Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Zubeneschamali

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Has anyone here that would lean well Left been made to take a step back and deeply consider their political views because of Peterson’s criticism of the far Left?

Peterson's "criticism of the left" is not meant to change minds on the left. It is intended to earn Peterson cash from right-wing young to middle-aged white men in America.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Peterson's "criticism of the left" is not meant to change minds on the left. It is intended to earn Peterson cash from right-wing young to middle-aged white men in America.

it's probably a mixture of both.

Peterson is an economic liberal (correct me if i'm wrong), who clearly has one eye very firmly fixed on his 'brand' as a personal cashcow.

But he strikes me, also, as a very driven, morally assiduous (speaking subjectively) individual, who really believes in what he says, and believes in the value of disseminating his message.

Why is it so unbelievable that Peterson might actually believe what he says, for example about falling standards in the universities? Or the concept that individuals need to get their own houses in order, before we try to change the world (after all, if we all just got our house in order, the world might be saved a lot faster)?

Why is it so difficult to believe that JB actually believes many of the fairly uncontroversial stances he takes? Plenty of people believe this, and some of us on the left think he occasionally has some valid points.

Mountainsandh

Giraffe Box wrote: »

Good post. You seem like a reasonable person who's unashamedly unsure of Petersen, and definitely not a reverential acolyte.
Speaking of which, you might want have a listen to this interview which is very interesting, it includes a surprisingly candid remark from JP, which, in my opinion, is dictionary definition 'bite the hand that feeds you': ''18 year old students don't know anything, they seriously don't know anything''.
12.29 approx.
Enjoy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/play/b0b3fk63

Giraffe Box wrote: »

Well, it was a one-on-one with a 69 year old writer and broadcaster.
Maybe he really does believe that 18-year-old students don't know anything, maybe he'll change his mind if questioned about that quote at some future time, who knows.
These things slip out sometimes, as I said 'biting the hand that feeds', and he's feeding very well lately thanks to a hell of a lot of know-nothing 18-year-old students.
Some might call that hypocrisy, but I think we're all fallible, aren't we, even JP?

Giraffe Box wrote: »

I'll take it up to 'destructive', the rest is waffle.

Young people get involved in politics - and yes on the Left if that's still allowed - for a number of reasons, some personal, some idealistic (imagine that). And not just to 'remedy their problems', which is a very cynical and caustic view of 18-year-old students and their political motives. Not everyone is as self-serving as the millionaire professor, though he certainly has remedied any financial problem he may have had himself thanks to the largesse of those very students he holds in such low regard.

https://www.networthleaks.com/jordan-b-peterson/

So much bitterness in your posts, it pretty much invalidates the point(s) you're trying to make tbh.

I don't think the youth who attend his lectures would resent the "18 year olds know nothing" remark, and if they do, well then, they don't have to attend any more lectures, or maybe they could engage in dialogue with him about it.

I think the people who attend want to learn, so by definition, they know that they know little, or nothing.
I'm 45, and listening to his lectures I feel like I know little or nothing. And that's ok, because being able to learn about and follow his train of thought helps me know maybe a little bit more.


I never knew the guy before seeing the thread on here about him.
I have spent the past 3 weeks listening to various lectures, Maps of Meaning (very hard !), some about personality and other psychology, some interviews, and even some of the ridiculously titled (as mentioned earlier in this thread) "inspirational" ones. I usually try and find the original of these ones as that bloody music drives me loolah. Oh and the point scoring ones, but they're not really his of course.

I was curious about the guy and his ideas, I did want to check if indeed he was far right, but I had no preconceived political leaning to be biased about. (imo and in his words, he is not far right)

I don't really know what I am politically, I used to think I was center left, but then sometimes I think I'm center right, I just don't know enough about politics to decide.

But I have no problem saying that I don't think he's trying to hammer any political agenda, genuinely.

I think his concern is more societal. There are many many instances when he says in various lectures and conferences that there is a need for dialogue, and that his concern is that this dialogue is no longer possible as the extreme left are shutting down freedom of speech.

It is not politically biased really, in his sphere (universities Canada and US) it is a fact. Freedom of speech is indeed curtailed, professors are self-censoring, and laws are being changed.

He repeatedly explains that both the left and the right, even extreme, have roles to play, and have to talk, to discuss things.

His major issue, and the reason he is so peed off at youngsters in Canadian/US universities, is that they will not tolerate discussion. It's not makey-uppy stuff, it is factual (Lindsay Shepherd's story is a good example).

He often mentions that the extremes he gets the most passionate about and that he talks about are mostly back home, and in the US.

I think it's useful to watch other videos/listen to other lectures by him to get a better idea of who he is, and what his intentions are.

I agree that the 12 rules for living don't seem great (I haven't bought the book, he mentions enough about it online to have a fair idea of the content), and they seem more like the bread winning career move.

The lectures and conferences, and interviews with Russel Brand for example are different. There is no obsessing about the left in them. He is more concerned about Chaos and Order, God, how humans behave, and how we all strive to find meaning in life.
You really get a sense that a) he wants to communicate what he has found out and learned (bible, religious and mythical stories, Nietzsche and others) by showing his reasoning b) he's striving to develop his own ideas by sharing them (ie tries to push his ideas further a bit with every discussion).

To be honest once you start listening to the other lectures, you feel like the whole political hoo-ha is just that, and he says himself, fair enough, the scandal made his videos go exponential, but he already had a million views on lectures before that. It certainly triggered his greater use of Youtube.


He's in his 50s, has thought, learned and taught so hard, and still is doing all these things, so if he's loaded now for the past few years, good for him.

Mountainsandh

Mountainsandh wrote: »

His major issue, and the reason he is so peed off at youngsters in Canadian/US universities, is that they will not tolerate discussion. It's not makey-uppy stuff, it is factual (Lindsay Shepherd's story is a good example).

I can identify with pretty much all of your post, and I think the above is especially worth emphasising.

I know plenty of Irish 'lefties' who lived under a really oppressive Church and State apparatus, when they were denied all sorts of personal freedoms, and many of them would probably be decried as reactionaries for doing what they have always done: speaking freely and asking some very fundamental, important questions, regardless of whether or not it gets them into trouble.

Take this as an example: during the recent abortion referendum, Nell McCafferty
stated that she was going to vote Yes, but that she found the idea of abortion personally upsetting. She said that it was the killing of human life, but that she nevertheless had to support it. And what did such honesty earn her?

For daring to engage in the free exchange of ideas, using free speech, some people on Twitter (!) used the opportunity to attempt to strip her of her entire civil rights, feminist record, and declare that she was some kind of turncoat, now conspiring with conservative Ireland. Twitter declared itself "disappointed" in her, despite the fact that her honesty probably persuaded a lot of her peers to vote for Repeal.

To bring this back to Jordan Peterson, he warns us against an ideological mode of thinking whereby asking hard questions is deemed socially unacceptable, or where unpopularity = wrongness.

Does anyone think that is healthy? Does anyone think that is progressive? Whatever happened to the idea that 'there's no such thing as a stupid question'? It seems to me that if you (quite respectfully) question issues like transgender identity recognition, or anything else which the left (correctly) supports, you're persona non grata.

Maybe this is indeed oppressive behaviour.

Mountainsandh

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Maybe this is indeed oppressive behaviour.

I think it is very oppressive, and that nevertheless, the hard questions need to be asked, and debates on issues that we normally would not touch with a barge-pole need to be had.

Otherwise, you are facing a situation where, as it is now, people are self-censoring, and this is not democratic.
So when it seems the threat to democracy is unbearable, these people who were not necessarily entrenched, but had questions, are going to polarize because they have no other choice, and vote for someone like Trump for example.

Because chaos is already there, and it seems that no good can emerge unless an evil is embraced, either way, to adopt JP's imagery.
In that situation the evil that will offer the best chance of finding order will be picked, and history has shown the kinds of evil humanity had to choose in order to restore order (to an extent).

Giraffe Box

Mountainsandh wrote: »

So much bitterness in your posts, it pretty much invalidates the point(s) you're trying to make tbh.
I don't think the youth who attend his lectures would resent the "18 year olds know nothing" remark, and if they do, well then, they don't have to attend any more lectures, or maybe they could engage in dialogue with him about it.
I think the people who attend want to learn, so by definition, they know that they know little, or nothing.
I'm 45, and listening to his lectures I feel like I know little or nothing. And that's ok, because being able to learn about and follow his train of thought helps me know maybe a little bit more.
I never knew the guy before seeing the thread on here about him.
I have spent the past 3 weeks listening to various lectures, Maps of Meaning (very hard !), some about personality and other psychology, some interviews, and even some of the ridiculously titled (as mentioned earlier in this thread) "inspirational" ones. I usually try and find the original of these ones as that bloody music drives me loolah. Oh and the point scoring ones, but they're not really his of course.
I was curious about the guy and his ideas, I did want to check if indeed he was far right, but I had no preconceived political leaning to be biased about. (imo and in his words, he is not far right)
I don't really know what I am politically, I used to think I was center left, but then sometimes I think I'm center right, I just don't know enough about politics to decide.
But I have no problem saying that I don't think he's trying to hammer any political agenda, genuinely.
I think his concern is more societal. There are many many instances when he says in various lectures and conferences that there is a need for dialogue, and that his concern is that this dialogue is no longer possible as the extreme left are shutting down freedom of speech.
It is not politically biased really, in his sphere (universities Canada and US) it is a fact. Freedom of speech is indeed curtailed, professors are self-censoring, and laws are being changed.
He repeatedly explains that both the left and the right, even extreme, have roles to play, and have to talk, to discuss things.
His major issue, and the reason he is so peed off at youngsters in Canadian/US universities, is that they will not tolerate discussion. It's not makey-uppy stuff, it is factual (Lindsay Shepherd's story is a good example).
He often mentions that the extremes he gets the most passionate about and that he talks about are mostly back home, and in the US.
I think it's useful to watch other videos/listen to other lectures by him to get a better idea of who he is, and what his intentions are.
I agree that the 12 rules for living don't seem great (I haven't bought the book, he mentions enough about it online to have a fair idea of the content), and they seem more like the bread winning career move.
The lectures and conferences, and interviews with Russel Brand for example are different. There is no obsessing about the left in them. He is more concerned about Chaos and Order, God, how humans behave, and how we all strive to find meaning in life.
You really get a sense that a) he wants to communicate what he has found out and learned (bible, religious and mythical stories, Nietzsche and others) by showing his reasoning b) he's striving to develop his own ideas by sharing them (ie tries to push his ideas further a bit with every discussion).
To be honest once you start listening to the other lectures, you feel like the whole political hoo-ha is just that, and he says himself, fair enough, the scandal made his videos go exponential, but he already had a million views on lectures before that. It certainly triggered his greater use of Youtube.
He's in his 50s, has thought, learned and taught so hard, and still is doing all these things, so if he's loaded now for the past few years, good for him.

You're obviously a big fan of JP and good luck to you.
The above reads like you're almost attempting to justify your new-found attachment, don't worry, it's not a crime, you're entitled to like him.

''I don't really know what I am politically, I used to think I was center left, but then sometimes I think I'm center right, I just don't know enough about politics to decide.''

Not buying the above, particularly from someone of your age.
I've never met a left-wing person, not one, who doesn't say that they are of the left or left-leaning.
However, I have encountered lots and lots of seemingly confused people who claim to be unsure of where they stand on the political spectrum vis-à-vis left or right.

So if you need some help with this one, I'm telling you now for free.
You're not of the left......and you know you're not.

Mountainsandh

Giraffe Box wrote: »

You're obviously a big fan of JP and good luck to you.
The above reads like you're almost attempting to justify your new-found attachment, don't worry, it's not a crime, you're entitled to like him.

''I don't really know what I am politically, I used to think I was center left, but then sometimes I think I'm center right, I just don't know enough about politics to decide.''

Not buying the above, particularly from someone of your age.
I've never met a left-wing person, not one, who doesn't say that they are of the left or left-leaning.
However, I have encountered lots and lots of seemingly confused people who claim to be unsure of where they stand on the political spectrum vis-à-vis left or right.

So if you need some help with this one, I'm telling you now for free.
You're not of the left......and you know you're not.

It's very strange, your interpretation of my post seems so detached from reality.

Let's just agree that we must be living in 2 parallel universes. In your universe, I can be and think whatever you like.

Call Me Jimmy

Giraffe Box wrote: »

You're obviously a big fan of JP and good luck to you.
The above reads like you're almost attempting to justify your new-found attachment, don't worry, it's not a crime, you're entitled to like him.

''I don't really know what I am politically, I used to think I was center left, but then sometimes I think I'm center right, I just don't know enough about politics to decide.''

Not buying the above, particularly from someone of your age.
I've never met a left-wing person, not one, who doesn't say that they are of the left or left-leaning.
However, I have encountered lots and lots of seemingly confused people who claim to be unsure of where they stand on the political spectrum vis-à-vis left or right.

So if you need some help with this one, I'm telling you now for free.
You're not of the left......and you know you're not.

what side is someone on if they are socially liberal and economically conservative?

Giraffe Box

Mountainsandh wrote: »

It's very strange, your interpretation of my post seems so detached from reality.

Let's just agree that we must be living in 2 parallel universes. In your universe, I can be and think whatever you like.

I don't agree that we live in two parallel universes, that's a bit extreme.
We just disagree.;)

Giraffe Box

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

what side is someone on if they are socially liberal and economically conservative?

Jimmy, I don't know if you're old enough to remember the Progressive Democrats, but they would in my opinion fit neatly into the above category.

As a political party, the PDs were known as a right-wing, or at best, a centre-right group. I don't think I've ever heard any of the following, or their views, being described as left-wing: Mary Harney, Michael McDowell, Bobby Molloy, Pat Cox etc.

Mountainsandh

Giraffe Box wrote: »

I don't agree that we live in two parallel universes, that's a bit extreme.
We just disagree.;)

Ok so, only one universe, but then you have to acknowledge that you are presupposing a lot of things about me that are wrong, because now I'm telling you they are wrong.

You cannot just pick a person in an online discussion forum, read their post, misinterpret according to your biases, and declare that they are one way or another.
It is ludicrously arrogant to decide that one poster leans one way or the other politically, and that they were not aware of it. (I'm not angry typing this by the way, just in case it comes across that way, I am incredulous and amused.)

That's why the theory of a universe where I could be whatever you imagine me to be is so befitting somehow.

Oh shoot, the candle on Jordy's shrine just went off, have to dash

Call Me Jimmy

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

what side is someone on if they are socially liberal and economically conservative?

i suppose you could argue terms liberal and conservative are being somewhat misused when people say those things, or at least, they're probably a bit misleading.

The above seems to describe a classic liberal (strongly favours civil rights but believs in a need for personal economic responsibility), they're usually centrists, and could be centre left or centre right.

Jordan Peterson seems to me to be a 'classic' classical liberal.

Giraffe Box

Mountainsandh wrote: »

So much bitterness in your posts.......




... so if he's loaded now for the past few years, good for him.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Ok so, only one universe, but then you have to acknowledge that you are presupposing a lot of things about me that are wrong, because now I'm telling you they are wrong.

You cannot just pick a person in an online discussion forum, read their post, misinterpret according to your biases, and declare that they are one way or another.
It is ludicrously arrogant to decide that one poster leans one way or the other politically, and that they were not aware of it. (I'm not angry typing this by the way, just in case it comes across that way, I am incredulous and amused.)

That's why the theory of a universe where I could be whatever you imagine me to be is so befitting somehow.

Oh shoot, the candle on Jordy's shrine just went off, have to dash

''You cannot just pick a person in an online discussion forum, read their post, misinterpret according to your biases....''
The same way you misinterpreted 'bitterness' in my posts according to your bias, that type of thing is it?

I'll say it again, and if you listen to the candidates in the next general election you'll hear it for yourself.
If asked, a huge majority, if not all, of those on the left will say (admit) that they're on the left.
A huge majority, if not all, of those on the right will prevaricate, obfuscate, or like you, claim not to know where they stand on the left/right political spectrum.

Mountainsandh

The same way you misinterpreted 'bitterness' in my posts according to your bias, that type of thing is it?

Bitterness is what transpires from the posts (a mood in literary terms if you like), not something that I assume you think or are, as you were previously doing with my post.

But these posts are tit for tat, pointless and derailing the thread. You may freely decide what my political leanings are, I don't reeally care that you do, and let's just let people chat about JP and the interview.

Giraffe Box

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Bitterness is what transpires from the posts (a mood in literary terms if you like), not something that I assume you think or are, as you were previously doing with my post.

But these posts are tit for tat, pointless and derailing the thread. You may freely decide what my political leanings are, I don't reeally care that you do, and let's just let people chat about JP and the interview.

At last, something we can agree on, it's the above in bold.

xckjoo

Giraffe Box wrote: »

You're obviously a big fan of JP and good luck to you.
The above reads like you're almost attempting to justify your new-found attachment, don't worry, it's not a crime, you're entitled to like him.

''I don't really know what I am politically, I used to think I was center left, but then sometimes I think I'm center right, I just don't know enough about politics to decide.''

Not buying the above, particularly from someone of your age.
I've never met a left-wing person, not one, who doesn't say that they are of the left or left-leaning.
However, I have encountered lots and lots of seemingly confused people who claim to be unsure of where they stand on the political spectrum vis-à-vis left or right.

So if you need some help with this one, I'm telling you now for free.
You're not of the left......and you know you're not.

What a strange statement. How do you tell if someone is left or right leaning when you meet them? How do you know that they actually are left-wing and not just saying they are? I can't think of a single person I know that I'd be able to catagorise like that so definitively. Most of us probably straddle the line and alternate depending on the context.

Mountainsandh

xckjoo wrote: »

What a strange statement. How do you tell if someone is left or right leaning when you meet them? How do you know that they actually are left-wing and not just saying they are? I can't think of a single person I know that I'd be able to catagorise like that so definitively. Most of us probably straddle the line and alternate depending on the context.

I think the comments illustrate pretty well how some people 's vision of the world can be distorted by ... What, exactly ? I think maybe it's adherence to a group, a sense of belonging to an ideology, a sort of group think I guess. It's worrying imo.

...and at odds with an ideological position that would in principle support differences.

Giraffe Box

xckjoo wrote: »

What a strange statement. How do you tell if someone is left or right leaning when you meet them? How do you know that they actually are left-wing and not just saying they are? I can't think of a single person I know that I'd be able to catagorise like that so definitively. Most of us probably straddle the line and alternate depending on the context.

Imo, most of those who dislike the left would like to think that they themselves 'straddle the line'.....wait till the dust settles on this JP phenomenon and we'll see how many of his followers self identify as left-leaning. My guess is very few indeed, though it might be difficult to tell when people (of the right) are at best circumspect, and at worst downright dishonest about their own political leanings, that includes the great man himself by the way.

Why do you think a left-leaning paper such as The Guardian refers to him as a 'Rightwing Professor'?
And why do think right-wingers, or should that be 'classical liberals', like Gavin McInnes and Tucker Carlson are fanboys?
"He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas''...watch this space.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest

7aubzxk43m2sni

Giraffe Box wrote: »

Imo, most of those who dislike the left would like to think that they themselves 'straddle the line'.....wait till the dust settles on this JP phenomenon and we'll see how many of his followers self identify as left-leaning. My guess is very few indeed, though it might be difficult to tell when people (of the right) are at best circumspect, and at worst downright dishonest about their own political leanings, that includes the great man himself by the way.

Why do you think a left-leaning paper such as The Guardian refers to him as a 'Rightwing Professor'?
And why do think right-wingers, or should that be 'classical liberals', like Gavin McInnes and Tucker Carlson are fanboys?
"He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas''...watch this space.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest

What are you trying to say?

Ulysses Gaze

Giraffe Box wrote: »

Imo, most of those who dislike the left would like to think that they themselves 'straddle the line'.....wait till the dust settles on this JP phenomenon and we'll see how many of his followers self identify as left-leaning. My guess is very few indeed, though it might be difficult to tell when people (of the right) are at best circumspect, and at worst downright dishonest about their own political leanings, that includes the great man himself by the way.

Why do you think a left-leaning paper such as The Guardian refers to him as a 'Rightwing Professor'?
And why do think right-wingers, or should that be 'classical liberals', like Gavin McInnes and Tucker Carlson are fanboys?
"He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas''...watch this space.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest

Because the Guardian are now resorting to clickbait due to the fact that they are losing money hand over fist?

flexcon

Im interested in someones response to this.

If the book of a Right lecturer is a Best seller, Trump was voted in, Brexit happened, and now look at the "Right wing" rising in an apparent way - It seems that there are lots more conservatives out there than the media and friendships in life would suggest. Is it just tough for very left leaning individuals to accept this? I find in my daily conversations that I am just shut down now. It's not debating and learning, it's just arguing. This is all antidotal to my life, but, I am sometimes shocked at the Trump conversations. They seem to always go back, that most people voted for Hilary - not Trump. Even if the USA took that number and Hilary was now the president, that's still 49.8% of the USA voted for Trump. It's like those individuals choose to ignore this.

I 100% agree with the suggestion to the dangers of catogorising conservative and thoughtful debate into the same bracket as Nazism is just wrong and doesn't help the progression of society in anyway. This happens in my own weekly odd conversations where it is getting to the point that I feel personally attacked unwarranted if I dare to suggest thought provoking dialogue that is against the norm.

It's sorta Ironic. The Far left shuts down the centre right, as if they were all extremists.

Lastly my own recently formed juncture of this RIGHT vs LEFT debate is the Conservative right relate to JP since most of his lectures seem to be about doing good but not toeing to a line just because that's that. Basically, unsure People who just want to try and get it right in life and make up their own dam mind rather than follow the sheep.

Anyway - My post is all over the place forgive me.

xckjoo

Giraffe Box wrote: »

Imo, most of those who dislike the left would like to think that they themselves 'straddle the line'.....wait till the dust settles on this JP phenomenon and we'll see how many of his followers self identify as left-leaning. My guess is very few indeed, though it might be difficult to tell when people (of the right) are at best circumspect, and at worst downright dishonest about their own political leanings, that includes the great man himself by the way.

Why do you think a left-leaning paper such as The Guardian refers to him as a 'Rightwing Professor'?
And why do think right-wingers, or should that be 'classical liberals', like Gavin McInnes and Tucker Carlson are fanboys?
"He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas''...watch this space.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest

IMO you need to stop trying to identify everything as either black or white. The world is a spectrum of greys. I like The Guardian, but there's no denying it has its own biases. So am I right-wing by your yardstick?

Giraffe Box

Giraffe Box wrote: »

Imo, most of those who dislike the left would like to think that they themselves 'straddle the line'.....wait till the dust settles on this JP phenomenon and we'll see how many of his followers self identify as left-leaning. My guess is very few indeed, though it might be difficult to tell when people (of the right) are at best circumspect, and at worst downright dishonest about their own political leanings, that includes the great man himself by the way.

Why do you think a left-leaning paper such as The Guardian refers to him as a 'Rightwing Professor'?
And why do think right-wingers, or should that be 'classical liberals', like Gavin McInnes and Tucker Carlson are fanboys?
"He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas''...watch this space.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest

Why are you so quick to undermine the stated opinions and political outlooks of strangers whom you do not know, as opposed to simply engaging with the points at hand?

Is it really *that* hard for you to believe that some of us on the Left might actually agree with Jordan Peterson on some issues? As someone who is usually dismissed a wooly liberal leftie, or whatever other adjectives are now in vogue, I find it fascinating to see another genuine left-winger, such as yourself, so quick to play the man and not the ball as soon as you encounter an opinion that is not in accordance with your own.

Is this not exactly the kind of behaviour on the Left that Jordan Peterson warns against, and which many people would argue is damaging to a free and open discourse within the Left?

johnp001

flexcon wrote: »

Im interested in someones response to this.

If the book of a Right lecturer is a Best seller, Trump was voted in, Brexit happened, and now look at the "Right wing" rising in an apparent way - It seems that there are lots more conservatives out there than the media and friendships in life would suggest. Is it just tough for very left leaning individuals to accept this? I find in my daily conversations that I am just shut down now. It's not debating and learning, it's just arguing. This is all antidotal to my life, but, I am sometimes shocked at the Trump conversations. They seem to always go back, that most people voted for Hilary - not Trump. Even if the USA took that number and Hilary was now the president, that's still 49.8% of the USA voted for Trump. It's like those individuals choose to ignore this.

I 100% agree with the suggestion to the dangers of catogorising conservative and thoughtful debate into the same bracket as Nazism is just wrong and doesn't help the progression of society in anyway. This happens in my own weekly odd conversations where it is getting to the point that I feel personally attacked unwarranted if I dare to suggest thought provoking dialogue that is against the norm.

It's sorta Ironic. The Far left shuts down the centre right, as if they were all extremists.

Lastly my own recently formed juncture of this RIGHT vs LEFT debate is the Conservative right relate to JP since most of his lectures seem to be about doing good but not toeing to a line just because that's that. Basically, unsure People who just want to try and get it right in life and make up their own dam mind rather than follow the sheep.

Anyway - My post is all over the place forgive me.

Good point. If you refuse to engage with the arguments that oppose your own because you are part of the "moral majority" and through the mechanism of democracy believe that you don't have to worry about the "extremists" you are then left in a very tenuous position when you find you have become part of a moral minority and the mechanism of democracy is now working against your interests.

Giraffe Box

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I think the comments illustrate pretty well how some people 's vision of the world can be distorted by ... What, exactly ? I think maybe it's adherence to a group, a sense of belonging to an ideology, a sort of group think I guess. It's worrying imo.

...and at odds with an ideological position that would in principle support differences.

Thus spoke one of Jordan Peterson's army of individuals....irony or what?

Giraffe Box

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

What are you trying to say?

That's very hurtful.:(

Giraffe Box

xckjoo wrote: »

IMO you need to stop trying to identify everything as either black or white. The world is a spectrum of greys. I like The Guardian, but there's no denying it has its own biases. So am I right-wing by your yardstick?

Why do you need my assessment.
Look into your heart and be honest with yourself as to where you stand.
And if you are right-wing then admit it, it's still not a crime.
If you're not, then grand.

Giraffe Box

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Why are you so quick to undermine the stated opinions and political outlooks of strangers whom you do not know, as opposed to simply engaging with the points at hand?

Is it really *that* hard for you to believe that some of us on the Left might actually agree with Jordan Peterson on some issues? As someone who is usually dismissed a wooly liberal leftie, or whatever other adjectives are now in vogue, I find it fascinating to see another genuine left-winger, such as yourself, so quick to play the man and not the ball as soon as you encounter an opinion that is not in accordance with your own.

Is this not exactly the kind of behaviour on the Left that Jordan Peterson warns against, and which many people would argue is damaging to a free and open discourse within the Left?

Eh no. Peterson wants a 'free and open discourse' with the Left as long as he can define what constitutes the Left and, like yourself in the above post, can set the parameters of the discourse to best suit himself and his opinion.

Giraffe Box

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Because the Guardian are now resorting to clickbait due to the fact that they are losing money hand over fist?

'Rightwing Professor', is that really 'clickbait'?

'Sex Dwarf Lures 100 Disco Dollies to a Life of Vice'...that's clickbait!

Giraffe Box

Giraffe Box wrote: »

Eh no. Peterson wants a 'free and open discourse' with the Left as long as he can define what constitutes the Left and, like yourself in the above post, can set the parameters of the discourse to best suit himself and his opinion.

No idea what you're on about here, sorry. What parameters have I put down, specifically? I'm actually saying that we should be placing as few parameters as possible on the free exchange of opinions and ideas.

That's a pretty crucial part of what most people believe constitutes progressive dialogue.