Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Akrasia

Zorya wrote: »

I don't know if there are ''plenty'' on the left who have called out the tyranny of political correctness. But I know quite little of the area, so...

https://youtu.be/rtYp6nn9-eE

pumpkin4life

silverharp wrote: »

so you are saying he was wrong to improve his health ?

Also all you need to do is take a look at him now, verses a couple of years ago.

Here's a video of him from a few years ago.

Here's a video of him today.

He looks good. Plenty of evidence from different tribes (Eskimos are a good example) eat all meat diets and it works ok.

I couldn't do it because of the lack of variety, but close to this diet works extremely well for me (I'd say my diet is about 70% meat) and can be a life changer for many.

No dumber than being a vegan anyway.

pumpkin4life

RandomName2 wrote: »

Those videos are low quality. The speakers have no script, they are rambling, they don't edit themselves. They have put in minimum effort.

The first guy seems to be complaining that Peterson gets lots of money by talking and the second guy seems toe be complaining that Peterson repeats himself. Do I have that about right - I couldn't make it through most of either video.

First guy: Peterson signed up with the agency CAA, the agency that Harvey Weinstein was part of. They're looking to give him his own T.V show, but the deal was that Peterson would have to dial down/towards being more left. CAA is a massively leftist organization so the Kavanaugh tweet and the recent pro democrat videos area response to this. Also that Peterson has had three sexual harassment cases against him, so what he did here makes him a giant hypocrite and liar. He'll become more left wing as time goes on, for his personal gain.

Second guy: Peterson is poorly read, incoherent and massively contradictory (his crap with darwinistic truth) in his points and ideas , while having delusions of grandeur and severe mental health issues (he writes in Maps of Meaning about eating his cousin and incest with his grandmother) to boot. Also a liar in relation to Joe Rogan, saying stupid bullshìt about not sleeping at all for 25 days because of trying some apple cider.

Zorya

Akrasia wrote: »

https://youtu.be/rtYp6nn9-eE

Vaguely amusing at best.

In other news the UK has decided not to offer asylum to Asia Bibi, released recently after 8 years in jail in Pakistan for blasphemy, and fleeing public mobs who bay for her death, because offering her refuge might inflame certain communities and cause public disorder. Maybe your friend there could make a few wisecracks about that.

Brian?

Zorya wrote: »

I suppose I mean modern liberals. I used neo in the sense of ''new'', I don't keep completely up to date with current terminology. It changes anyway, as far as I can make out. The definition of liberal is quite different now from its clasical one.

That’s fine. I didn’t ask to be pedantic, I asked for clarity.

Afraid to say I am not overly familiar with Zizek, have listened here and there to him, or at least tried to, but I find him unbearable to follow - his slurps and nervous tics and rambling discourses make me switch off. His defense of Avital Ronell seemed (potentially) self serving to me - skeletons in his cupboard perhaps? There are other dubious issues which I would have to do a lot more research on regarding Zizek's political theories (his espousal of ''terror'' or ''divine violence'' in the ''revolution'', for example), so I cannot offer a full comment on him right now.

If you can’t listen to him the read some articles. His output is prodigious. He just doesn’t have a YouTube channel or a podcast. I won’t get bogged down on the stuff above, suffice it to say Zizek and Peterson probably 99% agree on political correctness

I don't know if there are ''plenty'' on the left who have called out the tyranny of political correctness. But I know quite little of the area, so...

There are. I would say the majority of people on the left believe in free speech and dislike “political correctness “. However they probably define it a little differently. People don’t pay attention to them though.

flexcon

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Based on his qualifications I thought he was a clever, educated man and hence that the populist nonsense he has been making a tonne of money from in recent years was just a cynical ploy to extract cash from the easily impressed.

But no - he is actually an idiot himself on scientific questions, he is not pretending just to fleece idiots.

Careful now. You are attacking the very idea of Keto diets. Hundreds of Thousands of people are on this diet. The only thing we know for sure is you're sorta a pleb and intolerable to other ideas outside the mainstream consensus. Pity. You learn F*ck all there.

Brian?

flexcon wrote: »

Careful now. You are attacking the very idea of Keto diets. Hundreds of Thousands of people are on this diet. The only thing we know for sure is you're sorta a pleb and intolerable to other ideas outside the mainstream consensus. Pity. You learn F*ck all there.

The keto diet includes more than just eating beef.

flexcon

Brian? wrote: »

The keto diet includes more than just eating beef.

Well aware of it. That's what I meant Diet(s), what he is doing is practicing one branch of this. Keto Diets vary on tolerance and to what extreme carb cutting you go to.

I didn't want to get into specifics as its not needed here.

alaimacerc

mcmoustache wrote: »

Those videos are about as informative as "JORDAN PETERSON CRUSHES LIB CUCK FEMINIST ON HER OWN SHOW" type videos.

Can (female) feminists be "cucks"? I thought the whole point of these alt-right insults-by-the-numbers was they exhibited very strong gender agreement.

alaimacerc

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

You're grasping at straws if you're trying to discredit the man based on his diet.

More like, cruelly running up the score on him, when the game's already a blow-out.

Standman

Jordan Peterson's no fool! In fact, he's a genous!

alaimacerc

Standman wrote: »

Jordan Peterson's no fool! In fact, he's a genous!

A vory stoble genous?

cloudatlas

https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/9pan7h/i_took_my_girlfriend_to_see_jordan_peterson/e80aqmh/?sort=controversial

Hilarious thread, guy gets dumped because of his obsession with Jordan.

El_Duderino 09

cloudatlas wrote: »

https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/9pan7h/i_took_my_girlfriend_to_see_jordan_peterson/e80aqmh/?sort=controversial

Hilarious thread, guy gets dumped because of his obsession with Jordan.

I'd say this character learned everything he knows about brevity from Peterson.

Outlaw Pete

On with Rogan again, must be the 4th or 5th time....... not complaining, love their chats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIeFt88Hm8s

Dyr

If you were playing the Rogan/Peterson drinking game you'd be half cut already. Class

Akrasia

This is hilarious.
https://youtu.be/buD2RM0xChM

AllForIt

Akrasia wrote: »

This is hilarious.
https://youtu.be/buD2RM0xChM

Whether you love or hate JP eveyone should find that hilarious! Brilliant.

Mountainsandh

Brilliant ! I've a sneaking suspicion the Peter Jordanson in the comments is none other than JP.

Mountainsandh

For the naysayers from some pages back.

Brian?

Mountainsandh wrote: »

For the naysayers from some pages back.

[/IMG]

I'm surprised it's happening but very happy it is. I predict the Peterson acolytes will claim victory no matter what, but I expect Zizek to be charming and entertaining enough to win over the neutrals.

It will be quite the contrast. Peterson is polished, well dressed and well spoken. Zizek has a number of verbal and physical ticks and often looks like he's dressed by a care worker with clothes from a charity bin. Zizek likes telling dirty jokes and Peterson is very serious. I look forward to seeing the recordings.

Mountainsandh

Brian? wrote: »

I'm surprised it's happening but very happy it is. I predict the Peterson acolytes will claim victory no matter what, but I expect Zizek to be charming and entertaining enough to win over the neutrals.

It will be quite the contrast. Peterson is polished, well dressed and well spoken. Zizek has a number of verbal and physical ticks and often looks like he's dressed by a care worker with clothes from a charity bin. Zizek likes telling dirty jokes and Peterson is very serious. I look forward to seeing the recordings.

This concept of win or lose is entirely yours.
Peterson never presents his talks in this manner.

It's not Peterson vs Zizek, it's Peterson and Zizek on Happiness : Capitalism vs. Marxism.

Peterson just wants to discuss, not win, always. Detractors seem to have issues grasping that concept.

Brian?

Mountainsandh wrote: »

This concept of win or lose is entirely yours.
Peterson never presents his talks in this manner.

It's not Peterson vs Zizek, it's Peterson and Zizek on Happiness : Capitalism vs. Marxism.

Peterson just wants to discuss, not win, always. Detractors seem to have issues grasping that concept.

It's not his "detractors" that paint it in these terms. It's his supporters, or a large subset of them. Type "Jordan Peterson" + any of the terms owns, crushes, destroys or schools into YouTube and you'll see exactly what I mean.

Peterson won't claim to win or lose, which is to his credit. It's his acolytes that will claim victory. Which is exactly what I said above.

Some Zizek supporters will do the same obviously. But I have yet to see a video where Zizek "owns" someone on YouTube.

The concept of win or lose isn't entirely mine. It's in the minds of fanboys. Do you disagree?

Brian?

Also, I never said Zizek will win the debate. There's nothing to win or lose. I said he'd win over neutrals, I think he's a largely unknown commodity compared to Peterson.

Mountainsandh

Brian? wrote: »

It's not his "detractors" that paint it in these terms. It's his supporters, or a large subset of them. Type "Jordan Peterson" + any of the terms owns, crushes, destroys or schools into YouTube and you'll see exactly what I mean.

Peterson won't claim to win or lose, which is to his credit. It's his acolytes that will claim victory. Which is exactly what I said above.

Some Zizek supporters will do the same obviously. But I have yet to see a video where Zizek "owns" someone on YouTube.

The concept of win or lose isn't entirely mine. It's in the minds of fanboys. Do you disagree?

I agree.

I know what idiots you're talking about, and it's true, but take my word as testimony that not all supporters think like that, since ... I am a supporter and I don't. Like many others.

The idiots are just louder.

Mountainsandh

Brian? wrote: »

Also, I never said Zizek will win the debate. There's nothing to win or lose. I said he'd win over neutrals, I think he's a largely unknown commodity compared to Peterson.

You do indulge in a bit of that "win/lose" slant.

I prefer to think of it as a fierce interesting discussion, and entertaining, like you said.

Certainly a discussion we're all likely to learn some things from, maybe change our respective thinking(s) on various things.

I find it hard to listen to Zizek, but hopefully a video will be produced and I'll definitely watch it.

Arne_Saknussem

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I agree.

I know what idiots you're talking about, and it's true, but take my word as testimony that not all supporters think like that, since ... I am a supporter and I don't. Like many others.

The idiots are just louder.

It's basic clickbaiting, to claim large swathes of people who agree with things he says act like this is moronic.

Brian?

Mountainsandh wrote: »

You do indulge in a bit of that "win/lose" slant.

No, I don't. How can I be clearer about it than saying I don't?

I prefer to think of it as a fierce interesting discussion, and entertaining, like you said.

Certainly a discussion we're all likely to learn some things from, maybe change our respective thinking(s) on various things.

I find it hard to listen to Zizek, but hopefully a video will be produced and I'll definitely watch it.

So don't listen to him. Read his articles or books. His output is prodigious.

Brian?

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I agree.

I know what idiots you're talking about, and it's true, but take my word as testimony that not all supporters think like that, since ... I am a supporter and I don't. Like many others.

The idiots are just louder.

Agreed. These are the idiots I am referring to as acolytes. I though this was pretty clear.

Mountainsandh

Brian? wrote: »

Agreed. These are the idiots I am referring to as acolytes. I though this was pretty clear.

Acolytes seems to imply some reciprocity, imo. I don't think JP approves of their antics.

Maybe to avoid confusion, avoid semantics of "win/lose" in your posts ?
It really just antagonizes anyone reading it, even if it's not your own stance.

I'm not giving out, simply pointing out that if you mention win/lose re supporters/detractors in your posts as above, it is likely to cause someone reading it to take sides or to infer what side you may be on.

Just like the click baits.