Jordan Peterson interview on C4

20Cent

Its all alt right wrote: »

You want students names?

How about one.

20Cent

johnp001 wrote: »

I don't see why it is not valid for Al-Gharbi to address the specific question that he does or why he should be criticised for not addressing a different one.
What you consider to be defining factors is not going to be the limit of what the wider world considers useful topics to investigate and debate.

Address what he likes I'mnot going to listen to it. Same as a five hour video about why the earth is flat waste of my time.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

But it’s not separate really. It’s easy to say for example that I’m against bigotry once you have the Jesuitical flexibility as to what that means. Against bigotry but don’t consider racism to actually be bigotry- see any utility in that?

Equally it’s easy to introduce little nuances- ooh I’m against Islamaphobia. Have to profile them though, blame those terrorists. Black people, so oppressed. All that crime they do though...

All that’s very easy to internalize and leave someone feeling like a fine upstanding citizen while engaging in bigotry. So, I ask you again do you consider the activities I previously mentioned to be bigotry

Give me an example and I’ll tell you whether or not o consider it bigotry. As I said before I agree some of the things are bigotry and don’t agree that others are.

If I asked you if you think sexism should be opposed and you agreed it should. Then what if some people thinks the gender pay gap is a sexism issue and others don’t.

If I don’t know what you’re referring to, then I can’t say if I think it’s bigotry or not.

So I’d take it issue by issue. Give me an example of an issue

Pac1Man

20Cent wrote: »

How about one.

Ze’ev Boker.

Its all alt right

20Cent wrote: »

How about one.

Erin Jenson

markodaly

20Cent wrote: »

And I posted a video of the head of trumps social media strategy saying just that.

Nope, wrong or lying, or both.

You seem to want to discuss weather the people embedded in the trump campaign worked hard or not.

This is your comment not mine and for clarity you said Google and Facebook as in the corporations themselves even though the owners would be on the progressive side of the spectrum.

Its OK, we all make mistakes. Just admit it. Its OK. No shame in it.

20Cent

Its all alt right wrote: »

Erin Jenson

What do you think silencing means for point of reference?

20Cent

markodaly wrote: »

Nope, wrong or lying, or both.




This is your comment not mine and for clarity you said Google and Facebook as in the corporations themselves even though the owners would be on the progressive side of the spectrum.

Its OK, we all make mistakes. Just admit it. Its OK. No shame in it.

Corporations consist of the people who work in them.
Sorry for the confusion, you seem to think that facebook is an actual person.

markodaly

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Also at around 58 minutes in, it really strikes me during Michelle Goldberg's speaking that in fact, her and Dyson's fundamental issue is with how America has dealt with these questions rather than the larger Western societal scope that is actually the topic at hand - indeed, she's dismissive of the idea of group responsibility because of her view of the American context, which seems to be all either of them can speak to.

This is a very relevant point. America is not the West and the West is not America. There is as you said a larger scope here but many people on the Dyson side of the debate think that only what happens in America matters, as if American history is representative of all World history.

The irony of course, is that they say that minority groups and the likes don't have the same power and access to freedom of speech, yet them as Americans are claiming to speak for the rest of us.

They use racial tropes and slurs to call out 'mean white men' when in fact white men have been killed and abused just as much in many instances as those who are not white, be it Slavs, Jews, Armenians or even Irish people. Yet, they as Americans get use those slurs as it fits their American centric narrative.

Its intellectually dishonest.

markodaly

20Cent wrote: »

Corporations consist of the people who work in them.
Sorry for the confusion, you seem to think that facebook is an actual person.

Actually no a corporation is by law recognised as a single entity, which can be a person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

A corporation is a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law

A corporation is out there primarily to make money, as in this instance.

They were not working hard to get Trump elected, they were working hard to make money. There was no strategy by Facebook or Google to help Trump more than Clinton. There were also people from Facebook working for the Clinton campaign, because they were paid to do so.

Every post of yours is wrong 20cent. I would quit now if I were you, as its becoming quite embarrassing.

Its all alt right

20Cent wrote: »

What do you think silencing means for point of reference?

I'm not playing your circular game. I can see from the issues the poster above is having with you it'll be never ending. Like I say the tide has turned on you lot. What's important now is we take care and don't let the pendulum swing too far to the right. Something you guys should have been aware of and we wouldn't be where we are now.

Pac1Man

20Cent wrote: »

What do you think silencing means for point of reference?

"In Trinity, a student protest at a talk being given by the Israeli ambassador Ze’ev Boker was called off in February when protesters blocked the door."

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/education/free-speech-under-threat-on-our-college-campuses-1.3045149%3fmode=amp

20Cent

Its all alt right wrote: »

I'm not playing your circular game. I can see from the issues the poster above is having with you it'll be never ending. Like I say the tide has turned on you lot. What's important now is we take care and don't let the pendulum swing too far to the right. Something you guys should have been aware of and we wouldn't be where we are now.

You said people are being silenced just want to know what you mean by that. Is being criticized or cyberbullied silencing?

20Cent

markodaly wrote: »

Actually no a corporation is by law recognised as a single entity, which can be a person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation



A corporation is out there primarily to make money, as in this instance.

They were not working hard to get Trump elected, they were working hard to make money. There was no strategy by Facebook or Google to help Trump more than Clinton. There were also people from Facebook working for the Clinton campaign, because they were paid to do so.

Every post of yours is wrong 20cent. I would quit now if I were you, as its becoming quite embarrassing.

Moving the goalposts.
This is as tedious as a jordan peterson lecture.
Gonna stick u on mute now chief think you are being disingenuos.

Suppose thats silencing and censorship lol.

20Cent

Pac1Man wrote: »

"In Trinity, a student protest at a talk being given by the Israeli ambassador Ze’ev Boker was called off in February when protesters blocked the door."

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/education/free-speech-under-threat-on-our-college-campuses-1.3045149%3fmode=amp

And this one incident silenced him for life?
He hasn't said or typed a word since?

Its all alt right

20Cent wrote: »

You said people are being silenced just want to know what you mean by that. Is being criticized or cyberbullied silencing?

That student was bullied into leaving her school. Do you not think that was silencing her?

20Cent

Its all alt right wrote: »

That student was bullied into leaving her school. Do you not think that was silencing her?

She wrote a controversial article a faced a backlash against it. Can't condone bullying or death threats the school and police should handle that but wouldn't say this is students being silenced.
In the US actual Nazi's have given talks in universities, people like richard spencer have been accommodated. To say certain views are silenced or banned is ridiculous.

Franz Von Peppercorn

20Cent wrote: »

Whats a canadian equality court?
You mean a court I presume.
He would have to be in contravention of human rights and hate speech laws. Very extreme speech like calling for genocide. Despite his hysteria not using pronouns that the person prefers to be referred to doesn't meet this threshold.

These lads.

http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/about/about-the-tribunal-en.html

_Kaiser_

markodaly wrote: »

This is a very relevant point. America is not the West and the West is not America. There is as you said a larger scope here but many people on the Dyson side of the debate think that only what happens in America matters, as if American history is representative of all World history.

The irony of course, is that they say that minority groups and the likes don't have the same power and access to freedom of speech, yet them as Americans are claiming to speak for the rest of us.

They use racial tropes and slurs to call out 'mean white men' when in fact white men have been killed and abused just as much in many instances as those who are not white, be it Slavs, Jews, Armenians or even Irish people. Yet, they as Americans get use those slurs as it fits their American centric narrative.

Its intellectually dishonest.

I watched the whole thing and I was disgusted at Dyson's racist and homophobic "jokes" to be honest. Not just because they had no place in the debate (such as it was in the end.. I think Stephen Fry summed that up nicely!), but because of the blatant hypocrisy. You can be sure it wouldn't have been "acceptable" if Fry and Peterson had made similar jokes at his expense!

The more it went on, it was clear that Dyson and Goldberg could only speak about America and their own biased (side note: I was going to put "coloured" in place of biased but then figured it wouldn't be worth the "ooh nice racist pun!" shyte - which is actually ANOTHER point Fry refers to) experiences.. not the actual topic - why Fry tried several times to pull them back to and they deflected away from repeatedly.

Peterson's weakness I think is that while he has a very good argument, his delivery is a bit too intellectual. On the other hand, you have Dyson who's all showman and wit but no real argument behind it beyond the history of slavery in America.

Stephen Fry came out the best of the lot IMO. Witty, educated and open-minded, but also able to put effectively himself across as the average Joe who's trying to make sense of this. Have to say, my respect for him went up a few notches after watching this.

tritium

20Cent wrote: »

She wrote a controversial article a faced a backlash against it. Can't condone bullying or death threats the school and police should handle that but wouldn't say this is students being silenced.
In the US actual Nazi's have given talks in universities, people like richard spencer have been accommodated. To say certain views are silenced or banned is ridiculous.

Honestly that’s the biggest piece of ****e as a response. Oh, well we didn’t kill or imprison them so it’s ok man! So it’s ok to intimidate people,disrupt events that people have made a free and conscious decision to attend, Doxx them, ruin their career in misrepresented or exaggerated grounds? All fine because sure their still free to speak? Even if the price of the speech is so high as to make silence the only choice for anyone with families to raise or a desire not to be the subject of a witch hunt

20Cent

tritium wrote: »

Honestly that’s the biggest piece of ****e as a response. Oh, well we didn’t kill or imprison them so it’s ok man! So it’s ok to intimidate people,disrupt events that people have made a free and conscious decision to attend, Doxx them, ruin their career in misrepresented or exaggerated grounds? All fine because sure their still free to speak? Even if the price of the speech is so high as to make silence the only choice for anyone with families to raise or a desire not to be the subject of a witch hunt

Sounds like an argument for safe spaces.

tritium

20Cent wrote: »

Sounds like an argument for safe spaces.

No sounds like an arguement for not washing our hands when one side engages in fascist type activity on the basis that we somehow want them to be the good side. For not looking for mealy mouthed, Jesuitical arguement to make their unacceptable behaviour seem somehow appropriate. For holding everyone to the same standard instead of only calling out the ones we don’t agree with

20Cent

tritium wrote: »

No sounds like an arguement for not washing our hands when one side engages in fascist type activity on the basis that we somehow want them to be the good side. For not looking for mealy mouthed, Jesuitical arguement to make their unacceptable behaviour seem somehow appropriate. For holding everyone to the same standard instead of only calling out the ones we don’t agree with

So what's your solution?

tritium

20Cent wrote: »

So what's your solution?

Why do you think I have a solution? How do you solve self serving hypocrisy? I’d ask that people be honest when they see this behaviour in their own side but the exact problem is they won’t.

That said it would be nice if people looked at a range of sources of information given so many outlets seem happy to give a free pass to their own leanings.

johnp001

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I watched the whole thing and I was disgusted at Dyson's racist and homophobic "jokes" to be honest. Not just because they had no place in the debate (such as it was in the end.. I think Stephen Fry summed that up nicely!), but because of the blatant hypocrisy. You can be sure it wouldn't have been "acceptable" if Fry and Peterson had made similar jokes at his expense!

The more it went on, it was clear that Dyson and Goldberg could only speak about America and their own biased (side note: I was going to put "coloured" in place of biased but then figured it wouldn't be worth the "ooh nice racist pun!" shyte - which is actually ANOTHER point Fry refers to) experiences.. not the actual topic - why Fry tried several times to pull them back to and they deflected away from repeatedly.

Peterson's weakness I think is that while he has a very good argument, his delivery is a bit too intellectual. On the other hand, you have Dyson who's all showman and wit but no real argument behind it beyond the history of slavery in America.

Stephen Fry came out the best of the lot IMO. Witty, educated and open-minded, but also able to put effectively himself across as the average Joe who's trying to make sense of this. Have to say, my respect for him went up a few notches after watching this.

Fry definitely went up in my estimation too. In a serious debate he would have lost points for the asides and anecdotes but as the other side wouldn't even stick to the topic it wasn't an issue.
It sounded like Dyson really lost the crowd with his race baiting attack on Peterson but it paid off for him in the end where an audibly frustrated Peterson made the bad error of answering "where the right have gone too far" question for a second time at the close even though he had already answered it and was trying to get a satisfactory answer to "where the left have gone too far" and failing. Goldberg had the out of context lipstick comment as her clincher when closing the debate which was good strategy as Peterson wasn't able to respond.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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

but why would you attach yourself to a movement that is very bigoted towards men? in Cathy Newman speak "whats in it for men?"

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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?

there is always an economic conversation going on and I get to vote every 4 years, its not burdensome. Someone with LON's mindset seems to find the world unacceptable as it is and will only be happy if it magically turns on its head which there isn't much chance of, there is a much bigger case that these people focus on themselves and stop blaming men or the world for their middle class based woes

take everything

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I watched the whole thing and I was disgusted at Dyson's racist and homophobic "jokes" to be honest. Not just because they had no place in the debate (such as it was in the end.. I think Stephen Fry summed that up nicely!), but because of the blatant hypocrisy. You can be sure it wouldn't have been "acceptable" if Fry and Peterson had made similar jokes at his expense!

The more it went on, it was clear that Dyson and Goldberg could only speak about America and their own biased (side note: I was going to put "coloured" in place of biased but then figured it wouldn't be worth the "ooh nice racist pun!" shyte - which is actually ANOTHER point Fry refers to) experiences.. not the actual topic - why Fry tried several times to pull them back to and they deflected away from repeatedly.

Peterson's weakness I think is that while he has a very good argument, his delivery is a bit too intellectual. On the other hand, you have Dyson who's all showman and wit but no real argument behind it beyond the history of slavery in America.

Stephen Fry came out the best of the lot IMO. Witty, educated and open-minded, but also able to put effectively himself across as the average Joe who's trying to make sense of this. Have to say, my respect for him went up a few notches after watching this.

Agree with this.
I like Fry, always have tbh.
Probably because he's a "victim" himself.
He struggled with his sexuality and mental health for years and that can only endear him to me.
Probably why he is on the side of Peterson (who also struggled with his mental health) there. 2 guys who bear their own bull**** without shouting how victimised and marginalised they are every 2 goddamn minutes.

People talk about him being smug because of his intellect but I think he wears his intelligence with a great humour.

And he came across well in that debate as you say.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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

but why would you attach yourself to a movement that is very bigoted towards men? in Cathy Newman speak "whats in it for men?"

Ah that’s as clever as me asking you why you attach yourself to a group that is so bigoted against women.

The question was about whether not you align yourself with the Peterson view that you should focus on self improvement or LON’s view that you should focus on societal improvement. I get that you’ve spent so long badmouthing LON that you can’t simply say you side with her over Peterson on the issue. Hence the need for all the wriggle and dance around the actual topic you brought up.

As I said above, I think it’s fine to both improve yourself and improve society.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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?

silverharp wrote: »

there is always an economic conversation going on and I get to vote every 4 years, its not burdensome. Someone with LON's mindset seems to find the world unacceptable as it is and will only be happy if it magically turns on its head which there isn't much chance of, there is a much bigger case that these people focus on themselves and stop blaming men or the world for their middle class based woes

So is voting the only way you think you try to change society? You’d never use a social media tool to raise awareness of issues affecting a group like men, and argue points to get your opinion across to a broader audience?

I’m sure you think what you do on boards is different, and completely not a form of activism. But, it is.

Peterson tells you to get your house in Perfect order before you criticise others and you think it’s fierce clever altogether. But it doesn’t slow you from criticising LON. So either your house is in perfect order or you don’t actually think you should live by Peterson’s preachings.

If you were being honest, you’d acknowledge that Peterson is completely unrealistic in asking people focus almost exclusively on self improvement. It’s not something you support in practice. And you’d acknowledge that it’s fine to improve society as LON suggests. Except you’ve spent so long talkingdown LON’s approach that you’ve painted yourself into a corner of both opposing LON while actually supporting her approach.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

Someone with LON's mindset seems to find the world unacceptable as it is and will only be happy if it magically turns on its head which there isn't much chance of, there is a much bigger case that these people focus on themselves and stop blaming men or the world for their middle class based woes

2 points on this paragraph.

First, as I said earlier, Peterson’s followers are happy to apply his teaching to the other side but not so much to themselves. As you say above, LON should focus on self improvement rather than societal improvement

Secondly, you’re quick enough to dismiss LON as fighting for ‘middle class woes’. What’s wrong with middle class people fighting for what matters to them? Just because they don’t have the worst experience doesn’t mean middle class people’s problems are irrelevant.

For someone who spends so much time posting lamentations about how men’s problems are dismissed, you’re very quick to dismiss middle class people’s problems.

I’ve heard of ’white people problems in the US’ and they’re similarly dismissed as trivial. White peoples problems aren’t dismissable to me. Men’s problems aren’t dismissable to me, women’s problems aren’t dismissable to me. Middle class people’s problems aren’t dismissable to me.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah that’s as clever as me asking you why you attach yourself to a group that is so bigoted against women.

The question was about whether not you align yourself with the Peterson view that you should focus on self improvement or LON’s view that you should focus on societal improvement. I get that you’ve spent so long badmouthing LON that you can’t simply say you side with her over Peterson on the issue. Hence the need for all the wriggle and dance around the actual topic you brought up.

As I said above, I think it’s fine to both improve yourself and improve society.

I'm not a member of any group though, I'm just critical of modern feminism. As for spending a long time badmouthing LON, I havnt really because I don't read her stuff , Ill assume though she just parrots the type of feminism one sees on the internet.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Peterson tells you to get your house in Perfect order before you criticise others and you think it’s fierce clever altogether. But it doesn’t slow you from criticising LON. So either your house is in perfect order or you don’t actually think you should live by Peterson’s preachings.

If you say he says that, I havnt heard Peterson say that

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you were being honest, you’d acknowledge that Peterson is completely unrealistic in asking people focus almost exclusively on self improvement. It’s not something you support in practice. And you’d acknowledge that it’s fine to improve society as LON suggests. Except you’ve spent so long talkingdown LON’s approach that you’ve painted yourself into a corner of both opposing LON while actually supporting her approach.

how do we know LON wants to improve society in a way that society actually improves?, Stalin wanted to improve society, Mao wanted to improve society.... how would LON change society for the better ?