Jordan Peterson interview on C4

20Cent

People need to understand the real danger of marxist transsexuals who are destroying society by looking for somewhere to pee. The real victims are middle class, middle aged white guys with no power.

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

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

Honestly, I don’t want to. That’s how this thread gets dragged off course.

I want to debate Peterson’s opinion that students shouldn’t be protesting because they haven’t got their life in order yet. Debating the merits of individual protestors will distract from that, again.

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.

You’re way oversimplifying the civil rights struggle in the 60s. There was nothing straightforward about it’s resolution. It’s far too easy to use hindsight on the issue.

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".



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.

See, we’re about to start debating the relative merits of the protesters ideals, who Peterson disagrees with.

But he didn’t say some students should stay home and sort out their own lives, e.g. the left wing ones. He said all students. Can you honestly defend that position? I don’t believe you can. You’ve already agreed the civil rights protesters weren’t naive.

The Legend Of Kira

Brian? wrote: »

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

One persons right to protest must be balanced with another persons right to go about their business meaning their is limits on how far protest rights can go. A recent example of this is the talk of setting up exclusion zones with the 8th being repealed, highlighting limits on rights to protest. If a small group tried to disrupt court proceedings they would be removed from the court room once again highlighting limits on rights to protest.

Dyr

Brian? wrote: »

Honestly, I don’t want to. That’s how this thread gets dragged off course.

I want to debate Peterson’s opinion that students shouldn’t be protesting because they haven’t got their life in order yet. Debating the merits of individual protestors will distract from that, again.



You’re way oversimplifying the civil rights struggle in the 60s. There was nothing straightforward about it’s resolution. It’s far too easy to use hindsight on the issue.


See, we’re about to start debating the relative merits of the protesters ideals, who Peterson disagrees with.

But he didn’t say some students should stay home and sort out their own lives, e.g. the left wing ones. He said all students. Can you honestly defend that position? I don’t believe you can. You’ve already agreed the civil rights protesters weren’t naive.

There's a strange irony of the ladeen who's be running a one man band when it comes to dragging this thread of topic is now whinging about being dragged off topic :rolleyes:

The reason you're being asked for a direct quote is because you've kept misquoting and paraphrasing Peterson. Direct quote with link and you have a debate.

Akrasia

Bambi wrote: »

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

Not quite

RandomName2

20Cent wrote: »

People need to understand the real danger of marxist transsexuals who are destroying society by looking for somewhere to pee. The real victims are middle class, middle aged white guys with no power.

I dunno. Someone like Bret Weinstein strikes me as a genuine victim if you ask me.

Dyr

Akrasia wrote: »

Not quite

It is, given that one income (the husbands) was considered sufficient for a household, it allowed more young people (male and female) to gain employment in the civil service and thus maximize the social benefit for the amount of taxpayers money spent.

Positive discrimination just as you like it.

Brian?

Bambi wrote: »

There's a strange irony of the ladeen who's be running a one man band when it comes to dragging this thread of topic is now whinging about being dragged off topic :rolleyes:

The reason you're being asked for a direct quote is because you've kept misquoting and paraphrasing Peterson. Direct quote with link and you have a debate.

Are you for real? I’m attempting a debate on Peterson because of all the complaints and I still get grief.


Who asked me for a direct link or quote before now? I wasn’t aware of such a request, I may have completely missed it. I was asked for examples of protests.

Franz Von Peppercorn

20Cent wrote: »

People need to understand the real danger of marxist transsexuals who are destroying society by looking for somewhere to pee. The real victims are middle class, middle aged white guys with no power.

Everything with you is Americanised cant. Even when called on it you still resort to the same ludicrous nonsense.

Franz Von Peppercorn

markodaly wrote: »

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.

I don’t think the actual left wing irish sectarian parties are in fact peddling cultural Marxism - look at the hatred for Leo. No brownie points for being either gay or a POC. In fact they are really anti tax parties (except income tax) and pro welfarist.

RTE does peddle it, but there’s a reason why the upper middle class would support an ideology which deflects accusations of privilege from the top 5% to the 95%.

Paully D

The Finucane interview:

https://youtu.be/BvytmaD_PeQ

“How do you mean?”

“Why?”

Outlaw Pete

Beautiful rebuttal of Milo's recent criticisms of Peterson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OWu1usSCBY

JRant

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

Isn't the implementation of gender quotas the very definition of an overreaction though?

You mentioned women having to leave work in the civil service when they got married. That ended in 1973. So the question is why should people who weren't even born then be "punished" for a policy they had no hand in? Where do we draw the line?

For my entire life I've always viewed women as equal and to be honest I don't know anyone under 50 who views women as some sort 2nd class citizen. Not only that but they did they would be pulled up on it very very quickly.

On Peterson, I've seen first hand many many times very successful women take a step back in their early 30s and start families. In my immediate social circle it's pretty much a given that once the first child arrives the mother will either cutback to 3/4 days a week or give it up completely. As he points out the real mystery is not why women do it, it's why more men don't.

AfterLife

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

Was there any protests down at the Point for this? I didn't hear of any. Did anyone try and "no platform" it?

Why would you be worried about your career prospects?

Akrasia

Bambi wrote: »

It is, given that one income (the husbands) was considered sufficient for a household, it allowed more young people (male and female) to gain employment in the civil service and thus maximize the social benefit for the amount of taxpayers money spent.

Positive discrimination just as you like it.

OK, now that we've established that you don't know what positive discrimination is, is there anything else you'd like to talk about?

JRant

Akrasia wrote: »

OK, now that we've established that you don't know what positive discrimination is, is there anything else you'd like to talk about?

Was it not "positive" discrimination aimed at helping young people into the civil service and allowing more married men stay in civil service roles?

All discrimination has a negative and positive outcome. That's why the whole premise of "positive discrimination" is so ludicrous IMO.

Akrasia

JRant wrote: »

Was it not "positive" discrimination aimed at helping young people into the civil service and allowing more married men stay in civil service roles?

All discrimination has a negative and positive outcome. That's why the whole premise of "positive discrimination" is so ludicrous IMO.

No, it was a measure aimed at putting women back into the kitchen where they belonged. Its still in the constitution BTW.

JRant

Akrasia wrote: »

No, it was a measure aimed at putting women back into the kitchen where they belonged. Its still in the constitution BTW.

Way to miss my point. Discrimination always has someone it affects and someone who benefits. In that case it was married women who had to leave the workplace but on the flip side it offered more opportunities to younger people and married men.

Just because we call something "positive" discrimination doesn't mean it has no negative consequences. It's complete hyprocrosy to argue previous discrimination was bad but this new type is somehow good.

Outlaw Pete

AfterLife wrote: »

Was there any protests down at the Point for this? I didn't hear of any. Did anyone try and "no platform" it?

Why would you be worried about your career prospects?

You'll find that private establishments like the 3Arena aren't as easy a push over as a college and so I doubt they would bother as they know they wouldn't get too far. Plus 9000 are a little harder to intimidate than a few hundred.

Not sure we've had to many protests to lectures and the like here though. The following being the only one I'm aware of:

http://www.thejournal.ie/tcd-israeli-ambassador-protest-3250146-Feb2017/

AfterLife

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You'll find that private establishments like the 3Arena aren't as easy a push over as a college and so I doubt they would bother as they know they wouldn't get too far. Plus 9000 are a little harder to intimidate than a few hundred.

Not sure we've had to many protests to lectures and the like here though. The following being the only one I'm aware of:

http://www.thejournal.ie/tcd-israeli-ambassador-protest-3250146-Feb2017/

You're not old enough to remember when Justin Barrett got booted out of UCD I see. Funnily enough he was an anti-abortion and immigration control lunatic in 2004. He's very quiet these days. What happened?

That's beside the point though. The point I was making is that nobody showed up to protest Peterson. The 3 Arena couldn't stop protesters showing up, private or not. None did and the reason for that is the same reason nobody bothers protesting a Power Rangers gig. Its for kids.

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Beautiful rebuttal of Milo's recent criticisms of Peterson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OWu1usSCBY

What are your opinions on what Milo has to say?!

blinding

Douglas Murray and Jordan Peterson have some great videos on the internet .

Whether you agree with them or not they certainly stimulate the thinking cells .

Akrasia

JRant wrote: »

Way to miss my point. Discrimination always has someone it affects and someone who benefits. In that case it was married women who had to leave the workplace but on the flip side it offered more opportunities to younger people and married men.

Just because we call something "positive" discrimination doesn't mean it has no negative consequences. It's complete hyprocrosy to argue previous discrimination was bad but this new type is somehow good.

You can't tell the difference between helping disadvantaged people compete and giving an even bigger advantage to the people already with the most advantages?

In one system you're perpetuating and in fact deepening inequality, on the other, you're trying to level the playing field.

Positive discrimination is an imperfect solution to a hard problem. There are always some arbitrary elements in a selection process. Some university places may be reserved for fee paying international students or children of Alumni, or people on sports scholarships for example. There has been positive discrimination in our colleges for years with places held for students from disadvantaged backgrounds who can qualify on fewer points or places reserved for students who come through level 6 and 7 courses.

Positive discrimination is an attempt to compensate for the extra effort it takes to overcome the disadvantages that certain minorities or economically deprived people have to overcome.

It's not always done properly but there are very good reasons why we should be developing social capital in disadvantaged sections of society

7aubzxk43m2sni

AfterLife wrote: »

That's beside the point though. The point I was making is that nobody showed up to protest Peterson. The 3 Arena couldn't stop protesters showing up, private or not. None did and the reason for that is the same reason nobody bothers protesting a Power Rangers gig. Its for kids.

Because Irish people are a bit more rational than Americans/Canadians when it comes to identity politics? It's not for kids.

Brian? wrote: »

Honestly, I don’t want to. That’s how this thread gets dragged off course.

I want to debate Peterson’s opinion that students shouldn’t be protesting because they haven’t got their life in order yet. Debating the merits of individual protestors will distract from that, again.



You’re way oversimplifying the civil rights struggle in the 60s. There was nothing straightforward about it’s resolution. It’s far too easy to use hindsight on the issue.




See, we’re about to start debating the relative merits of the protesters ideals, who Peterson disagrees with.

But he didn’t say some students should stay home and sort out their own lives, e.g. the left wing ones. He said all students. Can you honestly defend that position? I don’t believe you can. You’ve already agreed the civil rights protesters weren’t naive.

My point is that in a general way, college students should try to attend to their own affairs and get their lives in order, before protesting about perceived flaws and issues in the system.

Something like the civil rights issue is obviously a huge issue. While still being complicated, the morality of the issue is fairly obvious, and I'd consider it in a different league to something like gender pronoun use, or a man making a sexist joke.

Akrasia wrote: »

No, it was a measure aimed at putting women back into the kitchen where they belonged. Its still in the constitution BTW.

Sorry but that's nonsense.

"In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved."

"The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home."

Emphasis mine.

Where does it say here that women have to be in the kitchen where they belong? It's a constitutional protection for families which recognises the role of the mother as very significant, to the point where it should not fall second to working in the case of money being an issue for a family.

I'm all for extending this to father's by amending it and replacing 'mother' with 'parent', but removing it is a reactionary move fueled by vague notions of sexism and is frankly ridiculous, with potentially unforeseen consequences awaiting.

The Bishop Basher

Brian? wrote: »

What are your opinions on what Milo has to say?!

All i got from that video was that Milo has trouble comprehending long sentences..

Bless him..

CerebralCortex

AfterLife wrote: »

You're not old enough to remember when Justin Barrett got booted out of UCD I see. Funnily enough he was an anti-abortion and immigration control lunatic in 2004. He's very quiet these days. What happened?

That's beside the point though. The point I was making is that nobody showed up to protest Peterson. The 3 Arena couldn't stop protesters showing up, private or not. None did and the reason for that is the same reason nobody bothers protesting a Power Rangers gig. Its for kids.

Jordan Peterson was in Dublin? ....who gives a ****?

blinding

Rennaws wrote: »

All i got from that video was that Milo has trouble comprehending long sentences..

Bless him..

It came across as Milo not being as smart as he has being getting away with pretending he is .;)

blinding

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Jordan Peterson was in Dublin? ....who gives a ****?

You went to the trouble of posting...who gives a **** ?.....proving that you care enough to make that post;)

Dyr

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Because Irish people are a bit more rational than Americans/Canadians when it comes to identity politics? It's not for kids.



My point is that in a general way, college students should try to attend to their own affairs and get their lives in order, before protesting about perceived flaws and issues in the system.

Something like the civil rights issue is obviously a huge issue. While still being complicated, the morality of the issue is fairly obvious, and I'd consider it in a different league to something like gender pronoun use, or a man making a sexist joke.



Sorry but that's nonsense.

"In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved."

"The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home."

Emphasis mine.

Where does it say here that women have to be in the kitchen where they belong? It's a constitutional protection for families which recognises the role of the mother as very significant, to the point where it should not fall second to working in the case of money being an issue for a family.

I'm all for extending this to father's by amending it and replacing 'mother' with 'parent', but removing it is a reactionary move fueled by vague notions of sexism and is frankly ridiculous, with potentially unforeseen consequences awaiting.

Twill be funny if they follow their own logic and stop giving out Mickey money to all and sundry

professore

I would love to listen to someone make logical arguments about the status quo around positive discrimination, how your group membership determines how you act and how labelling whole groups with characteristics is a good thing and not racist or sexist e.g. white male privilege, toxic masculinity etc. Why a gender imbalance in STEM is problematic but is fine in other areas. Have yet to hear any.

If someone can point me in the direction of someone who can speak with reason without calling anyone a nazi then please do.

If Peterson is so wrong about these viewpoints and such a pseudo intellectual then it should be easy to refute what he is saying without resorting to showing a couple of 30 second clips spliced together from a 2 hour interview.