Jordan Peterson interview on C4

20Cent

RandomName2 wrote: »

So you think he should be jailed for not saying zim? Sorry, I keep thinking of Invader Zim when I say that.

No one thinks that, law experts in Canada say Petersons claims about being jailed for using the wrong pronoun wouldn't happen. He still managed to make a carear out of crying about it though.

manual_man

blue note wrote: »

Can you point to where you read that he is opposed to divorce? I've heard quite a few things from him and it would surprise me greatly if he was opposed to divorce as a concept. For sure people tend to fare better in two parent families, but saying this doesn't mean you oppose divorce in most circumstances.

Peterson often cites statistical data and some critics would seek to interpret it that he is endorsing fully a strict point of view - people not capable of nuance might be forgiven for coming to such a conclusion. The vast, vast majority of adults are wholly capable of nuance though, so many criticisms of him are wholly disingenuous and simply seek to smear him, since engaging on actual issues (and thus furthering our understanding of them) would simply involve some effort on a person's part. Many people seem to resent the fact that Peterson gives a lot of thought and effort to gain better understanding of the many important issues that confront us in life. Debate and criticism are a vital part of a functioning society in my opinion. So when any person or organisation is intent on shutting down opposing views (as opposed to inviting them), then this is something that as a society we should be VERY worried about.

RandomName2

20Cent wrote: »

No one thinks that, law experts in Canada say Petersons claims about being jailed for using the wrong pronoun wouldn't happen. He still managed to make a carear out of crying about it though.

It's against the law. I mean, it doesn't get any clearer than that.

The statutory punishment for it isn't prison, but Peterson said that he would be determined to not pay if he was fined. The ultimate destination for not paying fines when breaking the law is prison.

Akrasia

blue note wrote: »

Can you point to where you read that he is opposed to divorce? I've heard quite a few things from him and it would surprise me greatly if he was opposed to divorce as a concept. For sure people tend to fare better in two parent families, but saying this doesn't mean you oppose divorce in most circumstances.

opposed to divorce in most circumstances. I'm presuming he'd support divorce in extremus, like if your husband was beating your children, but he has spoken at length about his opposition to divorce in most circumstances, and that people should tough it out even if it makes them unhappy

RandomName2

Akrasia wrote: »

He has called universities a 'scam' and 'indoctrination cults'. He's even in the process of setting up his own 'online university' where you can get online lectures from presumably other conservative types who he agrees with

He's pretty right in my opinion.

They are a scam. A great big multi billion dollar scam, which do not have a primary focus on educating people. They are increasingly interested in being profitable, having prestige, and maintaining their ranking as research facilities. The capacity to discuss and debate difficult topics is becoming increasingly limited. Universities in the west have a growing desire to virtue signal, and their policies are being influenced by this desire.

His lectures are free. Not much criticism you can level at that. But the real issue is that online qualifications are worth very little in the west because of the cartel 'educational' industry we have going, so you don't have to be worried that his plans will in any way upset the status quo.

Akrasia wrote: »

opposed to divorce in most circumstances. I'm presuming he'd support divorce in extremus, like if your husband was beating your children, but he has spoken at length about his opposition to divorce in most circumstances, and that people should tough it out even if it makes them unhappy

You don't have to agree with everything he says. I don't. I am personally at best indifferent to organised religion. I also found Peterson's assessment of the Lion King a bit light-weight as well.

I don't think that really matters to you though. His being in favor of marriage would signal to you his conservativeness, and thereby make you feel correct in your assessment of his character. It is this conservativeness in itself that I suspect you are against, and while confirming your theory is all well and good, I think your main motivation to bring it up is to use it as a stick to beat him over the head with.

The reason why this is terribly tiresome is that neither you, nor anybody else deriding him in this forum (or any other forum online) is saying 'this is Peterson's view on X. That's interesting, but I disagree with it because Y.' It instead seems to be an endless game of trying to catch him out. He's a charlatan, a preacher, a xenophobe, a transphobe, a fake, etc .

It all ends up as an extended ad-hominem attack, which I think is increasingly typical of leftists who show very little signs of wanting open discussions about science, history, or society.

I think Peterson was a foolish person for leftists to attack, because most of his positions are reasonable, their casus belli is to do with the law relating to the absolutely ridiculous made-up pronouns, and it is difficult to make him look like an idiot on stage.

20Cent

RandomName2 wrote: »

It's against the law. I mean, it doesn't get any clearer than that.

The statutory punishment for it isn't prison, but Peterson said that he would be determined to not pay if he was fined. The ultimate destination for not paying fines when breaking the law is prison.

He wouldn't have to pay a fine either. It is incitement to hatred legislation Petersons reaction to it was over the top.

Paully D

Good read in today’s Irish Times:

Jordan Peterson: ‘What the hell’s wrong with self-help books?’

via The Irish Times

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/jordan-peterson-what-the-hell-s-wrong-with-self-help-books-1.3570183

blinding

Some great videos of Peterson and Douglas Murray on youtube .

Have a look and decide for yourself .

Giraffe Box

David Quinn of The Iona Institute - Socially conservative Roman Catholic advocacy group - seems to approve:

David Quinn: Rock star psychologist Jordan Peterson is tuned into Ireland's youth.


Jordan Peterson’s 3Arena success confirms level of PC backlash...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/david-quinn-rock-star-psychologist-jordan-peterson-is-tuned-into-ireland-s-youth-3plftbxdq

The Bishop Basher

20Cent wrote: »

He wouldn't have to pay a fine either. It is incitement to hatred legislation Petersons reaction to it was over the top.

There's was nothing over the top about Peterson's reaction..

Unlike his opponents he's not prone to hysterics, emotional outbursts and over the top reactions..

The media of course, who love a bit of drama, picked up the story and made it into something far more then it needed to be..

Combine this with the fact that so many people seem to struggle comprehending his position and the points he makes so they invariably end up just twisting them 180 and throwing them back at him.

I honestly don't know how he remains so calm in the face of such intellectual stupidity..

But he does..

That aside though, the key point is that it seems you have no problem with a law that restricts the words you may or may not use.

Fair enough.

What if they decided to restrict what clothes you wear, what way you cut your hair, what car you drive, what colour you paint your house etc etc

In other words, what would it take for you to decide that the government has gone too far in terms of controlling every aspect of your life to keep a minuscule minority of the population happy ?

Brian?

Rennaws wrote: »

There's was nothing over the top about Peterson's reaction..

Unlike his opponents he's not prone to hysterics, emotional outbursts and over the top reactions..

The media of course, who love a bit of drama, picked up the story and made it into something far more then it needed to be..

Combine this with the fact that so many people seem to struggle comprehending his position and the points he makes so they invariably end up just twisting them 180 and throwing them back at him.

I honestly don't know how he remains so calm in the face of such intellectual stupidity..

But he does..

That aside though, the key point is that it seems you have no problem with a law that restricts the words you may or may not use.

Fair enough.

What if they decided to restrict what clothes you wear, what way you cut your hair, what car you drive, what colour you paint your house etc etc

In other words, what would it take for you to decide that the government has gone too far in terms of controlling every aspect of your life to keep a minuscule minority of the population happy ?

You don’t see any whiff of irony from the 2 bolded sections? If you could right that without irony, I suggest you work on your own self awareness.

I’d also add that I don’t think that’s the point Peterson is trying to make. The size of the minority is irrelevant to him, or it should be, it’s the compelled speech he has an issue with. An issue I agree with him on, in general terms.

Like a lot of his supporters, you’re displaying your own privilege and bias. It’s not about minorities, it’s aboit society as a whole. I think a lot Peterson supporters completely undermine their own arguments when they blatantly call out minorities. Peterson would never, ever do this. I admire that.

That’s right. I said privilege and bias. Let the “snowflake” screaming begin.

I also believe this admiration of unemotional calmness in a stressful situation is an element of toxic masculinity.

professore

Akrasia wrote: »

And what about his opinions on Divorce? He is opposed to divorce in most circumstances and thinks people should be pressured to remain in their marriages even when they are unhappy, unfulfilling or they are not being treated well by their spouse.

The world according to Peterson is
Get married young, promiscuity is bad, monogamy is good, so people should be 'pressured by society' to marry one of their first sexual partners because if you want to have sex you need to be married in case you get pregnant

Never get divorced because you committed to the marriage so tough sh1t if he happens to be a drunken layabout or she happens to be a cold hearted bitter jealous woman or whatever the problems in the marriage might be, you should stay in the marriage and fix the problems or else you're just running away

That's a very simplistic way of interpreting what he means.

professore

20Cent wrote: »

He wouldn't have to pay a fine either. It is incitement to hatred legislation Petersons reaction to it was over the top.

So it's something illegal with no punishment? What sort of nonsense is that? Of course there's a fine, otherwise what's the point?

The Bishop Basher

Brian? wrote: »

You don’t see any whiff of irony from the 2 bolded sections? If you could right that without irony, I suggest you work on your own self awareness.

I’d also add that I don’t think that’s the point Peterson is trying to make. The size of the minority is irrelevant to him, or it should be, it’s the compelled speech he has an issue with. An issue I agree with him on, in general terms.

Like a lot of his supporters, you’re displaying your own privilege and bias. It’s not about minorities, it’s aboit society as a whole. I think a lot Peterson supporters completely undermine their own arguments when they blatantly call out minorities. Peterson would never, ever do this. I admire that.

That’s right. I said privilege and bias. Let the “snowflake” screaming begin.

I also believe this admiration of unemotional calmness in a stressful situation is an element of toxic masculinity.

I'm not going to get into multi quotes so i'll reply to everything together..

I thought I was clear about the fact that freedom of speech (or at least lack of compulsion) is Peterson's key point, my bad if I wasn't clear enough on that..

With regard to him and his opponents I was talking about the you tube videos and media hysterics.. The Cathy Newman's who think they have it all sussed till he calmly and gently sets them straight

As regards everything else..

I'm human. Therefore I'm biased. So are you.. So what ?

I'm also probably privileged (your term, not mine), I don't know how you define it and I don't care enough to ask but I'm guessing you're also privileged which again begs the question, so what ?

I speak about minorities because i'm not going to let .3% of the population determine how I raise my children and what words I use when I speak..

If the .3% become 30% of the population then we'll have something to talk about but my point is, the numbers matter..

Why ? Because we live in a democracy with majority rule.. Therefore society will always be driven by the majority.

That's how it should be but some quarters are challenging this notion.

I'm glad you left "toxic masculinity" to the end because if you hadn't I wouldn't have read any further.

No offence but the last 3 paragraphs of your post look like a game of SJW bingo..

As regards my self awareness ? I think you probably care more about that then I do but if that situation changes i'll be sure to let you know and sign up for a few lessons from the expert :pac:

RandomName2

Brian? wrote: »

I also believe this admiration of unemotional calmness in a stressful situation is an element of toxic masculinity.

You had to go and absolutely ruin your post, didn't you?

The Bishop Basher

RandomName2 wrote: »

You had to go and absolutely ruin your post, didn't you?

It's the first time anyone has insinuated that my masculinity may be toxic so he's popped my cherry on that one..

Gotta love it though..

Lectures me about self awareness and then closes his post with that judgmental nonsense..

I switch off at all these words.

Brian?

RandomName2 wrote: »

You had to go and absolutely ruin your post, didn't you?

Ah I did. It was pure divilment, you should know that by now.

glic71rods46t0

Brian? wrote: »

You don’t see any whiff of irony from the 2 bolded sections? If you could right that without irony, I suggest you work on your own self awareness.

I’d also add that I don’t think that’s the point Peterson is trying to make. The size of the minority is irrelevant to him, or it should be, it’s the compelled speech he has an issue with. An issue I agree with him on, in general terms.

Like a lot of his supporters, you’re displaying your own privilege and bias. It’s not about minorities, it’s aboit society as a whole. I think a lot Peterson supporters completely undermine their own arguments when they blatantly call out minorities. Peterson would never, ever do this. I admire that.

That’s right. I said privilege and bias. Let the “snowflake” screaming begin.

I also believe this admiration of unemotional calmness in a stressful situation is an element of toxic masculinity.

Wow, almost a full house in feminazi bingo!

Brian?

Rennaws wrote: »

I'm not going to get into multi quotes so i'll reply to everything together..

I thought I was clear about the fact that freedom of speech (or at least lack of compulsion) is Peterson's key point, my bad if I wasn't clear enough on that..

With regard to him and his opponents I was talking about the you tube videos and media hysterics.. The Cathy Newman's who think they have it all sussed till he calmly and gently sets them straight

As regards everything else..

I'm human. Therefore I'm biased. So are you.. So what ?

I'm also probably privileged (your term, not mine), I don't know how you define it and I don't care enough to ask but I'm guessing you're also privileged which again begs the question, so what ?

I speak about minorities because i'm not going to let .3% of the population determine how I raise my children and what words I use when I speak..

If the .3% become 30% of the population then we'll have something to talk about but my point is, the numbers matter..

Why ? Because we live in a democracy with majority rule.. Therefore society will always be driven by the majority.

That's how it should be but some quarters are challenging this notion.

Actually, that’s not how it should be. That’s where I agree with Peterson and you fundamentally disagree with him. Compelled speech is wrong, full stop.

It seems I understand Peterson better than you and I’m mostly a critic.

I'm glad you left "toxic masculinity" to the end because if you hadn't I wouldn't have read any further.

That’s a shockingly closed minded mindset.

No offence but the last 3 paragraphs of your post look like a game of SJW bingo..

That was entirely intentional. It was an effort to stimulate a response. I mean everything I said, but I’d rarely use those word.

As regards my self awareness ? I think you probably care more about that then I do but if that situation changes i'll be sure to let you know and sign up for a few lessons from the expert :pac:

You don’t care about your own awareness? I hope you don’t drive.

2 Scoops

Careful Brian, your indoctrination is showing.

Quick, get back to your insightful points like how Peterson describes himself as a conservative to fool the masses!

Brian?

3vrhwx2epcz90f wrote: »

Wow, almost a full house in feminazi bingo!

Where did I mention feminism or even women?

Brian?

2 Scoops wrote: »

Careful Brian, your indoctrination is showing.

Quick, get back to your insightful points like how Peterson describes himself as a conservative to fool the masses!

Cheap shot. Given I admitted almost immediately I was incorrect.

Are cheap shots all you have? I haven’t seen you even attempt to make a cohesive point in a while.

2 Scoops

Brian? wrote: »

Are cheap shots all you have?

I don't feel the need to engage with your nonsense. It's obvious what you're doing.

glic71rods46t0

Brian? wrote: »

Actually, that’s not how it should be. That’s where I agree with Peterson and you fundamentally disagree with him. Compelled speech is wrong, full stop.

It seems I understand Peterson better than you and I’m mostly a critic.



That’s a shockingly closed minded mindset.



That was entirely intentional. It was an effort to stimulate a response. I mean everything I said, but I’d rarely use those word.



You don’t care about your own awareness? I hope you don’t drive.

Wow, quite the one-liner cheapshot professor! Your position of simultaneously agreeing with Peterson and being "mostly a critic" is untenable

glic71rods46t0

Brian? wrote: »

Where did I mention feminism or even women?

Other posters are questioning your debating integrity and with just cause. Are you honestly expecting people to believe that you used terms like "privilege", "bias" and "toxic masculinity" in a Peterson thread and not infer gender?

Phoebas

3vrhwx2epcz90f wrote: »

Wow, almost a full house in feminazi bingo!

I'm sure some people seeing the tired old term 'feminazi' will also be marking their bingo card.

Brian?

2 Scoops wrote: »

I don't feel the need to engage with your nonsense. It's obvious what you're doing.

My nonsense? What am I doing?

You feel the need to take cheap shots but not engage. It’s petty and it’s childish.

Brian?

3vrhwx2epcz90f wrote: »

Wow, quite the one-liner cheapshot professor! Your position of simultaneously agreeing with Peterson and being "mostly a critic" is untenable

Untenable? Is this a joke.


Of course I can be critical of most his ideas while agreeing with one or more of his other ideas. That’s called being open minded.

Have you any rebuttal to he points I made or is it going to be all ad hominem attacks? If so, it gets boring quickly.

Brian?

3vrhwx2epcz90f wrote: »

Other posters are questioning your debating integrity and with just cause. Are you honestly expecting people to believe that you used terms like "privilege", "bias" and "toxic masculinity" in a Peterson thread and not infer gender?

My debating integrity? Is that a polite accusation of trolling.

What about my post inferred gender? Are you going to address the points I made or simply attack how I made them?

Brian?

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm sure some people seeing the tired old term 'feminazi' will also be marking their bingo card.

Isn’t that what this debate comes down to normally. Everyone picks a side. Everyone has bingo cards. Doesn’t matter if he other side makes a valid point, it’s all a big game where we have to be right.

I can’t even pick and choose what points I agree with Peterson on anymore without being accused of trolling.

22/06/18 the day the debate died.