Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Akrasia

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.

there are struggles for equality of outcome, where the outcome is to have equal rights for minorities or access to specified services, like the right to vote, the right to education, the right to healthcare, the right to reproductive services, equal rights to marriage, the right to adopt, the right to work etc.

Then there are marxist ideologies where the equal outcome should be that everyone has common ownership over the means of production through the state, and everyone gets an equal share of the wealth in a society. There are very very few people seriously advocating that kind of economic system these days. A more nuanced and modern version of this kind of theory is Workers Self Management, producers behave similarly in many ways to capitalist corporations except that the workers own the business and decision making is democratic rather than decided by a board appointed by wealthy shareholders. (eg Mondragon Corporation, a large conglomerate in Spain with 74k workers)

Other than a tiny number of fringe oddballs, hardly anyone is calling for a world where everyone gets the same regardless of how much work they do or how much they contribute to society. Even radical left wing proposals for income caps on wealthy people still accept that people have a right to benefit from hard work and producing valuable goods and services. It's the current level of inequality that has grown out of sync with a sustainable democratic society that calls for changes in policy to address this imbalance.

Akrasia

JMNolan wrote: »

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.

Save your admiration until you see him actually change his view in future engagements. If Peterson admits he was wrong to Joe Rogan, and then goes out and repeats that same wrong point a few days later to someone else, then he doesn't deserve that admiration.

7aubzxk43m2sni

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 Rogan didn't do any taking down?

The main speaker in the video pulled a Cathy Newman.

JP: Equality of outcome is scary.

Speaker: Oh my God he thinks things like Universal health care are almost as bad as Nazis.

Ridiculous.

Additionally, he says something along the lines of Peterson having not thought out what he's saying. Whether you agree or disagree with his ideas, surely it's clear that he's put a great deal of thought into his words and is careful about what he says.

Brian?

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

I think you'll find most of those topics were not started by me. I can't let lies stand though, it's a character flaw.

And by less character assassination, you mean zero? I joked about his appearance, Peterson acolytes couldn't even see the joke.

I have addressed several area where I believe he's wrong:

• There is no neo Marxist/post modernist conspiracy winning an ideological battle.
• students are absolutely right to protest, regardless of the cleanliness of their rooms
• religion does more harm than good

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.
You were never in tbf.

You quoted yourself.

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

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.

You're repeating yourself.

You're repeating mistakes I've seen other posters make in the past. There something oddly familiar about your posting style and debate methods. 're reg perhaps ?

Outlaw Pete

Brian? wrote: »

You quoted yourself.

.....where I was referencing someone's first hand experience of how gender quotas negatively affect Irish theatre.

Penny will drop eventually. Anyway, I thought you were out?

Geuze

Socialists do aim for equality of outcomes.

In terms of housing, health, education, incomes, yes, they aim for equality of outcomes.

Often they settle for less, or compromise.

This is why SF or other socialist parties are against:

grinds
fee-paying schools
fee-paying GP services
etc., etc.

They don't like competition, anybody getting a headstart, or winners.

This is why they are for CAT and other wealth taxes.

They see all resources as available to be distributed to everybody.

Wanderer78

Geuze wrote:

This is why they are for CAT and other wealth taxes.

Thankfully we don't need to worry about such things, since wealth is 'trickling down' from our complex 'rent extractive' processes and systems!

2 Scoops

Brian? wrote: »

I gave him a fair shot.

I don't believe that. I'm not a psychologist but what I think is going on is that see someone who doesn't tow the identity politics and pronoun nonsense party lines so you set out to try and discredit and disagree with him in anyway possible. It's the same thing 20Cent was doing, lecturing everyone on how the C4 video was nonsense without even watching it.

Like I said already, anyone who isn't ideologically possessed that has given him the time of day knows the last thing he'd do is describe himself as a conservative so unfortunately that leads me to believe you are a spoofer.

RandomName2

CerebralCortex wrote: »

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

That's a pretty flimsy conclusion for a position that is a lie in the first place, but I mean anything goes when you're trying to win a debate and you're wrong, right?

Varadkar pointed out that the majority of money is spent on Social Protection. Therefore he likes that €20 billion a year is spent on Social Protection. Furthermore he is clearly a supporter of people being from broken families, something that he would claim to be against! This Varadkar guy is really slippery folks.

Brian? wrote: »

There is no neo Marxist/post modernist conspiracy winning an ideological battle.

I hope you're right. Current university and media hierarchical structures would seem to prove you wrong, but public voting patterns would seem to prove you right.

Brian? wrote: »

students are absolutely right to protest, regardless of the cleanliness of their rooms

The students who hate free-speech and believe themselves the sole arbiters of what is morally correct should be treated as the thugs they are.

Brian? wrote: »

religion does more harm than good

I'd agree with you, but there's a point to be made for the opposition.

Akrasia wrote: »

Other than a tiny number of fringe oddballs, hardly anyone is calling for a world where everyone gets the same regardless of how much work they do or how much they contribute to society. Even radical left wing proposals for income caps on wealthy people still accept that people have a right to benefit from hard work and producing valuable goods and services. It's the current level of inequality that has grown out of sync with a sustainable democratic society that calls for changes in policy to address this imbalance.

There are any number of people advocating sexist and racist legislation. It is harder to get into a university in the united states if you're from an asian background, as asians do 'too well' academically. Therefore they are put at a deliberate disadvantage in the application process. That's blatantly racist, but it's seen as okay, as it levels the playing field.

Anyhow, the point in terms of collectivization is that it led to millions of deaths. The point is that we do not treat that with the same type of revulsion that we do 'right wing' racism. This is not because your garden skinhead is likely to create the next Holocaust, even though that was the end result of policies that placed peoples' value entirely upon ethnicity.

Brian?

2 Scoops wrote: »

I don't believe that. I'm not a psychologist but what I think is going on is that see someone who doesn't tow the identity politics and pronoun nonsense party lines so you set out to try and discredit and disagree with him in anyway possible. It's the same thing 20Cent was doing, lecturing everyone on how the C4 video was nonsense without even watching it.

Like I said already, anyone who isn't ideologically possessed that has given him the time of day knows the last thing he'd do is describe himself as a conservative so unfortunately that leads me to believe you are a spoofer.

So you’re ignoring everything else I said to make a cheap point and insult me. And I’m a spoofer.

To recap, I thought Peterson described himself as a conservative. He didn’t, I was wrong. It doesn’t actually matter to me though. I disagree with what he actually says, not his ideology.

Brian?

RandomName2 wrote: »

I hope you're right. Current university and media hierarchical structures would seem to prove you wrong, but public voting patterns would seem to prove you right.

I realized that this may have been hashed out on a different thread. But my argument is, if there’s indoctrination going on they’re doing an awful job. Politics has shifted right in the last decade.

The students who hate free-speech and believe themselves the sole arbiters of what is morally correct should be treated as the thugs they are.

If they act like thugs, call them thugs. Peterson has stated that he does not believe students should be out protesting anything because they haven’t got their life in order. They’re too naive to have a say. Which is bull ****.

I'd agree with you, but there's a point to be made for the opposition.

Actually, I don’t think there is. But that’s because I’ve spent too long listening to Dawkins, Hitchens et al debate believers.

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

.....where I was referencing someone's first hand experience of how gender quotas negatively affect Irish theatre.

Penny will drop eventually. Anyway, I thought you were out?

Nah. I got a 2nd wind. The pungent smell of nonsense was like smelling salts. Really cleared out the aul noodle.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

I realized that this may have been hashed out on a different thread. But my argument is, if there’s indoctrination going on they’re doing an awful job. Politics has shifted right in the last decade.

Any stats to back that up?

Brian? wrote: »

If they act like thugs, call them thugs. Peterson has stated that he does not believe students should be out protesting anything because they haven’t got their life in order. They’re too naive to have a say. Which is bull ****.

A lot of college students are seriously naive, and a sense of entitlement / victimhood along with the oppressor vs victim narrative is definitely prevalent.

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Any stats to back that up?

In the US: Senate, Congress and President all GOP. No viable left wing party has ever existed.

In Britain: Conservatives in power

In Europe: right and far right parties doing well in Hungary, Italy, Austria etc.

Just off the top of my head.

A lot of college students are seriously naive, and a sense of entitlement / victimhood along with the oppressor vs victim narrative is definitely prevalent.

Any stats to back that up? Not really, just kidding.

It doesn’t matter what they believe. To belittle their right to protest in the first place gets my goat. Especially for someone who’s so strong on free speech.

Taytoland

If you think the Conservative Party is actually conservative then I don't know what to tell you.

Brian?

Taytoland wrote: »

If you think the Conservative Party is actually conservative then I don't know what to tell you.

How about making a constructive argument they’re not. That would hardly kill you?

DickSwiveller Returns

Brian? wrote: »

How about making a constructive argument they’re not. That would hardly kill you?

It's hard to see how they can be described as conservative. This has long been acknowledged by genuine conservatives in Britain like Roger Scruton and Theodore Dalrymple. I would call them economic and social liberals.

evolving_doors

Brian? wrote: »

In the US: Senate, Congress and President all GOP. No viable left wing party has ever existed.

In Britain: Conservatives in power

In Europe: right and far right parties doing well in Hungary, Italy, Austria etc.

Just off the top of my head.



Any stats to back that up? Not really, just kidding.

It doesn’t matter what they believe. To belittle their right to protest in the first place gets my goat. Especially for someone who’s so strong on free speech.

Even if The aim of the protest is to shut down debate and discussion in an open forum?

Dyr

evolving_doors wrote: »

Even if The aim of the protest is to shut down debate and discussion in an open forum?

You can't take it if a poster is spamming a thread with a deluge of trite posts to shut down debate they'll be okay with this

Brian?

evolving_doors wrote: »

Even if The aim of the protest is to shut down debate and discussion in an open forum?

You’re obfusticating the issue. Looking for a thin end of a wedge to justify shutting down protests. People are entitled to protest or they aren’t.

Pa ElGrande

Brian? wrote: »

.... No viable left wing party has ever existed.

I have to agree with you on that. It's not from want of trying though they eventually either eat themselves if they don't first destroy the territory they govern. Let the collapse of Ontario’s Liberal party in recent elections be a lesson to those political parties and voters who pursue this platform.

As for what counts as leftwing the the US, the Democrat party is a caucus of various identity groups that dominate the major urban population centers in the United States. Their appeal does not go much beyond the urban poor and wealthy progressives and during the presidential election a major split showed publicly between the wings that supported Clinton and Sanders and the much publicised election in New York serves to highlights this inner split.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

You’re obfusticating the issue. Looking for a thin end of a wedge to justify shutting down protests. People are entitled to protest or they aren’t.

Absolutely, and sometimes it definitely comes across as condescending when Peterson asks what the hell young people know, and says they shouldn't be protesting.


However, there is truth in what he says. Lots of young people who get wrapped up in college politics and protests for various things clearly don't have their sh1t together, so to speak. It's not a massive stretch of the imagination to think that if they were more stable and content in their everyday lives, they might not get so worked up about these other issues.


Additionally, it's absolutely correct to say that young people do not understand the complexity of issues about which we complain. "Smashing the patriarchy" and destroying capitalism are all very vague notions against perceived wrongdoings, without capturing either the essence of what people are protesting against, nor the steps forward towards progress.

Pa ElGrande

Todays interview with Joe Duffy (MP3, 34MB, 37 minutes)

Outlaw Pete

Brian? wrote: »

Nah. I got a 2nd wind. The pungent smell of nonsense was like smelling salts. Really cleared out the aul noodle.

But if you were 'out' how would you see these 'nonsense' posts?

Why am I even bothering, sure last night you were saying the amount of replies had confused you.

You come across as someone who just wants to disagree with Peterson given that he doesn't subscribe to the political ideologies you hold dear and in your effort to try and show him up as being someone who is incorrect in his thinking, you have just shown yourself to be someone that knows little or nothing about his views, or even for that matter, have a basic understanding of much of what he discusses. You don't even appear to understand what 'Equality of Outcome' actually is. You've made a hames of that which you set out to do here and a spectacular one at that.

Akrasia

Geuze wrote: »

Socialists do aim for equality of outcomes.

In terms of housing, health, education, incomes, yes, they aim for equality of outcomes.

Often they settle for less, or compromise.

This is why SF or other socialist parties are against:

grinds
fee-paying schools
fee-paying GP services
etc., etc.

They don't like competition, anybody getting a headstart, or winners.

This is why they are for CAT and other wealth taxes.

They see all resources as available to be distributed to everybody.

You're a very confused person.

Trying to level the playing field to allow equal access to fundamental services is not advocating for equality of outcome. It's the opposite. Allowing the wealthy to bypass public services and give their children huge advantages in every area is not a meritocracy, it is the beginnings of a new aristocracy.

If the 'winners' were so much in favour of competition, they wouldn't be constantly trying to get an unfair advantage for themselves and their children and put ordinary people at the back of the queue for everything.

Sweetemotion

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Todays interview with Joe Duffy (MP3, 34MB, 37 minutes)

Ha ha, heard that today. Peter talks an awful lot, like the way 20cents posts.

Akrasia

20Cent wrote: »

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?

Whatever his point, he thinks it's extremely clever when it's actually completely ridiculous

When people talk about border control they're not talking about your skin or clothes or your own house. They're talking about human rights and treating people with dignity and respect and respecting human rights conventions and accepting that there are often very good reasons why people flee their home countries in search for a better life.

A nation state is not comparable to someone's epidermis.

It's a terrible analogy.

Dyr

Akrasia wrote: »

Whatever his point, he thinks it's extremely clever when it's actually completely ridiculous

When people talk about border control they're not talking about your skin or clothes or your own house. They're talking about human rights and treating people with dignity and respect and respecting human rights conventions and accepting that there are often very good reasons why people flee their home countries in search for a better life.

A nation state is not comparable to someone's epidermis.

It's a terrible analogy.

He wasn't comparing a nation state to an epidermis he was comparing an epidermis to a border.

In other words....




You just keep doing it.