Jordan Peterson interview on C4

WhiteMemento9

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.

It is not only that emotion is admirable which it is, but it humanises the person. You can be rational with an emotional understanding. That doesn't mean as one poster suggested that you are losing your **** in a debate. It means that your view is rooted through rationality with understanding. I tend to steer well clear of people who can't show that quality.

Brian?

kubjones wrote: »

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?

Why is it that every time a rational debate breaks out, someone has to ruin it with accusations of trolling?

I was trying to make a serious point.

I can admire things about people I disagree with. I can dislike things about people I agree with. It’s a perfectly normal approach to life.

Peterson’s supporters regularly post about his calmness. This is the first time I’ve seen admiration of his ability to display emotion.

Professor Moriarty

kubjones wrote: »

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.

Good post. I agree with much of what you say. It's that bite point where sections of society that are, or believe they are, discriminated against and feel that they must be activist in their promotion of what they see as equality or parity of esteem. Following on from that, it's the level of activism and the form it takes. Sometimes it's excessive and impinges on the rights of others but at other times it's necessary to disrupt the status quo. Both 'sides' need each other for healthy debate but there are elements on both sides that push things too far which dilutes and distracts from the substantive issues.

Language matters and interpretation of language matters. Equally, definitions matter. Personally, I don't have a problem with 'Toxic Masculinity' as some elements of masculinity do impact negatively on others' rights. Lad Culture springs to mind. However, being 'masculine' isn't toxic. Similarly, I would have no problem with 'Toxic Feminists'.

Professor Moriarty

Lux23 wrote: »

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.'

Very well put.

Skylinehead

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".

RandomName2 wrote: »

And got thread-banned for his error.

Why are we talking about this? It was unacceptable posting, it wasn't "made in error", he got banned. Now move on please.

Brian?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Good post. I agree with much of what you say. It's that bite point where sections of society that are, or believe they are, discriminated against and feel that they must be activist in their promotion of what they see as equality or parity of esteem. Following on from that, it's the level of activism and the form it takes. Sometimes it's excessive and impinges on the rights of others but at other times it's necessary to disrupt the status quo. Both 'sides' need each other for healthy debate but there are elements on both sides that push things too far which dilutes and distracts from the substantive issues.

Language matters and interpretation of language matters. Equally, definitions matter. Personally, I don't have a problem with 'Toxic Masculinity' as some elements of masculinity do impact negatively on others' rights. Lad Culture springs to mind. However, being 'masculine' isn't toxic. Similarly, I would have no problem with 'Toxic Feminists'.

Excellent post.

kubjones

Brian? wrote: »

Why is it that every time a rational debate breaks out, someone has to ruin it with accusations of trolling?

I was trying to make a serious point.

I can admire things about people I disagree with. I can dislike things about people I agree with. It’s a perfectly normal approach to life.

Peterson’s supporters regularly post about his calmness. This is the first time I’ve seen admiration of his ability to display emotion.

Because ability to show emotion isn't difficult, nor does it add anything factually to a debate or lecture. At most you could use emotion as a tactic to bring people on your side, but its disingenuous.

The ability to suppress negative emotion IS oftentimes difficult, and expresses self-control and maturity. That's admirable.

Giraffe Box

Brian? wrote: »

They should have stuck to debating and not slinging insults.

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Do you have anything to contribute to the thread?

I agree Brian?, the above was hurled at me personally last night just before my bedtime.

Earlier in the thread I had mentioned that David Quinn, one of leading lights of The Iona Institute, a socially conservative Roman Catholic advocacy group, seemed to approve of the great man (JP) and his teachings. But no one responded?
So I have in fact been contributing to this thread to the very best of my ability.

DickSwiveller Returns

Giraffe Box wrote: »

I agree Brian?, the above was hurled at me personally last night just before my bedtime.

Earlier in the thread I had mentioned that David Quinn, one of leading lights of The Iona Institute, a socially conservative Roman Catholic advocacy group, seemed to approve of the great man (JP) and his teachings. But no one responded?
So I have in fact been contributing to this thread to the very best of my ability.

What reponse are you expecting? What does it matter if he's Catholic and likes JP? I'm sure lots of the people at the event were irreligious.

WhiteMemento9

I don't know if it has been brought up in this debate but the one time the interviewer actually had him on the rack and she didn't even know it enough to push the question further. It was in reference to the fortune 500 companies and the number of women running them. Peterson correctly argued that the traits which allow men to rise to these positions are more dominant in men. The conversation swung towards what if we used different metrics towards what a successful company would like then maybe women have qualities in line with running a company in a different (better) way. Peterson said we have no data on what this would like and how successful these companies would be but we can deduce that because it hasn't been tried that often it most likely means it wouldn't work too well.

That is all true. Yes, it wouldn't work very well because we value profit above all else. Has this served us well in society? Do we think it is working well? What if rather than asking do we have the right players? Do we have the right game?

Brian?

kubjones wrote: »

Because ability to show emotion isn't difficult, nor does it add anything factually to a debate or lecture. At most you could use emotion as a tactic to bring people on your side, but its disingenuous.

To display emotion appropriately is incredibly difficult. It needs to be learned at a young age through correct role modeling.

Is it your contention that emotion is never welcome in a debate?

The ability to suppress negative emotion IS oftentimes difficult, and expresses self-control and maturity. That's admirable.

There is no such thing as a negative emotion. You seem to be wholeheartedly endorsing emotional repression here.

DickSwiveller Returns

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Good post. I agree with much of what you say. It's that bite point where sections of society that are, or believe they are, discriminated against and feel that they must be activist in their promotion of what they see as equality or parity of esteem. Following on from that, it's the level of activism and the form it takes. Sometimes it's excessive and impinges on the rights of others but at other times it's necessary to disrupt the status quo. Both 'sides' need each other for healthy debate but there are elements on both sides that push things too far which dilutes and distracts from the substantive issues.

Language matters and interpretation of language matters. Equally, definitions matter. Personally, I don't have a problem with 'Toxic Masculinity' as some elements of masculinity do impact negatively on others' rights. Lad Culture springs to mind. However, being 'masculine' isn't toxic. Similarly, I would have no problem with 'Toxic Feminists'.

Good post. I think most people would agree with most of what you said. In general, people tend to be reasonable when you talk face to face with them. You can get a false picture if you take the internet - where people can often post anonymously and are much more aggressive - as the measure of what people in general think.

RandomName2

Giraffe Box wrote: »

the above was hurled at me personally last night just before my bedtime.

Ah you're a gas man, but don't push it.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

where sections of society that are, or believe they are, discriminated against and feel that they must be activist in their promotion of what they see as equality or parity of esteem. Following on from that, it's the level of activism and the form it takes. Sometimes it's excessive and impinges on the rights of others but at other times it's necessary to disrupt the status quo.

What would be a legitimate level of activism to disrupt to status quo, in your opinion?

7aubzxk43m2sni

Giraffe Box wrote: »

I agree Brian?, the above was hurled at me personally last night just before my bedtime.

Earlier in the thread I had mentioned that David Quinn, one of leading lights of The Iona Institute, a socially conservative Roman Catholic advocacy group, seemed to approve of the great man (JP) and his teachings. But no one responded?
So I have in fact been contributing to this thread to the very best of my ability.

If smart alek responses are the best of your ability, good luck to you.

What do you want as a response?

You never said whether you thought it was good/bad/interesting that David Quinn approved of "the great man". I assume it's supposed to be something negative that someone from the Iona institute endorsed him. While I personally don't have much time for the Iona institute, Jordan Peterson has no control over who praises / endorses him, so I;m not sure what else there is to say?

Giraffe Box

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

What reponse are you expecting? What does it matter if he's Catholic and likes JP? I'm sure lots of the people at the event were irreligious.

Well, I was curious to know whether JP's adherents would welcome someone like Quinn on board so to speak. Or whether they would be quick to dismiss his support as being irrelevant, 'nothing to see here' type of thing.
Obviously the latter in your case. Fair enough.

Professor Moriarty

RandomName2 wrote: »

What would be a legitimate level of activism to disrupt to status quo, in your opinion?

It's highly subjective obviously. Personally, I think enough advocacy to achieve parity of esteem. The tipping point is where the advocacy slips into toxicity. I would define that toxicity as being where it damages others. In essence, I think it's okay to discomfort others in pursuit of legitimate equality goals but not to hurt them.

DickSwiveller Returns

Giraffe Box wrote: »

Well, I was curious to know whether JP's adherents would welcome someone like Quinn on board so to speak. Or whether they would be quick to dismiss his support as being irrelevant, 'nothing to see here' type of thing.
Obviously the latter in your case. Fair enough.

I'm not an adherent. You need to take a few steps back and stop presuming anyone who is interested in JP are adherents. What do you mean welcome him on board? It isn't a club where we all meet every weekend. David Quinn is entitled to like JP if he wants. He is a free citizen and the fact that he is Catholic is irrelevant. Your anti-Catholic bigotry is getting tiresome.

RandomName2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's highly subjective obviously. Personally, I think enough advocacy to achieve parity of esteem. The tipping point is where the advocacy slips into toxicity. I would define that toxicity as being where it damages others. In essence, I think it's okay to discomfort others in pursuit of legitimate equality goals but not to hurt them.

So would shutting down a talk on a university campus be something that could be in pursuit of a legitimate equality goal without hurting the speakers?

Professor Moriarty

RandomName2 wrote: »

So would shutting down a talk on a university campus be something that could be in pursuit of a legitimate equality goal without hurting the speakers?

I would be looking to law and its definitions of hate speech.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

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.

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.

Would you agree that people tend to be more rational when there is not a high level of emotion involved in the situation? And conversely when someone is in an emotional state they might tend to act more irrationally than they might otherwise?

Fair enough on the privilege point.

bnt wrote: »

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.

Absolutely. I haven't seen anyone here argue for compelled speech.

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

It is not only that emotion is admirable which it is, but it humanises the person. You can be rational with an emotional understanding. That doesn't mean as one poster suggested that you are losing your **** in a debate. It means that your view is rooted through rationality with understanding. I tend to steer well clear of people who can't show that quality.

You're absolutely right. As noted above, Peterson can sometimes get passionate/emotional about certain topics and clearly manages to stay rational.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Good post. I agree with much of what you say. It's that bite point where sections of society that are, or believe they are, discriminated against and feel that they must be activist in their promotion of what they see as equality or parity of esteem. Following on from that, it's the level of activism and the form it takes. Sometimes it's excessive and impinges on the rights of others but at other times it's necessary to disrupt the status quo. Both 'sides' need each other for healthy debate but there are elements on both sides that push things too far which dilutes and distracts from the substantive issues.

Language matters and interpretation of language matters. Equally, definitions matter. Personally, I don't have a problem with 'Toxic Masculinity' as some elements of masculinity do impact negatively on others' rights. Lad Culture springs to mind. However, being 'masculine' isn't toxic. Similarly, I would have no problem with 'Toxic Feminists'.

Toxic feminism is very rarely if ever used, while toxic masculinity is used in a similar way to "sjw", to dismiss an argument and derail a discussion without addressing the arguments made.

Nixonbot wrote: »

Why are we talking about this? It was unacceptable posting, it wasn't "made in error", he got banned. Now move on please.

Because the offended party continued to bring it up.

kubjones wrote: »

Because ability to show emotion isn't difficult, nor does it add anything factually to a debate or lecture. At most you could use emotion as a tactic to bring people on your side, but its disingenuous.

The ability to suppress negative emotion IS oftentimes difficult, and expresses self-control and maturity. That's admirable.

Great point, the element of self control and maturity are what are admirable, rather than a lack of emotion.

Brian? wrote: »

To display emotion appropriately is incredibly difficult. It needs to be learned at a young age through correct role modeling.

Is it your contention that emotion is never welcome in a debate?

There is no such thing as a negative emotion. You seem to be wholeheartedly endorsing emotional repression here.

I would argue that joy is a positive emotion, while sorrow would be a more negative emotion.

I would argue that emotion is not ideal in a debate, and that it is acceptable when it manifests itself as passion and the speaker can remain rational in their argumentation.

WhiteMemento9

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

You're absolutely right. As noted above, Peterson can sometimes get passionate/emotional about certain topics and clearly manages to stay rational.

You have misunderstood my point. Getting passionate and emotional about a topic can often be an awful thing. The worst of views from people often come from a place passion and emotion. I was talking about rooting rational views within a place that shows an empathy and understanding towards people. To be honest, having lost all bitterness through that lens I very rarely lose my **** when talking to someone about something even if I strongly disagree unless I can see those views come from a place of bitterness, hatred, and/or lack of understanding for people.

Giraffe Box

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Good post. I think most people would agree with most of what you said. In general, people tend to be reasonable when you talk face to face with them. You can get a false picture if you take the internet - where people can often post anonymously and are much more aggressive - as the measure of what people in general think.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I'm not an adherent. You need to take a few steps back and stop presuming anyone who is interested in JP are adherents. What do you mean welcome him on board? It isn't a club where we all meet every weekend. David Quinn is entitled to like JP if he wants. He is a free citizen and the fact that he is Catholic is irrelevant. Your anti-Catholic bigotry is getting tiresome.

Take a chill pill.

kubjones

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Good post. I agree with much of what you say. It's that bite point where sections of society that are, or believe they are, discriminated against and feel that they must be activist in their promotion of what they see as equality or parity of esteem. Following on from that, it's the level of activism and the form it takes. Sometimes it's excessive and impinges on the rights of others but at other times it's necessary to disrupt the status quo. Both 'sides' need each other for healthy debate but there are elements on both sides that push things too far which dilutes and distracts from the substantive issues.

Language matters and interpretation of language matters. Equally, definitions matter. Personally, I don't have a problem with 'Toxic Masculinity' as some elements of masculinity do impact negatively on others' rights. Lad Culture springs to mind. However, being 'masculine' isn't toxic. Similarly, I would have no problem with 'Toxic Feminists'.

Good post also.

Before I can retort this properly I need you to expand on lad culture. What about lad culture in particular would you consider toxic?

Toxic Masculinity is along the lines of SJW, its a fairly broad generalization for a multitude of complex phenomenon, it groups certain people or ideas together based on a few basic similarities.

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Would you agree that people tend to be more rational when there is not a high level of emotion involved in the situation? And conversely when someone is in an emotional state they might tend to act more irrationally than they might otherwise?

I would agree. But couldn’t that be because they have learned to properly deal with their emotional states because social norms have taught them from a young age that displays of emotion are wrong? Particularly for men, society teaches men/boys that displays of emotion equal weakness, so they never learn to properly display emotion in a rational way. This is an aspect of traditional masculinity that could be seen as negative, or even toxic?

Fair enough on the privilege point.

Nice.

Toxic feminism is very rarely if ever used, while toxic masculinity is used in a similar way to "sjw", to dismiss an argument and derail a discussion without addressing the arguments made.

Toxic masculinity has a very real meaning, which can be misused. SJW is a term invented purely as an insult. There’s a world of difference.

I would argue that joy is a positive emotion, while sorrow would be a more negative emotion.

Joy at someone else’s suffering is not positive. Sorrow at someone else’s suffering is not negative. Emotions are not the problem, it’s how we express them.

I would argue that emotion is not ideal in a debate, and that it is acceptable when it manifests itself as passion and the speaker can remain rational in their argumentation.

Here’s my issue in a nutshell. Teaching people that emotion should be removed from debate is teaching people to repress their emotions. The emotion still exists, it’s simple pushed down and not outwardly expressed. This is not healthy.

There are many many situations where expressing your emotions can be detrimental, but in order to deal with those situations people need to first learn to express emotion in a healthy manner. Teaching boys that outward of expression of emotion is undesirable is harmful in the long run, some would say toxic.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Giraffe Box wrote: »

Take a chill pill.

Contributing the the best of your ability again yeah?

Giraffe Box

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Contributing the the best of your ability again yeah?

The ad hominem approach eh.
You're chasing me around this thread, 'worrying' me as a dog would a sheep. Have I offended you?

kubjones

Brian? wrote: »

Toxic masculinity has a very real meaning, which can be misused. SJW is a term invented purely as an insult. There’s a work of difference.

"Toxic Masculinity" is pejorative in nature, see: Toxic.

Equating masculinity with toxicity is dangerous and like you said, can be and is often misused. People get upset at this because its an attack on a man's existence.

SJW is used as a pejorative, but its actual meaning "Social Justice Warrior" isn't pejorative in nature, its ironic, which is where the deprecatoriness comes from.

Both hold meaning, both can be misused. Such is language.

Brian?

kubjones wrote: »

"Toxic Masculinity" is pejorative in nature, see: Toxic.

Equating masculinity with toxicity is dangerous and like you said, can be and is often misused. People get upset at this because its an attack on a man's existence.

SJW is used as a pejorative, but its actual meaning "Social Justice Warrior" isn't pejorative in nature, its ironic, which is where the deprecatoriness comes from.

Both hold meaning, both can be misused. Such is language.

No one is equating masculinity with toxicity. Toxic masculinity is about some elements of the traditional social role of males.

SJW is only ever used as an insult. No one calls themselves a SJW, to the best of my knowledge.

SJW and Feminazi are used to dismiss people without engaging with their arguments.

kubjones

Brian? wrote: »

No one is equating masculinity with toxicity. Toxic masculinity is about some elements of the traditional social role of males.

SJW is only ever used as an insult. No one calls themselves a SJW, to the best of my knowledge.

SJW and Feminazi are used to dismiss people without engaging with their arguments.

I'm arguing to the existence of both.

The language itself is implying that there is something "toxic" about aspects of masculinity, the inference of which isn't helpful.

SJW is completely pejorative though and I agree its definition is very broad, mostly insulting.

I agree that some masculine cultural norms are damaging but they need to be addressed individually. Appreciating a man's calm demeanor doesn't deserve to be considered "toxic."

A person that is open with their emotions doesn't deserve to be called an SJW. Both of these terms deserve to exist, but the extent to which they are used needs to be considered, like all language.

Professor Moriarty

kubjones wrote: »

Good post also.

Before I can retort this properly I need you to expand on lad culture. What about lad culture in particular would you consider toxic?

Toxic Masculinity is along the lines of SJW, its a fairly broad generalization for a multitude of complex phenomenon, it groups certain people or ideas together based on a few basic similarities.

Lad culture - where groups of (usually) young men go out drinking and behaving like 'lads' (mea culpa) - is fine if all they are doing is having a laugh. It's when the pack mentality kicks in, and they become aggressive or abusive to others, is where lad culture is toxic.