Jordan Peterson interview on C4

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.

El_Duderino 09

Mountainsandh wrote: »

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.

You might or might not have noticed that I didn’t ‘pounce’ on your summary of Peterson’s idea when you outlined it. I don’t think anyone else critiqued the summary either (but I could be wrong). Im pretty sure not be of Peterson’s fans even attempted to discuss the summary.
I credited you with trying to understand it and said that it’s one of almost endless hypothesis about how things work. When you combine a social science with philosophy and then bring a god into the equation, you’re multiplying the variables. It becomes very difficult to tell it apart from complete gobbledygook. You acknowledged you can’t tell how close to correct Peterson’s hypothesise are.

I think a lot of this point scoring is in your imagination.

El_Duderino 09

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.

But you can get a discussion about historical events. You can get a discussion about politics. But i am yet to see a discussion of Peterson’s hypotheses.

What’s the rationale? People wouldn’t agree so there’s no point even beginning a discussion, declare Peterson a genius and move on. Tell anyone who doesn’t agree that they need more Peterson. That seems to be exactly what his followers do.

Do you personally feel you could discuss his hypotheses? Pick them apart and discuss them the way you would discuss any other topic?

RandomName2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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

The fact that you don't is even more.

I personally feel that everyone should be treated equally before the law. Making special cases to satisfy a type of psychological tribalism has few morally sound motives.

RandomName2

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

declare Peterson a genius and move on.

I dare you. I double dare you, find someone.. anyone.. on this thread declaring him a genius in anything other than an ironic fashion.

I love the smell of lobster in the morning.

Mountainsandh

Sorry just for clarity the summarizing I was on about was the tidbits I posted while talking to Brian below :

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.

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.

But you're right I attempted another bit (prior to.response to Brian), and I agree that philosophy + psychology + sociology + theology is bound to be messy, and boy is it confusing.

I think I'm just starting to understand that you are referring to the short video guys, maybe.
The way I see it, there's people who are interested in JP's theories at the same level as other academical stuff (ie, people who might listen to other academics as well, and might agree with bits and pieces from various people including JP). I would count myself as one of them, and we don't tend to post videos or whatever, just listen to different academic stuff, find some we click with, other bits we don't.

Then there's all the vocal ones on both sides : the haters who post edited videos with an obvious incendiary and misinforming purpose, and the followers who rely on short (sometimes "inspirational") extracts and posit that the man has it all sussed, without much of an effort to understand the hard stuff.

Thing is, you have to acknowledge that while it's true that sometimes people get over-enthusiastic and profess support maybe a little blindingly, the haters do the exact same thing.

So the advice to go and listen to more of his stuff stands really. If you're one of these people who hates or loves too quickly in life, then you're not thinking enough, and you really should make it your business to find out more about things, to make your opinion up on more substantial stuff. In other words, try and learn more, I think it applies to all in life.
And there's plenty to learn in his lectures and discussions. Not saying it all has to be agreed with.

When you combine a social science with philosophy and then bring a god into the equation, you’re multiplying the variables. It becomes very difficult to tell it apart from complete gobbledygook. You acknowledged you can’t tell how close to correct Peterson’s hypothesise are.

No, you said I can't tell if they are correct or not. (not "close to correct")

Hypotheses and theories are never proven correct or not, some may have stronger evidence than others, but they are not facts.

Since JP deals in sciences where (as you acknowledge) it is very difficult to prove one thing or another, it can't be stated that this one is wrong, or that one is correct, and it's even more nonsensical to demand that listeners (however academic) tell whether that particular theory is correct or this hypothesis is wrong.

Sure he himself doesn't categorically say he's correct about things. He seems more confident about some things than others, but the fact that he engages in discussions such as the one with Sam Harris for example, illustrates how he is open to challenge and further investigation.

The steel manning at the start of the discussions above shows this well : Sam Harris saying "JP thinks that ... according to him... his idea is that...", and then JP doing the exact same thing : "Sam is of the opinion that... Sam's theory is that ... Sam's point of view is that..."

How can you still ask how a listener should decide one thing is correct or not in Sam Harris, or Jordan Peterson's, or other academics' discussions or lectures ?

It just doesn't make sense.

I can attempt to judge (for myself) which theory or which hypothesis is the strongest, in my opinion.
I simply cannot tell whether it is correct, as neither of them (academics) can.

Brian?

RandomName2 wrote: »

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

He was talking about young people, he wasn't exactly clear about when they stopped being young and started being old enough to protest.

His general point was: "What do they know, they haven't sorted out their own lives yet."