Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Brian?

Buddly wrote: »

Employment markets are made up of people who want to be employed who have choices. Maybe he meant that these people decide where they want to go and sort themselves out that way. 'The market decides' that more women are in healthcare, meaning that more women than men through everyone's own free will end up in healthcare.

That assumes that it is a free market though. That there is no inherent bias in any industry when it comes to employing and promoting people. I am not sure I agree. In fact the affirmative action regulations in the US mean that employment is decidedly not a free market. Equality legislation in any country skews the system very far from a free market. As does the inherent bias of a patriarchal society. The market doesn't decide in either way as the market isn't allowed to. What's the solution to this? I don't know to be honest. But early education could help.

That is on the assumption that there is no other distortions at play, such as prejudice, which of course needs to be addressed.

His point that we shouldn't be aiming for equality of outcome is a subtle one that needs more attention. Work on equality of opportunity. When it comes to the outcome - let the market decide!

I agree, we shouldn't be looking for equality of outcome. We should be striving for equality of opportunity. That equality doesn't exist right now. Not just based on gender, but on race and socio economic class.

Brian?

Max Prophet wrote: »

Beta males tend to have lower testosterone levels, look and act weak and produce fewer sons. It's basic evolution. A hunter gather with beta traits is fair more successful as a female than a male.

Have you any further reading to suggest? I am intrigued by your ideas.

Brian?

Another intelligent, logical feminist. If anyone actually cares to learn:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Faludi

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/17/susan-faludi-feminist-writer-in-the-darkroom-trans

pumpkin4life

Max Prophet wrote: »

Beta males tend to have lower testosterone levels, look and act weak and produce fewer sons. It's basic evolution. A hunter gather with beta traits is fair more successful as a female than a male.

Lol, despite the beta/alpha slightly twattish language this is actually true.

Jordan Peterson agrees with you.

The Winner Effect. You win at something, your testosterone tends to spike. You lose at something, a lad's testosterone dips.

johnp001

Brian? wrote: »

Have you any further reading to suggest? I am intrigued by your ideas.

"Alpha males" do not exist in humans as they exist in the animal kingdom but the term is generally used as a synonym for those who exhibit social dominance.
This study from the journal of adaptive human behaviour and physiology seems to address what the poster stated.
Effects of Mother and Father Dominance on Offspring Sex in Contemporary Humans

Buddly

Brian? wrote: »

That assumes that it is a free market though. That there is no inherent bias in any industry when it comes to employing and promoting people. I am not sure I agree. In fact the affirmative action regulations in the US mean that employment is decidedly not a free market. Equality legislation in any country skews the system very far from a free market. As does the inherent bias of a patriarchal society. The market doesn't decide in either way as the market isn't allowed to. What's the solution to this? I don't know to be honest. But early education could help.



I agree, we shouldn't be looking for equality of outcome. We should be striving for equality of opportunity. That equality doesn't exist right now. Not just based on gender, but on race and socio economic class.

Yep, fully agree, depends on no other distortions at play. Which of course is the case and it is so nuanced it takes a lot of hard work and research to figure out what is really causing any inequalities.

The irony of the whole situation is that his use of evidence is directing the discourse towards potential solutions. Understand the drivers of the problem. When we have that evidence, we are closer to solving it. If everyone could take this approach, we would be on the right track instead of the current cultural trajectory.

johnnyskeleton

Arghus wrote: »

For instance equating the ideology, or at least the driving motivation, behind trans activists - and notice how he makes no distinction between any varying level of activism - to ideologies that led to the deaths of millions in the twentieth century. That might sound good to some ears, but it's a serious stretch on his part. It's an opinion he has, not an actual factual statement - you can't claim that's a fact: what rigorous research and evidence is he basing that on? But yet he claims it like it's an absolute categorical truth and he makes everything that comes out of his mouth sound like a categorical truth - even if it's far from it, at times.

This is the warning that Martin Niemoller gave us. Totalitarians dont come into the world fully fledged and saying what they are going to do. They slowly pick off one group then another until there is no one else to fight back.

Does criminalising anyone who doesnt use politically mandated language automatically lead to totalitarianism? No, but if it is done as part of a cultural movement designed to undermine peoples confidence in individual and democratic rights ir certainly is a good first step!

20Cent

Its a little known fact but Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot all began their careers campaigning for preferred pronouns.

Max Prophet

20Cent wrote: »

Its a little known fact but Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot all began their careers campaigning for preferred pronouns.

Tee hee ! Massive lollers ! Really have you thought about going on stage?

Ulysses Gaze

20Cent wrote: »

Its a little known fact but Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot all began their careers campaigning for preferred pronouns.

And weren't Stalin and Pol Pot both Socialists......and in Pot's case, a Radical Marxist.

Ipso

20Cent wrote: »

Its a little known fact but Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot all began their careers campaigning for preferred pronouns.

Did zhey really?

johnp001

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

And weren't Stalin and Pol Pot both Socialists......and in Pot's case, a Radical Marxist.

Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist party.

Brian?

johnp001 wrote: »

Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist party.

Do you believe Hitler was a socialist?

The Rape of Lucretia

Brian? wrote: »

Do you believe Hitler was a socialist?

A national socialist. If you were German, and a worker.

Arne_Saknussem

Why are you talking about Hitler?

20Cent

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

And weren't Stalin and Pol Pot both Socialists......and in Pot's case, a Radical Marxist.

Was only joking they didn't really start that way.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

Ah come on now, it was an easy joke. People spell my name wrong all the time, I was making light of it. Apologies if it caused any offense.

So, why didn't you answer the question there and then?

Do you honestly believe there are no intelligent feminists? There are plenty of feminists who work in fields not directly related to psychology or sociology, who are extremely intelligent. There are also plenty of wailing feminists who I have little or no respect for.

No, I didn't state that there were none. I asked a simple question on what you think on who is an intelligent feminist. That was all.

Susan Blackmore. An evolutionary psychologist is an extremely intelligent feminist, who spends very little time talking about feminism.

So, not really a feminist then. OK.

Pepefrogok

20Cent wrote: »

Was only joking they didn't really start that way.

Your making a fool out of yourself bud.

The Rape of Lucretia

20Cent wrote: »

Was only joking they didn't really start that way.

They started out as Lobsters. That has been covered.

Pepefrogok

I would like to take the word feminism back, I am a feminist, I have a wife, a daughter, sisters and a mother, some of the greatest, smartest people I have known have been women and I hope they have equal opportunity and treatment in life, I will fight alongside them if needs be! My daughter is sporty, I dont want her to compete with biological males, I don't want some dude making my wife uncomfortable in the toilet, I will help my daughter understand that if she takes time out of her career to have babies she will earn less over her lifetime than a male who didn't, she will also know that a loving fathers advise is not "mansplaining" she won't feel like a child with a victim complex when an adult, most of all she will know about real feminists like Germaine Greer and Emily Pankhurst and will understand what equality really means.

johnnyskeleton

20Cent wrote: »

Its a little known fact but Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot all began their careers campaigning for preferred pronouns.

Well sarcasm aside the essential political tool is the same:

1. Identify a group of people who are successful;
2. Blame them for all the worlds ills;
3. Use them as a scapegoat to gain political influence.

Im not saying that the mass murders inevitably flow from this formula, but overthrowing democratic institutions does follow. These systems of democracy and individual rights are far more important than the specific and temporary issues of concern.

At the moment, the US "liberal" agenda promotes the right not to be offended (if such exists) as more important than the right to free speech, the right to have your allegation believed (again if such exists) over the right to the presumption of innocence and to a fair trial.

I remember when people used to quote voltaire with pride. "I dont agree with what you say but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." Or Benjamin Franklin that any society prepared to give up a measure of liberty for temporary security deserves neither.

So yeah, one group advocates eroding a fundamental right in pursuit of their cause. Another person says that their cause ia valid bur we dont need to give up fundamental rights to achieve it. The latter person is evil and must be silenced. Does that scenario not sound like the start of totalitariansim?

johnp001

Brian? wrote: »

Do you believe Hitler was a socialist?

My post above makes no claim other than to point out that fact that he called himself one.

Writing that set me thinking though and I read a couple of articles this evening on the subject which made the arguments both for and against.
The prevailing opinion seems to be that he wasn't a socialist and Dan Hodges forcefully makes that case in:[URL=' https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/02/dont-ever-call-hitler-socialist']Don’t ever call Hitler a socialist[/URL] but some interesting arguments that he was one were made in the article
The Myth of "Nazi Capitalism"

I don't think I have a clear enough understanding of this question to have a belief either way.
There are a lot of factors to take into consideration such as what the definition of socialist that we are using here is and what it was at the time. Especially seeing that socialism (as defined by the ideology that is espoused by current self declared socialists) is something that appears to be evolving rapidly.
Do you believe he was a socialist yourself Brian?

conorhal

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well sarcasm aside the essential political tool is the same:

1. Identify a group of people who are successful;
2. Blame them for all the worlds ills;
3. Use them as a scapegoat to gain political influence.

Im not saying that the mass murders inevitably flow from this formula, but overthrowing democratic institutions does follow. These systems of democracy and individual rights are far more important than the specific and temporary issues of concern.

At the moment, the US "liberal" agenda promotes the right not to be offended (if such exists) as more important than the right to free speech, the right to have your allegation believed (again if such exists) over the right to the presumption of innocence and to a fair trial.

I remember when people used to quote voltaire with pride. "I dont agree with what you say but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." Or Benjamin Franklin that any society prepared to give up a measure of liberty for temporary security deserves neither.

So yeah, one group advocates eroding a fundamental right in pursuit of their cause. Another person says that their cause ia valid bur we dont need to give up fundamental rights to achieve it. The latter person is evil and must be silenced. Does that scenario not sound like the start of totalitariansim?

The easiest way to identify such creatures is to answer the simple question: Who's burning the books these days? Who's building pyres of words they disagree with?

You really need to watch out for those sorts of people.
German Jewish poet Heinrich Heine, wrote in his 1820–1821 play Almansor the famous admonition, “Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen":
"Where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people."

The scary thing is that it's colleges that are burning books these days, censoring texts and issuing trigger warnings and shutting down free speech. That's really worrying as is the fact that half the students at these colleges agree that free speech should be curtailed, with violence if necessary:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-chilling-study-shows-how-hostile-college-students-are-toward-free-speech/2017/09/18/cbb1a234-9ca8-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html?utm_term=.cf239f55fa4b

If you want to see real fascists at work, you need look no further then Jordan Peterson's attempt to speak at the University of Toronto and the baying mob trying to shout him down and unplugging his speakers.

Does he run? Is he cowed by the mob?
No, when they take his mic, he merely SHOUTS his refusal to be silenced. It's an electrifying moment of defiance from the unlikeliest of hero's and the video that made him both a famous and important voice against the tyranny of censorship.



.

take everything

conorhal wrote: »

The easiest way to identify such creatures is to answer the simple question: Who's burning the books these days? Who's building pyres of words they disagree with?

You really need to watch out for those sorts of people.
German Jewish poet Heinrich Heine, wrote in his 1820–1821 play Almansor the famous admonition, “Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen":
"Where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people."

The scary thing is that it's colleges that are burning books these days, censoring texts and issuing trigger warnings and shutting down free speech. That's really worrying:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-chilling-study-shows-how-hostile-college-students-are-toward-free-speech/2017/09/18/cbb1a234-9ca8-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html?utm_term=.cf239f55fa4b

If you want to see real fascists at work, you need look no further then Jordan Peterson's attempt to speak at the University of Toronto and the baying mob trying to shout him down and unplugging his speakers.

.

A wise man dealing with infants

conorhal

take everything wrote: »

A wise man dealing with infants

The chants of "SHAME!, SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!" from The High Sparrows of political correctness made me laugh.

fattymuatty

Pepefrogok wrote: »

I would like to take the word feminism back, I am a feminist, I have a wife, a daughter, sisters and a mother, some of the greatest, smartest people I have known have been women and I hope they have equal opportunity and treatment in life, I will fight alongside them if needs be! My daughter is sporty, I dont want her to compete with biological males, I don't want some dude making my wife uncomfortable in the toilet, I will help my daughter understand that if she takes time out of her career to have babies she will earn less over her lifetime than a male who didn't, she will also know that a loving fathers advise is not "mansplaining" she won't feel like a child with a victim complex when an adult, most of all she will know about real feminists like Germaine Greer and Emily Pankhurst and will understand what equality really means.

I'm sorry if I have missed where you said this but I haven't read the full thread, who exactly are you reclaiming feminism back from? There are lots and lots of feminists out there who believe exactly what you are saying? I am a member of feminist groups where women putting themselves on the line every day for saying what you are saying. They are being doxxed, subjected to rape and death threats for speaking up and saying things like they don't want to compete against biological males in sport. You don't think you are the only feminist who thinks these things do you?
There are plenty of feminists who not only share your views but who are actually out there doing something about it.

benjamin d

fattymuatty wrote: »

I'm sorry if I have missed where you said this but I haven't read the full thread, who exactly are you reclaiming feminism back from? There are lots and lots of feminists out there who believe exactly what you are saying? I am a member of feminist groups where women putting themselves on the line every day for saying what you are saying. They are being doxxed, subjected to rape and death threats for speaking up and saying things like they don't want to compete against biological males in sport. You don't think you are the only feminist who thinks these things do you?
There are plenty of feminists who not only share your views but who are actually out there doing something about it.

Most "real" feminists recognise that the word is distorted beyond recognition nowadays. I would like to call myself a feminist. My girlfriend, an educated and clever woman, rails against the term as it is currently applied. Almost every rational woman I have heard discuss this in real life agrees that the word feminist has been utterly ruined by the Tumblr and Twitter charlatans who insist that the patriarchy and white male privilege are singularly responsible for all the world's ills. Any rational human can see that the word feminist has been hijacked and completely bastardised for a nefarious agenda. It's time for true feminists to abandon the label for something else IMO.

I await retribution.

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

So, why didn't you answer the question there and then?

Because I was being a scamp for comic effect.

No, I didn't state that there were none. I asked a simple question on what you think on who is an intelligent feminist. That was all.

Did you not imply they were "like hens teeth"? Or was that some other poster?

So, not really a feminist then. OK.

Actually, yes. A feminist. Unless you want to redefine the meaning of the word to suit your needs.

Brian?

Pepefrogok wrote: »

I would like to take the word feminism back, I am a feminist, I have a wife, a daughter, sisters and a mother, some of the greatest, smartest people I have known have been women and I hope they have equal opportunity and treatment in life, I will fight alongside them if needs be! My daughter is sporty, I dont want her to compete with biological males, I don't want some dude making my wife uncomfortable in the toilet, I will help my daughter understand that if she takes time out of her career to have babies she will earn less over her lifetime than a male who didn't, she will also know that a loving fathers advise is not "mansplaining" she won't feel like a child with a victim complex when an adult, most of all she will know about real feminists like Germaine Greer and Emily Pankhurst and will understand what equality really means.

You don't need to take it back, no one has taken it away.

Brian?

johnp001 wrote: »

My post above makes no claim other than to point out that fact that he called himself one.

Writing that set me thinking though and I read a couple of articles this evening on the subject which made the arguments both for and against.
The prevailing opinion seems to be that he wasn't a socialist and Dan Hodges forcefully makes that case in:Don’t ever call Hitler a socialist but some interesting arguments that he was one were made in the article
The Myth of "Nazi Capitalism"

I don't think I have a clear enough understanding of this question to have a belief either way.
There are a lot of factors to take into consideration such as what the definition of socialist that we are using here is and what it was at the time. Especially seeing that socialism (as defined by the ideology that is espoused by current self declared socialists) is something that appears to be evolving rapidly.
Do you believe he was a socialist yourself Brian?

I don't, of course. But then I don't believe that Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot etc. were socialists either. Authoritarianism is an anathema to pure socialism. Only the worker can free them-self, freedom cannot be granted by a central authority.