Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Professor Moriarty

RandomName2 wrote: »

That's a weak lobster move, but I'm sure you're warming up to something.

No idea what you are talking about. No interest either.

RandomName2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So, according to your definition: All religious people are scum. All racists are scum. All misogynists are scum. All homophobes are scum. Oh and radical SJWs. Apparently.

Déja-vu? Déja-vu.

Not quite. Just going to leave out the 'all religious people' bit altogether. Bigots would have been a better word to use there, surely? But 'all' for any of the categories doesn't quite cut it. It's in the ballpark, but honestly, I think my definition was closer to the mark. We could stick with that.

But why do you like SJW so much? Ah, now I know why you had the pretended ignorance about the term, you can't be asked that question if you don't know what it means. Even though you clearly have a.. position.. you used that so you never had to state your views, but merely set yourself up as some sort of interrogator.

As much as I admire the tactic, the insincerity is a bit too obvious. You'd also want a different handle to pull it off with more pathos .

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No idea what you are talking about. No interest either.

Ah I think a lot of people on this thread will know what I mean.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Professor Moriarty

RandomName2 wrote: »

Déja-vu? Déja-vu.

Not quite. Just going to leave out the 'all religious people' bit altogether. Bigots would have been a better word to use there, surely? But 'all' for any of the categories doesn't quite cut it. It's in the ballpark, but honestly, I think my definition was closer to the mark. We could stick with that.

Nope. Your definition applies to all of those terms. In fact, a lot more accurately than your vague definition of SJW.

But why do you like SJW so much? Ah, now I know why you had the pretended ignorance about the term, you can't be asked that question if you don't know what it means. Even though you clearly have a.. position.. you used that so you never had to state your views, but merely set yourself up as some sort of interrogator.

I don't give a crap about the term other than I have a mild distatste for lazy generalisations.

As much as I admire the tactic, the insincerity is a bit too obvious. You'd also want a different handle to pull it off with more pathos

.

Oh I am sincere. No tactics, just passing time pleasantly.

RandomName2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I don't give a crap about the term other than I have a mild distatste for lazy generalisations.

Then you surely must not like the terms 'fascist', 'communist', etc.? Wait, those are 'specific' terms, are they?

At this point I could say 'define them'

Then you reply back with 'dictatorship of the proletariat' for communism and something like 'far-right nationalism' for fascist.

I reply back saying that those are actually pretty vague.

Seeing that you haven't actually said you dislike fascism or communism I can't do what I otherwise would do at this stage and turn our question on its head, which would be 'you hate all cultists, all racists, all misogynists, all homophobes'? I could always get that admission from you, if you'd answer the question.

At which point you could either say 'yes' or say 'what the hell has that got to do with either fascism or communism'. If it's the second choice I could say how those things are contained within both ideologies (racism in communism would be a bit more tricky, but for an ideology which spans the world and has so many splinter groups I'd be bound to find something).

You could then reply saying 'that doesn't fit the criteria of 'all'' or 'that's simply cherry-picking' which you'd be totally right about, but I'd have plenty of wriggle room with such broad ideologies.

And it's interesting that fascism is still such a broad church, from the Portuguese Republic to Empire of Japan. And so much of it is debatable, but people who are debating it will fall into one of three groups: people who are genuinely interested from an academic point of view, people who are attempting to use to vagueness of it for fairly anachronous analogies (like saying that Trump is a fascist), or those that are just being long-winded pains.

And why is the third group a long-winded pain? Because we all know what fascism is, and debating whether Franco was truly a fascist because he didn't take part in the Holocaust, and never declared war on anyone, is somewhat missing the point.

Using vague generalized terms like feminism suits you when you want it to. :pac:

Professor Moriarty

RandomName2 wrote: »

Then you surely must not like the terms 'fascist', 'communist', etc.? Wait, those are 'specific' terms, are they?

At this point I could say 'define them'

Then you reply back with 'dictatorship of the proletariat' for communism and something like 'far-right nationalism' for fascist.

I reply back saying that those are actually pretty vague.

Seeing that you haven't actually said you dislike fascism or communism I can't do what I otherwise would do at this stage and turn our question on its head, which would be 'you hate all cultists, all racists, all misogynists, all homophobes'?

At which point you could either say 'yes' or say 'what the hell has that got to do with either fascism or communism'. If it's the second choice I could say how those things are contained within both ideologies (racism in communism would be a bit more tricky, but for an ideology which spans the world and has so many splinter groups I'd be bound to find something).

You could then reply saying 'that doesn't fit the criteria of 'all'' or 'that's simply cherry-picking' which you'd be totally right about, but I'd have plenty of wriggle room with such broad ideologies.

And it's interesting that fascism is still such a broad church, from the Portuguese Republic to Empire of Japan. And so much of it is debatable, but people who are debating it will fall into one of three groups: people who are genuinely interested from an academic point of view, people who are attempting to use to vagueness of it for fairly anachronous analogies (like saying that Trump is a fascist), or those that are just being long-winded pains.

And why is the third group a long-winded pain? Because we all know what fascism is, and debating whether Franco was truly a fascist because he didn't take part in the Holocaust, and never declared war on anyone, is somewhat missing the point.

Using vague generalized terms like feminism suits you when you want it to. :pac:

Okay. So you won't give your definition other that to offer a vague definition of them being "scummy". Are you happy with the dictionary definition of a SJW - a person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views - as defined by another poster?

kubjones

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Okay. So you won't give your definition other that to offer a vague definition of them being "scummy". Are you happy with the dictionary definition of a SJW - a person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views - as defined by another poster?

I adore the fact that you're challenging people on the substance of their argument while actually offering no substance of your own.

All your posts have been pedantic, stilted, arid questions of which you already know the answer to and who's objective is trying to trip people up with trivialities, that offers absolutely nothing to the conversation.

You've been posting in circles, I wish the people countering you would realize that there's basically no point in engaging with you at this point.

Professor Moriarty

kubjones wrote: »

I adore the fact that you're challenging people on the substance of their argument while actually offering no substance of your own.

All your posts have been pedantic, stilted, arid questions of which you already know the answer to and who's objective is trying to trip people up with trivialities, that offers absolutely nothing to the conversation.

You've been posting in circles, I wish the people countering you would realize that there's basically no point in engaging with you at this point.

Ironically, your own post is the epitome of ad hominum. When all else fails.

What's your opinion on SJWs? We've got a dictionary definition. Any thoughts?

kubjones

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ironically, your own post is the epitome of ad hominum. When all else fails.

What's your opinion on SJWs? We've got a dictionary definition. Any thoughts?

I'd actually rather hear yours.

Professor Moriarty

kubjones wrote: »

I'd actually rather hear yours.

I'm happy to go with the dictionary definition. Thoughts?

kubjones

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm happy to go with the dictionary definition. Thoughts?

That didn't answer the question.

Conceding on the meaning isn't the same as communicating your opinion.

Also for my comment to be an Ad Hominem, it would have to be refuting a central point, of which you offered none.

Professor Moriarty

kubjones wrote: »

That didn't answer the question.

Conceding on the meaning isn't the same as communicating your opinion.

Also for my comment to be an Ad Hominem, it would have to be refuting a central point, of which you offered none.

It appears you haven't actually followed the discussion fully before commenting. I conceded nothing. I'm happy with the dictionary definition.

My central point is that 'SJW', as was used, is a lazy, inaccurate and pejorative generalisation. Any substantive thoughts to offer on this point?

7aubzxk43m2sni

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm happy to go with the dictionary definition. Thoughts?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It appears you haven't actually followed the discussion fully before commenting. I conceded nothing. I'm happy with the dictionary definition.

My central point is that 'SJW', as was used, is a lazy, inaccurate and pejorative generalisation. Any substantive thoughts to offer on this point?

Pejorative, absolutely.

Lazy? I'm not sure how.

In response to someone posting about men revealing their biases and whatever other nonsense, including bringing up 'toxic masculinity', it's not inaccurate either.

Professor Moriarty

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Pejorative, absolutely.

Lazy? I'm not sure how.

In response to someone posting about men revealing their biases and whatever other nonsense, including bringing up 'toxic masculinity', it's not inaccurate either.

Lazy in this regard. I genuinely don't know what another poster meant when they used SJW. It seems to be used in the same way as 'snowflake', 'libtard' 'cuck' etc. Yet the dictionary definition is, to my eyes, positive and benign. Personally, if a person expresses or promotes a progressive society then I see that as positive rather than negative.

kubjones

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It appears you haven't actually followed the discussion fully before commenting. I conceded nothing. I'm happy with the dictionary definition.

My central point is that 'SJW', as was used, is a lazy, inaccurate and pejorative generalisation. Any substantive thoughts to offer on this point?

Would agree with you insofar that it is a broad generalization of various different movements occuring, almost exclusively left-leaning.

But so are most labels of groups.

For instance, in the same vein these same left-leaning groups would label anything right-of-center as "Alt-Right", when really that label belongs solely to the likes of Richard Spencer and his kin.

In relation to what I think of SJWs, I think their hearts are in the right place, but their reactionary nature is based off of more emotion and less logic, which is also fairly indicative of further left-leaning groups.

I think their practices and goals overall are dangerous, mostly culturally (due to the stifling of expression which we can see in Comedy, Media, Art, etc.) and even at the greater extremes physically (Antifa as an example).

This isn't to say they don't have a place, because left unchallenged the right are AT LEAST equally as dangerous. Both sides need each other, over the last few years we have seen SJWs get a bit out of hand, claiming practices to better society when in actual fact there was no evidence to substantiate their claims and plenty to disprove them, including affirmative action, Cultural Appropriation, the idea of "Toxic Masculinity" and segregation based on race or culture.

So overall, not a massive fan, but glad they came around because we didn't really have many examples of ways in which the left side of the political spectrum could go too far.

So we have no better definition of these kind of people for now. Language is funny because we don't get to pick what sticks and what doesn't, and the behaviour of the people that fall under this generalization has led to the term becoming pejorative in nature.

Lux23

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Lazy in this regard. I genuinely don't know what another poster meant when they used SJW. It seems to be used in the same way as 'snowflake', 'libtard' 'cuck' etc. Yet the dictionary definition is, to my eyes, positive and benign. Personally, if a person expresses or promotes a progressive society, then I see that as positive rather than negative.

I think people use the term without really understanding it to delegitimise the beliefs or arguments of people they don't like. I am sick of having debates in which my arguments are ignored because 'Oh, you're a feminazi, you're an SJW etc. etc.'

7aubzxk43m2sni

kubjones wrote: »

So we have no better definition of these kind of people for now. Language is funny because we don't get to pick what sticks and what doesn't, and the behaviour of the people that fall under this generalization has led to the term becoming pejorative in nature.

This is the key point

7aubzxk43m2sni

Lux23 wrote: »

I think people use the term without really understanding it to delegitimise the beliefs or arguments of certain groups. I am sick of having debates in which my arguments are ignored because 'Oh, you're a feminazi, you're an SJW etc. etc.

Do you often bring up ideas of unconscious bias, toxic masculinity, or smashing the patriarchy in your debates?

Lux23

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Do you often bring up ideas of unconscious bias, toxic masculinity, or smashing the patriarchy in your debates?

Not really. I can avoid them.

7aubzxk43m2sni

:pac:

Lux23

Oh, you sure got me.

I stick by what I said though, plenty of people have no clue how privileged they are.

RandomName2

Lux23 wrote: »

Oh, you sure got me.

I stick by what I said though, plenty of people have no clue how privileged they are.

I deleted the quote as I don't know how representative it is.

kubjones

Lux23 wrote: »

Oh, you sure got me.

I stick by what I said though, plenty of people have no clue how privileged they are.

Absolutely.

It's not really up to you though, or anybody else for that matter, to judge how privileged anyone is.

kunst nugget

Lux23 wrote: »

Oh, you sure got me.

I stick by what I said though, plenty of people have no clue how privileged they are.

In a global sense or within the society that they live?

RandomName2

kubjones wrote: »

Absolutely.

It's not really up to you though, or anybody else for that matter, to judge how privileged anyone is.

The thing I think is dangerous is when the line gets used 'men can't talk about X'.

I don't think it's particularly useful for women to use that argument because, before they know it, they'd have the same argument used against them 'cis white women have so much privilege, they should keep their mouths closed'.

There is no position worse than saying that others shouldn't have a voice. I don't think there's anything contradictory about me chastising a group of people who are defined by this modus operandi.

Edit- Jesus what's happened to The Left? They used to be defined by giving a voice to the voiceless, not the other way around.

Lux23

kunst nugget wrote: »

In a global sense or within the society that they live?

I think globally. But even in Irish society, I can see how I am far more privileged than a young lad growing up in a family where no-one works or encourages him to stay in school. It's all relative.

Lux23

kubjones wrote: »

Absolutely.

It's not really up to you though, or anybody else for that matter, to judge how privileged anyone is.

Why?

RandomName2

Lux23 wrote: »

Why?

Why would it be a problem using a non-empirical, subjective quality as a measurement for someone's moral worth?

Personal income is measurable. A person's working week is measurable. A person's wealth is measurable.

Ascribing value to race, gender, sexual persuasion based upon a group profiling.. ah nah, how could that ever be a problem?

kubjones

Lux23 wrote: »

Why?

Because there are far too many variables to dictate how "privileged" a person is.

Wealth and health are two small parts of an boundlessly complex existence. Wealth isn't even necessarily a privilege depending on the situation.

Even if we were to make a metric to attempt to judge a person's privilege, there would be a multitude of things that we'd miss or get wrong.

kunst nugget

Lux23 wrote: »

I think globally. But even in Irish society, I can see how I am far more privileged than a young lad growing up in a family where no-one works or encourages him to stay in school. It's all relative.

That's fair enough. I think in a society like Ireland, privilege runs more along socio-economic lines than gender lines which is where you see a lot of the contentious rhetoric happening. I think when you see things like intersectionality being talked about, you're starting to go down a bit of a rabbit hole of martyrdom, one that's not hugely relevant in a broadly homogenous society like Ireland imo.

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Pejorative, absolutely.

Lazy? I'm not sure how.

In response to someone posting about men revealing their biases and whatever other nonsense, including bringing up 'toxic masculinity', it's not inaccurate either.

Whatever other nonsense? The post is there for everyone to see. If we’re going to debate in good faith, this is a poor tactic.