Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Akrasia

HardQs wrote: »

Monogamy as enforced by social norms, because it benefits women as much as men.
which he has said loads of times.

We live like this already, its the norm to be monogamous, this has been enforced through marriage . At least have a go at a real opinion of his otherwise you play right into his description of his oposition. demonising him because you have no real counter points to make.

One problem is his complete inability to clearly state his opinion. If he had said 'I support monogamy' that would be clear., or I think we should promote monogamy and not promote promiscuous relationships, that's clear too. When he says 'enforced monogamy' that is an extreme position that takes a lot of backpedaling and 'context' and it can be interpreted in many different ways depending on who he is talking to.

Another problem is his opinion seems to contradict itself in significant ways. He doesn't like 'radical socialism' because he is a 'classical liberal' meaning he doesn't support coercive economic activity even though he acknowledges that there are a great deal of people at severe economic disadvantages due to the unequal distribution of wealth and opportunity, but he does think society should coerce through social pressure, individuals to remain in monogamous relationships on the basis that it's better for the children and men will be less violent.

What else is bad for children and leads to violence? Poverty and gross income inequality.

Peterson, in many of the interviews I have seen with him is often confronted with the contradictions inherent in his own world view and sometimes he acts surprised and even accepts the criticism and says he'll have to re-evaluate his position, but inevitably, the revelations he arrives at are dropped and never contribute to any serious change of heart or position, and his next book or article or interview will contain the same errors of reasoning that were pointed out and accepted before.

20Cent

professore wrote: »

Surely this is interfering with democracy though?

Debatable, but the claim that equality of outcome is a policy of Irish parties is nonsense.

brevity

Akrasia wrote: »

One problem is his complete inability to clearly state his opinion. If he had said 'I support monogamy' that would be clear., or I think we should promote monogamy and not promote promiscuous relationships, that's clear too. When he says 'enforced monogamy' that is an extreme position that takes a lot of backpedaling and 'context' and it can be interpreted in many different ways depending on who he is talking to.

.

This is deliberate imo.

Akrasia

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Damn those libertarians, wanting people to choose how they live their own life. Without being forced to conform to society.

unless its 'enforced monogamy' through social pressure

BuyersRemorse

I sometimes think he concocted an entire philosophy from watching Fight Club, except that where Palahniuk laid the blame for male feelings of emasculation on post-industrial consumerist society, Peterson makes Marxism the bogey man.

Brian?

Akrasia wrote: »

unless its 'enforced monogamy' through social pressure

Well, social pressures are grand for libertarians. They don’t like governmental pressures, even though the government has been elected by the society.

Akrasia

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.

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.

Classical liberalism is considered to be right wing. He is also socially conservative, given that he spends a lot of time trying to defend traditional values and uses religion as part justification of this, and guess what, he also identifies as a conservative (at least some of the time, he's a very inconsistent man)

markodaly

Akrasia wrote: »

Classical liberalism is considered to be right wing.

Says who? You?

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

Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom.

The fact that people think classic liberals are 'right-wing' shows us how much to the left the modern liberals have gone.

As Dave Rubin said, the modern left is no longer liberal

DickSwiveller Returns

The truth is most people have no idea what 'left' 'conservative' 'liberal' mean. I wish people would stop pretending they do.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

One of JPs straw men. Who’s arguing for equity of outcome? It’s not a goal of any left wing ideology.

You were saying?

http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-theatres-gender-balance-4116799-Jul2018/

10 IRISH THEATRE companies have come together to bring about gender equality in their arena – and the move will include gender-blind casting and unconscious bias training for some of them.

How does gender-blind casting work?
A woman can be King Lear, while a man can be Cordelia, or some other such nonesense?

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/legislation-to-reduce-gender-pay-gap-set-for-this-year-1.3451849

Draft legislation aimed at reducing the gender pay gap is expected to be initiated by the Government before the summer recess and will likely be far stronger than that recently enacted in the UK.

Senator Ivana Bacik, who is behind a Labour Party Bill on the issue that has already passed several stages in the Seanad, said there was broad support for the introduction of legislation, which would help reduce differences in levels of remuneration between men and women.

The National Women’s Council of Ireland (NWCI) said it hoped the forthcoming gender pay legislation would be strict, particularly in terms of imposing criminal sanctions on companies that do not comply with the regulations.

DickSwiveller Returns

markodaly wrote: »

You were saying?

http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-theatres-gender-balance-4116799-Jul2018/



How does gender-blind casting work?
A woman can be King Lear, while a man can be Cordelia, or some other such nonesense?

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/legislation-to-reduce-gender-pay-gap-set-for-this-year-1.3451849

Is there any end to this nonsense??

Akrasia

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

The truth is most people have no idea what 'left' 'conservative' 'liberal' mean. I wish people would stop pretending they do.

Economic left means governments having a big role in redistributing wealth, and the government has a big role in regulating industry

Economic right means using market forces as the primary driver of wealth distribution with minimal government interference

Socially liberal means respecting individual autonomy to make personal decisions that affect them

Socially conservative means respecting traditional values regarding religion, family and state regulations on personal activity to protect 'traditional moral values'

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

You were saying?

http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-theatres-gender-balance-4116799-Jul2018/



How does gender-blind casting work?
A woman can be King Lear, while a man can be Cordelia, or some other such nonesense?

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/legislation-to-reduce-gender-pay-gap-set-for-this-year-1.3451849

Great. Some measure to give equality of opportunity. Surely you agree equality of opportunity is a good thing?

If a man auditions for the part of Cordelia and does a better job than the women auditioning, shouldn’t he get the part? Same goes for the woman and King Lear. Ignoring their gender and focusing on how well they play a part is the very definition of equality of opportunity.

I’ve seen an all female “Hamlet” and an all male “The Importance of Being Ernest” in theatre. Both were excellent.

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

Says who? You?

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


The fact that people think classic liberals are 'right-wing' shows us how much to the left the modern liberals have gone.

As Dave Rubin said, the modern left is no longer liberal

The fact that you post this, shows you haven’t a clue what your talking about.

As I’ve told you numerous times before. The left were never liberals and liberals were never on the left.

DickSwiveller Returns

Akrasia wrote: »

Economic left means governments having a big role in redistributing wealth, and the government has a big role in regulating industry

Economic right means using market forces as the primary driver of wealth distribution with minimal government interference

Socially liberal means respecting individual autonomy to make personal decisions that affect them

Socially conservative means respecting traditional values regarding religion, family and state regulations on personal activity to protect 'traditional moral values'

But what is someone, like me, is socially conservative but economically firmly on the left. I'd be called a right winger by a lot of people but I hate rampant capitalism and greed.

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

But what is someone, like me, is socially conservative but economically firmly on the left. I'd be called a right winger by a lot of people but I hate rampant capitalism and greed.

You are your own person. You aren’t defining yourself by an ideology. No one else should define you by one.

Jordan Peterson defined himself by the ideology of classic liberalism though. That’s the difference.

Outlaw Pete

Brian? wrote: »

Left politicians have been pushing for equality of opportunity. Noy equality of outcome.

If that were true, we wouldn't have so much of it.

Gender quotas in public life are a misguided reaction to he gender imbalance in public life. They were originally intended to bring some balance through providing greater opportunity for women, where there was perceived gender discrimination.

The above makes no sense. It's contradictory.

Gender quotas are not about creating equality of opportunity, they are about creating "equality" of outcome.

That you say they were a "misguided reaction" though shows that you are actually in agreement with Jordan, whether you like it not.

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If that were true, we wouldn't have so much of it.



The above makes no sense. It's contradictory.

Gender quotas are not about creating equality of opportunity, they are about creating "equality" of outcome.

That you say they were a "misguided reaction" though shows that you are actually in agreement with Jordan, whether you like it not.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. I believe they were intended to give equality of opportunity, because that’s the only thing they could do practically.

I don’t mind agreeing with Peterson, I’m not on first name terms with him, every now and then. Sometimes he’s actually right. Just not most of the time.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

The fact that you post this, shows you haven’t a clue what your talking about.

As I’ve told you numerous times before. The left were never liberals and liberals were never on the left.

Is this is where you try and convince me of your snake oiled ideology that is libertarian socialism, an ideology that is impossible to implement because the state cannot enforce it by any means of coercion?

bnt

What's all this stuff about Shakespeare? If you know anything at all about theatre in that period - or if you've seen Shakespeare In Love - you'll know that men and boys played all the parts in the original productions. Women were not permitted on the serious stage, and "actress" was a euphemism for "prostitute" in those days.

I don't believe this discussion is still going on. Peterson is hardly the first to identify a chronic problem with men lacking direction and struggling to find their place in the modern world. I've heard of Christina Hoff Sommers and her writing about the "war on boys", but didn't realise that she was doing it back in 2000 - 18 years ago!

So Peterson is just the latest, but where I disagree with him is in his prescriptions for tackling the problem. He seems to be prescribing religion "under the counter" as one of the ways of providing direction, regardless of his personal religious beliefs (which are not clear). That might work for some - the ones lacking critical thinking skills - but it's not going to work for everyone.

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

Is this is where you try and convince me of your snake oiled ideology that is libertarian socialism, an ideology that is impossible to implement because the state cannot enforce it by any means of coercion?

No. This is where you drag up old arguments to attempt to appear clever, because you can’t politely concede a point.

Outlaw Pete

Brian? wrote: »

I believe they were intended to give equality of opportunity, because that’s the only thing they could do practically.

What is 'they' here? The legislators or the quotas themselves?

blinding

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Is there any end to this nonsense??

You would sort of expect capitalism to sort a lot of that .

By people not giving them their money .

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

Great. Some measure to give equality of opportunity. Surely you agree equality of opportunity is a good thing?

Yes, but that it not what that is. This is equality of outcomes.

Do you think passing laws will make more men become primary school teachers and more women computer programmers overnight?
There is, of course, no or little discussion on why the pay gap exists, hours worked, part-time vs full-time, years into a career, career choices, danger of the jobs, etc...

The pay gap is a complex issue, but this type of legislation is not aimed at nuance, its just a sledgehammer to curry favor with middle class educated prawn sandwich eating, left-wing types.

In terms of the Gender Equality in Practice in Irish Theatre, again equality of outcomes, not opportunity.

Gender blind readings for plays
Unconscious bias training for all staff
Achieve equality of gender of board members
50% of a new play commissions to be allocated to women writers
Gender blind casting
Addition of Dignity at Work clauses to employees charter
Re-examination of the female canon
Work with third level institution to encourage gender parity in areas that do not reflect equality of gender.
To achieve gender balance in programming within a five-year period.

Straight out of the Gender Studies handbook.

https://www.tcd.ie/cgws/about/index.php

Since its inception, the Centre has developed and sustained an M.Phil programme and a doctoral programme of the highest quality, has undertaken significant research activities and engaged in both innovative and traditional community outreach. Members of the Centre are recognised both nationally and throughout the EU for their expertise on gender issues.

The Centre for Gender and Women's Studies undertakes three interrelated activities: teaching, research and community/extramural activities. Using an integrated approach to research and learning, both staff and students are encouraged to participate across these areas.

If a man auditions for the part of Cordelia and does a better job than the women auditioning, shouldn’t he get the part? Same goes for the woman and King Lear. Ignoring their gender and focusing on how well they play a part is the very definition of equality of opportunity.

Apart from of course being the wrong sex. Like asking a plumber to fix your car.

I can see in some rare incidents where this may well work, I would not be against per say a man playing a woman or a man playing a woman, but this will lead to gender fluid roles and characters which will just dilute the whole experience and make these plays quite $hite.

Then they will wonder why audiences are deserting them and will probably blame the patriarchy instead of themselves.

Knock themselves out, they are free to destroy their own medium.

markodaly

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

But what is someone, like me, is socially conservative but economically firmly on the left. I'd be called a right winger by a lot of people but I hate rampant capitalism and greed.

Right wing is meant as a pejorative, therefore classic liberal = right wing, cause right wing is bad, or something, m'kay

Taytoland

He must be the most talked about intellectual in the world right now, just look at this thread and youtube videos from people trying to discredit him. A lot of what he says is just psychology based and some of it just plain common sense on leftist politics and cultural Marxism. It's not revolutionary but some are so rattled by him it beggars belief.

Franz Von Peppercorn

markodaly wrote: »

Is this is where you try and convince me of your snake oiled ideology that is libertarian socialism, an ideology that is impossible to implement because the state cannot enforce it by any means of coercion?

markodaly wrote: »

Is this is where you try and convince me of your snake oiled ideology that is libertarian socialism, an ideology that is impossible to implement because the state cannot enforce it by any means of coercion?

Everybody is going to wake up one day and decide to act like no other human has ever done and disregard whatever wealth or savings they have. They will take over their companies (this I imagine invalidating any pension or shares they have) or share their farm or company with the workers. They will hold no further interest in their housing or cars, and hand it to the commons. The State will disappear and yet somehow the old, invalid and unemployable will be catered for. Crime will cease because the mafia and other crime lords will recognise the stupidity of their actions and thus no police force is required. The roads and infrastructure will start to self maintain. There will be no borders but no immigration issues as everybody will magically be earning the same worldwide although the differing communes couldn’t possibly be equally efficient.

There will be no money but you can have what you want from the commons store by asking for it, unless it isn’t a need (as defined somehow by the commons) and then you won’t. So you won’t.

Now. Back to Peterson the cult leader.

markodaly

On the whole, on idea that the left has no interest in quotas, has anyone heard of affirmative action. A policy that has been in the US for the past 50 years?

Trump is looking to do away with it because it appears Asian American are being discriminated against unfairly because of their better than average test scores.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44703874

This policy has been mainstay progressive left-wing policy for decades, yet some charlatans would have you believe that the left has no interest in this type of stuff.

JohnnyFlash

Looks to me like two groups of weirdos and ideological oddballs are clashing - one obsessed with the cult of Marxism, and the other with anything that rejects that. Always played out on the internet by angry young men who define themselves by the side they place themselves in. More in common than they’d like to admit it seems to this neutral observer.

Outlaw Pete

markodaly wrote: »

In terms of the Gender Equality in Practice in Irish Theatre, again equality of outcomes, not opportunity.

Absolutely, a few months back on another thread I posted:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

They don't want equality of opportunity, like old school feminists rightly fought for, they want equality of outcome and they are damn well getting it. I was only speaking with a play writer last week who told me that he was seeing excellent work passed over for very mediocre offerings just because the writer was a woman and this is all on the back of changes that are being implemented following the 'Waking the Feminists' pushing for a diversity and equality strategy throughout the national theatre.

Yet, Brian will tell us nobody on the left is pushing for equality of outcome.