Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

One giant ad hominem attack. Actually, you shouldn’t have bothered.

Brian?

Here’s one for the pro-Peterson posters. (I like alliteration, I like it a lot)

I’ve heard Peterson complain “the left” spends too much time worrying about what they have the right to do and not enough time worrying about what they should do. Do you agree with that? And if you agree with it, who do you think makes the decision on what people should do? Who decided what’s the correct action for people to take?

20Cent

Bambi wrote: »

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.

Because that's so different and makes sense.

Akrasia

Bambi wrote: »

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.

Doing what?

Pa ElGrande

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.

Here is what he says

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5yi_UQ21EM

This is a full video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nyw4rTywyY0

Separate to Petersons views in my opinion the concept of borders is a property rights question and from a libertarian point of view offers an argument from self-ownership. If your life is an end in itself, and you own your life, meaning you have the right to direct and control it, you should be allowed to obtain rights to direct and control things.

As one example of many, is the the left wing wants to dictate what language we must use (compelled speech) the obvious example Peterson cites in his own locality being Canadas bill C16 that mandates what speech people must use or face penalty from the state. This also extends to hate speech laws and even blasphemy laws which are essentially using state power to control peoples thoughts and sanction them. Be careful as freedom of speech is not a right of the citizen of the Irish republic compared with the United States citizen yet the modern lefts imported ideology thinks it is. This is a problem the hate speech laws are arbitrary and if legislated in this country will eventually be turned on anyone classed as an enemy of the state including the very left that supported the introduction of the legislation.

The other example of violation of borders is unconscious bias training prevalent in corporations . . . will finish later.

The Bishop Basher

Akrasia wrote: »

Doing what?

It's a classic left response to misquote Jordan back to him when debating..

And you keep doing it yourself.

Watch the interview and see how many times Cathy says..

"So what you're saying is.."

He easily rebuts it each time as she's deliberately misrepresenting his words to suit her argument while completely missing the point of what he actually said in the first place.

It's a very frustrating tactic as it's like dealing with a petulant child who keeps saying no. But as you can see from the interview, it's a dismal failure and he annihilates Cathy with pure calm, reason and logic..

It's beautiful to watch

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

Here’s one for the pro-Peterson posters. (I like alliteration, I like it a lot)

I’ve heard Peterson complain “the left” spends too much time worrying about what they have the right to do and not enough time worrying about what they should do. Do you agree with that? And if you agree with it, who do you think makes the decision on what people should do? Who decided what’s the correct action for people to take?

I think there are clearly courses of action which are more beneficial to the individual and the society around them than other courses of action.

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

I think there are clearly courses of action which are more beneficial to the individual and the society around them than other courses of action.

That doesn’t answer the question, thanks for your reply though.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

Here’s one for the pro-Peterson posters. (I like alliteration, I like it a lot)

I’ve heard Peterson complain “the left” spends too much time worrying about what they have the right to do and not enough time worrying about what they should do. Do you agree with that? And if you agree with it, who do you think makes the decision on what people should do? Who decided what’s the correct action for people to take?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

I think there are clearly courses of action which are more beneficial to the individual and the society around them than other courses of action.

Brian? wrote: »

That doesn’t answer the question, thanks for your reply though.

Fair enough.

I do agree that many people on the left worry about what they have the right to do and not enough time worrying about what they should do.

Ultimately we all make decisions about what we want to do. If you accept that some courses of action are more beneficial for the individual and society than others, nobody has to decide what people should do, the benefits of those actions are self evident.

Nobody decided what the correct action for people to take is. It is however possible to observe actions taken in the past and potentially notice a pattern in certain actions leading to preferred results.

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Fair enough.

I do agree that many people on the left worry about what they have the right to do and not enough time worrying about what they should do.

What if they believe what they should be doing is protecting the rights civil rights won by previous generations through protest?

Ultimately we all make decisions about what we want to do. If you accept that some courses of action are more beneficial for the individual and society than others, nobody has to decide what people should do, the benefits of those actions are self evident.

Nobody decided what the correct action for people to take is. It is however possible to observe actions taken in the past and potentially notice a pattern in certain actions leading to preferred results.

100% agree.

If we look at the actions of the civil rights movement of the 60s , mass protests helped free people from oppressive laws and regimes.

Now, what those people were doing was worrying about rights. So they worries what they should do about it. Yet Peterson objects to college students protesting because they're too naive. Were the white college students who marched with Dr King too naive to protest?

It would be fantastic if the debate could continue in this manner and not get side tracked in a debate about Dr King being a womanizer.

evolving_doors

Brian? wrote: »

What if they believe what they should be doing is protecting the rights civil rights won by previous generations through protest?



100% agree.

If we look at the actions of the civil rights movement of the 60s , mass protests helped free people from oppressive laws and regimes.

Now, what those people were doing was worrying about rights. So they worries what they should do about it. Yet Peterson objects to college students protesting because they're too naive. Were the white college students who marched with Dr King too naive to protest?

It would be fantastic if the debate could continue in this manner and not get side tracked in a debate about Dr King being a womanizer.

Would you agree with protestors deliberately shutting down MLK's speech?
If some students have a position then grand, let's hear it and debate. But if their only tactic is to shout down the speech then the position must be too week to defend.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

What if they believe what they should be doing is protecting the rights civil rights won by previous generations through protest?

If that's the case, great.

Do you think that most protesters from the left in the last decade are protecting civil rights which were won by previous generations?

Some feel that certain movements are not trying to protect or ensure equal civil rights, but to extend privileges and protections (from perceived oppression) for minority groups to the detriment of other groups, for example with the push for gender quotas on company boards, the C16 bill and the idea of compelled speech, etc.

Would you agree that that might be a valid feeling in some cases?

Brian? wrote: »

100% agree.

If we look at the actions of the civil rights movement of the 60s , mass protests helped free people from oppressive laws and regimes.

Now, what those people were doing was worrying about rights. So they worries what they should do about it. Yet Peterson objects to college students protesting because they're too naive. Were the white college students who marched with Dr King too naive to protest?

It would be fantastic if the debate could continue in this manner and not get side tracked in a debate about Dr King being a womanizer.

I don't think the college students who marched with MLK were too naive to protest.

I think there is a huge difference between protesting for equal rights regardless of race, and protesting to "smash the patriarchy", to shut down controversial speakers at events, and to ensure that everyone uses correct terminology to avoid the risk of offending some people.

The gulf between the two exists not only in the motivation to protest, but also in the comprehension and suggestion of any proposed changes and the societal consequences which might follow.

20Cent

He's officially lost it.
Not a clue and playing up to his alt right fanboys.
Disgusting.

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1019140640389529600

7aubzxk43m2sni

20Cent wrote: »

He's officially lost it.
Not a clue and playing up to his alt right fanboys.
Disgusting.

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1019140640389529600

Can you explain which part you disagree with?

Brian?

evolving_doors wrote: »

Would you agree with protestors deliberately shutting down MLK's speech?
If some students have a position then grand, let's hear it and debate. But if their only tactic is to shout down the speech then the position must be too week to defend.

You either allow the right to protest or you don’t. Otherwise who decides who has the right?

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Can you explain which part you disagree with?

When he equates a communist to a national socialist? Isn’t that what he’s doing?

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

You either allow the right to protest or you don’t. Otherwise who decides who has the right?

Sure, but allowing something and criticizing something are not mutually exclusive.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

When he equates a communist to a national socialist? Isn’t that what he’s doing?

Is it not true that communism produced horrors and death tolls of similar magnitude to the nazis?

DickSwiveller Returns

Brian? wrote: »

You either allow the right to protest or you don’t. Otherwise who decides who has the right?

Aren't rights conflicting though? The right to protest and free speech? I don't necessarily disagree with you but it's a difficult one..

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

If that's the case, great.

Do you think that most protesters from the left in the last decade are protecting civil rights which were won by previous generations?

Not in all cases. Sometimes yes, sometimes they are protesting for greater civil rights for differently minorities.

Some feel that certain movements are not trying to protect or ensure equal civil rights, but to extend privileges and protections (from perceived oppression) for minority groups to the detriment of other groups, for example with the push for gender quotas on company boards, the C16 bill and the idea of compelled speech, etc.

Would you agree that that might be a valid feeling in some cases?

I would agree. But feelings don’t equal facts. I’m not trying to make a case for them being right or wrong. There are plenty I disagree with. It’s their right to protest I am defending from critique.

I don't think the college students who marched with MLK were too naive to protest.

So you agree the tidiness of there habitation was irrelevant?

I think there is a huge difference between protesting for equal rights regardless of race, and protesting to "smash the patriarchy", to shut down controversial speakers at events, and to ensure that everyone uses correct terminology to avoid the risk of offending some people.

The gulf between the two exists not only in the motivation to protest, but also in the comprehension and suggestion of any proposed changes and the societal consequences which might follow.

So the difference between the students in the 60s and now is the subjective matter of whether they are right? Thay doesn’t cut it with me. Both are entitled to protest with being belittled as naive, IMO.

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Aren't rights conflicting though? The right to protest and free speech? I don't necessarily disagree with you but it's a difficult one..

It’s incredibly difficult. I don’t think Peterson is doing the difficulty any justice by belittling student protests. Which is my entire point. He’s not sitting on the fence examining nuances. He said they should go sort out their own lives before protesting.

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Is it not true that communism produced horrors and death tolls of similar magnitude to the nazis?

Yes. But it doesn’t make them equivalent.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

Not in all cases. Sometimes yes, sometimes they are protesting for greater civil rights for differently minorities.

Not trying to be smart, but would you mind giving an example or two so we have something slightly more concrete to work off?

Brian? wrote: »

I would agree. But feelings don’t equal facts. I’m not trying to make a case for them being right or wrong. There are plenty I disagree with. It’s their right to protest I am defending from critique.

Brian? wrote: »

So you agree the tidiness of there habitation was irrelevant?

Not irrelevance, but the severity of the injustice and inequality that existed between black people and white people was inescapable, and had no complexity or justification behind it.

It was obvious that something wrong was happening which could be remedied in a straightforward way.

What we have now among young people, especially on the left, is the feeling that something is wrong, that the system is unfair, but in a vague way with no clear example to point to, so the target becomes the rich/white/straight man and the "patriarchy".

Brian? wrote: »

So the difference between the students in the 60s and now is the subjective matter of whether they are right? Thay doesn’t cut it with me. Both are entitled to protest with being belittled as naive, IMO.

Criticising their manners of protesting and their motivation for doing so is completely different to saying that they should not be allowed to protest. Good luck to them. Protest all day. Peterson is suggesting that if people figure themselves out and have a rough idea of who they are, they might not be so angry about the perceived injustices in the world.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

Yes. But it doesn’t make them equivalent.

Ok, but now we're in a situation where:

Nazism - Produced untold horrors, killed 6 million +.

Communism - (USSR) Produced untold horrors, killed 10 million +.
(China) Produced untold horrors, killed 40 million +.

Why is it that one would (rightfully) be scorned for saying "I am literally a nazi", while the person who says "I am literally a communist" is celebrated? Does that not somehow seem unbalanced?

tritium

Brian? wrote: »

Yes. But it doesn’t make them equivalent.

Probably depends on what sense you mean equivalent?

Equivalent in terms of the demonstrated negative outcome perhaps?

Equivalent in terms of the damage they have/ do caused?

Would you see any similarities between the two?

Raging_Ninja

Brian? wrote: »

When he equates a communist to a national socialist? Isn’t that what he’s doing?

Tbf it was Douglas Murray who gave the anecdote in the debate on Saturday and Jordan Peterson found the source and retweeted it.

Communism and Nazism are equivalent in the horrors they brought to humanity. Nazis gassed segments of their population and worked them to death in labour camps.

The Communists executed people based on their political ideology, starved millions to death and worked them to death in labour camps.

20Cent

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Ok, but now we're in a situation where:

Nazism - Produced untold horrors, killed 6 million +.

Communism - (USSR) Produced untold horrors, killed 10 million +.
(China) Produced untold horrors, killed 40 million +.

Why is it that one would (rightfully) be scorned for saying "I am literally a nazi", while the person who says "I am literally a communist" is celebrated? Does that not somehow seem unbalanced?

Being a communist isn't "celebrated" that lady is in the news because she had a run in with Piers Morgan on his show. Teen Vogue is hardly a hotbed of communism it's 99.9% consumerism.

No serious historian says they are equivalent. It is a popular argument with far right and fascists though.

20Cent

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Tbf it was Douglas Murray who gave the anecdote in the debate on Saturday and Jordan Peterson found the source and retweeted it.

Communism and Nazism are equivalent in the horrors they brought to humanity. Nazis gassed segments of their population and worked them to death in labour camps.

The Communists executed people based on their political ideology, starved millions to death and worked them to death in labour camps.

Genocide is when Nazism goes right and when communism goes wrong. Not the same.

7aubzxk43m2sni

20Cent wrote: »

Being a communist isn't "celebrated" that lady is in the news because she had a run in with Piers Morgan on his show. Teen Vogue is hardly a hotbed of communism it's 99.9% consumerism.

She's being celebrated for "smashing" Piers Morgan by proudly declaring he was wrong because she was a communist.

Franz Von Peppercorn

20Cent wrote: »

Genocide is when Nazism goes right and when communism goes wrong. Not the same.

It kept going wrong didn’t it - from Stalin to Mao to Pol Pot.