Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Widdershins

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

I thought that was what you guys liked

Excuse me? What/which guys? Are you confusing me with someone else?

I do hope you can clarify that so I don't have to report that vile comment!

givyjoe

Widdershins wrote: »

Excuse me? What/which guys? Are you confusing me with someone else?

I do hope you can clarify that so I don't have to report that vile comment!

Are the hysterics really necessary?

On the original list. Not sure how you've come to the conclusion that any of the selected points were woman hating, stupid 'bro-science' bullsh1t maybe.

s7ryf3925pivug

Widdershins wrote: »

Excuse me? What/which guys? Are you confusing me with someone else?

I do hope you can clarify that so I don't have to report that vile comment!

I have no idea who you are, or what else you've posted. I'm making fun of people who like Peterson and his crappy self help dressed up like something deep. If you're offended at the idea of being included in that then good for you.

Widdershins

What a collection of charmers.

I've never expressed any interest in Peterson before. No hysterics, just objection to being, out of the blue and for no reason, accused of being one of a mystery group of misogynists.

Right, time to opt out of this one. Hope some of you get the help you need.

PS: I objected to that list without even knowing who wrote it.

Widdershins

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

I have no idea who you are, or what else you've posted. I'm making fun of people who like Peterson and his crappy self help dressed up like something deep. If you're offended at the idea of being included in that then good for you.

Why did you reply to my comment? What have these people got to do with me? Bizarre...and of course you lack the grace to apologise.

s7ryf3925pivug

Widdershins wrote: »

Why did you reply to my comment? What have these people got to do with me? Bizarre...and of course you lack the grace to apologise.

It was more that I didn't think you'd care about an apology from a random internet troll. I know It's not nice to feel attacked on a forum though. I am sorry. Nothing personal here at all.

benjamin d

cantdecide wrote: »

3rd wave is /insert term of ridicule/. 2nd wave has won the war albeit with a handful of battles in the West but with a lot more it could do elsewhere in the world. I don't blame women for wanting advocacy groups but that's not a synonym for equality- I say it's egalitarianism+narcissism - equality for all... but me first.

I don't know you and don't aim this at you but whenever I hear men declare themselves feminists (in the name of to declaring equality credentials) smacks (to me) of self hatred from decades of brainwashing. Some very smart people are feminists but then again JP, and a lot of other highly intelligent people immersed in the subject denounce feminism as it exists today as a religion bent on indoctrination and self perpetuation.

Meanwhile the vast majority of homeless are men, the vast majority of suicides are boys, the vast majority of war deaths are men, the vast majority of child custody goes to women, men lead shorter live, and boys are doing increasingly worse in all levels of education but no one seems to care... which patriarchy is to blame for, apparently.

The upshot is that boys are the ones who need a voice today (and not just in the name of destruction of the patriarchy).

Here's an extensive interview between JP and 2nd wave feminist Camille Paglia - spoiler: they agree on almost everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM

You didn't read my post at all beyond the bit you bolded.

cantdecide

benjamin d wrote: »

You didn't read my post at all beyond the bit you bolded.

I did but it wasn't relevant to my response. I was addressing the notion of male feminists more than I was responding to you personally. The term you may advocate for may be egalitarianism but that largely means taking the 'me first' away from activism. So the term that may best describe female advocacy may still be 'feminism' even if fringe groups have distorted its meaning.

My point is that even if you subscribe to 2nd wave feminism and condemn 3rd wave feminism, 'male feminists' still do a disservice to boys who haven't had politicised zealots with institutional power advocating for their interests for decades.

The question is if it's better for our society to be a [male] feminist or an egalitarian?

benjamin d

cantdecide wrote: »

I did but it wasn't relevant to my response. I was addressing the notion of male feminists more than I was responding to you personally. The term you may advocate for may be egalitarianism but that largely means taking the 'me first' away from activism. So the term that may best describe female advocacy may still be 'feminism' even if fringe groups have distorted its meaning.

My point is that even if you subscribe to 2nd wave feminism and condemn 3rd wave feminism, 'male feminists' still do a disservice to boys who haven't had politicised zealots with institutional power advocating for their interests for decades.

The question is if it's better for our society to be a [male] feminist or an egalitarian?

You're splitting hairs there. My point was exactly the same as what your reply was getting at, which is that feminism USED TO BE a force for good and something that any man or woman could get behind. I don't know why you made it a rebuttal to my comment just because you don't like the word feminist, because that was my point!

cantdecide

I bolded your statement that you "would be" a "male feminist" and I responded to that part of your statement. It's that simple.

Regarding the word 'feminist', my point is another simple one. You appear to be positing that 'feminism' is a synonym for 'egalitarianism' and I posit that it is absolutely not; not before and definitely not now. I'm not saying that feminism has always been a bad thing but I'm saying it has become it.

I only warn that conflating these two very different things is bad for boys. If you have egalitarian principles, then you should probably state that you are an egalitarian. If you want egalitarian principles for women first, you need to call yourself a feminist as this is an accurate statement. I can't be clearer than that, can I?

silverharp

it kinda comes down to equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome and that's with the proviso that equality doesn't really exist when you get down to the individual level. Equality of outcome is not a desirable aim

Zulu

Widdershins wrote: »

I do hope you can clarify that so I don't have to report that vile comment!

Fu*k me! :rolleyes:

laserlad2010

Zulu wrote: »

Fu*k me! :rolleyes:

I've never seen someone so fragile on an internet board... and that's saying something

Widdershins

laserlad2010 wrote: »

I've never seen someone so fragile on an internet board... and that's saying something

You must read a lot into what you read then. 'Vile' was an overreaction, but it's none of your business-it wasn't about you.
Accusing someone of something -like 'enjoying' rapey misogynist stuff-at random, that they just said they thought was unpleasant, is out of order. No surprise Boards is asking users how best to retain numbers, when people get jumped on.
But it's already cleared up, no need for the sh1t stirring.

There was a range of comments toward me already, laughably, from people with totally different views, all berating me for either supporting or criticising the person who wrote the list. It looks like most of you are incapable of actually reading what's in front of you without having a go at the poster.

johnp001

The Times - Melanie Phillips - Defenders of free speech have a new prophet wrote:

...
The issue, however, is not Newman but what she represents: the culturally dominant dogma that certain ideological beliefs are indisputably true. When the evidence shows they are wrong it is therefore the evidence, not the beliefs, which must be knocked down.

For Peterson, who reportedly holds many liberal views, the concern is not over transgender issues or pay gaps or any of today’s causes. It is rather that truth and freedom are now under assault from neo-Marxism, which defines everything in terms of relativism and power and which has taken over the universities.
...
More...

I don't agree with a lot of this journalist's positions on other subjects but this article was an informative commentary on the Peterson-Newman interview.

fattymuatty

benjamin d wrote: »

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

I await retribution.

That is your experience, it isn't mine. Some people may be happy to walk away and leave feminism to half wits, others stay and fight for what they believe in.

Will I Am Not

Canadian and US universities are the absolute pits going on what I’ve seen in videos such as the one linked here.

I honestly wouldn’t know how to address a lot of the people that appear in them. I find myself thinking “is that a man or a woman” an awful lot.
Is it just me or is there a lot of acting out when it comes to the whole sexual identity thing in those places?
The numbers just appear way out of proportion.

Mutant z

Anyone who exposes the whole feminist agenda for the farce it is has my support.

A Little Pony

conorhal wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well sarcasm aside the essential political tool is the same:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



.

Well done to this man in the fight against SJW tyranny.

xckjoo

20Cent wrote: »

His idea that "radical leftists" or "Postmodern neo-Marxists are trying to destroy society. Bit of a conspiracy theory. Most of what he says is totally rational and not controversial at all. But he does come out with the odd mad bit.

I see what you mean, but I don't think he states that anywhere does he? At least not as a "they are out there planning ways to destroy society". Seemed to be more about how these extreme views could result in very negative consequences for our social structure.

Widdershins

If they aim to dismantle the patriarchy, then they're going have to try to destroy anything they deem to be patriarchal. Not too much of a reach. They view society itself as a patriarchy....

A Little Pony

Widdershins wrote: »

If they aim to dismantle the patriarchy, then they're going have to try to destroy anything they deem to be patriarchal. Not too much of a reach. They view society itself as a patriarchy....

It's a lot of absolute nonsense and people who believe this tripe need a word with themselves.

storker

B0jangles wrote: »

Did I say his opinion of how to address transgender people came up in that video?

https://youtu.be/SiijS_9hPkM?t=92

He makes his position quite clear in this one. He thinks his personal principals are more important than treating other people with basic respect and good manners.

Watch it at 1:37, where he makes clear what his position is, and it isn't what you have suggested above. Are you Cathy Newman, by any chance?

Pa ElGrande

20Cent wrote: »

Ever see Noam Chomsky getting into twitter fights with journalists or celebrities?

Here is some vintage Chomsky expressing the thoughts that Peterson often warns against.


Chomsky on the brutality of the National Liberation Front in Vietnam.

Chomsky wrote:

As to the NLF terror, I think Dr. Arendt and I agree in conclusion but probably disagree on the reasons. For me, her vision is too absolutistic. I don’t accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this — and I think we should — we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified. But, as I said before, I don’t think it was the use of terror that led to the successes that were achieved.

source

Chomsky, when the original Khmer Rouge atrocity stories came out, in an effort to defend someone he admired, Pol Pot.

Chomsky wrote:

Refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocuters wish to hear. While these reports must be considered seriously, care and caution are necessary. Specifically, refugees questioned by Westerners or Thais have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of Cambodian revolutionaries, an obvious fact that no serious reporter will fail to take into account.

source

Chomsky in 1967, 5 years after the end of the great Chinese famine of 1958-1962, the worst in human history killing an approximate 30 million people as a direct result of the very collectivization he endorsed.

Chomsky wrote:

But I do think that China is an important example of a new society in which very interesting positive things happened at the local level, in which a good deal of the collectivization and communization was really based on mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry that led to this next step.

source

Outlaw Pete

First 30 mins or so of the following interview is Jordan commenting on the reaction to the interview with Newman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK2-xYyNpYk

Brian?

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Here is some vintage Chomsky expressing the thoughts that Peterson often warns against.


Chomsky on the brutality of the National Liberation Front in Vietnam.




Chomsky, when the original Khmer Rouge atrocity stories came out, in an effort to defend someone he admired, Pol Pot.




Chomsky in 1967, 5 years after the end of the great Chinese famine of 1958-1962, the worst in human history killing an approximate 30 million people as a direct result of the very collectivization he endorsed.

That’s the most detailed ad hominem attacks I’ve ever seen. Kudos.

I backed Man City to win the premier league last year and Ronnie O’Sullivan to win the masters this year. Does this mean you can’t believe me when I say the earth isn’t flat?

johnp001

Brian? wrote: »

That’s the most detailed ad hominem attacks I’ve ever seen. Kudos.

I backed Man City to win the premier league last year and Ronnie O’Sullivan to win the masters this year. Does this mean you can’t believe me when I say the earth isn’t flat?

That isn't an ad hominem attack.
Ad hominen would be if Chomsky's personal traits were being criticised.
Criticism of someones stated positions is not ad hominem.

Pa ElGrande

A Little Pony wrote: »

It's a lot of absolute nonsense and people who believe this tripe need a word with themselves.

Here is a quick introduction to patriarchy or in the pseudo-science terms Cis-Heterosexual-Male Supremacy. It's a long time since I did the leaving cert and there is also womens studies in some of the universities in this country that import much of their curriculum from the US universities.

Other examples:

Cis Het Patriarchy is everywhere

Changing Ireland's patriarchal political culture

National Womens Council of Ireland

DEFTLEFTHAND

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Here is a quick introduction to patriarchy or in the pseudo-science terms Cis-Heterosexual-Male Supremacy. It's a long time since I did the leaving cert and there is also womens studies in some of the universities in this country that import much of their curriculum from the US universities.

Other examples:

Cis Het Patriarchy is everywhere

Changing Ireland's patriarchal political culture

National Womens Council of Ireland

Why is pseudoscience being taught in University?

People spend 4 years of their lives studying these things. It's sad really.

Pa ElGrande

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Why is pseudoscience being taught in University?

People spend 4 years of their lives studying these things. It's sad really.

There appears to be a market for it, so while someone is willing to pay for it then the universities will sell it, what happens to their ex-students is not their concern. The expansion of courses in Critical theory (Cultural Marxism) and various resentment studies courses is tied to the expansion of the university system through cheap debt over the past few decades. These course do not require much intellectual effort so they are and easy way to expand the number of students in the university system and the administration that goes with that. The problem is these students don't stay in university forever, they have to get a job top pay back their student loans, this material does not qualify them for any profession in particular.