Jordan Peterson interview on C4

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

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.

Privilege. I couldn't remember the word you used. Now I've looked back, it was privilege. That was the other nonsense. No tactics involved.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

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



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.



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.



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:



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?

@Brian I'd appreciate a response to this.

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

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

You’re welcome.

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.

The minority was being used by the poster I responded to, to attack the laws. By someone who was supposedly in agreement with Peterson. It’s my understanding that Peterson disagrees with all compelled speech, in all circumstances. Further the same poster made a case for compelled speech in favour of the majority, Peterson would not agree with this to the best of my knowledge.

So it left me in the strange position of explaining and supporting Peterson to his own supporter.

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.

No thanks. As we agreed previously, can’t we debate what Peterson says instead. What does Peterson say about toxic masculinity?

This thread spirals out of control too easily.

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.

He called me “cognitively disabled”. You want to defend that, then I’m done.

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



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?

Do we know the poster is a he?

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

@Brian I'd appreciate a response to this.

Well you just needed to be patient.

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Privilege. I couldn't remember the word you used. Now I've looked back, it was privilege. That was the other nonsense. No tactics involved.

If you’re going to describe the contents of my posts as nonsense, that is a tactic. A poor one. Not everything you disagree with is nonsense, it completely lowers the tone.

Giraffe Box

Brian? wrote: »

If you’re going to describe the contents of my posts as nonsense, that is a tactic. A poor one. Not everything you disagree with is nonsense, it completely lowers the tone.

Couldn't agree more.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

No thanks. As we agreed previously, can’t we debate what Peterson says instead. What does Peterson say about toxic masculinity?

This thread spirals out of control too easily.

You're happy to accuse a poster of displaying 'toxic masculinity' for admiring Peterson's calm exterior in the face of stress, and then you won't back it up at all, for fear of derailing the thread?

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



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?

Brian? wrote: »

Do we know the poster is a he?

Does it matter ? Seems like you're avoiding the question.

Let me rephrase to avoid assuming someone's gender.

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

What privilege does the poster have and how did they display it?
What bias do they have and how did they display it?

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

If you’re going to describe the contents of my posts as nonsense, that is a tactic. A poor one. Not everything you disagree with is nonsense, it completely lowers the tone.

Fair enough, point taken, next time I'll look back and quote it accurately.

Brian?

2 Scoops wrote: »

I'll try.. SJW = college students and activists indoctrinated by identity politics to the point it shapes their worldview and defines them as a person. When you question their viewpoint they don't just see it as someone questioning their beliefs, they see it as an attack on their identity and as such their retort is not one of reason and debate but rather emotion and violence.

So nothing like me? Thanks for that. Can everyone lazily calling me a SJW apologise to me please.

RandomName2

Brian? wrote: »

If you’re going to describe the contents of my posts as nonsense, that is a tactic. A poor one. Not everything you disagree with is nonsense, it completely lowers the tone.

He didn't say the post was nonsense, just the word.

Brian? wrote: »

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

And he's totally right. 'Privilege' is the worst defense that can be produced for an argument, but seeing as this wasn't your main tenet you could have just be putting it in to sh*tstir

edit

Brian? wrote: »

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.

This is actually correct - it was never about the 0.01%. There are less people who want to be called by the alternative pronouns, than there are alternative pronouns. This was being used as a case for compelled speech, it had nothing to do with the electorate per se.

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

You're happy to accuse a poster of displaying 'toxic masculinity' for admiring Peterson's calm exterior in the face of stress, and then you won't back it up at all, for fear of derailing the thread?






Does it matter ? Seems like you're avoiding the question.

Let me rephrase to avoid assuming someone's gender.

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

What privilege does the poster have and how did they display it?
What bias do they have and how did they display it?

Why have you edited my post this way and selectively responded? What about the ongoing discussion at the start you just left out?

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

Why have you edited my post this way and selectively responded? What about the ongoing discussion at the start you just left out?

This is the part I left out:

Brian? wrote: »

The minority was being used by the poster I responded to, to attack the laws. By someone who was supposedly in agreement with Peterson. It’s my understanding that Peterson disagrees with all compelled speech, in all circumstances. Further the same poster made a case for compelled speech in favour of the majority, Peterson would not agree with this to the best of my knowledge.

So it left me in the strange position of explaining and supporting Peterson to his own supporter.

I'll need to read back in the thread where the same poster made a case for compelled speech in favour of the majority, I must have completely missed it. Of course, if that's the case, peterson would also not agree.

What do you want as a response to that?

Please don't take this as an opportunity to deflect the questions of my first reply.

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

You're happy to accuse a poster of displaying 'toxic masculinity' for admiring Peterson's calm exterior in the face of stress, and then you won't back it up at all, for fear of derailing the thread?

There’s a hypocrisy to that. You’re right.

The admiration of bring calm and unemotional is an aspect of toxic masculinity IMO. It teaches boys to internalise and repress emotions. It teaches boys that boys don’t cry etc. . Repression of feelings can cause a huge psychological backlash as they get older. Men who express their emotions should be admired, but they are generally ridiculed.

Does it matter ? Seems like you're avoiding the question.

Let me rephrase to avoid assuming someone's gender.

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

What privilege does the poster have and how did they display it?
What bias do they have and how did they display it?

They displayed privilege and bias by ranting against a minority. Simples

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

This is the part I left out:



I'll need to read back in the thread where the same poster made a case for compelled speech in favour of the majority, I must have completely missed it. Of course, if that's the case, peterson would also not agree.

What do you want as a response to that?

Please don't take this as an opportunity to deflect the questions of my first reply.

I want a response to all or none of my posts. It’s hardly a big ask.

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

This is the part I left out:



I'll need to read back in the thread where the same poster made a case for compelled speech in favour of the majority, I must have completely missed it. Of course, if that's the case, peterson would also not agree.

What do you want as a response to that?

Please don't take this as an opportunity to deflect the questions of my first reply.

You also left out the part where you defended someone calling me “cognitively disabled”. I’d like some response to that.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

There’s a hypocrisy to that. You’re right.

The admiration of bring calm and unemotional is an aspect of toxic masculinity IMO. It teaches boys to internalise and repress emotions. It teaches boys that boys don’t cry etc. . Repression of feelings can cause a huge psychological backlash as they get older. Men who express their emotions should be admired, but they are generally ridiculed.

Being calm in the face of immediate stress is completely different to the idea that boys don't or shouldn't cry.

Being calm and rational in a conversation or debate is clearly the correct way to go about it.

Brian? wrote: »

They displayed privilege and bias by ranting against a minority. Simples

Where was the rant against a minority? The poster argued against compelled speech and the activists who pursue it.

And surely in the case of a rant against a minority, that's perhaps bias/prejudice against them, but nothing to do with privilege?

kubjones

Brian? wrote: »

There’s a hypocrisy to that. You’re right.

The admiration of bring calm and unemotional is an aspect of toxic masculinity IMO. It teaches boys to internalise and repress emotions. It teaches boys that boys don’t cry etc. . Repression of feelings can cause a huge psychological backlash as they get older. Men who express their emotions should be admired, but they are generally ridiculed.




They displayed privilege and bias by ranting against a minority. Simples

I recall a video Dr. Peterson made about a year, possibly two years ago. He began to cry talking about the rates at which young men were committing suicide.

He was ridiculed, not by his follows, but by his detractors. The same detractors that might argue that admiration of his calm disposition would be an aspect of Toxic Masculinity.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

I want a response to all or none of my posts. It’s hardly a big ask.

Ok.

Brian? wrote: »

You also left out the part where you defended someone calling me “cognitively disabled”. I’d like some response to that.

I'm making the point that the poster was probably going for "stupid" rather than "retarded". If you choose to take it as the latter and take offence to it, that's completely up to you.

Brian?

RandomName2 wrote: »

He didn't say the post was nonsense, just the word.

“Other nonsense” isn’t very specific.

And he's totally right. 'Privilege' is the worst defense that can be produced for an argument, but seeing as this wasn't your main tenet you could have just be putting it in to sh*tstir

edit



This is actually correct - it was never about the 0.01%. There are less people who want to be called by the alternative pronouns, than there are alternative pronouns. This was being used as a case for compelled speech, it had nothing to do with the electorate per se.

So we’re agreed?

RandomName2

Brian? wrote: »

“Other nonsense” isn’t very specific.

Two terms, male-toxicity and privilege

Brian? wrote: »

So we’re agreed?

Yes, I think that might be the case.

Brian? wrote: »

They displayed privilege and bias by ranting against a minority. Simples

For anyone who wants to know the ahem.. rant.. being described, here you go

Rennaws wrote: »

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 mean majority rule is correct as far as it goes in a democracy, but you (Brian?) are also correct that this particular law had very little to do with the minority in question.

The minority to be blamed, if one is to ascribe blame, are not transgender people, but rather a small handful of people with executive power, and political influence. That's your 'privilege', right there.

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Ok.



I'm making the point that the poster was probably going for "stupid" rather than "retarded". If you choose to take it as the latter and take offence to it, that's completely up to you.

If they meant stupid, they would have said stupid. Why do you feel the need to defend it? Even if they were calling me stupid.


You seriously think I’d ever use “retarded”?

Brian?

kubjones wrote: »

I recall a video Dr. Peterson made about a year, possibly two years ago. He began to cry talking about the rates at which young men were committing suicide.

He was ridiculed, not by his follows, but by his detractors. The same detractors that might argue that admiration of his calm disposition would be an aspect of Toxic Masculinity.

Did I ridicule him? No I did not.

He regularly gets emotional. It’s admirable. Even if he’s wrong.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

If they meant stupid, they would have said stupid. Why do you feel the need to defend it? Even if they were calling me stupid.


You seriously think I’d ever use “retarded”?

Ok, they shouldn't have called you cognitively disabled. They should have been clearer with what they meant to say.

I doubt that you would use "retarded".

Giraffe Box

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Ok.



I'm making the point that the poster was probably going for "stupid" rather than "retarded". If you choose to take it as the latter and take offence to it, that's completely up to you.

Fair enough I suppose, though the poster did seriously contravene the great man's rule number 10, or 10th commandment if you will: 'Be Precise in Your Speech'!

RandomName2

Giraffe Box wrote: »

Fair enough I suppose, though the poster did seriously contravene the great man's rule number 10, or 10th commandment if you will: 'Be Precise in Your Speech'!

And got thread-banned for his error.

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Being calm in the face of immediate stress is completely different to the idea that boys don't or shouldn't cry.

Being calm and rational in a conversation or debate is clearly the correct way to go about it.

I disagree. One can be rational while displaying emotion.

You see, this is what I’m talking about. You’re equating displaying emotion with irrationality. It underpins my point how some think men/boys should behave.

Where was the rant against a minority? The poster argued against compelled speech and the activists who pursue it.

And surely in the case of a rant against a minority, that's perhaps bias/prejudice against them, but nothing to do with privilege?

Someone just posted it. It wasn’t a rant against a specific minority as such, but a rant against minorities dictating laws. It’s easy to have a rant like that when you’re secure in the knowledge that you’re never going to be in such a minority. That’s what I meant by privilege.

Giraffe Box

RandomName2 wrote: »

And got thread-banned for his error.

Thank goodness.

bnt

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

I'll need to read back in the thread where the same poster made a case for compelled speech in favour of the majority, I must have completely missed it. Of course, if that's the case, peterson would also not agree.

It might be worth reminding ourselves that Peterson first came to mainstream public visibility through his opposition to the C-16 bill in Canada. The bill was passed last year, and in this report Peterson is not mentioned by name, but he was one of those "arguing it undermines free speech, “criminalizes” incorrect pronoun use and threatens “women only” spaces such as rape crisis centers".

So if anyone's arguing for "compelled speech" - whether in favour of a majority or a minority - Peterson would not be on your side.

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Ok, they shouldn't have called you cognitively disabled. They should have been clearer with what they meant to say.

I doubt that you would use "retarded".

They should have stuck to debating and not slinging insults.

kubjones

Brian? wrote: »

Did I ridicule him? No I did not.

He regularly gets emotional. It’s admirable. Even if he’s wrong.

You didn't. But to on one hand say that his calmness in the face of adversity is in some sort of way "Toxic", and on the other hand admire him for his emotion, both instances are coming from the same man.

He even got angry during the Vice documentary (agreeably so, the interviewer was incredibly pretentious.) But his usual demeanor during confrontation is obviously practiced, probably comes from a grounding of certainty.

There are plenty of examples of women keeping a calm demeanor during adversity, how in any way is anything about what he does, or even the admiration for anything he does "Toxic Masculinity?"

Are you Trolling?