Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Franz Von Peppercorn

Zorya wrote: »

Yeah its quite good comparatively.

I've a good pal who is very clever and JP drives him into a cold rage. He agrees with me that Peterson called out the bullsh!t of present times but says he offers little further substance and is little more than a pop psychologist. He undermines true intellectuality according to my pal, and I think there is some substance to that. The unfortunate thing is the wider lack of thinkers of substance to provide real worthy opposition to so called progressive or neoliberal ideology. Guess we will all have to think critically for ourselves and not follow anyone blindly.

That’s right. I bought his book and couldn’t complete it. It’s just because the world is crazier than his less crazy ideas he seems sane.

Brian?

Zorya wrote: »

Yeah its quite good comparatively.

I've a good pal who is very clever and JP drives him into a cold rage. He agrees with me that Peterson called out the bullsh!t of present times but says he offers little further substance and is little more than a pop psychologist. He undermines true intellectuality according to my pal, and I think there is some substance to that. The unfortunate thing is the wider lack of thinkers of substance to provide real worthy opposition to so called progressive or neoliberal ideology. Guess we will all have to think critically for ourselves and not follow anyone blindly.

There are plenty on the left who call out the so called “SJWs”. Slavoj Zizek being a great example, have you heard his views on political correctness or transgender issues? I don’t always agree with him but he’s extremely intelligent and delivers his message with great humour sometimes.

Are you using neoliberal right? Do you mean modern liberals?

2 Scoops

xckjoo wrote: »

I think you've done a decent job of summarizing things here. Peterson is a microcosm of how society is these days; or at least "online" society (I still think people are at least semi-moderate in real life). The so-called "outrage culture" is all part of it. You have to be 100% for or 100% against something. You can't listen to someone like Peterson and say "He has some interesting points. I could do with taking X on-board but I disagree with him on Y". People who like him become zealots who change their every belief to whatever he's last said, or crusaders who must destroy the false messiah, sent here to destroy us all. Or at least that's what the most vocal are like. I'm hoping that the majority of people are reasonable and have the self-confidence and critical thinking ability to see that the world is made up of shades of grey but are sensibly staying mute to avoid the vitriol from both sides.

Such absolute rubbish. Look at my sig if you want a hint why people like him. I haven't changed a single belief since listening to him, only applauding the fact he stood up to these Marxist bullies and faculties posing as professors and intellectuals. The universities are enthralled by these new wave "courses" on feminism, gender and the likes. Pseudo intellectuals teaching pseudo courses pushing a post modernism doctrine.

A bunch of real liberal scholars fooled such academics by creating fake studies and many of them ended up being published. It's truly terrible how many minds are being purposely warped on campus's with this type of indoctrination - there's plenty of footage online of Peterson being swarmed by them. They want no debate and behave like toddlers when their views are scrutinized, either that or through the use of violence and intimidation. It look a lot of guts to do what Peterson did, and sure he's rolling in the dough now through donations and the likes, imo he deserves it. I would shake his hand and not think twice about it.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/10/10/grievance-studies-academia-fake-feminist-hypatia-mein-kampf-racism-column/1575219002/

"Seven of our papers were accepted, many in top-ranking journals. These include an adaptation of Adolf Hitler’s "Mein Kampf," which was accepted by a social work journal. Another develops the concept of “fat bodybuilding” for a discipline called fat studies, and a third claims to address “rape culture” by monitoring dog-humping incidents at dog parks in Southeast Portland, Oregon."

Zorya

Brian? wrote: »

There are plenty on the left who call out the so called “SJWs”. Slavoj Zizek being a great example, have you heard his views on political correctness or transgender issues? I don’t always agree with him but he’s extremely intelligent and delivers his message with great humour sometimes.

Are you using neoliberal right? Do you mean modern liberals?

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.

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.

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...

Zubeneschamali

The interesting thing about his cow diet for me is that it makes me reconsider my whole view of the man. 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.

silverharp

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The interesting thing about his cow diet for me is that it makes me reconsider my whole view of the man....

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

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.