Jordan Peterson interview on C4

20Cent

markodaly wrote: »

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.

When were "the left" in power in the US?

Taytoland

hector_gomez wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

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.

i dont find him all that interesting at all , he has quite an annoying voice , what i do find interesting is how he is such a lightening rod for the left , even firmly mainstream middle class left figures like fergus finlay joined in on twitter the last few days berating peterson and comparing him to 1930,s fascists

its incredible how irate he makes them

Yeah, I do like him but he pretty much only talks about the same sort of stuff. If you have listened to one interview you have heard pretty much most of them, unless he is accompanied by other interesting people that is. You need variety to keep it interesting which is why Christopher Hitchens was great because he could talk with authority on so many topics.

Dyr

Akrasia wrote: »

unless its 'enforced monogamy' through social pressure

Every. Single. Time.

Dyr

20Cent wrote: »

When were "the left" in power in the US?

When was the Catholic church in power in Ireland?

RandomName2

Brian? wrote: »

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

You say this, but I'd argue it is the other way around.

I have not seen his opponents treat the topics he is discussing. Take you, for instance. I haven't read this whole thread, but you seem to be entirely focusing on the character of Peterson. His critics generally do.

They discuss where he is on the political compass, they discuss his intelligence, they discuss whether he is an extremist. They discredit him, saying he is unqualified, or a clown, or an ideologue.

You say you're not going to discuss the topics of his debate because he isn't a politician. That's a bit unusual, but still pretty similar to other methods of deflection.

Why is this important? His opponents, who are almost universally identify themselves as belonging to 'the left', seem intent on assassinating his character without addressing his points.

Your argument is null and void because it precisely isn't an argument. People are foolish to be engaging with this sort of deflection. This 'the left don't promote equality of outcomes' or 'Jordan Peterson is right wing'; it seems designed specifically to confuse and obfuscate the central issues, having people chasing after wild gooses attempting to disprove these statements.

The 'Peterson supports the enforcement of monogamy' was one obvious lie by a different poster it took me a solid half-hour to debunk.

I can not understand the reluctance to engage with the arguments put forward by Peterson, except that it is deference to an ideology. If you don't care about what he is saying, yet express clear antipathy, then there is no other conclusion to be drawn.

Own it. Say that you know that the ideology that you ascribe to is correct, and therefore you do not need to critically assess it.

Although saying that 'classic liberalism', and libertarianism is right wing.. is kind of doing that anyway in a roundabout way.

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

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





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.

Are you honestly this small minded? All Shakespeare plays were written for entirely male cast originally. Shouldn’t we go back to that? Introducing women to play the female characters destroyed their own medium.

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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



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

Are you seriously quoting your own opinion to back up your own opinion???

This thread has hit peak nonsense. I’m out.

Brian?

RandomName2 wrote: »

You say this, but I'd argue it is the other way around.

I have not seen his opponents treat the topics he is discussing. Take you, for instance. I haven't read this whole thread, but you seem to be entirely focusing on the character of Peterson. His critics generally do.

How am I focused on his character? His politics are not his character.

I have tried to refute the points he makes I disagree with. The rest of the time I spend fighting off random attacks on my own ideology and intelligence. It’s tiring.

They discuss where he is on the political compass, they discuss his intelligence, they discuss whether he is an extremist. They discredit him, saying he is unqualified, or a clown, or an ideologue.

You say you're not going to discuss the topics of his debate because he isn't a politician. That's a bit unusual, but still pretty similar to other methods of deflection.

Why is this important? His opponents, who are almost universally identify themselves as belonging to 'the left', seem intent on assassinating his character without addressing his points.

Your argument is null and void because it precisely isn't an argument. People are foolish to be engaging with this sort of deflection. This 'the left don't promote equality of outcomes' or 'Jordan Peterson is right wing'; it seems designed specifically to confuse and obfuscate the central issues, having people chasing after wild gooses attempting to disprove these statements.

The 'Peterson supports the enforcement of monogamy' was one obvious lie by a different poster it took me a solid half-hour to debunk.

I can not understand the reluctance to engage with the arguments put forward by Peterson, except that it is deference to an ideology. If you don't care about what he is saying, yet express clear antipathy, then there is no other conclusion to be drawn.

Own it. Say that you know that the ideology that you ascribe to is correct, and therefore you do not need to critically assess it.

Although saying that 'classic liberalism', and libertarianism is right wing.. is kind of doing that anyway in a roundabout way.

I am trying to engage with arguments Peterson puts forward. Very few posters who support Peterson want to do that without attacking my own beliefs or “the left” in general. It makes debate impossible.

I do disagree with his ideology. I believe mine is correct because I’ve applied critical analysis. But this thread is about the things Peterson is selling. I want to discuss them more than anyone. It’s clearing a path for that discussion that’s proving impossible, due to certain posters. I’ll probably unfollow the thread again now and let everyone get back to attacking 20cent and agreeing with each other.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

Are you seriously quoting your own opinion to back up your own opinion???

This thread has hit peak nonsense. I’m out.

That's one way to win an argument, fair play.

CerebralCortex

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

That's one way to win an argument, fair play.

Ah Jaysus. Couldn't help that little dig could ya?

Brian you might like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp29zPC3wuw&list=PLFad02vA5AOE1H54uQgJbJxBDonm-Gmpw

7aubzxk43m2sni

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Ah Jaysus. Couldn't help that little dig could ya?

Brian you might like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp29zPC3wuw&list=PLFad02vA5AOE1H54uQgJbJxBDonm-Gmpw

It's the equivalent of LON's tweet in the first post of her thread.

"I'm too tired to murder him right now, any takers?"

It's just empty words. Zero substance. Have you anything to say at all? Any rebuttals to the points people have made?

CerebralCortex

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

It's the equivalent of LON's tweet in the first post of her thread.

What are you talking about?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

"I'm too tired to murder him right now, any takers?"

It's just empty words. Zero substance. Have you anything to say at all? Any rebuttals to the points people have made?

What are the main points of debate this thread is long? Could you condense them? I understand the frustration Brian? is going through, JP is an almighty waffler most of the time. When he's being clear enough to be understood he's offensively wrong.

I like how Joe Rogan took him down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLoDX1HheFY

So vacuous even Joe Rogan can point out his BS.

evolving_doors

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What are you talking about?



What are the main points of debate this thread is long? Could you condense them? I understand the frustration Brian? is going through, JP is an almighty waffler most of the time. When he's being clear enough to be understood he's offensively wrong.

I like how Joe Rogan took him down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLoDX1HheFY

So vacuous even Joe Rogan can point out his BS.

Joe Duffy is doing it for you now on da laveline

RandomName2

Brian? wrote: »

How am I focused on his character? His politics are not his character.

I have tried to refute the points he makes I disagree with.

The rest of the time I spend fighting off random attacks on my own ideology and intelligence. It’s tiring.

I am not really seeing that.

I wasn't familiar with this thread until very, very recently, so forgive me that I had to do a gloss over your posts to date here. The main points you've made

• Whether or not the Democrats in America are left wing (you say they're not)
• Jordan Peterson is religious
• The left doesn't promote equality of outcome
• Identity politics have gone too far
• The protesting of Peterson's talks was an expression of free-speech.
• Marx was a decent enough guy.
• National-socialism was not in the least bit socialist
• Antifa are okay

And at this stage I've gone back 4 months.

In fairness you do seem to have most of your time taken up with people arguing with you, but I'm not seeing much evidence of talking about Peterson's points at all (although you at one time do criticize how he's dressed).

Okay, less character assassination than what I expected, you simply dismiss him as not being worth talking about at all.

Akrasia

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.

There is an argument that in order to redress a historical imbalance, a bit of positive discrimination may be required.

In order to create equality of opportunity, you need to redress imbalances on some level, eg: The children of rich parents have access to education from a pre-school age, so in order to redress some of this imbalance, the state needs to provide universal access to pre-school education.

With female participation in the workplace, there has historically been a male domination of the upper echelons of corporate and state boards, and due to the way these boards are appointed, there is a systemic bias towards those who have already got experience on these boards and work related contacts in these bodies.

We could wait for women to organically climb each rung of the ladder, struggling all the way to overcome disadvantages, or we could make a law that says a percentage (usually not even an equal percentage) of upper management needs to be female.

You mightn't agree with this, but you don't have to agree with everything to see the rationale behind it.

Given that there are still a huge amount of unqualified men and women appointed to boards for political purposes or because they happen to be related to influential people, it's not really a convincing argument to oppose these laws purely on the basis of meritocracy.

When we tackle nepotism in political and industrial appointments, then we can say that it truly is a meritocracy, and abolish any gender quotas.

Of course, it's probably impossible to have a truly meritocratic appointments process without an enormous amount of red tape and regulation of the appointments process, so we're swapping one set of problems for another.

evolving_doors

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What are you talking about?



What are the main points of debate this thread is long? Could you condense them? I understand the frustration Brian? is going through, JP is an almighty waffler most of the time. When he's being clear enough to be understood he's offensively wrong.

I like how Joe Rogan took him down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLoDX1HheFY

So vacuous even Joe Rogan can point out his BS.

At what point did Joe Rogan take him down?
All I hear is another guy paraphrasing snippets of what JP is saying into what he thinks he is saying. Same as people did with the Ben Shapiro Vice interview.
Anyone knows that what JP says is nuanced so its easy to paraphrase him into racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/misogynist.

The Bishop Basher

evolving_doors wrote: »

Joe Duffy is doing it for you now on da laveline

Peter Kavanagh on..

Jesus he's one angry man..

I feel sorry for him carrying all that bitterness around..

blinding

evolving_doors wrote: »

Joe Duffy is doing it for you now on da laveline

Joe stumbling there on Austerity ....probably because he never experienced any of it himself .

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

Are you honestly this small minded? All Shakespeare plays were written for entirely male cast originally. Shouldn’t we go back to that? Introducing women to play the female characters destroyed their own medium.

You are going off topic now.

You denied that left-wingers were advocating equality of outcomes, I gave multiple examples to the contrary.

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.

Yet, you want to argue some other such nonsense.

Gender-blind readings and castings, unconscious bias training (that has no scientific evidence that works), 50% of new play commissions to be allocated to women writers, etc..

The last point alone is game set and match against your argument.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

I believe mine is correct because I’ve applied critical analysis.

*spits out coffee*

Quite an oxymoronic statement there horse.

20Cent

Jim Jefferies making a good point as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdvS2Re21Og

Heard a bit of the Joe Duffy show about him.
A caller made a good point.
When talking about immigration he said something about your skin being a border to keep pathogens out. Implying immigrants are like a disease.

markodaly

20Cent wrote: »

When talking about immigration he said something about your skin being a border to keep pathogens out. Implying immigrants are like a disease.

LOL, do keep lying 20Cent, one day you will tell the truth.

Dyr

20Cent wrote: »

A caller made a good point.
When talking about immigration he said something about your skin being a border to keep pathogens out. Implying immigrants are like a disease.

So what he was saying is.. Immigrants are like a disease





Reset the Cathy clock

markodaly

We should just have an auto repost of that image when 20cent makes a post in this thread.

20Cent

When discussing immigration.

"Your skin is a border, your clothes are a border. Your house is a border. You need thise borders or you will die."

What point do you think he is making?

DickSwiveller Returns

Bambi wrote: »

So what he was saying is.. Immigrants are like a disease





Reset the Cathy clock

:D:D

20Cent

Thread going down the tubes with memes now. Will leave the lobsters to it.

Also I own several bridges email me your bank details and passwords for more information.

JMNolan

The most important thing about the Jim Jefferies interview is that Peterson admitted that Peterson was wrong and he would reconsider his point of view. Haven't seen many people do that, made me admire him more to be honest.

Outlaw Pete

Brian? wrote: »

Are you seriously quoting your own opinion to back up your own opinion???

Nope, if you had actually read the post you would have seen that it wasnt my view that I was referencing, but the view of a playwright friend who had seen excellent work passed over for very mediocre offerings in the national theatre based purely on gender on the back of changes implemented following the 'Waking the Feminists' that pushed for a diversity.

I’m out.

You were never in tbf.

CerebralCortex

evolving_doors wrote: »

At what point did Joe Rogan take him down?
All I hear is another guy paraphrasing snippets of what JP is saying into what he thinks he is saying. Same as people did with the Ben Shapiro Vice interview.
Anyone knows that what JP says is nuanced so its easy to paraphrase him into racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/misogynist.

By pointing out that enforced monogamy is a form of equality of outcome.