Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Pa ElGrande

Deleted User wrote: »

No, they haven't. Otherwise, 1) the Gender wage gap wouldn't keep coming up by various politicians, and 2) gender quotas wouldn't be encouraged, 3) virtually every government initiative about equality solely refers to women's need to gain equality. Very little if any suggestion of equality for males.

Politicians and those who run the state love “equality” as an organizing principle, because it can never be achieved. In the course of trying, the State acquires ever more power over ever more practices and institutions. Unfortunately for anyone who questions the premise of equality they are hectored out of the society most commonly in todays political environment labelled with various epithets like Nazi, racist or misogynist and the more they protest their innocence the more this is taken as confirmation of their guilt.

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote:

Egalitarianism under the best circumstances becomes hypocrisy; if sincerely accepted and believed in, its menace is greater. Then all actual inequalities appear without exception to be unjust, immoral, intolerable. Hatred, unhappiness, tension, a general maladjustment is the result. The situation is even worse when brutal efforts are made to establish equality through a process of artificial leveling (‘social engineering’) which can only be done by force, restrictions, or terror, and the outcome is a complete loss of liberty.

source - Liberty or Equality: The Challenge of Our Times (page 90-91 from the chapter A CRITIQUE OF DEMOCRACY)

Brian?

2 Scoops wrote: »

What I don't get though is how you ( and others ) try to portray this kind of faux intellect on Peterson and have continuously argued your viewpoint for months throughout this thread, then go ahead and make the catastrophic error of openly stating that you have no idea of Peterson's political leaning or indeed ideology, but you read it in some left wing column he's a right winger.

You’ve simply made that up. Why?

Anyone who has even spent a few hours watching Peterson would know he isn't. You try to give the appearance of knowing everything about him, when the reality is you don't know anything at all, but want others to believe you do.

A classic liberal is a right wing ideology. It’s an anti authoritarian right wing ideology.

2 Scoops

I'll try be more specific.

You thought Peterson describes himself as a conservative when if you'd have watched him he's been rallying against being smeared as a right winger ever since he got famous.

Anyone who's given him a fair shot would know this and clearly you didn't.

HappyAsLarE

While I agree that the Left assume Peterson is Right (therefore evil), the bigger issue he causes is calling them out for what they are.

Brian?

2 Scoops wrote: »

I'll try be more specific.

Rather than making stuff up? Thanks

You thought Peterson describes himself as a conservative when if you'd have watched him he's been rallying against being smeared as a right winger ever since he got famous.

I’ve seen him deny being part of the alt right and the far right. Which I never actually thought he was, but some people wrongly associated him with those elememts.

I thought I’d heard him say he was conservative, I was wrong. But why would this be a smear? There’s nothing evil about being a conservative. I don’t agree with them politically, but saying someone is a conservative is absolutely not a smear.

Yes he’s a classic liberal. Classic liberals and conservatives share a lot of ideas on economic theory. They both believe in a laissez faire economic system. Classic liberals and conservatives differ on social issues. A classic liberal should take a laissez fairs attitude to social issues as well, Peterson doesn’t really do this. However he objects to government intervention on social issues, so he has enough grounding to call himself a classic liberal.

Anyone who's given him a fair shot would know this and clearly you didn't.

I gave him a fair shot. I just happen to know what the terms conservative, liberal, classic liberal, libertarian etc. Actually mean.

I disagree with the ideas Jordan Peterson is selling. I don’t actually see any need for to attack his politics, he’s not standing for office. He is selling ideas I don’t agree with though.

Brian?

2 Scoops wrote: »

Anyone who has even spent a few hours watching Peterson would know he isn't. You try to give the appearance of knowing everything about him, when the reality is you don't know anything at all, but want others to believe you do.

I never replied to this part. I don’t try to give the appearance I know everything about him. I have listened to some of his speeches and debates. I disagree with a lot of what he says. I DO NOT believe he’s a bad person. I’ve said that before. I just disagree with his ideas.

Why are people being so bloody sensitive about a self help guru?

Wanderer78

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

While I agree that the Left assume Peterson is Right (therefore evil), the bigger issue he causes is calling them out for what they are.

define evil, does this mean my right winged friends are also evil, and should i completely ignore their views and opinions, or should i just disown these views and walk away from these friendships?

Brian?

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

While I agree that the Left assume Peterson is Right (therefore evil), the bigger issue he causes is calling them out for what they are.

Why would you follow someone who vehemently against identity politics while indulging in the same?

You’re making “the left” your enemy. I doubt you understand how nuanced and varied ideas on the left are.

Brian?

Wanderer78 wrote: »

define evil, does this mean my right winged friends are also evil, and should i completely ignore their views and opinions, or should i just disown these views and walk away from these friendships?

Apparently everyone on the left had a meeting and agreed on ever political idea. Part of that agreement was that the right are evil.

I missed the meeting. But it’s done. Time to start believing people are evil because they don’t agree with you. I’m not happy about it, but what choice do I have? I’m part of “the left”, which means I am not capable of independent thought outside the collective.

HappyAsLarE

Brian? wrote: »

Why would you follow someone who vehemently against identity politics while indulging in the same?

You’re making “the left” your enemy. I doubt you understand how nuanced and varied ideas on the left are.

Like Peterson I detest the extremes. I am an evidenced based kind of guy. Extremes have never worked. I believe the current social cry for equality at everything is extreme.

HappyAsLarE

Wanderer78 wrote: »

define evil, does this mean my right winged friends are also evil, and should i completely ignore their views and opinions, or should i just disown these views and walk away from these friendships?

You should disown them if they are extreme right.

20Cent

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Like Peterson I detest the extremes. I am an evidenced based kind of guy. Extremes have never worked. I believe the current social cry for equality at everything is extreme.

Can you tell me what party or who is "crying" for equality of outcome for everything?

Thanks

Wanderer78

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

You should disown them if they are extreme right.

thankfully very few extreme right around, particularly here in ireland, but calling right leaning people evil is a bit extreme, they are humans, with opinions

Brian?

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Like Peterson I detest the extremes. I am an evidenced based kind of guy. Extremes have never worked. I believe the current social cry for equality at everything is extreme.

So the entire “left” is an extreme in your opinion?

DickSwiveller Returns

20Cent wrote: »

Can you tell me what party or who is "crying" for equality of outcome for everything?

Thanks

Sinn Féin, Fine Gael, half of Fianna Fáil, Social Democrats, People Before Profit. Their social policies are broadly in line with the Socialist Workers Party

HappyAsLarE

20Cent wrote: »

Can you tell me what party or who is "crying" for equality of outcome for everything?

Thanks

Gender quotas, pay gap etc

HappyAsLarE

Brian? wrote: »

So the entire “left” is an extreme in your opinion?

Not at all. The extremists just aren’t as easily recognised which is dangerous.

Brian?

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Not at all. The extremists just aren’t as easily recognised which is dangerous.

Then why did you say Peterson was calling “the left” out for who they are? Why not qualify your statement?

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Sinn Féin, Fine Gael, half of Fianna Fáil, Social Democrats, People Before Profit. Their social policies are broadly in line with the Socialist Workers Party

What social policies are intended to produce an equality of outcome?

20Cent

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Sinn Féin, Fine Gael, half of Fianna Fáil, Social Democrats, People Before Profit. Their social policies are broadly in line with the Socialist Workers Party

The Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act 2011, passed in 2012, means that thirty percent of candidates put forward for epection need to be female otherwise the party will lose half it's state funding for the next parliamentary term.

Hardly draconian.

20Cent

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Gender quotas, pay gap etc

There are gender quotas for electoral candidates 30% female. Thats about it etc

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Can you tell me what party or who is "crying" for equality of outcome for everything?

Thanks

There isn't a party as such, and they're not going to be crying out for equality of outcome... since equality of outcome is too easily described as being unfair, considering the very real influence of choice, skill, qualifications, personality, etc on career advancement.

However, we have seen the influence of feminism in the pursuit of women's rights, and rightly so, in bringing out the changes in our laws and society over the last 30+ years. And they have been extremely effective in doing so. We have laws in place to protect the individuals right to equality in the workplace, and social perceptions have been shifted to no longer consider women 'just good enough' to work in the home.

And the feminist movement built momentum for change. This is the important part. Many here are seeking to assign responsibility to one party or group of politicians, but it's not going to be that specific. The desire to implement "fair" or "equal" policies that support women in just about every facet of life is part of our society now. It's part of every political group because they can see that there is support in the population for it. There is also the aspect that our educational 'industry' is pretty dominated by women, which encourages the teaching of concepts that favor women... That's easily shown by the rise of feminism in Academia, firstly in the US, but it has also spread to other countries. Women's studies programs which are obviously sexist/biased are accepted because the focus is on women's rights and not genuine equality. The result of all of this is that we see women who graduated from these programs being "placed" into positions of authority by gender quotas and that in turn, encourages more quotas to be applied to other areas.

And it's worth considering how we base most of our demands for change. On Psychology, and the research coming from that profession.

"In 1970, women made up just over 20 percent of PhD recipients in psychology, according to the National Research Council. In 2005, the last year for which data are available, nearly 72 percent of new PhD and PsyDs entering psychology were women, according to APA's Center for Psychology Workforce Analysis and Research. And when you look even further down the line, graduate enrollment in psychology, including those pursuing master's-level degrees, reached nearly three-quarters female in 2005."

Criticism of past research by feminists or other groups often refers to the majority of males in the industry and a bias existing because of that... and yet, we are not hearing the same now that female psychologists are in the majority. In fact, we have seen the very quick rise of pop-psychology, and the use of psychology to justify the use of terms like "toxic masculinity" in contexts far different from their original meaning...

So, even without digging deeper and identifying other areas where women have gained far more influence than previous decades, we can see the foundation for change... (but somehow there's can't possibility be any bias because women, or those men involved in feminism, would never do that)

And other interest groups, or minority groups have seen the success of feminism, and are using the same model to encourage change for them. First to gain recognition, second to promote their aims, and then to bring about equality.

The problem though is that this is not about equality. Feminism is about women's rights. It's not about men's rights. It's not about equality.

Take a look at this article:

"In just two years the proportion of female directors increased from 8 per cent in 2006-15, to 80 per cent in 2017-18, and writers increased from 6 per cent to 33 per cent , under its new artistic director Selina Cartmell."

The remainder of the article goes on to talk about the patriarchy, and how difficult it remains for women... but it skips over that equality was bypassed in favor of more women in place than men. And I don't see any indication that they're going to step back and seek equal numbers. Equality is convenient when the numbers don't favor women....

You can see the same with the numbers of government initiatives for equality... and not just our government, but also the EU commission, or the UN. Look at their charters and their press releases, and the vast majority of initiatives specifically focus on women, in spite of their claims for equality. If this was about equality, there would be initiatives to bring about actual equality.

The point is that there is no focus to point fingers at. It's a movement spread across every area of society, and it will continue to be such. We have the media, and even our own politicians, promoting information to encourage the demands for equality for women or women's rights, but the information where women are already equal or, in fact superior, is hushed or pushed into the background. Which is why Peterson will be hushed.

BuyersRemorse

Peterson's brand of 'Reds under the bed' scaremongering may suit the US, who still believe in the Commie menace, but I find it depressing that so many Europeans have been sucked into believing that all societies ills are a product of the Left. I thought we were better than that.

DickSwiveller Returns

BuyersRemorse wrote: »

Peterson's brand of 'Reds under the bed' scaremongering may suit the US, who still believe in the Commie menace, but I find it depressing that so many Europeans have been sucked into believing that all societies ills are a product of the Left. I thought we were better than that.

There's no doubt that the social ideas of the so-called left (whatever that means) have taken hold in many Western Countries. As I said earlier it's pretty hard to distinguish things Frances Fitzgerald says from a member of a radical feminist group. I don't blame Peterson for being concerned about this trend.

20Cent

I think the problem is that people have forgotten what an actual intellectual is. We have become so used to the dumbed down opinions and the discussion as a sport with sides to cheer rather than a rational examination of facts and statistics.

Nowadays if you can talk for over an hour and throw in some references without drooling you're an intellectual. If you look at someone like Chomsky and compare his work to Peterson or Shapiro it is laughable they are called intellectuals.

Be a scientist, be religious, be a mystic but you can't be all three and claim to be scientific or even rational.

DickSwiveller Returns

20Cent wrote: »

I think the problem is that people have forgotten what an actual intellectual is. We have become so used to the dumbed down opinions and the discussion as a sport with sides to cheer rather than a rational examination of facts and statistics.

Nowadays if you can talk for over an hour and throw in some references without drooling you're an intellectual. If you look at someone like Chomsky and compare his work to Peterson or Shapiro it is laughable they are called intellectuals.

Be a scientist, be religious, be a mystic but you can't be all three and claim to be scientific or even rational.

Well Peterson is a qualified clinical psychologist and has held a professorship at Harvard. He's hardly thick.

20Cent

Deleted User wrote: »

There isn't a party as such, and they're not going to be crying out for equality of outcome... since equality of outcome is too easily described as being unfair, considering the very real influence of choice, skill, qualifications, personality, etc on career advancement.

However, we have seen the influence of feminism in the pursuit of women's rights, and rightly so, in bringing out the changes in our laws and society over the last 30+ years. And they have been extremely effective in doing so. We have laws in place to protect the individuals right to equality in the workplace, and social perceptions have been shifted to no longer consider women 'just good enough' to work in the home.

And the feminist movement built momentum for change. This is the important part. Many here are seeking to assign responsibility to one party or group of politicians, but it's not going to be that specific. The desire to implement "fair" or "equal" policies that support women in just about every facet of life is part of our society now. It's part of every political group because they can see that there is support in the population for it. There is also the aspect that our educational 'industry' is pretty dominated by women, which encourages the teaching of concepts that favor women... That's easily shown by the rise of feminism in Academia, firstly in the US, but it has also spread to other countries. Women's studies programs which are obviously sexist/biased are accepted because the focus is on women's rights and not genuine equality. The result of all of this is that we see women who graduated from these programs being "placed" into positions of authority by gender quotas and that in turn, encourages more quotas to be applied to other areas.

And it's worth considering how we base most of our demands for change. On Psychology, and the research coming from that profession.

"In 1970, women made up just over 20 percent of PhD recipients in psychology, according to the National Research Council. In 2005, the last year for which data are available, nearly 72 percent of new PhD and PsyDs entering psychology were women, according to APA's Center for Psychology Workforce Analysis and Research. And when you look even further down the line, graduate enrollment in psychology, including those pursuing master's-level degrees, reached nearly three-quarters female in 2005."

Criticism of past research by feminists or other groups often refers to the majority of males in the industry and a bias existing because of that... and yet, we are not hearing the same now that female psychologists are in the majority. In fact, we have seen the very quick rise of pop-psychology, and the use of psychology to justify the use of terms like "toxic masculinity" in contexts far different from their original meaning...

So, even without digging deeper and identifying other areas where women have gained far more influence than previous decades, we can see the foundation for change... (but somehow there's can't possibility be any bias because women, or those men involved in feminism, would never do that)

And other interest groups, or minority groups have seen the success of feminism, and are using the same model to encourage change for them. First to gain recognition, second to promote their aims, and then to bring about equality.

The problem though is that this is not about equality. Feminism is about women's rights. It's not about men's rights. It's not about equality.

Take a look at this article:

"In just two years the proportion of female directors increased from 8 per cent in 2006-15, to 80 per cent in 2017-18, and writers increased from 6 per cent to 33 per cent , under its new artistic director Selina Cartmell."

The remainder of the article goes on to talk about the patriarchy, and how difficult it remains for women... but it skips over that equality was bypassed in favor of more women in place than men. And I don't see any indication that they're going to step back and seek equal numbers. Equality is convenient when the numbers don't favor women....

You can see the same with the numbers of government initiatives for equality... and not just our government, but also the EU commission, or the UN. Look at their charters and their press releases, and the vast majority of initiatives specifically focus on women, in spite of their claims for equality. If this was about equality, there would be initiatives to bring about actual equality.

The point is that there is no focus to point fingers at. It's a movement spread across every area of society, and it will continue to be such. We have the media, and even our own politicians, promoting information to encourage the demands for equality for women or women's rights, but the information where women are already equal or, in fact superior, is hushed or pushed into the background. Which is why Peterson will be hushed.

He was on Marion whatshernames radio show and a sell out show in the point.
Also hearing this guy everywhere I look.

hardly being hushed.

20Cent

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Well Peterson is a qualified clinical psychologist and has held a professorship at Harvard. He's hardly thick.

Never called him thick.
There are different aspects to him. His academic career seems to be very good and he is well respected. Very smart man.
It's when he goes into other domains or starts mixing science, religion and god knows what else he gets into pop psychology and bs.

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Well Peterson is a qualified clinical psychologist and has held a professorship at Harvard. He's hardly thick.

He is indeed. His eminence while talking about clinical psychology should be respected, but critiqued.

Some his arguments outside this realm do not stand up to any scrutiny. His ability to argue a point is actually pretty poor. He gets lost in phraseology too often and makes logical leaps far too often as well.

professore

20Cent wrote: »

The Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act 2011, passed in 2012, means that thirty percent of candidates put forward for epection need to be female otherwise the party will lose half it's state funding for the next parliamentary term.

Hardly draconian.

Surely this is interfering with democracy though?