Jordan Peterson interview on C4

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

When it suits you it's reasonable activism for change in specific laws. When you don't benefit from it you're happy to lump it into 'bring down the patriarchy.

Peterson talks in Bambi's video below about his derision of activism and young people. They know nothing, they have no life experience, they don't have children, don't have a degree, don't have a job, don't know how to groom themselves or present themselves. He doesn't use the word 'millennials' or say 'back in my day things were done right' but it's the sentiment.

Its as new and interesting as any old man who complains that football was better back in his day, summers were longer and the sun shone every day, and you could get a quart of sweets for truppence_ha'penny.

What's impressive is that he's selling memories of the good ole days to people who are too young to remember them. Did anyone enjoy watching Bill O'Reilly on fox news? I used to keep an eye to see what he was selling to his viewers and it's the same flavour of rose tinted history. The way forwards is backwards. Granted he's eloquent compared to the fox news boys, but it's similar stuff.

Strange you’re usually the first to complain that men should go and actively seek changes instead of just whining at how bad things are and blaming others.

Peterson tells people to stop whining, make changes and stop blaming others and you lose your **** at him

Very strange......

JRant

I found this piece to be a very good breakdown of Mr Peterson and the level of hysteria around him

http://quillette.com/2018/05/22/jordan-peterson-failure-left/

AllForIt

https://youtu.be/IMBfT38xbhU

There more I see of this guy the more I like him. He speaks so clearly and logically without any mumbo jumbo. Unlike some other hyperbolic rabble rousers that have become famous for just that in recent years. And I do actually like the sound of his voice.

blinding

Peterson is a great guy . Well worth listening to .

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

he has a point, if a group of people get involved in activism to save their local hospital or school or to highlight a particular illness, suicide maybe, that makes sense, they are active people in their community who have a stake in whatever the issue is.
On the other hand someone overly obsessed with "bringing down the Patriarchy" is more likely than not just an internally unhappy person who is blaming men or whatnot for their problems.

Back up the truck. Peterson said they're too stupid and inexperienced in all the ways I listed above. 'They know nothing, they have no life experience, they don't have children, don't have a degree, don't have a job, don't know how to groom themselves or present themselves'. But if they're campaigning for a hospital or school or illness (or presumably any other cause if which you personally approve) then they're grand.

If an 18 year old goes out to campaign for something you approve of, they're grand and Peterson is wrong. And the following day they campaign for something you don't approve of and and they're fools and Peterson is right. Mad old world.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

When it suits you it's reasonable activism for change in specific laws. When you don't benefit from it you're happy to lump it into 'bring down the patriarchy.

Peterson talks in Bambi's video below about his derision of activism and young people. They know nothing, they have no life experience, they don't have children, don't have a degree, don't have a job, don't know how to groom themselves or present themselves. He doesn't use the word 'millennials' or say 'back in my day things were done right' but it's the sentiment.

Its as new and interesting as any old man who complains that football was better back in his day, summers were longer and the sun shone every day, and you could get a quart of sweets for truppence_ha'penny.

What's impressive is that he's selling memories of the good ole days to people who are too young to remember them. Did anyone enjoy watching Bill O'Reilly on fox news? I used to keep an eye to see what he was selling to his viewers and it's the same flavour of rose tinted history. The way forwards is backwards. Granted he's eloquent compared to the fox news boys, but it's similar stuff.

Strange you’re usually the first to complain that men should go and actively seek changes instead of just whining at how bad things are and blaming others.

Peterson tells people to stop whining, make changes and stop blaming others and you lose your **** at him

Very strange......

True that I support actively seeking changes instead of just whinging. How much tidying your room will it take to change the family court system in Ireland? Serious question.

Self improvement is grand and should be encouraged, but the idea that it can change the external world is delusional. Just because it's the only brand Peterson is selling doesn't mean it's the only brand available. I can't form the life of me understand why that's difficult to grasp.

Peterson should be viewed in the proper context. He's a self help guru who's in vogue at the moment. Some of what he has to say is great. But that's it.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

he has a point, if a group of people get involved in activism to save their local hospital or school or to highlight a particular illness, suicide maybe, that makes sense, they are active people in their community who have a stake in whatever the issue is.
On the other hand someone overly obsessed with "bringing down the Patriarchy" is more likely than not just an internally unhappy person who is blaming men or whatnot for their problems.

Back up the truck. Peterson said they're too stupid and inexperienced in all the ways I listed above. 'They know nothing, they have no life experience, they don't have children, don't have a degree, don't have a job, don't know how to groom themselves or present themselves'. But if they're campaigning for a hospital or school or illness (or presumably any other cause if which you personally approve) then they're grand.

If an 18 year old goes out to campaign for something you approve of, they're grand and Peterson is wrong. And the following day they campaign for something you don't approve of and and they're fools and Peterson is right. Mad old world.

Dyr

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Back up the truck. Peterson said they're too stupid and inexperienced in all the ways I listed above. 'They know nothing, they have no life experience, they don't have children, don't have a degree, don't have a job, don't know how to groom themselves or present themselves'. But if they're campaigning for a hospital or school or illness (or presumably any other cause if which you personally approve) then they're grand.

If an 18 year old goes out to campaign for something you approve of, they're grand and Peterson is wrong. And the following day they campaign for something you don't approve of and and they're fools and Peterson is right. Mad old world.

I think it's time to start taking you to task for the constant editorializing
Where in that quote did he say they were stupid?

cloudatlas

Lol! Enforced manogamy is the cure for men who have failed, they need good partners otherwise women will go for high status men.

This is the guy who was also hailed as some kind of hero because he put down a journalist who is not a peer academically and also a guy who wouldn't come out in support of the lgbt because he didn't like the people who advocate for their rights.

Jordan Peterson believes violent men need enforced monogamy

JRant

cloudatlas wrote: »

Lol! Enforced manogamy is the cure for men who have failed, they need good partners otherwise women will go for high status men.

This is the guy who was also hailed as some kind of hero because he put down a journalist who is not a peer academically and also a guy who wouldn't come out in support of the lgbt because he didn't like the people who advocate for their rights.

Jordan Peterson believes violent men need enforced monogamy

Lol, indeed. Another hit piece by a Guardianista feminist hack.

You mean the very same advocates who were trying to get him fired from his job? Jeez, I wonder why he has no time for serial mouth breathers like that.

cloudatlas

JRant wrote: »

Lol, indeed. Another hit piece by a Guardianista feminist hack.

You mean the very same advocates who were trying to get him fired from his job? Jeez, I wonder why he has no time for serial mouth breathers like that.

With actual quotes from a primary source article, quoting directly from Peterson himself yes pretty good journalism if you ask me.

mcmoustache

Wibbs wrote: »

Dunno about feminists and Islam being bedfellows, sounds one helluva stretch to me.

Wasn't Linda Sarsour part of that Women's march? It seemed insane to me when I heard of such a creation. Islam and feminism don't really go together.


That said, I haven't heard her name in a long time so maybe people copped on and stopped listening to her. I don't know. I don't hang around those parts so maybe she's still trying to convince feminists that Islam is for them.

JRant

cloudatlas wrote: »

With actual quotes from a primary source article, quoting directly from Peterson himself yes pretty good journalism if you ask me.

So piggybacking on someone else's work is good journalism to you and with actual quotes as well you say. Well, I, never, there's a Pulitzer in there for that lady so.

Now those quotes wouldn't be taken completely out of context by any chance, would they? Of course, such a hack, sorry Pulitzer winning journalist would never do such a thing. Especially not on purpose, no siree. Peterson is definitely a woman hating communist, she has him bang to rights there.

Jesus H Christ, some people will swallow anything these days.

cloudatlas

JRant wrote: »

cloudatlas wrote: »

With actual quotes from a primary source article, quoting directly from Peterson himself yes pretty good journalism if you ask me.

So piggybacking on someone else's work is good journalism to you and with actual quotes as well you say. Well, I, never, there's a Pulitzer in there for that lady so.

Now those quotes wouldn't be taken completely out of context by any chance, would they? Of course, such a hack, sorry Pulitzer winning journalist would never do such a thing. Especially not on purpose, no siree. Peterson is definitely a woman hating communist, she has him bang to rights there.

Jesus H Christ, some people will swallow anything these days.

Peterson did not refute the original piece. Sorry you don’t like it but that’s the case. Yep it appears people do swallow anything these days.

johnp001

cloudatlas wrote: »

Peterson did not refute the original piece. Sorry you don’t like it but that’s the case. Yep it appears people do swallow anything these days.

He did offer this short article offering clarification though:
On the New York Times and “Enforced Monogamy”

Jordan Peterson wrote:

...
So, let’s summarize. Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.

That’s all.

No recommendation of police-state assignation of woman to man (or, for that matter, man to woman).

No arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels.

Nothing scandalous (all innuendo and suggestive editing to the contrary)

Just the plain, bare, common-sense facts: socially-enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence. In addition (and not trivially) they also help provide mothers with comparatively reliable male partners, and increase the probability that stable, father-intact homes will exist for children.

I think Peterson makes an assumption in his above summary in the statement:

"The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. "

I would certainly agree that it is preferable for any dangers facing people to be regulated socially as opposed to regulated legally (in my previous post I make an argument as to why social compromise solutions are preferable to solutions handed down by law) but I think Peterson of all people ought to realise that there are a lot of people, many of whom are his critics who would not accept this as a prima facie argument and who believe that regulation by law is the only/best way that progress should be achieved and that advocating people take either unilateral or social action, even on the basis that this is more likely to yield good results, is seen as victim blaming or self-help profiteering or similarly criticised.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Back up the truck. Peterson said they're too stupid and inexperienced in all the ways I listed above. 'They know nothing, they have no life experience, they don't have children, don't have a degree, don't have a job, don't know how to groom themselves or present themselves'. But if they're campaigning for a hospital or school or illness (or presumably any other cause if which you personally approve) then they're grand.

If an 18 year old goes out to campaign for something you approve of, they're grand and Peterson is wrong. And the following day they campaign for something you don't approve of and and they're fools and Peterson is right. Mad old world.

its unlikely they are campaigning for anything useful , its "bring down the patriarchy" knitting hats that look like vaginas that kind of thing.

Maxpfizer

johnp001 wrote: »

He did offer this short article offering clarification though:
On the New York Times and “Enforced Monogamy”

So, let’s summarize. Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.

That’s all.

No recommendation of police-state assignation of woman to man (or, for that matter, man to woman).

No arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels.

Nothing scandalous (all innuendo and suggestive editing to the contrary)

Just the plain, bare, common-sense facts: socially-enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence. In addition (and not trivially) they also help provide mothers with comparatively reliable male partners, and increase the probability that stable, father-intact homes will exist for children.

I think Peterson makes an assumption in his above summary in the statement:

I would certainly agree that it is preferable for any dangers facing people to be regulated socially as opposed to regulated legally (in my previous post I make an argument as to why social compromise solutions are preferable to solutions handed down by law) but I think Peterson of all people ought to realise that there are a lot of people, many of whom are his critics who would not accept this as a prima facie argument and who believe that regulation by law is the only/best way that progress should be achieved and that advocating people take either unilateral or social action, even on the basis that this is more likely to yield good results, is seen as victim blaming or self-help profiteering or similarly criticised.

The thing is that when Peterson says "the dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially" a large amount of his opponents do actually agree with this to some extent.

The people who whine about "toxic masculinity" in media or the people who argue that men should call out "locker room talk" or the people that think lads who are found not guilty in a court of law should still have their careers negatively impacted CLEARLY believe in some kind of "social regulation" of potentially dangerous (or "toxic") men.

The thing is that Peterson is working against what they call "toxic masculinity" just that instead of saying "we must destroy toxic masculinity" he is promoting self-help. As in maybe if these dudes tried living better and more fulfilled lives they wouldn't be so toxic.

At least we can agree that he isn't saying "dangerous men should just be given a free pass to do whatever they want".

Again, I feel like this comes down to people arguing against nuance. Peterson identifies a problem with "Masculinity" just as writers for The Guardian do. But he's "The Bad Man" that we must not agree with so, again, we have to twist what he says so that we simply cannot agree. We can't even really discuss it. He's bad so shut up.

Maxpfizer

cloudatlas wrote: »

Lol! Enforced manogamy is the cure for men who have failed, they need good partners otherwise women will go for high status men.

This is the guy who was also hailed as some kind of hero because he put down a journalist who is not a peer academically and also a guy who wouldn't come out in support of the lgbt because he didn't like the people who advocate for their rights.

Jordan Peterson believes violent men need enforced monogamy

Hopefully I can lay out how this works.

You come here and say "LOL enforced manogamy is the cure for men who have failed".

I think "wow, that's pretty extreme and stupid".

Then, when I look into it, it turns out that, no, he didn't really say that and the writer of the article is not exactly being honest.

This does not reflect well on yourself or the person who wrote the article. It also doesn't reflect badly on Peterson. If anything, it makes me more sympathetic towards Peterson because I see the extent people will go to simply to convince me that he's much worse than he actually is.

Like I don't see how you could possibly think this ends well for you? You are a dishonest person spreading "fake news" and anybody who cares to look into your "claims" can see right through you.

It's disrespectful to everyone reading this thread. Like, you honestly think we are too stupid to look things up?

Embarrassing.

blinding

Peterson is a very bright and intelligent Person .

How come Rabid Feminists can’t produce anyone to debate with him . Their ‘..... ‘ Philosophy ‘ must be sorely lacking .

dav3

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2018/may/23/jordan-peterson-public-intellectual-isnt-clever-violent-men-monogamy

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

What a genius. Arranged marriages for all. There'll be no more violent men in the world.

p1akuw47h5r3it

dav3 wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2018/may/23/jordan-peterson-public-intellectual-isnt-clever-violent-men-monogamy



What a genius. Arranged marriages for all. There'll be no more violent men in the world.

Ffs. He hasn't called for arranged marriages.

Dyr

dav3 wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2018/may/23/jordan-peterson-public-intellectual-isnt-clever-violent-men-monogamy



What a genius. Arranged marriages for all. There'll be no more violent men in the world.

JRant

dav3 wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2018/may/23/jordan-peterson-public-intellectual-isnt-clever-violent-men-monogamy



What a genius. Arranged marriages for all. There'll be no more violent men in the world.

You do understand that he didn't say that, don't you? The very same article that claims he is a closet communist. Absolute bladderdash.

Maxpfizer

dav3 wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2018/may/23/jordan-peterson-public-intellectual-isnt-clever-violent-men-monogamy

What a genius. Arranged marriages for all. There'll be no more violent men in the world.

Yes. I totally believe this is a completely accurate representation of Petersons views and will not question it.

I am on the anti-Peterson side now thanks to your completely honest and nuanced take on the situation...

Wait... what?

Jordan Peterson: "So, let’s summarize. Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.

That’s all.

No recommendation of police-state assignation of woman to man (or, for that matter, man to woman).

No arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels.

Nothing scandalous (all innuendo and suggestive editing to the contrary)

Just the plain, bare, common-sense facts: socially-enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence. In addition (and not trivially) they also help provide mothers with comparatively reliable male partners, and increase the probability that stable, father-intact homes will exist for children."

Oh... I see... you're one of those posters dav3.

JRant

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Hopefully I can lay out how this works.

You come here and say "LOL enforced manogamy is the cure for men who have failed".

I think "wow, that's pretty extreme and stupid".

Then, when I look into it, it turns out that, no, he didn't really say that and the writer of the article is not exactly being honest.

This does not reflect well on yourself or the person who wrote the article. It also doesn't reflect badly on Peterson. If anything, it makes me more sympathetic towards Peterson because I see the extent people will go to simply to convince me that he's much worse than he actually is.

Like I don't see how you could possibly think this ends well for you? You are a dishonest person spreading "fake news" and anybody who cares to look into your "claims" can see right through you.

It's disrespectful to everyone reading this thread. Like, you honestly think we are too stupid to look things up?

Embarrassing.

I linked to an article in Quillet earlier that outlines exactly what you are saying. The level of dishonesty required to completely misrepresent what he says is staggering.

markodaly

cloudatlas wrote: »

Jordan Peterson believes violent men need enforced monogamy

That article perfectly tagged. Belonging to the category of Fashion.

Maxpfizer

Bambi wrote: »

It's amazing isn't it?

What isn't about this guy that has people absolutely falling over themselves to lie about him?

blinding

Bambi wrote: »

Kathy Newman thought she was dealing with your average half wit politician .

She destroyed herself .

Jeez did she not do her research ? Did she not understand that Peterson knows his stuff and that this was not the situation to wing it .

She thought she could answer his questions for him:P

Kathy worked out that , there are people out there far clever than her and do not try to put words into their mouths .

Call Me Jimmy

dav3 wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2018/may/23/jordan-peterson-public-intellectual-isnt-clever-violent-men-monogamy



What a genius. Arranged marriages for all. There'll be no more violent men in the world.

I'm always on the lookout for videos challenging peterson because I always assume that my gut could be mistaken and I'm having my thinking swayed by bull. Unfortunately most are just so disingenuous and based on silly assumptions like above.

I've my own areas of disagreement and skepticism with him, but his opponents need to up their game.

blinding

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I'm always on the lookout for videos challenging peterson because I always assume that my gut could be mistaken and I'm having my thinking swayed by bull. Unfortunately most are just so disingenuous and based on silly assumptions like above.

I've my own areas of disagreement and skepticism with him, but his opponents need to up their game.

He is blessed by his opponents . They are no match for him .