Jordan Peterson interview on C4

glic71rods46t0

Brian? wrote: »

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?

Like other posters I'm bored of you and your nonsense. Aside from the numerous other inferences, you expect to be treated seriously when you need to have your own posts interpreted for you???? "toxic masculinity" indeed:eek:

glic71rods46t0

Brian? wrote: »

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.

Its July ...get with the times:rolleyes:

The Bishop Basher

Brian? wrote: »

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

I don't claim to understand Peterson more or less than anyone else. i like a lot of what he has to say and that's it.. no more, no less.

If it makes your day to proclaim that you understand him better then I do, well go you, the honour is all yours..

Take a bow..

Brian? wrote: »

That’s a shockingly closed minded mindset.

I don't care. I don't do political correctness.

Brian? wrote: »

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

I don't care. As i've said, I don't do political correctness. As soon as I see those words in a post, my eyes roll and I switch off.

Brian? wrote: »

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

I didn't say I don't care. I said you probably care more than I do. This is starting to sound like a JP interview. I'm careful with my words. At least have the courtesy to respond to what i wrote as opposed to what you think i wrote.

Brian?

3vrhwx2epcz90f wrote: »

Like other posters I'm bored of you and your nonsense. Aside from the numerous other inferences, you expect to be treated seriously when you need to have your own posts interpreted for you???? "toxic masculinity" indeed:eek:

So more ad hominem attacks and zero debate. Boring.

Brian?

Rennaws wrote: »

I don't claim to understand Peterson more or less than anyone else. i like a lot of what he has to say and that's it.. no more, no less.

If it makes your day to proclaim that you understand him better then I do, well go you, the honour is all yours..

Take a bow..



I don't care. I don't do political correctness.



I don't care. As i've said, I don't do political correctness. As soon as I see those words in a post, my eyes roll and I switch off.



I didn't say I don't care. I said you probably care more than I do. This is starting to sound like a JP interview. I'm careful with my words. At least have the courtesy to respond to what i wrote as opposed to what you think i wrote.

No points. Just silly insults. Grand. I’m don’t with that so.

glic71rods46t0

Brian? wrote: »

So more ad hominem attacks and zero debate. Boring.

Either you have some cognitive disability (Not discounted) or you are deliberately misinterpreting replies from most other posters (most likely).
Who sought evidence of gender being mentioned? You did
Who mentioned toxic masculinity? That's right, you did.
Most people are bored of your dishonest interactions here. Boring indeed

glic71rods46t0

Brian? wrote: »

No points. Just silly insults. Grand. I’m don’t with that so.

Another dishonest reply, ignoring the fact you misquoted the poster, you won't win any debate if you all you're able to do is accuse other posters of insults and ad hominem. You just get quietly ignored while the adults carry on the debate

RandomName2

Brian? wrote: »

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

I smelled it for irony and couldn't get a whiff. :pac:

Brian?

3vrhwx2epcz90f wrote: »

Another dishonest reply, ignoring the fact you misquoted the poster, you won't win any debate if you all you're able to do is accuse other posters of insults and ad hominem. You just get quietly ignored while the adults carry on the debate

Adults carrying on the debate would suit me perfectly. It actually happened for a few pages there. No one is attempting to rebutt the points I made earlier about compelled speech. I used some buzz words and the response is exactly what I expected. Meaningless insults and attacks. Ignoring that I was trying to make a serious point.

I am completely honest in everything I post, unless it’s clearly a joke. There is no winning any debate here, because most of the thread isn’t a debate. It’s people picking sides and sticking with them no matter what.

Brian?

RandomName2 wrote: »

I smelled it for irony and couldn't get a whiff. :pac:

There was no irony. There was divilment in the phraseology.

glic71rods46t0

Brian? wrote: »

Adults carrying on the debate would suit me perfectly. It actually happened for a few pages there. No one is attempting to rebutt the points I made earlier about compelled speech. I used some buzz words and the response is exactly what I expected. Meaningless insults and attacks. Ignoring that I was trying to make a serious point.

I am completely honest in everything I post, unless it’s clearly a joke. There is no winning any debate here, because most of the thread isn’t a debate. It’s people picking sides and sticking with them no matter what.

Toxic masculinity apparently:rolleyes:

Skylinehead

3vrhwx2epcz90f wrote: »

Either you have some cognitive disability (Not discounted) or you are deliberately misinterpreting replies from most other posters (most likely).
Who sought evidence of gender being mentioned? You did
Who mentioned toxic masculinity? That's right, you did.
Most people are bored of your dishonest interactions here. Boring indeed

Mod: Do not post in this thread again.

The Bishop Basher

Brian? wrote: »

No points. Just silly insults. Grand. I’m don’t with that so.

If I insulted you, use the report post function.

I see you’ve also nearly completed the sjw debating circle by ignoring what I’ve said, claiming to be insulted and storming off in a huff..

You can write the script with you guys, debating is pointless.

No doubt you’ll complete the circle shortly by returning to the thread with more of your “toxic masculinity” nonsense..

7aubzxk43m2sni

Nixonbot wrote: »

Mod: Do not post in this thread again.

Seriously? Can the man not get a warning first?

7aubzxk43m2sni

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.

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.

Ok, so what you seem to be saying is that it is a law, but nobody will go to jail for breaking that law, nor will they have to pay a fine. What happens then?

How would you feel about a law that said you're not allowed to swear? You might let the occasional swear word slip, but - not to worry, you won't be arrested for it. You might have to pay a fine, but nobody has had to pay one yet, so you're probably grand.

Is such a law ok with you?

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.

Hey Brian, I'm still waiting on some recommended reading from a few pages back.

With regards to your post above, I'm not sure what you've said, or if you've said anything at all really. The compelled speech law cannot be separated from the minority issue, when it's "compassion" for minorities which is used as justification for the introduction of the compelled speech laws in the first place.

Brian? wrote: »

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

Do you actually believe that? Or are you unashamedly trolling at this point?

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.

I understand that you don't like Peterson and you disagree with most of what he says, but I'm trying to see anything constructive in your last few posts and as far as I can see they serve no purpose but to wind people up. Surely you're better than that

20Cent

professore wrote: »

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 legislation does not mention pronouns anywhere. To be punished the prosecution would have to prove that refusing to call someone zee or whatever is incitement to hatred whuch is judged at a high bar. Practically calling for violence or genocide.

Skylinehead

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Seriously? Can the man not get a warning first?

Leave the modding to the mods. Accusations of mental disorders are way beyond warnings. Now drop it please.

DickSwiveller Returns

20Cent wrote: »

The legislation does not mention pronouns anywhere. To be punished the prosecution would have to prove that refusing to call someone zee or whatever is incitement to hatred whuch is judged at a high bar. Practically calling for violence or genocide.

So why the need for the law? Incitement to violence is already illegal

20Cent

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

So why the need for the law? Incitement to violence is already illegal

There are incitement to hatred acts to protect minority groups. Trans people were added to these groups thats all that happened. There is no law about pronouns.

markodaly

20Cent wrote: »

There are incitement to hatred acts to protect minority groups. Trans people were added to these groups thats all that happened. There is no law about pronouns.

Another lie.

Setting records in this thread 20cent!

kubjones

This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The problematic language in the Bill is "expression". To fall under the protection of legislation as a group means that you are to be afforded all the rights that every categorical group of people under the same jurisdiction is.

But Trans people are already protected under this legislation because it literally encompassed every characteristic that a person could possibly be under normative societal constructs (based heavily on biology which is generally where people go back and forth on this).

"Expressions" means that these laws are no longer bound to a tangible, physical element, meaning that a person might express themselves sexually as a unicorn and you are obligated to treat this person with the same basic human rights as you would anyone else. That all sounds fair, until you realize that language changes based on sex and gender, this was fine when the field was binary because sexual differences have been a basic principal for all of recorded history. However, when somebody can literally invent a "gender" based on the mood they are feeling, change it at will and as often as they like, it is now an individual's responsibility under LAW to accommodate this person's fantasies.

If this law wasn't amended these people would still be protected, but as men or women. All of this was just to accommodate this new "Gender is a social construct" movement.

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Hey Brian, I'm still waiting on some recommended reading from a few pages back.

I was looking around for some relatively short articles to read, but couldn't really come up with anything. Apologies.

2 books I'd recommend are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion#%22God_hypothesis%22

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind

Sapiens is particularly good. This section is what I was referring to before about man creating gods to serve a purpose:

The Cognitive Revolution (c. 70,000 BC, when Sapiens evolved imagination).

With regards to your post above, I'm not sure what you've said, or if you've said anything at all really. The compelled speech law cannot be separated from the minority issue, when it's "compassion" for minorities which is used as justification for the introduction of the compelled speech laws in the first place.

So many people have missed my point, I am starting to believe I didn't actually make it:


I disagree with compelled speech laws. Peterson disagrees with compelled speech laws. Whomever the compelled speech laws are related to is completely irrelevant. Peterson would agree with me here, based on everything I've seen him say. Saying a compelled speech law is unjustified because it benefits a tiny minority is irrelevant, compelled speech laws are wrong. Full stop.

I believe the minority involved is an irrelevance to both myself and Peterson, am I wrong?

Do you actually believe that? Or are you unashamedly trolling at this point?

I do believe that. I would rarely use the term "toxic masculinity" because of the reaction it produces. The reaction we just saw.

I understand that you don't like Peterson and you disagree with most of what he says, but I'm trying to see anything constructive in your last few posts and as far as I can see they serve no purpose but to wind people up. Surely you're better than that

There was nothing constructive in response to my last constructive post. The one I replied to above. I was accused of being mentally handicapped, a troll, a SJW, a feminazi, a liar and so on. None of which I am. All because I used the term "toxic masculinity". You don't see the irony of posters who admire the calmness of Peterson having a complete meltdown because of one simple phrase, do you?

Not that social justice isn't worth fighting for.

I DO NOT dislike Peterson. I disagree with most of what he has to say. He seems like a decent human being who has given me no reason to dislike him.

Not that social justice isn't worth fighting for.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

I was looking around for some relatively short articles to read, but couldn't really come up with anything. Apologies.

2 books I'd recommend are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion#%22God_hypothesis%22

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind

Sapiens is particularly good. This section is what I was referring to before about man creating gods to serve a purpose:

The Cognitive Revolution (c. 70,000 BC, when Sapiens evolved imagination).

Thanks, Sapiens is on my list already, I'll be sure to add the God Delusion.

Brian? wrote: »

So many people have missed my point, I am starting to believe I didn't actually make it:


I disagree with compelled speech laws. Peterson disagrees with compelled speech laws. Whomever the compelled speech laws are related to is completely irrelevant. Peterson would agree with me here, based on everything I've seen him say. Saying a compelled speech law is unjustified because it benefits a tiny minority is irrelevant, compelled speech laws are wrong. Full stop.

I believe the minority involved is an irrelevance to both myself and Peterson, am I wrong?

The minority involved is irrelevant in the overall argument against compelled speech. Agreed.

The minority was however used as justification for and defense of the laws.

Brian? wrote: »

I do believe that. I would rarely use the term "toxic masculinity" because of the reaction it produces. The reaction we just saw.

Can you elaborate a bit on how the admiration of Peterson's calm exterior in stressful situations is something negative?

Can you explain, if it is indeed something negative, how the term 'toxic masculinity' captures the root of the problem? I really don't understand what the term means.

Brian? wrote: »

There was nothing constructive in response to my last constructive post. The one I replied to above. I was accused of being mentally handicapped, a troll, a SJW, a feminazi, a liar and so on. None of which I am. All because I used the term "toxic masculinity". You don't see the irony of posters who admire the calmness of Peterson having a complete meltdown because of one simple phrase, do you?


Not that social justice isn't worth fighting for.

I DO NOT dislike Peterson. I disagree with most of what he has to say. He seems like a decent human being who has given me no reason to dislike him.

Not that social justice isn't worth fighting for.

I do see the irony to an extent yes. I think mentally handicapped is a bit of a stretch, I think he was going for stupid but in a polite way.

This is the part of your post that I imagine most people had trouble with:

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.

How did the poster "display his privilege and bias"?

What privilege does he have and how did he display it?
What bias does he have and how did he display it?

RandomName2

Brian? wrote: »

I do believe that. I would rarely use the term "toxic masculinity" because of the reaction it produces. The reaction we just saw.

Like a communist talking about an enemy of the people, or a fascist talking about degenerate art, there are certain points of view that means there are irreconcilable differences between that person and the general public.

SJWs are in many ways as bad as communists and fascists, and all three share many basic tenets when it comes to academia and social discussion. Quite simply, all three ideologies fundamentally distrust objective science and humanities, and see the only value of social discussion as a potential mouth piece for their views.

SJWs have come up with a host of terms to attempt to bully and cajole academics and public figures, using phrases like 'toxic masculinity' 'cisgender' 'white privilege' 'microaggression' and so on - molded to suit whatever person, or group of people, they want to deride. Some people tacitly support them because they want to see a redistribution of power.

You say you're not a SJW. Good. I'd advise you to stop using their terminology so, else you may be accidentally misidentified as belonging to that sort of scum.

Lux23

I would love to see Elon Musk and Jordan Peterson have a bit of row to find out which of their fanbases is madder. Probably a bit of crossover.

Lux23

Lols

RandomName2 wrote: »

Like a communist talking about an enemy of the people, or a fascist talking about degenerate art, there are certain points of view that means there are irreconcilable differences between that person and the general public.

SJWs are in many ways as bad as communists and fascists, and all three share many basic tenets when it comes to academia and social discussion. Quite simply, all three ideologies fundamentally distrust objective science and humanities, and see the only value of social discussion as a potential mouth piece for their views.

SJWs have come up with a host of terms to attempt to bully and cajole academics and public figures, using phrases like 'toxic masculinity' 'cisgender' 'white privilege' 'microaggression' and so on - molded to suit whatever person, or group of people, they want to deride. Some people tacitly support them because they want to see a redistribution of power.

You say you're not a SJW. Good. I'd advise you to stop using their terminology so, else you may be accidentally misidentified as belonging to that sort of scum.

RandomName2

Lux23 wrote: »

Lols

Really let the air out of my balloon, the wind out of my argument, with your laughings out louds :rolleyes:

Lux23

RandomName2 wrote: »

Really let the air out of my balloon, the wind out of my argument, with your laughings out louds :rolleyes:

Like, I could be bothered giving you **** material.

RandomName2

Lux23 wrote: »

Like, I could be bothered giving you **** material.

Are.. you feeling okay?

DickSwiveller Returns

RandomName2 wrote: »

Like a communist talking about an enemy of the people, or a fascist talking about degenerate art, there are certain points of view that means there are irreconcilable differences between that person and the general public.

SJWs are in many ways as bad as communists and fascists, and all three share many basic tenets when it comes to academia and social discussion. Quite simply, all three ideologies fundamentally distrust objective science and humanities, and see the only value of social discussion as a potential mouth piece for their views.

SJWs have come up with a host of terms to attempt to bully and cajole academics and public figures, using phrases like 'toxic masculinity' 'cisgender' 'white privilege' 'microaggression' and so on - molded to suit whatever person, or group of people, they want to deride. Some people tacitly support them because they want to see a redistribution of power.

You say you're not a SJW. Good. I'd advise you to stop using their terminology so, else you may be accidentally misidentified as belonging to that sort of scum.