe that the “toxic masculinity “ or “white males” stuff is bigotry

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I said I would be fine with opposing bigotry (so neither quince or nod but oppose it).

So you’re ok with advocating to change society, but you still get to stick the boot into LON for being too stupid to keep up with all your clever financial talk. But doesn’t that go against Peterson’s mantra of getting your own house in order, and agree with LON’s activism to change society?

Peterson is not a proponent of activism.

I however have a different view- when activists are hate mongers who routinely demonize a groups just for being in that group they’re bigots and I will never agree with or support that

johnp001

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

...

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

Nowhere have I seen Peterson say that society doesn't need to be improved.
His philosophy seems to be that self-improvement is a prerequisite in order to be able to do so effectively.
Luckily "Be the change you want to see in the world" wasn't such a controversial message in India 70 years ago.

WinnyThePoo

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

He retweets alt right memes. He has books and gig tickets to sell. He certainly wants them to latch onto his message because they will spend dollars and make him a richer man.

20Cent

https://twitter.com/_Saeen_/status/997548309484056576?s=19

Piles of books on the floor just left of the speaker room could use a tidy.

backspin.

The mainstream media are really going after this guy. He must have them worried.

20Cent

backspin. wrote: »

The mainstream media are really going after this guy. He must have them worried.

What's he onto though? What's the great insight his "dangerous" ideas are providing? He seems pretty conservative to me

dublinbuster

backspin. wrote: »

The mainstream media are really going after this guy. He must have them worried.

He has the ability to bamboozle the left, they can’t respond in a intelligent way to his criticism.
He uses plain language that the silent majority understand and can agree with.
The left fears him, and they should, as he shines a light on the lunacy of their ideas,
The left pushed too far left, the silent majority have seen their madness exposed by the likes of Peterson are now moving too the right.
There is hope for west as long as people like him exist.

backspin.

When you talk for hundreds of hours you are bound to talk some nonsense aswell. That the left haven't been able to find something really concrete to beat him with is quite amazing really.

I think the reason he resonates so well with people is he is making fairly self evident points about life that people understand well but are now afraid to point out. That there are biological differences between the sexes, that men and women on average have differing interests, that IQ is an important measurement of intelligence, that the patriarchy is a gross exaggeration if it exists at all, that women do not have it near as hard as feminists proclaim and men do not have it near as easy as they proclaim, that the glorification of victim-hood and the dwelling in it is not healthy, that inequality has always been with us and always will and that trying to force equality of outcome is a bad idea.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

Well, that’s a bit Jesuitical tbh. It’s great that you’ll always oppose bigotry, but could you clearly state if you believe that the “toxic masculinity “ or “white males” stuff is bigotry

Well it’s a separate issue so I assumed the other posters position on toxic masculinity for the sake of discussion.

I had this before. I asked posters for examples of toxic masculinity and some examples I agreed were unfair. Some examples I thought were actually quite accurate. Some old school elements of masculinity like stoicism leads to men being less likely to seek medical help for example. So that’s an unhelpful aspect of old school masculinity. Toxic isn’t my word so I wouldn’t use it. But once I said that, posters went baloobas and some said they never heard stoicism was ever considered an element of masculinity. The sane people completely fail to define masculinity and they certainly didn't agree on large parts of masculinity.

So for that reason this time I didn’t comment on the toxic masculinity. I said I’m fine with opposing bigotry which is all that’s necessary for the discussion on societal improvement vs self improvement.

King George VI

20Cent wrote: »

What's he onto though? What's the great insight his "dangerous" ideas are providing?

His anti PC attitude and refusal to be forced to call people by their preferred nonsensical gender pronouns by law.

Stonedpilot

backspin. wrote: »

The mainstream media are really going after this guy. He must have them worried.

Hes able to logically dismantle their marxist feminist ideaology the elites push so hard and insane hypocrisy.

Hes very rare. A highly intelligent man who speaks his mind against the politically correct sanitized Worldwe live in.

Of course the PC lets get offended by everything media hate him.
NO ONE in the media could hold a candle to him in a debate so just slander him every chance they get.

El_Duderino 09

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Of course the PC lets get offended by everything media hate him.
NO ONE in the media could hold a candle to him in a debate so just slander him every chance they get.

That’s twice I’ve seen the word ‘hate’ thrown around flippantly. First in relation to how it’s fine to hate men in America, and here where everyone supposedly hates Peterson.

The desire to be the victim of hatred is interesting in and of itself. It’s very much part of the message Peterson and trump are selling. There’s clearly a market for it.

20Cent

King George VI wrote: »

His anti PC attitude and refusal to be forced to call people by their preferred nonsensical gender pronouns by law.

No one was forcing him to do anything. The whole pronoun thing that kickstarted his celebrity was him misunderstanding the legislation and holding himself up as some kind of martyr for "pc gone mad". There was no law that people had to use a persons preferred pronoun or be dragged off to jail.

Dyr

20Cent wrote: »

No one was forcing him to do anything. The whole pronoun thing that kickstarted his celebrity was him misunderstanding the legislation and holding himself up as some kind of martyr for "pc gone mad". There was no law that people had to use a persons preferred pronoun or be dragged off to jail.

Please, do give your detailed analysis of said legislation. While you're doing it perhaps touch upon the ambiguous nature of said legislation being used as an excuse in Canadian universities for the kinds of shenanigans such as in the lyndsey sheppard debacle.

The guy was told in writing by his university that he could lose his job over his stance on this issue, if that's not forcing compliance then I don't know what is.

20Cent

Bambi wrote: »

Please, do give your detailed analysis of said legislation. While you're doing it perhaps touch upon the ambiguous nature of said legislation being used as an excuse in Canadian universities for the kinds of shenanigans such as in the lyndsey sheppard debacle.

The guy was told in writing by his university that he could lose his job over his stance on this issue, if that's not forcing compliance then I don't know what is.

Like I said he was never in danger of being locked up. A universities rules and regulations are different from government policy. His fame started with a gross exageration and thats all he's been doing since. Fair play to him imo lots of money to be made grifting right wingers.

JRant

20Cent wrote: »

Like I said he was never in danger of being locked up. A universities rules and regulations are different from government policy. His fame started with a gross exageration and thats all he's been doing since. Fair play to him imo lots of money to be made grifting right wingers.

You really know nothing about this. It wasn't a university rule or regulation, it was government policy. I mean if you don't know the very basics of why he came to prominence then everything else you say is coming from a place of ignorance.

It really bothers you that he is quite successful, no idea why it would because he is for the most part just a classic conservative. There is little to nothing in what he says that warrants a half of one percent of the vitriol he receives.

20Cent

JRant wrote: »

You really know nothing about this. It wasn't a university rule or regulation, it was government policy. I mean if you don't know the very basics of why he came to prominence then everything else you say is coming from a place of ignorance.

It really bothers you that he is quite successful, no idea why it would because he is for the most part just a classic conservative. There is little to nothing in what he says that warrants a half of one percent of the vitriol he receives.

No government policy to put anyone in jail for misgendering someone.

20Cent

Australian aboriginals and ancient Egyptions discovered dna.

https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/997575537089564672?s=19

Sand

20Cent wrote: »

Australian aboriginals and ancient Egyptions discovered dna.

20, why do you feel so threatened by a Canadian professor telling you to tidy your room? Come on, circle of trust. How untidy is your room?

Dyr

20Cent wrote: »

Like I said he was never in danger of being locked up. A universities rules and regulations are different from government policy. His fame started with a gross exageration and thats all he's been doing since. Fair play to him imo lots of money to be made grifting right wingers.

He was not being threatened by the universities based on their rules and regulations but rather based on their interpretation of the laws that he was criticizing

Hows the detailed analysis of that legislation you're so well versed in coming along?

20Cent

Bambi wrote: »

He was not being threatened by the universities based on their rules and regulations but rather based on their interpretation of the laws that he was criticizing

Hows the detailed analysis of that legislation you're so well versed in coming along?

If you really beliece that postmodernist marxists are plotting to throw hero's like peterson into prison and destroy society there's a book you should buy.

Dyr

20Cent wrote: »

If you really beliece that postmodernist marxists are plotting to throw hero's like peterson into prison and destroy society there's a book you should buy.

Bambi wrote: »

Every. ****ing. time


It's like a compulsion

Amalgam

20Cent wrote: »

No government policy to put anyone in jail for misgendering someone.

Why do you keeping going on about jail, there is harassment taking place to make things very very difficult for someone to keep their job.

Stop trying to put the crosshairs somewhere else.

20Cent

Amalgam wrote: »

Why do you keeping going on about jail, there is harassment taking place to make things very very difficult for someone to keep their job.

Stop trying to put the crosshairs somewhere else.

Petersons own words.
https://youtu.be/WQ-M5MgqVOo