Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Brian?

professore wrote: »

Being able to make your own laws and control your own borders are two I can think of. Sure, it might be an economic disaster, but on the other hand they will be able to make more business friendly laws than we will to encourage new business and attract investment, so it could be an economic boon. Whether they actually will is another matter ....

Given they’re going for a soft Brexit, they won’t be able to control their own borders or make their own laws any more than they can now. Both of which they can do, by the way.

If they want access to the common market, they’re going to have to make so many concessions the whole thing was pointless. Either that or they’ll exit with no deal, it’ll take decades to recover from that.

Akrasia

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

OMG the bastard. How dare he!

Just because they're not as fringe issues as flat earthism, doesn't mean it doesn't require a staggering amount of self delusion and congnitive dissonance to support Nigel Farage and Donald Trump.

Look, I didn't like Clinton either, but when its a two horse race and one of them is Donald effin Trump, and the other is just another slimy establishment politician, you grit your teeth and vote the lesser of two evils.

It's not a political test, ie, i'll only agree with you if you share my politics, it's a lack of ability to know when you're being lied to, manipulated and used. And if you can't see that when it's as obvious as a wet trout slapping across your face, then I'm not going to take your analysis seriously.

PlaneSpeeking

Brian? wrote: »

Given they’re going for a soft Brexit, they won’t be able to control their own borders or make their own laws any more than they can now. Both of which they can do, by the way.

If they want access to the common market, they’re going to have to make so many concessions the whole thing was pointless. Either that or they’ll exit with no deal, it’ll take decades to recover from that.

The irony being that if part of the reason for voting yes - EU immigrants tend to be little bother and are genuinely there to work and better themselves.

They're just f***ed now and the rest are unaffected.

Akrasia

professore wrote: »

Being able to make your own laws and control your own borders are two I can think of. Sure, it might be an economic disaster, but on the other hand they will be able to make more business friendly laws than we will to encourage new business and attract investment, so it could be an economic boon. Whether they actually will is another matter ....

those are the main arguments used by brexiteers, but if you think it through for more than 5 minutes, you'll realise that the reason why the EU shares sovereignty is to allow the free market to work fairly, and any matters that do not affect the customs union are largely left up to member states to legislate for themselves.

If the UK diverge from EU minimum standards for environment, labour rights, product safety and quality, traceability, animal welfare etc, then they won't be allowed access to the EU market, and it would be economic suicide to shut yourself off from your closest trading partners, so all this talk of taking back control is pure nonsense if the UK is only gonna have to replicate EU laws in the UK without having any say in how those laws are drafted.

Brexit was a protest vote by uninformed and the deliberately misinformed and if people are still defending it 2 years later after the true impact is becoming more and more apparent, then sorry, but as far as I'm concerned they're not thinking clearly

Undividual

Akrasia wrote: »

those are the main arguments used by brexiteers, but if you think it through for more than 5 minutes, you'll realise that the reason why the EU shares sovereignty is to allow the free market to work fairly, and any matters that do not affect the customs union are largely left up to member states to legislate for themselves.

If the UK diverge from EU minimum standards for environment, labour rights, product safety and quality, traceability, animal welfare etc, then they won't be allowed access to the EU market, and it would be economic suicide to shut yourself off from your closest trading partners, so all this talk of taking back control is pure nonsense if the UK is only gonna have to replicate EU laws in the UK without having any say in how those laws are drafted.

Brexit was a protest vote by uninformed and the deliberately misinformed and if people are still defending it 2 years later after the true impact is becoming more and more apparent, then sorry, but as far as I'm concerned they're not thinking clearly

I remember the Lisbon treaty and the EU's reproaches to Ireland during the recession too well to buy the benevolent EU narrative. 

It appears that the UK gov have messed up the Brexit negotiations, but they did have the chance to break cleanly from Europe.  The idea that the EU would cut off their nose to spite their face in the event of a hard Brexit was unlikely.  Quality controls can easily be replaced by the UK, one of the largest economies in the world. 

Also, the hard stance taken by the EU in response to Brexit shows other countries the disciplining, punishing mentality of the EU.  This can be attested to by Irish and Greek experiences.  Far better to be self governed.

Undividual

RandomName2 wrote: »

Brian? wrote: »

Maybe the title needed to be all caps, that really brings in the views.

JB PETERSON DESTROYS i-n-s-a-n-e hysterical FEMINIST student - MASSIVE REACTION SPEECHLESS! MUST watch owning.

JB PETERSON REFUTES i-r-a-t-e passionate supposedly-egalitarian student

I hate the phrase 'owning'.  Am I dense or is that used in a purely slave-owner context without anyone ever pointing it out?

ancapailldorcha

Undividual wrote: »

JB PETERSON REFUTES i-r-a-t-e passionate supposedly-egalitarian student

I hate the phrase 'owning'.  Am I dense or is that used in a purely slave-owner context without anyone ever pointing it out?

It is a typically hyperbolic example of the sort of rhetoric used by fanatics, the case in point that Peterson has destroyed some SJW/Libtard/Cuck/insert derogatory term of choice here by saying words and being Jordan Peterson.

Undividual

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It is a typically hyperbolic example of the sort of rhetoric used by fanatics, the case in point that Peterson has destroyed some SJW/Libtard/Cuck/insert derogatory term of choice here by saying words and being Jordan Peterson.

I remember the first time I heard someone use the word 'snowflake' as a descriptor in Real Life.  Still makes me cringe.

ancapailldorcha

Undividual wrote: »

I remember the first time I heard someone use the word 'snowflake' as a descriptor in Real Life.  Still makes me cringe.

If ever there was a reminder of the importance of getting offline now and then...

markodaly

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Plenty of it on the right as well which gets glossed over.

No, sorry have to disagree with that.
Not that the right does not do it, but the frequency of the left shouting racist, hate crime, sexist or some other trope is very much a left wing thing.

The moral police of the past were religious leaders and could be defined as the 'right', today the moral police of our times are self-important egomaniac idiots online and the media.

ancapailldorcha

markodaly wrote: »

No, sorry have to disagree with that.
Not that the right does not do it, but the frequency of the left shouting racist, hate crime, sexist or some other trope is very much a left wing thing.

Here's just the latest example:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ukip-suspends-members-protest-bookmarks-socialist-bookshop-attack-london-a8480466.html

Plenty of right wingers are happy to play the race card when terms like "Gammon" are used. I don't know what you mean by frequency unless you're counting social media which has done everything possible to be as unreliable a metric as possible.

cantdecide

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Here's just the latest example:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ukip-suspends-members-protest-bookmarks-socialist-bookshop-attack-london-a8480466.html

Plenty of right wingers are happy to play the race card when terms like "Gammon" are used. I don't know what you mean by frequency unless you're counting social media which has done everything possible to be as unreliable a metric as possible.

I don't think there is much question about the far left's willingness to villainise anyone with a differing perspective, tbf. I suppose it may be possible to find quantifiable, peer-reviewed evidence but I suppose if that evidence isn't available then the poster will just have to either declare it their sole opinion or it may be more advisable for them to just never address the topic of the far-left strategic political villainisation of political opponents in any way, form or fashion ever again in such a way that makes it appear as if it didn't exist at all. That would be the 'safe' thing to do, I suppose.

ancapailldorcha

cantdecide wrote: »

I don't think there is much question about the far left's willingness to villainise anyone with a differing perspective, tbf. I suppose it may be possible to find quantifiable, peer-reviewed evidence but I suppose if that evidence isn't available then the poster will just have to either declare it their sole opinion or it may be more advisable for them to just never address the topic of the far-left strategic political villainisation of political opponents in any way, form or fashion ever again in such a way that makes it appear as if it didn't exist at all. That would be the 'safe' thing to do, I suppose.

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. I'm saying that it happens on both sides and that one side always gets a free pass. When I see someone on either side doing that I have no problem asking for proof.

markodaly

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Here's just the latest example:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ukip-suspends-members-protest-bookmarks-socialist-bookshop-attack-london-a8480466.html

Plenty of right wingers are happy to play the race card when terms like "Gammon" are used. I don't know what you mean by frequency unless you're counting social media which has done everything possible to be as unreliable a metric as possible.

Yes, one example.
Like I said, I do not deny it happens but my core point is that the left uses it as a weapon far more often.

http://www.thejournal.ie/lisbon-web-summit-marine-le-pen-4181551-Aug2018/
http://www.thejournal.ie/alex-jones-twitter-ban-4181900-Aug2018/
http://www.thejournal.ie/australian-senator-final-solution-4181411-Aug2018/

3 examples this very day of people silencing or attempting to silence those on the 'right'.

Exhibit A

In a series of tweets this afternoon, Web Summit founder Paddy Cosgrave said it was “now clear” to him that the correct decision was to rescind Le Pen’s invitation.

“Based on advice we have received and the large reaction online overnight, her presence is disrespectful in particular to our host country,” Cosgrave said. “It is also disrespectful to some of the many tens of thousands of attendees who join us from around the world.”

He said that, in future, the Web Summit would approach issues of hate, freedom of expression and platform technologies “with more care”.[

Exhibit B

TWITTER HAS SUSPENDED the personal account of far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones for a week.

At the time, Dorsey said in a tweet: “We’re going to hold Jones to the same standard we hold to every account, not taking one-off actions to make us feel good in the short term, and adding fuel to new conspiracy theories.”

Exhibit C

The Queenslander called for migration numbers to be slashed, and a ban on Muslims, justifying his call by saying they had “consistently shown to be the least able to assimilate and integrate”.

“While all Muslims are not terrorists, certainly all terrorists these days are Muslims, so why would anyone want to bring more of them here?”

Note, that I do not endorse the viewpoints of the people above. However, I see the hypocrisy of those trying to silence a diverse range of opinion, as if they are some moral guardian to the masses.

The Alex Jones issue is particularly worrying considering the power Silicon Valley now has to shape discourse and elections.

kunst nugget

Undividual wrote: »

Also, the hard stance taken by the EU in response to Brexit shows other countries the disciplining, punishing mentality of the EU.  This can be attested to by Irish and Greek experiences.  Far better to be self governed.

The UK has several different types of relationships it can have with the EU - they have been outlined several times by Barnier and his ilk. What they won't allow is for the UK to pick and choose what aspects of the Union it wants. That's fair enough - if they did that with the UK, the union would be dead within a decade.

The notion that the UK say 'Fúck you guys, we're leaving' and it's the EU that's punishing them by sticking to their guns in terms of what the union stands for is ridiculous on all levels.

Akrasia

Undividual wrote: »

I remember the Lisbon treaty and the EU's reproaches to Ireland during the recession too well to buy the benevolent EU narrative. 

It appears that the UK gov have messed up the Brexit negotiations, but they did have the chance to break cleanly from Europe.  The idea that the EU would cut off their nose to spite their face in the event of a hard Brexit was unlikely.  Quality controls can easily be replaced by the UK, one of the largest economies in the world. 

Also, the hard stance taken by the EU in response to Brexit shows other countries the disciplining, punishing mentality of the EU.  This can be attested to by Irish and Greek experiences.  Far better to be self governed.

The UK, if it wants to trade into the EU, would have to have quality standards equal if not higher than those in the EU across the spectrum of different goods and services. That is not negotiable. It's not trying to punish the UK, it's to maintain the integrity of the EU single market.

The EU isn't perfect, nothing is, but it undoubtedly benefits its member states far more than it harms them. You don't get to leave a marriage and take only the good stuff with you. If you leave a troubled marriage, you lose the good things about that relationship as well as the bad.

Britain wants to leave the EU and still have access to the customs union without following the rules of the customs union. That was never going to be allowed because those rules were there for a reason.

ancapailldorcha

markodaly wrote: »

Like I said, I do not deny it happens but my core point is that the left uses it as a weapon far more often.

And the far left will say the same about the right making this meaningless without some form of evidence. I'd also add that tech companies are far from being left wing.

Brian?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

And the far left will say the same about the right making this meaningless without some form of evidence. I'd also add that tech companies are far from being left wing.

The contention that tech companies are left wing is laughable. They are beholden only to their shareholders, they rarely even answer to governments.

Call Me Jimmy

They're obviously not left wing but there has been strange evolutions in left-wing thought in last decade and using this short hand we're not talking specifically about economic policy so much as culture and norms of acceptable thought.

I would say almost all HR departments subscribe to the agenda of the left now, which deeply influences the intellectual makeup of large corporations over time. From what I have gathered, it is lower level employees grouping together that are responsible for the current climate; it seems people like Zuckerberg are actually quite reluctant about all this because of The Implication that people as smart and powerful as him must be aware of. i.e. putting his platform in jeapordy if it is perceived to be taking too much editorial control.

ancapailldorcha

Brian? wrote: »

The contention that tech companies are left wing is laughable. They are beholden only to their shareholders, they rarely even answer to governments.

I know. Profit is the bottom line.

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I would say almost all HR departments subscribe to the agenda of the left now, which deeply influences the intellectual makeup of large corporations over time. From what I have gathered, it is lower level employees grouping together that are responsible for the current climate; it seems people like Zuckerberg are actually quite reluctant about all this because of The Implication that people as smart and powerful as him must be aware of. i.e. putting his platform in jeapordy if it is perceived to be taking too much editorial control.

This is completely baseless as far as I can see. I've worked in a fair few places and all the HR managers I've met have just focused on doing their jobs.

kunst nugget

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is completely baseless as far as I can see. I've worked in a fair few places and all the HR managers I've met have just focused on doing their jobs.

It makes a great conspiracy theory to be fair.

20Cent

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, one example.
Like I said, I do not deny it happens but my core point is that the left uses it as a weapon far more often.

http://www.thejournal.ie/lisbon-web-summit-marine-le-pen-4181551-Aug2018/
http://www.thejournal.ie/alex-jones-twitter-ban-4181900-Aug2018/
http://www.thejournal.ie/australian-senator-final-solution-4181411-Aug2018/

3 examples this very day of people silencing or attempting to silence those on the 'right'.

Exhibit A


Exhibit B



Exhibit C



Note, that I do not endorse the viewpoints of the people above. However, I see the hypocrisy of those trying to silence a diverse range of opinion, as if they are some moral guardian to the masses.

The Alex Jones issue is particularly worrying considering the power Silicon Valley now has to shape discourse and elections.

They are all private institutions that have their own rules. Free markets, less government interference etc

markodaly

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

And the far left will say the same about the right making this meaningless without some form of evidence. I'd also add that tech companies are far from being left wing.

Far from left-wing? Don't be silly.


The big Silicon Valley companies are a very much left wing in terms of their social outlook and the people who work for them.
The founders of both Google and Facebook have donated large sums to the Democratic party.
The richest man in the world and founder of Amazon, Jeff Bezos has donated to Democratic party candidates and is a big supporter of Gay Marriage.
Tim Cook is not shy about this own political leanings at all. Its all there on the net.

Zuckerberg himself admits that 'Silicon Valley is an extremely left-leaning place' when asked about bias in tech firms.

Now, I am not saying these guys are Marxists or Communists, that would be silly. They are businessmen and people first and foremost. However, their leanings are clearly on the left of the American spectrum. To say otherwise is just wrong and silly.

markodaly

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I know. Profit is the bottom line.

The contention that because its a corporation, that it cannot be left wing is one of the most idiotic statements I have seen on this thread.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

The contention that tech companies are left wing is laughable. They are beholden only to their shareholders, they rarely even answer to governments.

That is why the government put wiretaps and backdoors into these tech firms?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-2%20Special%20trail:Network%20front%20-%20special%20trail:Position1

The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called Prism, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.

You call yourself a libertarian socialist, yet you have no qualms about this. A very odd libertarian you are.

Even on their shareholders, Facebook lost $120 Billion of shareholder value last month, due to changes in algorithms and a crackdown on fake news which hurt their bottom line. So, again another lie from you.
These guys know that they have to toe the line as the government can easily break them up.

20Cent

markodaly wrote: »

Far from left-wing? Don't be silly.


The big Silicon Valley companies are a very much left wing in terms of their social outlook and the people who work for them.
The founders of both Google and Facebook have donated large sums to the Democratic party.
The richest man in the world and founder of Amazon, Jeff Bezos has donated to Democratic party candidates and is a big supporter of Gay Marriage.
Tim Cook is not shy about this own political leanings at all. Its all there on the net.

Zuckerberg himself admits that 'Silicon Valley is an extremely left-leaning place' when asked about bias in tech firms.

Now, I am not saying these guys are Marxists or Communists, that would be silly. They are businessmen and people first and foremost. However, their leanings are clearly on the left of the American spectrum. To say otherwise is just wrong and silly.

Their not big into workers rights, unions or paying tax so no not really left wing. They donate to the republican party as well. Unless you mean by left unisex toilets and glutton free options in the canteen but not in amy meaningful way.

ancapailldorcha

markodaly wrote: »

Far from left-wing? Don't be silly.

The big Silicon Valley companies are a very much left wing in terms of their social outlook and the people who work for them.
The founders of both Google and Facebook have donated large sums to the Democratic party.
The richest man in the world and founder of Amazon, Jeff Bezos has donated to Democratic party candidates and is a big supporter of Gay Marriage.
Tim Cook is not shy about this own political leanings at all. Its all there on the net.

Zuckerberg himself admits that 'Silicon Valley is an extremely left-leaning place' when asked about bias in tech firms.

Now, I am not saying these guys are Marxists or Communists, that would be silly. They are businessmen and people first and foremost. However, their leanings are clearly on the left of the American spectrum. To say otherwise is just wrong and silly.

That's quite a weak argument. One guy's opinion and donations to a party that the vast majority of Europeans would consider too right wing to elect. If "left wing" means left of the GOP and Trump then that's easily most people right there.

In any case, I don't know how this connects to Jordan Peterson.

Wibbs

20Cent wrote: »

Their not big into workers rights, unions or paying tax so no not really left wing. They donate to the republican party as well. Unless you mean by left unisex toilets and glutton free options in the canteen but not in amy meaningful way.

Exactly. Yes they're "left wing" at the level of their mostly recently left US college age workers, because non gendered toilets, bean bags and organic coffee in the machines keeps their cubicle drones happily distracted by such fripperies slaving their youth away for more company profit, but at their heart they couldn't be more bottomline driven. They'd donate to satan himself if it increased their profits.

ancapailldorcha wrote:

One guy's opinion and donations to a party that the vast majority of Europeans would consider too right wing to elect. If "left wing" means left of the GOP and Trump then that's easily most people right there.

Yep. It's scary how many Irish people are hoovering up this American political compass nonsense and thinking it applies to here. Thank Christ it doesn't for the most part and IMHO we should fight to keep it that way.

ancapailldorcha

Wibbs wrote: »

Exactly. Yes they're "left wing" at the level of their mostly recently left US college age workers, because non gendered toilets, bean bags and organic coffee in the machines keeps their cubicle drones happily slaving their youth away for more company profit, but at their heart they couldn't be more bottomline driven. They'd donate to satan himself if it increased their profits.

Exactly. And people keep falling for it. Minimum change for maximum publicity so the slacktivists can feel like they've accomplished something.

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep. It's scary how many Irish people are hoovering up this American political compass nonsense and thinking it applies to here. Thank Christ it doesn't for the most part and IMHO we should fight to keep it that way.

Yep. I think we've already imported all the best bits of the US. They're more than welcome to the remnants IMO.

markodaly

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's quite a weak argument. One guy's opinion and donations to a party that the vast majority of Europeans would consider too right wing to elect. If "left wing" means left of the GOP and Trump then that's easily most people right there.

In any case, I don't know how this connects to Jordan Peterson.

You mean in the context of where Silicon Valley is located as in Northern California, USA? :pac:

If people want to define 'left-wing' today in the context of old schools trots, be free. It is not 1950 anymore, it's 2018.

However again to repeat, to describe Silicon Valley as not left wing is idiotic.