Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Franz Von Peppercorn

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

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

To be fair - since in part this thread is about interview techniques - Piers Morgan was totally strawmanning that argument. Worse than Newman and more belligerent.

Raging_Ninja

20Cent wrote: »

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

State-orchestrated, systemic mass murder happened in pretty much every communist country. If that only happens when communism goes wrong, then it seems to go consistently wrong.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

To be fair - since in part this thread is about interview techniques - Piers Morgan was totally strawmanning that argument. Worse than Newman and more belligerent.

Sure, I have no time for him at all, it was a poor effort really.

20Cent

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

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

He was wrong, Morgan was trying to call her a hypocrite by using the "but Obama" excuse, like the only people in the world either love Obama and hate Trump, no other option. Called framing the argument.
By saying she's against both it made Morgan look a bit silly since he didn't know his guests politics and how vacuous his argument was.

B0jangles

It is possible to be a follower of communist thinking without wanting to eradicate entire populations of people.
The same cannot be said of nazi-ism.

It is possible to be a communist and be a kind and ethical person.
The same cannot be said of a nazi.

Communist regimes have committed horrific crimes, as have democratically elected regimes, as have monarchies - any system of government can be used for terrible purposes if evil people are in control of it .

Nazi-ism is hateful at its heart and core - it is impossible to simultaneously be a Nazi and be a decent human being.
You cannot pretend nazi-ism AKA National Socialism can be redeemed or purified.

It can't.

7aubzxk43m2sni

20Cent wrote: »

He was wrong, Morgan was trying to call her a hypocrite by using the "but Obama" excuse, like the only people in the world either love Obama and hate Trump, no other option. Called framing the argument.
By saying she's against both it made Morgan look a bit silly since he didn't know his guests politics and how vacuous his argument was.

You've changed the topic of conversation entirely. What has that got to do with Peterson's tweet?

7aubzxk43m2sni

B0jangles wrote: »

Nazi-ism is hateful at its heart and core - it is impossible to simultaneously be a Nazi and be a decent human being.
You cannot pretend nazi-ism AKA National Socialism can be redeemed or purified.

It can't.

Who has tried to defend Nazi-ism here?

No one as far as I can see.

While communism has idealistic principles and the idea paints a pretty picture, reality has taught us again and again that equality of outcome is not only impossible, but leads to a very dark road very quickly.

Someone who aims to reintroduce such a system should not be celebrated.

B0jangles

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Who has tried to defend Nazi-ism here?

No one as far as I can see.

While communism has idealistic principles and the idea paints a pretty picture, reality has taught us again and again that equality of outcome is not only impossible, but leads to a very dark road very quickly.

Someone who aims to reintroduce such a system should not be celebrated.

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

Raging_Ninja

B0jangles wrote: »

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

I don't see a defence of Nazism there. All he's doing is pointing that the ideologies lead to similar outcomes. Both are reprehensible, evil ideologies.

Akrasia

Rennaws wrote: »

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

It's 'beautiful to watch' how you rushed to selectively quote a post I made in order to make it look like i was misrepresenting JP. Why did you quote one line but not the paragraph above, it wasn't exactly a long quote...

Anyway

It's not a deliberate tactic to try to summarise someone's position when they have taken a long time to get to the point. In fact, that's a pretty standard interviewing technique, you reflect back their point to them so that you can be sure that you have interpreted what they mean from what they have said.

JP gets 'misrepresented' so often because he is so long winded and inconsistent in what he says. If he goes off on a rant about borders being good, and then goes on about laws, and your front door and your skin being borders, it is perfectly reasonable for an interviewer to say, 'these 'borders' you talk about are completely different from the other kind of border you're really arguing in favour of'

In that first clip of what he says 'borders are reasonable'. Which is perfectly fine, but then he goes and presents a false dichotomy, either 'reasonable borders' or no borders at all. When you choose to use an analogy, you need to choose them carefully

Borders are not all the same. He starts with the 'walls of your house are a border', 'laws are a border' but national borders, which is what the conservatives he is speaking to are concerned about are completely different to the walls of your house.

Borders, even taking his own concept of them, vary widely on how they operate, and how tightly they control access. You can have a 'border' which is the front gate of your house, you allow the postman to pass that 'border' but you don't let him pass the 'border' of your front door, but you let your neighbour in the front door, but you don't let him in your private bedroom, but you might let your maid in the bedroom, but don't give her the keys to the jewellery safe or your pin number for your bank card....


National borders are complex things, they are more akin to the membrane in a cell than your skin or a wall around your house. Proper borders allow excess people goods and services to smoothly leave as well as desired goods services and people to enter.

Closing borders to immigrants also closes them to emmigrants. Peterson was talking to a room full of conservatives who are hugely concerned about immigration control but instead of challenging them, he uses weak analogies to empower them and re-enforce their prejudices by giving them vacuous soundbytes that they can parrot to themselves and others during times of doubt. 'Borders are reasonable' should be 'reasonable borders are reasonable' Badly designed borders can suffocate and stifle.

7aubzxk43m2sni

B0jangles wrote: »

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

Please refer to my earlier post.

Nazi's are rightfully reviled.

Communists (in the link from the tweet) are being given a platform to speak.

This is not a cry for nazis to be given a platform to speak, but a question as to why communism does not result in a similarly negative reaction.

B0jangles

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Please refer to my earlier post.

Nazi's are rightfully reviled.

Communists (in the link from the tweet) are being given a platform to speak.

This is not a cry for nazis to be given a platform to speak, but a question as to why communism does not result in a similarly negative reaction.

Because as I just said, it is possible to be a communist and also be a kind and decent human being; it is impossible to be a Nazi and also be a kind and decent human being.


To claim the two ideologies are on the same level is to insult one, and play down the fundamental evil of the other.

7aubzxk43m2sni

B0jangles wrote: »

Because as I just said, it is possible to be a communist and also be a kind and decent human being; it is impossible to be a Nazi and also be a kind and decent human being.


To claim the two ideologies are on the same level is to insult one, and play down the fundamental evil of the other.

Ok thanks, I see what you're saying.

I suppose then it becomes a question of whether or not the consequences of communism seen in the past are an inevitable result of a communist regime.

If that is the case, which many believe it to be, then it might be fair to say that someone who is a communist in today's world is either not fully informed as to what it means to be a communist, or else not a decent human being.

If I'm being honest I would definitely need to do a lot more reading about communism to be able to discuss it any further.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Akrasia wrote: »

It's not a deliberate tactic to try to summarise someone's position when they have taken a long time to get to the point. In fact, that's a pretty standard interviewing technique, you reflect back their point to them so that you can be sure that you have interpreted what they mean from what they have said.

JP gets 'misrepresented' so often because he is so long winded and inconsistent in what he says. If he goes off on a rant about borders being good, and then goes on about laws, and your front door and your skin being borders, it is perfectly reasonable for an interviewer to say, 'these 'borders' you talk about are completely different from the other kind of border you're really arguing in favour of'

In that first clip of what he says 'borders are reasonable'. Which is perfectly fine, but then he goes and presents a false dichotomy, either 'reasonable borders' or no borders at all. When you choose to use an analogy, you need to choose them carefully

I would argue that he is long winded because he understands the complexity behind issues and wants to express himself in a way that takes into account these complexities.

With regards to the border discussion, if his argument is that borders are reasonable, he is not presenting a false dichotomy of reasonable borders vs no borders, its more along the lines of "having a border is more reasonable than not having a border".

Akrasia

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

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.

A lot of ifs there. What makes your life 'an end in itself'. From before you're even born, your life is a non stop set of interactions with other people who you rely on for everything from pre-natal nourishment, to education, to security, to healthcare, to clothing, to entertainment, to environmental protection etc etc etc. And in the event you become a father/mother your life ceases being an end in itself, rather your life is bound to your offspring and your kin. (Jordon Peterson would strongly agree with this point btw)

People have rights to personal autonomy, but those rights have limits. Liberal society allows people maximal personal autonomy to the point where their freedom impacts the freedom of others, the exact point where this happens is subject to enormous debate.

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.

In Ireland in the 21st century, we have have more freedom of speech and freedom of thought than we have ever had.

The freedom of speech you champion is what allows people who you disagree with to voice their opinion. People have the freedom to call for their feminist or SJW agenda. You have the freedom to oppose their views and lets all have the debate to decide what direction our society should go. I don't get why anyone in Ireland should be upset over a part of canadian legislation that applies to a very limited number of people in very limited circumstances and with very limited actual effect on anyone's actual life.

Chill out, enjoy the freedoms you so demonstrably enjoy. If someone speaks out trying to limit your freedom of speech, use your freedom of speech to laugh in a good natured way and argue against their proposals.

Akrasia

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Ok thanks, I see what you're saying.

I suppose then it becomes a question of whether or not the consequences of communism seen in the past are an inevitable result of a communist regime.

If that is the case, which many believe it to be, then it might be fair to say that someone who is a communist in today's world is either not fully informed as to what it means to be a communist, or else not a decent human being.

If I'm being honest I would definitely need to do a lot more reading about communism to be able to discuss it any further.

The communism part of communism isn't what caused all the deaths. It was the totalitarianism that went alongside it.

Centrally planned economies run by dictators don't work. Other than a handful of very wrong people, you'll find most socialists, even most communists are not in favour of the kinds of regimes that saw gulags and cultural revolutions in the past (there are nutters in every walk of life, we shouldn't define a debate based on the fringiest of beliefs held by extremists with hardly any popular support or resources)

When people argue for socialism these days, the vast majority argue for social democracy of various degrees. The main debates are around public ownership of state assets and infrastructure, what level to set the tax rates at in order to provide a set of social services, and the role of labour unions in the industrial and public workforce.

Akrasia

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

I would argue that he is long winded because he understands the complexity behind issues and wants to express himself in a way that takes into account these complexities.

With regards to the border discussion, if his argument is that borders are reasonable, he is not presenting a false dichotomy of reasonable borders vs no borders, its more along the lines of "having a border is more reasonable than not having a border".

He defines borders as everything from your own skin, to the walls of your house, and even in relation to your own subconscious mind.

A 'no border scenario' in this context is a state of maximum entropy, the heat death of the universe

DickSwiveller Returns

Akrasia wrote: »

A lot of ifs there. What makes your life 'an end in itself'. From before you're even born, your life is a non stop set of interactions with other people who you rely on for everything from pre-natal nourishment, to education, to security, to healthcare, to clothing, to entertainment, to environmental protection etc etc etc. And in the event you become a father/mother your life ceases being an end in itself, rather your life is bound to your offspring and your kin. (Jordon Peterson would strongly agree with this point btw)

People have rights to personal autonomy, but those rights have limits. Liberal society allows people maximal personal autonomy to the point where their freedom impacts the freedom of others, the exact point where this happens is subject to enormous debate.


In Ireland in the 21st century, we have have more freedom of speech and freedom of thought than we have ever had.

The freedom of speech you champion is what allows people who you disagree with to voice their opinion. People have the freedom to call for their feminist or SJW agenda. You have the freedom to oppose their views and lets all have the debate to decide what direction our society should go. I don't get why anyone in Ireland should be upset over a part of canadian legislation that applies to a very limited number of people in very limited circumstances and with very limited actual effect on anyone's actual life.

Chill out, enjoy the freedoms you so demonstrably enjoy. If someone speaks out trying to limit your freedom of speech, use your freedom of speech to laugh in a good natured way and argue against their proposals.

We should continue to fight for our freedoms, just as Peterson did when he opposed that pernicious law. It's very easy to tell people to 'relax' but when there is one group of people (typically on one side of the ideological spectrum) who want to silence people they disagree with then we should speak up against it.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

You're repeating yourself.

Partly because you are running away from answering a simple question.

Ill put it this way. Is the following equal opportunity or equality of outcomes.

'50% of a new play commissions to be allocated to women writers'

markodaly

Akrasia wrote: »

The communism part of communism isn't what caused all the deaths. It was the totalitarianism that went alongside it.

Centrally planned economies run by dictators don't work. Other than a handful of very wrong people, you'll find most socialists, even most communists are not in favour of the kinds of regimes that saw gulags and cultural revolutions in the past (there are nutters in every walk of life, we shouldn't define a debate based on the fringiest of beliefs held by extremists with hardly any popular support or resources)

When people argue for socialism these days, the vast majority argue for social democracy of various degrees. The main debates are around public ownership of state assets and infrastructure, what level to set the tax rates at in order to provide a set of social services, and the role of labour unions in the industrial and public workforce.

Well, first of all, communism was very popular for a time. I remember being a young lad growing up in the 60's/70's that every wannabe hippy was going on about Marxism and the USSR as some great example of an egalitarian society.

They fell silent soon enough though after the rust bucket of the USSR began to expose itself and the tyrannical nature of communism was publicly displayed throughout the world. Yet, even so, there are still some people who advocate this type of society. You just have to look at all the Cuba fanboys, Michael (Castro was a great guy!) D included.

Of course, when you point out all the tens of millions who died, those locked away in gulags, they will deny that this has anything to do with their beloved ideology. However, it is odd though isn't it that every communism/Marxist society has resulted in these atrocities. Which of course bares forward the fact, that a communist or Marxist state cannot exist without force and coercion, which of course corrupts the leaders of said system, which leads to said deaths and imprisonment of people.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

You are correct when some people argue about socialism is that they mean social democracy. The Irish Labour party would be a good example, even FF to some extent.

However, the far left loonies like PBP/AAA are squarely in the Marxist bracket on this one as are many of their University breathern.

Also of course, they changed the script. No one wants to listen to some old fool going on about the capitalist class and the proletariat any more. It's dog food.

Instead, the struggle is about the oppressed and the oppressors. Perpetrators and victims. Who are the victims? Well, anyone who is not a white male really and the hierarchy of victimhood depends on the group you belong to.

This has led to some nutty ideas like non-whites cannot be racist, because they don't have 'power'. Women can ask for special treatment because they don't have 'power'. Etc..

Cultural Marxism is quite popular and mainstream, just tune into the Irish Times and RTE to get your daily dose. Economic Marxism, no not really but the cultural stuff, they swallow that ****e like hot chips in many places.

markodaly

Akrasia wrote: »

The freedom of speech you champion is what allows people who you disagree with to voice their opinion. People have the freedom to call for their feminist or SJW agenda. You have the freedom to oppose their views and lets all have the debate to decide what direction our society should go. .

That is all well in good in theory. Yet, we are now at a place where even expressing views contrary to what is acceptable is labeled hate speech, thus can be censored.

See, I do not trust those people, because they want to dominate the narratives and silence those who oppose said narratives.

If we had a strong free speech sentiment in Ireland, I would not care, but we don't. We have had speech in Ireland that is consensus led. Again, when I was growing up, you could say what you want but you dare not criticise the church or go against the ultra-nationalist rhetoric of the time.

Not much has really changed. You will see it with the blasphemy referendum. Get rid of it of course, but you will see campaigning by 'human rights' groups for strong hate speech laws in its place.

I don't mean hate speech as in, 'Let us go kill those X guys over there'. It will be more like 'I do not agree that a man can become a woman overnight' type stuff. The latter will be viewed as hate speech and equivalent to killing a bunch of people.

RandomName2

Akrasia wrote: »

People have rights to personal autonomy, but those rights have limits. Liberal society allows people maximal personal autonomy to the point where their freedom impacts the freedom of others, the exact point where this happens is subject to enormous debate.

Just want to point out that the quality of your posts has dramatically improved. The people who agree with you should take note.

Akrasia wrote: »

In Ireland in the 21st century, we have have more freedom of speech and freedom of thought than we have ever had.

The freedom of speech you champion is what allows people who you disagree with to voice their opinion. People have the freedom to call for their feminist or SJW agenda. You have the freedom to oppose their views and lets all have the debate to decide what direction our society should go.

If that was all there was too it, it would be fine. That's a bit different for calling for someone to be sacked because they asked to be let out on the lingerie floor. Well, it still wouldn't matter if some crazy person called for a person to be sacked for saying that, only people are listening, and are agreeing.

You say we have freedom of speech. In theory, yes. Would I mention anything about Jordan Peterson in public? Nope. I would be concerned for my career prospects. I don't think I would be fired if overheard saying that I thought that some of what he says is interesting, but I think it could limit my promotion possibilities.

Akrasia wrote: »

I don't get why anyone in Ireland should be upset over a part of canadian legislation that applies to a very limited number of people in very limited circumstances and with very limited actual effect on anyone's actual life.

The interesting thing was that anybody was upset over it, even in Canada. The people most upset were not opponents - Jordan Peterson was the only person banging that drum I think. The people who were upset were people who did not want the law challenged. This then escalated into a much broader issue in terms of what you can or can't say, identity politics, and academic freedom.

markodaly

B0jangles wrote: »

It is possible to be a follower of communist thinking without wanting to eradicate entire populations of people.
The same cannot be said of nazi-ism.

It is possible to be a communist and be a kind and ethical person.
The same cannot be said of a nazi.

Communist regimes have committed horrific crimes, as have democratically elected regimes, as have monarchies - any system of government can be used for terrible purposes if evil people are in control of it .

Nazi-ism is hateful at its heart and core - it is impossible to simultaneously be a Nazi and be a decent human being.
You cannot pretend nazi-ism AKA National Socialism can be redeemed or purified.

It can't.

Nazi's are upfront about what they want and what they are about.

Communists try the three card trick. They are for 'equality' but in reality want your stuff and will be happy to kill you and others for it and power.

However, there are way way more Communists than there are Nazis's. By sheer volume alone, Communists should be seen as a bigger threat but are often given a pass.

The Swastika and the Hammer and Sickle are both flags that represent evil totalitarian societies. If you have a problem with one you should have a problem with the other.

I also totally reject the notion that you can be a die in the wool Communist and be a good person. Wishful thinking there bud.

Geuze

markodaly wrote: »

Partly because you are running away from answering a simple question.

Ill put it this way. Is the following equal opportunity or equality of outcomes.

'50% of a new play commissions to be allocated to women writers'

Equality of opportunity would be:

allow every young person the chance to get training/skills/education

In this case, allow a young person the chance to study English lit.

Fair enough.

But then stating that 50% of new plays must be by female writers seems to me like equality of outcome.

This also is not a meritocracy.

I wonder what the customers will make of this?

Geuze

markodaly wrote: »

'50% of a new play commissions to be allocated to women writers'

This is a crazy idea. I worry for the future.

This is social engineering.

tritium

B0jangles wrote: »

It is possible to be a follower of communist thinking without wanting to eradicate entire populations of people.
The same cannot be said of nazi-ism.

It is possible to be a communist and be a kind and ethical person.
The same cannot be said of a nazi.

Communist regimes have committed horrific crimes, as have democratically elected regimes, as have monarchies - any system of government can be used for terrible purposes if evil people are in control of it .

Nazi-ism is hateful at its heart and core - it is impossible to simultaneously be a Nazi and be a decent human being.
You cannot pretend nazi-ism AKA National Socialism can be redeemed or purified.

It can't.

Just no!

You can’t try to apply the individual to remove responsibility for the evil of the collective system. There were “good” people in nazi Germany. There were even “good, caring” people who were members of the national socialists. Some of them even helped people outside of their own group, though the outstanding feature of most isms is that people are predominantly “good” to others within their ism. That doesn’t make the ideology “better” somehow, it’s still hateful. Stop trying to disentangle the regime from the individual when describing an ideology that has no interest whatsoever in the individual.

Some Democratic regimes have done bad things. Some (more) monarchies have done bad things. I can almost certainly find you exceptions though. Not so much with communism and nazism I’m afraid. For both the track record of the ideology is 100% negative. There’s a reason they had to build the Berlin Wall.

Akrasia

Geuze wrote: »

This is a crazy idea. I worry for the future.

This is social engineering.

I think its just a temporary glitch as the pendulum swings from a society dominated by males in the workplace and in the arts. A little bit of over compensation as the balance is shifting is being over stated by a group who ate so unused to being discriminated against that even the smallest slight appears a gross insult.

It wasn't long at all ago that Irish women had to leave their job in the civil service if they got married.

In time we'll sort it out and gender won't be any kind of consideration but in the meantime we just need to keep calm and avoid over reacting and slipping into identity politics on either camp

markodaly

Akrasia wrote: »

I think its just a temporary glitch as the pendulum swings from a society dominated by males in the workplace and in the arts. A little bit of over compensation as the balance is shifting is being over stated by a group who ate so unused to being discriminated against that even the smallest slight appears a gross insult.

It wasn't long at all ago that Irish women had to leave their job in the civil service if they got married.

In time we'll sort it out and gender won't be any kind of consideration but in the meantime we just need to keep calm and avoid over reacting and slipping into identity politics on either camp

If you think that these groups will just let go of their new found power and influence voluntarily then I do not know what to say.

Akrasia

What influence and power? They have a little bit of political momentum at the moment in that some of their policies are finding their way up the chain of decision making and get enacted. But whenever these policies affect any significant number of people, they are challenged and fought tooth and nail. Political momentum can be fleeting, and the public will support measures up to the point where they become unreasonable.

The 'gender quota' relating to candidates in elections was passed as part of a electoral funding bill in 2011. That's about 7 years ago now, and it had a quota of 30% of all candidates for each party needs to be of either sex. That legislation had a mechanism allowing for that quota to increase by a further 10% to 40% by 2022.

How has that quota been received? Well, in the 2016 election, female TDs won 22.3% of the seats

That seems to be a fairly good endorsement by the public given that the gender quota was for candidates only, but by no means forced the electorate to elect those candidates to office.

If there end up being gender quotas of 40% in the next general election but there are still only 20% female TDs in the Dail, then any calls to have the quota increased further would be met with a lot of resistance.

Dyr

Akrasia wrote: »

It wasn't long at all ago that Irish women had to leave their job in the civil service if they got married.

Which was the exact same type of social engineering that you're okay with