Jordan Peterson interview on C4

El_Duderino 09

storker wrote: »

I was also surprised about the concentration of philosophy when Peterson doesn't sell himself as a philosopher, although he does frequently refer to philosophy and philosophers, but there's a big difference between being an expert in a discipline, and just referring to it or talking about it. Jung, who Petersen often quotes, had an interest in philosophy in addition to his activities in the realms of psychology and psychiatry, so maybe Peterson is just continuing in that vein because he's a fan of Jung and/or he sees some overlap in those different disciplines.

To be fair, that’s how science usually develops. Jung and Freud drew on philosophy because they didn’t have any concrete ways to express their ideas. Greek dramas often illustrate pervasive psychological tendencies and that was a big part of the original psychology/psychoanalytical theory. The less concrete the ideas, the more they drift into philosophy.

It starts as philosophy which means is in the category of wacky ideas, then the ideas are pruned to make sure they’re at least logically consistent and might tie in with other known facts about reality. Then you start to actually test the ideas which is when they enter the realm of science.

You dang blame Peterson for philosophising because that’s how new ideas arise. You should however be very wary of taking any of his philosophy as anything other than a little thought experiment to exercise the imagination.

This isn’t how Peterson’s followers use his sermons. They declare him a genius and defend whatever he says claiming the solution is always that Peterson’s detractors need more Peterson. Sounds a bit like a cult of personality TBH.

storker

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

To be fair, that’s how science usually develops. Jung and Freud drew on philosophy because they didn’t have any concrete ways to express their ideas. Greek dramas often illustrate pervasive psychological tendencies and that was a big part of the original psychology/psychoanalytical theory. The less concrete the ideas, the more they drift into philosophy.

It starts as philosophy which means is in the category of wacky ideas, then the ideas are pruned to make sure they’re at least logically consistent and might tie in with other known facts about reality. Then you start to actually test the ideas which is when they enter the realm of science.

You dang blame Peterson for philosophising because that’s how new ideas arise. You should however be very wary of taking any of his philosophy as anything other than a little thought experiment to exercise the imagination.

This isn’t how Peterson’s followers use his sermons. They declare him a genius and defend whatever he says claiming the solution is always that Peterson’s detractors need more Peterson. Sounds a bit like a cult of personality TBH.

Interesting point, but I wouldn't necessarily agree with how you phrase the last paragraph, which looks suspiciously like a sweeping generalisation. I suspect there there are many more "types" of Peterson follower than you're allowing for. There are also people like me and like Mountainsandh who pay some attention to him but don't actually treat him like the Salmon of Knowledge. Failing to slam a public figure along with the herd of detractors doesn't make someone a disciple or follower. I wouldn't even call myself a follower by any means, although I've watched probably a dozen or more of his videos, I'm not subscribed to his YouTube channel, and I wouldn't be in the habit of quoting him as an authority.

Without polling his followers en masse or Vulcan-mind-melding with each of them, it's not possible to say with certainty what the majority think. In any case, I've said before, you can't judge content by the attitudes of those people who aren't able or don't want to assess it rationally. Also, I find that the nutters are often more vocal than the thinkers in many spheres of human debate.





P.S. It wasn't Brian's fault that people were following him around claiming he was the Messiah.

flexcon

storker wrote: »

There are also people like me and like Mountainsandh who pay some attention to him but don't actually treat him like the Salmon of Knowledge.

Oh thank Fu*k for that comment. I got a bit tired of this ridiculous collectiveness that we are all the same and defend JP at all costs.
:pac:

El_Duderino 09

storker wrote: »

Interesting point, but I wouldn't necessarily agree with how you phrase the last paragraph, which looks suspiciously like a sweeping generalisation. I suspect there there are many more "types" of Peterson follower than you're allowing for. There are also people like me and like Mountainsandh who pay some attention to him but don't actually treat him like the Salmon of Knowledge. Failing to slam a public figure along with the herd of detractors doesn't make someone a disciple or follower. I wouldn't even call myself a follower by any means, although I've watched probably a dozen or more of his videos, I'm not subscribed to his YouTube channel, and I wouldn't be in the habit of quoting him as an authority.

Without polling his followers en masse or Vulcan-mind-melding with each of them, it's not possible to say with certainty what the majority think. In any case, I've said before, you can't judge content by the attitudes of those people who aren't able or don't want to assess it rationally. Also, I find that the nutters are often more vocal than the thinkers in many spheres of human debate

The nutters might be more vocal than the thinkers. So you might expect to see the thinkers discussing their understanding of Peterson’s work. But we don’t see that. We have a thread about Peterson’s interview on C4. And lots of discussion AROUND him. But very little discussion about his actual work, whether it’s correct or true, where his followers agree/disagree with his hypotheses, how to tell whether he’s correct or not.

We can’t know for sure without going a survey of all JP fans. But I can say that I see lots of discussion of Peterson by his fans, but very little or no discussion of what he actually says.

If you started a thread to discuss Peterson’s hypotheses, it would go nowhere because there would be almost nobody who can actually discuss the issues.

Brian?

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I'd like to know what you think is "regularly factually incorrect" in his talks in your opinion. Central points he repeats that are wrong.

You are pointing at one thing : "young people shouldn't protest as they know nothing of the world". That is not objectively wrong, that is a matter of opinion and you strongly disagree.
That's fair enough that you completely disagree, but it is not a fact.
He doesn't "stand for" that particular opinion too. This is just one of many opinions or questions he raises. You can't reduce him to that one thing because it's the one you're most upset about.

I happen to agree with him on that one, kind of.
I would say that most young people do not have the experience of the world required to know much of the world. So they might know a lot in terms of theory, they might be very well read and educated, but because they have not experienced some of the anguish and pressure of living, all that knowledge is sort of parked there on the side for a while.
I don't have time to explain further now, but yes, this is totally something that can be debated, since there's a good question in it, and depending on our experiences we can all have something interesting to add into the mix.

Telling someone, anyone, they shouldn’t protest something they disagree with it wrong. Selecting a subset of society based on their age and then telling them they shouldn’t protest issues they feel are wrong, is objectively wrong. I can’t believe you think it’s a matter of debate. The 20th century was the peak of student protest power, it achieved wonderful things. Just because you don’t agree with the current protests, their right to protest should never be undermined. This is based on historical fact. That’s what makes Peterson Objectively wrong.

Look at he white civil rights protesters in the US in the 60s. The involvement of white, middle class students was what made middle America sit up and take notice of the civil rights struggle. No amount of MLK speeches had the impact in the American heart land that the white student protesters had. Unfortunately white Americans didn’t listen to the uppity negro protesting a racist system, not much has changed on that front actually.

If Peterson has his way, those people would have been at home until they were old enough and wise enough to protest. Which is complete and total BS.

Nothing has been achieved by people sitting around silently in the face of injustice.

And yes, he does stand for it. I’ve heard him say it quite firmly a few times. I am not reducing him to this one thing, I’m merely pointing out it’s one issue I have with his ideas. One of many.

The real big one is his belief in god.

RandomName2

Brian? wrote: »

Telling someone, anyone, they shouldn’t protest something they disagree with it wrong.

I wouldn't mind seeing the quote in relation to that. I'm not claiming that he didn't say that, but if you have the source available, in order to make an independent judgement, that would be useful.

Brian?

RandomName2 wrote: »

I wouldn't mind seeing the quote in relation to that. I'm not claiming that he didn't say that, but if you have the source available, in order to make an independent judgement, that would be useful.

Just want to be clear, you’ve edited a very select piece of my post. What are you looking for a quote of him saying? I’m afraid there’s a misunderstanding in the offing.

mzungu

Brian? wrote: »

Telling someone, anyone, they shouldn’t protest something they disagree with it wrong. Selecting a subset of society based on their age and then telling them they shouldn’t protest issues they feel are wrong, is objectively wrong. I can’t believe you think it’s a matter of debate. The 20th century was the peak of student protest power, it achieved wonderful things. Just because you don’t agree with the current protests, their right to protest should never be undermined. This is based on historical fact. That’s what makes Peterson Objectively wrong.

Look at he white civil rights protesters in the US in the 60s. The involvement of white, middle class students was what made middle America sit up and take notice of the civil rights struggle. No amount of MLK speeches had the impact in the American heart land that the white student protesters had. Unfortunately white Americans didn’t listen to the uppity negro protesting a racist system, not much has changed on that front actually.

If Peterson has his way, those people would have been at home until they were old enough and wise enough to protest. Which is complete and total BS.

Nothing has been achieved by people sitting around silently in the face of injustice.

And yes, he does stand for it. I’ve heard him say it quite firmly a few times. I am not reducing him to this one thing, I’m merely pointing out it’s one issue I have with his ideas. One of many.

The real big one is his belief in god.

Might be a wee bit off topic, but was it not really the Cold War above all else that helped the civil rights movement the most? The USSR had been given a big upper hand in the propaganda department by images of racial segregation coming from the US in the fifties*. The national guard standoff with protesters in Little Rock in 1957 was covered extensively in the USSR and elsewhere around the world (alongside a lot of other injustices). It made the US look like fools, but worst of all, it made them look like hypocrites to be preaching democracy abroad but having a segregated society at home. IMO this was the main reason that it got through when it did. No doubt it eventually would have happened, but the Cold War helped it get there faster. The power of student protest makes for a nice narrative, but ultimately it was fear of losing face and not wanting to hand the Soviets an easy propaganda victory.

To bring things back on topic, as long as there is no violence or intimidation involved, then everybody should have the right to protest.


*This is not to say that the Soviet campaign only began in the fifties. They had their own 'Freedom for the Scottsboro boys' campaign and this was as far back in 1932! The Soviets were always a thorn in the American side in that regard. Not that they gave two hoots about the plight of the Scottsboro boys, it was used as a means to their end.

storker

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We can’t know for sure without going a survey of all JP fans. But I can say that I see lots of discussion of Peterson by his fans, but very little or no discussion of what he actually says.

There problem here is "fans". Fans have already nailed their colours to the mast; that's what makes them fans. I'd be amazed if no discussion is going on about the merits of what he says, but I wouldn't go looking for it in, for example, YouTube comments.

As a contrast, how many of the radical left are debating whether in fact they should be coming out in favour of freedom of speech?

If you're looking for cooler appraisals of an idea, you're not likely to find it where the ideologically committed congregate.

Mountainsandh

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Mountainsandh wrote: »

How arrogant of me to correctly assume you didn’t actually read any of the references JP throws out except Piaget.

I studied philosophy for my Baccalaureat back in the 90s. Not that I was ever very good at it, but it makes it all less of a unknown land than for a lot of people here in Ireland I guess.
I have meant to re-explore that area, but rather than start with Nietzsche I have been having a look at more familiar ones like Voltaire. There's something interesting in revisiting something you studied as a young person. I also read a bit of Alexis de Tocqueville, as it's pretty accessible and relates to some of the things Peterson says (more social/democratic aspect).
I'll get to Nietzsche alright. Maybe when the kids are a little older a little less in my hair. It'd be hard to tackle Nietzsche or Jung with a Fortnite backing soundtrack (for me anyway)

I don’t presume to know a lot about it, but I have actually studied it which I’m sure you’ll agree puts me at an advantage (if studying the material is actually important). I can tell you this much with confidence: when Peterson claims some necessary link from morals to god or the bible, it’s just Peterson being a god botherer or bible thumper. You could use any ancient myths or contemporary stories to illustrate the points from aesop's fables to Harry Potter. For some reason using ancient texts lends gravitas that his followers interpret as genius.

I do find it interesting that you should be annoyed I trust someone's credentials who is a doctor and who taught in Harvard, rather than you, a stranger on the internet who assures me they have read and interpreted philosophers better than the above. No offense intended, but I hope you can see the irony of what you are recommending.

If you can’t tell when he’s talking ideological nonsense and when he’s talking scientific theory or simply conjecturing, then you’re in a very vulnerable position and ripe for exploitation

To clarify, when I asked how you can tell when Peterson is correct or not I was asking in general about whatpeyerdpn says including the philosophy, psychology and culture warrior stuff. You’re answer is that you can’t tell the correct stuff from the incorrect stuff, but it doesn’t matter anyway. That’s an extraordinary thing to say.

Again I think you misunderstand me.

I watch lectures and discussions that are a collection of propositions (as per their author's assurances). Hypotheses and conjectures, if you like. I am fully aware of it, and JP makes it very clear (as Sam Harris does too for example, in the discussions I mentioned before). It's not something they are hiding or disguising in any way.

JP is not teaching facts as some professors may, he's teaching theories and hypotheses. Therefore, none of what he's on about may be correct, and that is not the point.

He is proposing for example that biblical (and mythical and more) stories carry an important message that we should follow(pay attention to is a better phrase), because others before us were able to learn some fundamental truths that they illustrated in those (the stories). That's just his interpretation.

He could be correct or incorrect, it's for me to decide, it's not for me to find out by Googling someone else's opinion or even reading something. Of course the more background knowledge I have, the better equipped I am to come to my own conclusions, I am fully conscious of that.

As it happens as I made clear before, on the subject of stories and God, I am not at all convinced by his proposition that values are anchored in religion and God, that the notion of good and evil inevitably originates in God, and that we should live our lives accordingly. But the discussions are worth listening to, and I am not fully taken with Sam Harris's propositions either.
I said it before, I am not listening to those to accept one as correct and the other as incorrect.

People's interpretation of what other philosophers (and/or other psychologists, theorists...) have theorized is also just an interpretation, that may be correct or incorrect. Generally a quick google will show a consensus on what a likely "correct" interpretation of say, Jung, might be. This is an easy way to check if Harris, or JP, or my neighbour, is widely off track on their interpretation of Nietzsche, or if they are pretty much aligned to the consensus.

El_Duderino 09

storker wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We can’t know for sure without going a survey of all JP fans. But I can say that I see lots of discussion of Peterson by his fans, but very little or no discussion of what he actually says.

There problem here is "fans". Fans have already nailed their colours to the mast; that's what makes them fans. I'd be amazed if no discussion is going on about the merits of what he says, but I wouldn't go looking for it in, for example, YouTube comments.

As a contrast, how many of the radical left are debating whether in fact they should be coming out in favour of freedom of speech?

If you're looking for cooler appraisals of an idea, you're not likely to find it where the ideologically committed congregate.

If you don’t like the term ‘fans’, that’s fine, but you must understand the point. This thread is an example of discussion about Peterson and absolutely no discussion of the tricky stuff he speaks about. Don’t you find that interesting?

If you want to find discussion of left wing ideals, I’d say a place look for a thread with ‘left wing ideals’ in the title. We’re in a thread with Jordan Peterson in the title and you couldn’t get a conversation about his work, even if you tried.

There’s no difficulty finding posters to declare Peterson a genius. But it’s hard to find someone who actually knows what he’s saying and fewer still who can discuss it.

Isn’t it at least interesting that so many will rush to his defence and declare him a genius, and so few can discuss what he says?

Zubeneschamali

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There’s no difficulty finding posters to declare Peterson a genius. But it’s hard to find someone who actually knows what he’s saying and fewer still who can discuss it.

I'm not going to trawl through the thread right now, but I read several people saying they like Peterson because he annoys the left wing and because of his stuff about left wing attacks on free speech on american university campuses (not sure why we should care about that, but aparently some people here do).


Pure Us vs. Them team support.

Mountainsandh

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you don’t like the term ‘fans’, that’s fine, but you must understand the point. This thread is an example of discussion about Peterson and absolutely no discussion of the tricky stuff he speaks about. Don’t you find that interesting?

If you want to find discussion of left wing ideals, I’d say a place look for a thread with ‘left wing ideals’ in the title. We’re in a thread with Jordan Peterson in the title and you couldn’t get a conversation about his work, even if you tried.

There’s no difficulty finding posters to declare Peterson a genius. But it’s hard to find someone who actually knows what he’s saying and fewer still who can discuss it.

Isn’t it at least interesting that so many will rush to his defence and declare him a genius, and so few can discuss what he says?

Sorry I'm quoting a post not addressed to me, but can i suggest two answers to your questions ?
The first is that the thread was originally about that interview, not necessarily the greater body of work of JP.
The second, well again I really don't mean that to be incendiary, but who is going to launch themselves into tirades to try and 're-explain or paraphrase complicated theories that a professor with years of experience sometimes finds hard to articulate himself, when they know that posters such as yourself, with a dislike for the man and a point scoring attitude are ready to pounce ?

I summarised two broad points JP makes above, and fully expect a response attempting to shred my credibility for the sake of point scoring, rather than a genuine intent to discuss.
Not a very safe or pleasant place to be willing to engage in difficult topics, and be wrong sometimes, as we are all likely to be.

mzungu

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There’s no difficulty finding posters to declare Peterson a genius. But it’s hard to find someone who actually knows what he’s saying and fewer still who can discuss it.

Isn’t it at least interesting that so many will rush to his defence and declare him a genius, and so few can discuss what he says?

Can you link to those posts where he was declared a genius?

Mountainsandh

Brian? wrote: »

Telling someone, anyone, they shouldn’t protest something they disagree with it wrong. Selecting a subset of society based on their age and then telling them they shouldn’t protest issues they feel are wrong, is objectively wrong. I can’t believe you think it’s a matter of debate. The 20th century was the peak of student protest power, it achieved wonderful things. Just because you don’t agree with the current protests, their right to protest should never be undermined. This is based on historical fact. That’s what makes Peterson Objectively wrong.

Look at he white civil rights protesters in the US in the 60s. The involvement of white, middle class students was what made middle America sit up and take notice of the civil rights struggle. No amount of MLK speeches had the impact in the American heart land that the white student protesters had. Unfortunately white Americans didn’t listen to the uppity negro protesting a racist system, not much has changed on that front actually.

If Peterson has his way, those people would have been at home until they were old enough and wise enough to protest. Which is complete and total BS.

Nothing has been achieved by people sitting around silently in the face of injustice.

And yes, he does stand for it. I’ve heard him say it quite firmly a few times. I am not reducing him to this one thing, I’m merely pointing out it’s one issue I have with his ideas. One of many.

The real big one is his belief in god.

Sorry I can't quote right now but I disagree that it's objectively wrong, you just seem to have such conviction in your opinion (of how history unfolded, the impact of protests for example) that it feels objective to you.

The rest of your post is a strong and valid argument, maybe it is indeed wrong to dismiss young people's views like he does, it warrants further exploration.

The God thing yeah, I've a problem with that too. But I do wonder how else we know right from wrong, and we understand that's it's a better option to be good than to be bad. Still not strong enough to make me "turn to" God.

RandomName2

Brian? wrote: »

Just want to be clear, you’ve edited a very select piece of my post. What are you looking for a quote of him saying? I’m afraid there’s a misunderstanding in the offing.

The 'young people shouldn't protest' thing. Was he talking about people, in general, or very specific people?

Mountainsandh

Oh and Brian, I forgot to say ... who cares what he tells young people to do or not do ? He's not passing that into law like. He's just as free to speak out what he thinks as you or I, it's not like it's going to stop them doing it. That's freedom of speech, in the same way you have a right to say you think it's wrong.

The "picking a subset of society based on their age is wrong" bit, that doesn't hold really with me. Yeah, there's some generalization there, and we know that's generally not a good idea, but he is generalizing for a pretty good reason insofar as he's a psychologist, and he knows better than most about human development.

I'd like to hear the bit you are incensed about too, if you don't mind, it would help judge if he was indeed a bit too angry and got carried away, or if he was a bit more specific.

I'm only guessing that this was said in relation to a specific group of students who have a gripe against him, more than likely from the University of Toronto, and possibly from a few US universities (I've a notion I heard him mention a uni in Virginia some time).

storker

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Sorry I'm quoting a post not addressed to me,

Ego te absolvo.

but can i suggest two answers to your questions ?
The first is that the thread was originally about that interview, not necessarily the greater body of work of JP.

You beat me to it.

The second, well again I really don't mean that to be incendiary, but who is going to launch themselves into tirades to try and 're-explain or paraphrase complicated theories that a professor with years of experience sometimes finds hard to articulate himself, when they know that posters such as yourself, with a dislike for the man and a point scoring attitude are ready to pounce ?

Agreed, and there is the futility factor. It's rare enough to see agreement between two sides even in a discussion of history. A debate about philosophy with political baggage attached? Forget it.

Mountainsandh

storker wrote: »

Agreed, and there is the futility factor. It's rare enough to see agreement between two sides even in a discussion of history. A debate about philosophy with political baggage attached? Forget it.

I like discussing things online, and I enjoy a bit of thinking when I watch (listen to) the videos, but given the option you describe above or a bout of Netflix, I'll opt for Netflix.

storker

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

because of his stuff about left wing attacks on free speech on american university campuses (not sure why we should care about that, but aparently some people here do).

Pure Us vs. Them team support.

Trends in the US have a way of making their way here. University-educated people are more likely to find themselves in positions of influence and/or authority, and bring their prejudices with them. That's OK, as long as a broad spectrum of opinion is being represented in this way, but if universities are seeking to homogenise opinion, and to combine this with suppression of the free exchange of ideas, then that is a problem for people who value independent thinking and cross-pollination of thought.

For my own part, I have two daughters who will be reaching their university years before too long, and I would prefer that they be educated rather than indoctrinated. Of course, this is less of a problem in STEM studies there it's easier to prove things right or wrong, but in the humanities it seems it be an issue, where it's easier to view things through the prism of one's pet political/social philosophy.

In short, I dislike groupthink - don't you?

storker

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I like discussing things online, and I enjoy a bit of thinking when I watch (listen to) the videos, but given the option you describe above or a bout of Netflix, I'll opt for Netflix.

As a French Revolutionary & Napoleonic Wars (1792-1815) military history buff, I have trawled through many a debate about this or that, but yes, when the mud starts to be slung around and I sense that there's nothing else to be learned, I lose interest.

On one discussion board I visit there was a debate some years ago that went on for ages between two published historians over who invented the bricole (a means of using manpower and harness to move an artillery piece a short distance): the French or the Austrians. One author was a fan of the Grande Armee, the other a fan of the Austrian Archduke Karl (probably the most decent-skin commander of the period). This went on for quite a while with no definitive outcome, but multiple ban-hammerings and a legacy of bitterness that is still there years later. The debate has since attained a kind of legendary status and is still referred to in jest, or as a metaphor for protracted and pointless debate.

Mountainsandh

storker wrote: »

As a French Revolutionary & Napoleonic Wars (1792-1815) military history buff, I have trawled through many a debate about this or that, but yes, when the mud starts to be slung around and I sense that there's nothing else to be learned, I lose interest.

On one discussion board I visit there was a debate some years ago that went on for ages between two published historians over who invented the bricole (a means of using manpower and harness to move an artillery piece a short distance): the French or the Austrians. One author was a fan of the Grande Armee, the other a fan of the Austrian Archduke Karl (probably the most decent-skin commander of the period). This went on for quite a while with no definitive outcome, but multiple ban-hammerings and a legacy of bitterness that is still there years later. The debate has since attained a kind of legendary status and is still referred to in jest, or as a metaphor for protracted and pointless debate.

Interesting ! "se disputer pour des bricoles" would be to argue over inconsequential things

I didn't know (or rather didn't remember maybe as I seem to have a vague notion I had heard about that before long long ago maybe as a child) what a bricole was, I only knew the casual meanings (ie inconsequential thing and/or something engineered, like a little implement that the speaker cannot fully fathom).

Zubeneschamali

storker wrote: »

In short, I dislike groupthink - don't you?

No. I think the American fetish for allowing actual Nazis to parade around in the name of unfettered "free speech" is abhorrent. I think inviting defenders of such abhorrence to speak to students in the name of combating groupthink is inviting a student riot.

storker

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No. I think the American fetish for allowing actual Nazis to parade around in the name of unfettered "free speech" is abhorrent. I think inviting defenders of such abhorrence to speak to students in the name of combating groupthink is inviting a student riot.

"Fetish"...good one....well not really. What you refer to as a fetish is actually a more nuanced view of the free speech question, where the US has concluded that supporting the principle of free speech is important enough that it will sometimes involve allowing unsavoury types to spout their preferred rubbish, but that is a price worth paying because suppression of free speech is actually more dangerous. And in any case, anti-nazis have the same right which they may exercise in response, which would be more impressive than running to teacher...

Your comment also looks suspiciously like an attempt at the left's tired old tactic of "free speech supporter = nazi supporter". It's nonsense, and its practioners should either tell the truth, assuming they're aware of it, or step outside their echo chambers and find out. They are not only silencing nazis - far from it...unless they're using that (equally tired) petulant definition that includes anyone who isn't as far left as they are.

By the way, the students do have the option of exercising some self restraint, or maybe just demolishing their opponents' opinions in open debate. Unfortunately the tendency to riot and disrupt rather than engage and defeat suggests that they lack confidence in their own intellectual firepower.

WinnyThePoo

Nothing good can come from neo Nazi's and white supremacists.

Nice chinos though.

RandomName2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No. I think the American fetish for allowing actual Nazis to parade around

Are there many NSDAP members left in the united states? Were you looking for the term 'racist' and wanted to spice it up a bit?

How about a parade in support of a Black Panther member killed or arrested? What about a parade in support of Myanmar's government? Or the Communist Party of america? Are these things you think should be banned?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

defenders of such abhorrence

Basket of deplorable territory I think!

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

to speak to students in the name of combating groupthink is inviting a student riot.

I can't be responsible for my actions if I feel my point of view is adequately vindicated.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No.

Edit: almost missed this response to 'do you dislike groupthink'

storker

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Nothing good can come from neo Nazi's and white supremacists.

I agree.

Nice chinos though.

I didn't realise they'd given up the short jeans. Yes, chinos always look good. Please tell me they're not tucking them into their boots...if so better call the style police along with local law enforcement.

RandomName2

storker wrote: »

I didn't realise they'd given up the short jeans. Yes, chinos always look good. Please tell me they're not tucking them into their boots...if so better call the style police along with local law enforcement.

Better than the actual Nazis and their embarrassing lederhosen.

Zubeneschamali

RandomName2 wrote: »

Better than the actual Nazis and their embarrassing lederhosen.

The actual nazi uniforms were Hugo Boss and rather snappy.

Zubeneschamali

RandomName2 wrote: »

How about a parade in support of a Black Panther member killed or arrested? What about a parade in support of Myanmar's government? Or the Communist Party of america? Are these things you think should be banned

The fact that you think any of those are on a par with actual Nazis is telling.