Jordan Peterson interview on C4

kunst nugget

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

I’ve no interest at all in the nonsense of American identity politics, but found this a very interesting piece in the Atlantic magazine.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/why-the-left-is-so-afraid-of-jordan-peterson/567110/

Yeah, that's an interesting article.

That Sarah Jeong/NYT controversy mentioned in that article is just an absolute joke - someone compiled every tweet of hers relating to white people here. It's unbelievable.

alaimacerc

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

I’ve no interest at all in the nonsense of American identity politics, but found this a very interesting piece in the Atlantic magazine.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/why-the-left-is-so-afraid-of-jordan-peterson/567110/

A lot like the Victoria White piece, except written by someone that's able to write somewhat.

alaimacerc

alaimacerc wrote: »

A lot like the Victoria White piece, except written by someone that's about to write somewhat.

that article says absolutely nothing. bizarre.

El_Duderino 09

xckjoo wrote: »

Akrasia wrote: »

stop misinterpreting him El Duderino.

You have to read his books and watch all of his lectures to get what he is 'really' saying.

Well considering he stated Peterson was against gay marriage but in the actual video of him discussing it he states he's undecided, it doesn't exactly scream of doing due diligence. Minor levels of research to back up your claims isn't asking for a lot.

No. I said he was careful not to support gay marriage as a nod to his right wing fan base. If he actually came out against gay marriage he’d look a fool. So he didn’t do that. He just smudged the issue in that video by bringing children’s outcomes into it.

El_Duderino 09

RandomName2 wrote: »

Akrasia wrote: »

stop misinterpreting him El Duderino.

You have to read his books and watch all of his lectures to get what he is 'really' saying.

Don't you mean, 'If you don't like him because you distrust all people you consider right wing, you're going to have to wade through tons of his literature and lectures to find something to discredit him?'

I googled smoking Jordan Peterson. This was the first result to come up. I took a look at it (sped up, I don't have all day). It seemed eminently reasonable. Religion got mentioned briefly at the end, but not in a way that could be used against him. El Duderino would have to move onto several more videos before he could find some smoking gun to make him look like a religious nut, which is why he can't be arsed doing it at all.

I watched his discussion with Matt Dillahunty about the existence of god. He’s a religious but.

He actually said you can’t really give up smoking without having a mystical experience, and mystical experiences are evidence for god.

It’s bonkers stuff. It could only be convincing to someone who already assumes the conclusion that god exists. Which is similar to much of the rest of it. It might be interesting to someone if they already agree with the conclusion. That’s why he really only pics topics his right wing base already agree with.

xckjoo

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I mentioned a few right wing issues he points to in the last post. Guess which side of the gay matriage debate he stands on?

Sorry, the highlighted section above is what I was taking as you saying he was against gay marriage. On second viewing, it's literally a question so that was me jumping to conclusions. Mea culpa :pac:
I don't personally have an issue with him not having a hard-line point-of-view on everything. I wish it was a bit more common to be honest. Too much emphasis on everyone being right all the time doesn't leave room to grow/change/evolve. People just shift the goalposts to pretend they were right all along instead of learning anything.



I do wish he'd ease up on the God stuff though. It seems to be getting more prevalent. Couldn't care less if he was a hard-core Scientologist waiting for L. Ron himself to return, anything interesting he has to say on human development is getting swamped by the white noise of religious discussion.

20Cent

Petersons 15 minutes are up.
Now supporting Tommy Robinson.

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1029078898695438336

Outlaw Pete

DickSwiveller Returns

20Cent wrote: »

Petersons 15 minutes are up.
Now supporting Tommy Robinson.

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1029078898695438336

Is he supporting him? Where does he say he is?

Call Me Jimmy

I knew it! To think all this time he's been a supporter of due process, finally he has been exposed

20Cent

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Is he supporting him? Where does he say he is?

Tweeting a video by one right wing nut which is supporting tommy robinson. Guess everyone will misinterpret him again. How many dog whistles does he have to blow!

DickSwiveller Returns

20Cent wrote: »

Tweeting a video by one right wing nut which is supporting tommy robinson. Guess everyone will misinterpret him again. How many dog whistles does he have to blow!

Right, so you've no evidence that he's supporting him. Thought so.

Akrasia

20Cent wrote: »

Petersons 15 minutes are up.
Now supporting Tommy Robinson.

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1029078898695438336

Does Anyone want to summarise that video?

That Sargon dude really irritates me and I don't want to watch his full video

alaimacerc

20Cent wrote: »

Tweeting a video by one right wing nut which is supporting tommy robinson. Guess everyone will misinterpret him again. How many dog whistles does he have to blow!

Of course he wasn't supporting Tommy Robinson. He was supporting someone who was supporting Tommy Robinson! Very, very, very different. Because if you deny something wordily and self-importantly enough, that in and of itself constitutes deniability!

alaimacerc

Akrasia wrote: »

Does Anyone want to summarise that video?

That Sargon dude really irritates me and I don't want to watch his full video

Love to help, but I didn't make it past wondering "... who the heck calls themselves 'Sargon'?", learning that, well, ian anti-feminist gamergater, identitarian, alt-right Ukipper does. And falling to sighing for the state of the world.

20Cent

Akrasia wrote: »

Does Anyone want to summarise that video?

That Sargon dude really irritates me and I don't want to watch his full video

He irritates me as well.
In summary the government are persecuting poor tommy because they hate freedom of speech. Conspiracy theory nonsense.

Outlaw Pete

20Cent wrote: »

How many dog whistles does he have to blow!

I've got a question....

How come is it that liberals can hear a whistle only dogs are supposed to?

JRant

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I've got a question....

How come is it that liberals can hear a whistle only dogs are supposed to?

It's the same juvenile language you see over in the Donald Trump thread Pete. "Dog whistles", "playing to his base" and "alt-right" being thrown out willy nilly by the same folk as here. They can't just disagree with his point of view, he is "literally" Hitler.

The retweet about Robinson is quite unambiguous, when the State arrest someone, deny them due process and sentences them to 13 months in prison all in the space of 5 hours then it is very worrying indeed. In fact some might say it is a step in the wrong direction towards a police state. But no, it's a professor in Canada that's the real enemy of the people.

Brian?

JRant wrote: »

It's the same juvenile language you see over in the Donald Trump thread Pete. "Dog whistles", "playing to his base" and "alt-right" being thrown out willy nilly by the same folk as here. They can't just disagree with his point of view, he is "literally" Hitler.

The retweet about Robinson is quite unambiguous, when the State arrest someone, deny them due process and sentences them to 13 months in prison all in the space of 5 hours then it is very worrying indeed. In fact some might say it is a step in the wrong direction towards a police state. But no, it's a professor in Canada that's the real enemy of the people.

The term “dog whistle” has been around a lot longer than boards.ie . It’s an accurate term for the nudge, nudge, wink, wink support that Trump gives to the alt right. It’s also pretty accurate here. Why would Peterson share a video if he didn’t agree with the content?

It’s the same carry on with the climate change denial video. Why share if you don’t agree?

kunst nugget

I think Tommy Robinson is a complete asshole and that Sargon fella is an unspeakable twat but the denial of due process in that case is extremely problematic. Treating people like that is abhorrent and counter-productive. It does nothing but expose the rottenness of a justice system and makes martyrs of the people arrested.

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I've got a question....

How come is it that liberals can hear a whistle only dogs are supposed to?

Liberals like Jordan Peterson?

Brian?

kunst nugget wrote: »

I think Tommy Robinson is a complete asshole and that Sargon fella is an unspeakable twat but the denial of due process in that case is extremely problematic. Treating people like that is abhorrent and counter-productive. It does nothing but expose the rottenness of a justice system and makes martyrs of the people arrested.

The British justice system has always been a disgrace. People can be held at "her majesty's pleasure" at will.

The problem is that the UK has no written constitution.

The BNP and it's various children, like the EDL, were only too happy to see the system used against the Irish. Now they're outraged it's being used against one of their own.

JRant

Brian? wrote: »

The term “dog whistle” has been around a lot longer than boards.ie . It’s an accurate term for the nudge, nudge, wink, wink support that Trump gives to the alt right. It’s also pretty accurate here. Why would Peterson share a video if he didn’t agree with the content?

It’s the same carry on with the climate change denial video. Why share if you don’t agree?

Indeed it has, never claimed boards was it's origin. Still a stupid phrase IMO.

It's nowhere near an accurate term to be used in this instance either. We allow the state use voilence but with some caveats, eg due process, legal representation, etc. When these are bypassed, for any reason, it's a worrying development whatever your political idealogy may be. It's as simple as that, no dog whistling need apply.

DickSwiveller Returns

Brian? wrote: »

The term “dog whistle” has been around a lot longer than boards.ie . It’s an accurate term for the nudge, nudge, wink, wink support that Trump gives to the alt right. It’s also pretty accurate here. Why would Peterson share a video if he didn’t agree with the content?

It’s the same carry on with the climate change denial video. Why share if you don’t agree?

He might be opposed to the way Robinson was treated but not support his views.

Brian?

JRant wrote: »

Indeed it has, never claimed boards was it's origin. Still a stupid phrase IMO.

It's nowhere near an accurate term to be used in this instance either. We allow the state use voilence but with some caveats, eg due process, legal representation, etc. When these are bypassed, for any reason, it's a worrying development whatever your political idealogy may be. It's as simple as that, no dog whistling need apply.

It's not a worrying development. It's being painted as some sort of new development, an increasing creep in state intervention. But it isn't new, the British government are probably doing it less now than they ever did. It just so happens this time they're locking up a white English man.

So what's inspiring the outrage? The lack of due process, which has been going on forever? Or the person they're locking up this time?

Keepaneye

Will people accept it if I call it satire?

JRant

Brian? wrote: »

The British justice system has always been a disgrace. People can be held at "her majesty's pleasure" at will.

The problem is that the UK has no written constitution.

The BNP and it's various children, like the EDL, were only too happy to see the system used against the Irish. Now they're outraged it's being used against one of their own.

I'd agree with you up to a point. While they don't have a constitution, they do have a few hundred years of common law precedent in the courts. Once convicted you can be held at their "pleasure" but up to then you have certain rights that shouldn't be railroaded. We can either agree with that, which is the point of his tweet, or we'll be back to the good old days of Internment.

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

He might be opposed to the way Robinson was treated but not support his views.

Doesn't he have the freedom to say that when posting the video? He's only too happy to speak his mind, why not clarify why he's sharing the video?

DickSwiveller Returns

Brian? wrote: »

Doesn't he have the freedom to say that when posting the video? He's only too happy to speak his mind, why not clarify why he's sharing the video?

Because maybe he doesn't want to explain himself to the thought police every time he posts something.

Brian?

JRant wrote: »

I'd agree with you up to a point. While they don't have a constitution, they do have a few hundred years of common law precedent in the courts. Once convicted you can be held at their "pleasure" but up to then you have certain rights that shouldn't be railroaded. We can either agree with that, which is the point of his tweet, or we'll be back to the good old days of Internment.

The days of internment never really stopped. They found ways to railroad people through the courts with a nod and a wink to due process.

"The point of his tweet"- is that your interpretation or has he clarified why he shares it?