Jordan Peterson interview on C4

sbsquarepants

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I find it funny that he was adamantly against the Canadian human rights act but now he is actually protected by the Americans with disabilities act as an addict and that protects his contracts job etc. And he has criticized such policies before and said questionable things about people with disabilities.

Such as?

I'm by no means knowledgeable about Peterson, i haven't read any of his books for example - but i have seen a fair bit of him on you tube and various other shows etc and i have to say he seems like a rock of sense to me.

I just can't see why the hatred for the man - i find him eminently likeable. Maybe i just haven't seen the right clips but i have never seen him be anything but kind to any group of people.

He calls bullshít when he sees it, but that's hardly a bad thing is it?

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Oh the irony.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I imagine a lot of companies who published him and academic or medical institutions that hired him are worried about their liability now

Why so?

He's not a fúcking meth head - one of the things he has been warning might happen to others has happened to him. If anything it proves he was right to be concerned!

El_Duderino 09

That's horrific, if true.

I wonder what his next book will be about...

Anyone know what's the story with going to Russia for treatment?

sbsquarepants

The gist of it that i got was that there are a subset of people who become rapidly very physically dependent on benzos at prescription doses. The detox for these people is very dangerous and the American centres he went to weren't too inclined to take the risk.

Zubeneschamali

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The gist of it that i got was that there are a subset of people who become rapidly very physically dependent on benzos at prescription doses. The detox for these people is very dangerous and the American centres he went to weren't too inclined to take the risk.

My read is that his nutso daughter trusts Russian quacks.

FTA69

Isn’t he the lad writing books about self-discipline and rules for life etc and now he’s gone mad on benzos and eats nothing but steak? Sounds like the type of lad we shouldn’t be listening to at all really.

Wibbs

FTA69 wrote: »

Isn’t he the lad writing books about self-discipline and rules for life etc and now he’s gone mad on benzos and eats nothing but steak? Sounds like the type of lad we shouldn’t be listening to at all really.

Ahh I dunno FT. Ignoring Peterson for a while I could never get with this notion that someone is, or should be a perfect reflection of their works. The message isn't always the man. It often isn't. I mean Ghandi was a pervert with a god complex, Martin Luther King was a philanderer. Many of the greatest geniuses of humanity that moved us forward as a species in science, philosophy, art were as people complete weirdos and pricks. To the degree that it often seems to be a prerequisite.

B0jangles

With the money he has made in the last few years, surely he has access to absolutely the best medical care in the world - why on earth would he choose to go to Russia for medical treatment?
You'd think that US/Canadian doctors would be very experienced with the best, safest ways to treat people with serious addiction issues? I think I heard he was put in a medically-induced coma for over a week - is that really a clinically-proven detox method? It sounds very strange to me.

sbsquarepants

B0jangles wrote: »

With the money he has made in the last few years, surely he has access to absolutely the best medical care in the world - why on earth would he choose to go to Russia for medical treatment?
You'd think that US/Canadian doctors would be very experienced with the best, safest ways to treat people with serious addiction issues? I think I heard he was put in a medically-induced coma for over a week - is that really a clinically-proven detox method? It sounds very strange to me.

He strikes me as a very smart man, and he could certainly afford the best, maybe he reckons the Russians are the ones to provide it.

Seems to me that every 2nd American is addicted to something because of their doctors. Their whole system seems to be based on a pill for every ill, even when the ill is other pills!

Hoop66

Wibbs wrote: »

Ahh I dunno FT. Ignoring Peterson for a while I could never get with this notion that someone is, or should be a perfect reflection of their works. The message isn't always the man. It often isn't. I mean Ghandi was a pervert with a god complex, Martin Luther King was a philanderer. Many of the greatest geniuses of humanity that moved us forward as a species in science, philosophy, art were as people complete weirdos and pricks. To the degree that it often seems to be a prerequisite.

I would agree, but then the question arises: what has Peterson done to advance us as a species? As far as I can see his output consists of outrageous statements designed to create uproar and keep his name in the public eye.

sbsquarepants

Hoop66 wrote: »

I would agree, but then the question arises: what has Peterson done to advance us as a species? As far as I can see his output consists of outrageous statements designed to create uproar and keep his name in the public eye.

What outrageous statements?

B0jangles

Right now he strikes me as being a very vulnerable man - he's obviously deeply unwell, I believe his wife is also very unwell so I'm wondering if the majority of these decision are being made by his daughter, who is the person who claimed that eating nothing but beef cured all of her ills.

I hope for his sake there is someone else involved - a legal advisor who has the authority to intervene if they think his best interests are not being represented.

EmmetSpiceland

Hoop66 wrote: »

I would agree, but then the question arises: what has Peterson done to advance us as a species? As far as I can see his output consists of outrageous statements designed to create uproar and keep his name in the public eye.

You forgot referencing reams of “studies” that no one is ever going to try and dig out to challenge what he’s said.

nkl12xtw5goz70

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What outrageous statements?

I'd also love some examples of Peterson's "outrageous statements."

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

Ahh I dunno FT. Ignoring Peterson for a while I could never get with this notion that someone is, or should be a perfect reflection of their works. The message isn't always the man. It often isn't. I mean Ghandi was a pervert with a god complex, Martin Luther King was a philanderer. Many of the greatest geniuses of humanity that moved us forward as a species in science, philosophy, art were as people complete weirdos and pricks. To the degree that it often seems to be a prerequisite.

True enough. But where does it turn into hypocrisy? And should hypocrisy matter? Martin Luther loved a bit of philandering but that isn’t really relevant to his civil rights cause.

If a bloke sells a miracle cure for anxiety (among other things) and is at the same time using drugs to deal with his anxiety, when does it become hypocritical?

The stuff about standing up straight, smell the roses, clean your room, pet a cat and wear suncream, is grand. It blends in with the kind if stuff your grandad or Betty down the post office would tell you. So I’d say that’s not affected by hypocrisy or the drug addiction. But the miracle cure for anxiety must be a bit of an embarrassment for anyone who swallowed it without much scrutiny because the great JP said it.

El_Duderino 09

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What outrageous statements?

The climate denial stuff, the meat diet stuff, the trans stuff. It was all about the marketing of outrage. He sides with his target market (conservative American men) on every topic. He threw a red meat diet to his base.

Hoop66

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What outrageous statements?

OK, this is the bit where I quote some of things he's said and you say "that's not an outrageous statement"

No thanks.

ancapailldorcha

FTA69 wrote: »

Isn’t he the lad writing books about self-discipline and rules for life etc and now he’s gone mad on benzos and eats nothing but steak? Sounds like the type of lad we shouldn’t be listening to at all really.

Wibbs wrote: »

Ahh I dunno FT. Ignoring Peterson for a while I could never get with this notion that someone is, or should be a perfect reflection of their works. The message isn't always the man. It often isn't. I mean Ghandi was a pervert with a god complex, Martin Luther King was a philanderer. Many of the greatest geniuses of humanity that moved us forward as a species in science, philosophy, art were as people complete weirdos and pricks. To the degree that it often seems to be a prerequisite.

I read 12 rules. It's a mix of old school Dad advice, ranting about lefties and likening them to Stalinists and some truly bizarre Grandpa Simpson-esque nonsense about existence.

Karl Marx was a notorious antiSemite, even for his time and spent his life sponging off of Friedrich Engels, Padraig Pearse was almost certainly a child molester, Dr. Seuss was a notorious philanderer whose wife took her own life, etc... While it's not hard to find many more such examples, a lot of these people make significant cultural and philosophical contributions. I see none of this from Peterson.

sbsquarepants

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The climate denial stuff, the meat diet stuff, the trans stuff. It was all about the marketing of outrage. He sides with his target market (conservative American men) on every topic. He threw a red meat diet to his base.

As i've said, i'm not all that knowledgeable on the man but anything i've heard him say about the meat thing was his personal experience or his daughters experience. If they say it's worked for them who the hell is anyone to argue?

I mean it's a fúcking weird diet, but if you're judging the man based on what he eats for dinner, maybe you're being a bit too judgemental!

The trans thing? I've heard him talk about trans athletes, is that what you mean? If so i agreed with everything i heard him say, i didn't hear anything outrageous.

I've never heard him speak on climate change but this is what wikipedia says

Climate change

Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change,[135][136] saying he is "very skeptical of the models that are used to predict climate change,"[137] and that "[y]ou can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved".[136][138]

It's hardly that outrageous is it?
Are scientists not supposed to be skeptical and weary of ideology?

Hoop66 wrote: »

OK, this is the bit where I quote some of things he's said and you say "that's not an outrageous statement"

No thanks.

OK.

I'll just take your word on it so shall I:rolleyes:

Can you even give me a hint - at least tell me how outraged i should be!

Dyr

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Padraig Pearse was almost certainly a child molester, .

"Almost certainly" lets imagine the chap was still alive, would you be confident in making that statement?

Would ya f**ck

El_Duderino 09

sbsquarepants wrote: »

As i've said, i'm not all that knowledgeable on the man but anything i've heard him say about the meat thing was his personal experience or his daughters experience. If they say it's worked for them who the hell is anyone to argue?

I mean it's a fúcking weird diet, but if you're judging the man based on what he eats for dinner, maybe you're being a bit too judgemental!

The trans thing? I've heard him talk about trans athletes, is that what you mean? If so i agreed with everything i heard him say, i didn't hear anything outrageous.

I've never heard him speak on climate change but this is what wikipedia says

Climate change

Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change,[135][136] saying he is "very skeptical of the models that are used to predict climate change,"[137] and that "[y]ou can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved".[136][138]

It's hardly that outrageous is it?
Are scientists not supposed to be skeptical and weary of ideology?



OK.

I'll just take your word on it so shall I:rolleyes:

Can you even give me a hint - at least tell me how outraged i should be!

Yes absolutely those statements were all about outrage. The trans stuff in Canada made him famous. He didn't get famous by telling young lads to stand up straight.

It doesn't matter whether you personally agree with his statements or not. That's a function of whether he said things designed for you to agree with or not. The objective was outrage and that's what he achieved.

Seriously, the climate change stuff. What he says is exactly the conclusion his American conservative market already has. He just provides an intellectual sounding facade to it.

Same with a literal red meat diet curing his anxiety while also taking medication for anxiety. Like saying he had a headache so he prayed and took a paracetamol and his headache went away so he credits prayer and doesn't mention the medication. Couldn't parody it.

The outrage is what keeps him relevant. If all he did was the books, neither of us would know his name.

Zubeneschamali

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change,[135][136] saying he is "very skeptical of the models that are used to predict climate change,"[137] and that "[y]ou can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved".[136][138]

It's hardly that outrageous is it?

It is usual for internet blowhards and right wing shills for the petro industry, but unusual for a scientist.


Of course his area of study was psychology, which is not much to do with climate change or beef diets. Should have told him something about anxiety and benzo addiction though, and I don't think recommended treatment is getting yourself into an induced coma with brain damage in a Moscow clinic.

ancapailldorcha

Bambi wrote: »

"Almost certainly" lets imagine the chap was still alive, would you be confident in making that statement?

Would ya f**ck

See below:

LITTLE LAD OF THE TRICKS

by Padraig Pearse.

Little lad of the tricks,
Full well I know
That you have been in mischief:
Confess your fault truly.

I forgive you, child
Of the soft red mouth:
I will not condemn anyone
For a sin not understood.

Raise your comely head
Till I kiss your mouth:
If either of us is the better of that
I am the better of it.

There is a fragrance in your kiss
That I have not found yet
In the kisses of women
Or in the honey of their bodies.

Lad of the grey eyes,
That flush in thy cheek
Would be white with dread of me
Could you read my secrets.

He who has my secrets
Is not fit to touch you:
Is not that a pitiful thing,
Little lad of the tricks ?

El_Duderino 09

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

See below:

Sweet suffering Jesus.

Had to google it to see if it’s real. I had never heard anything about this before.

ancapailldorcha

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sweet suffering Jesus.

Had to google it to see if it’s real. I had never heard anything about this before.

Mad, isn't it?

It'd be a very easy thing to suggest that a Catholic who founded a boys home would be sexually motivated but this... How did this even get published?

Dyr

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

See below:

Jaysus, I though you were going to at least go to the effort of regurgitating some of Ruth Dudely Edwards efforts.


He wrote a poem about having two sons, do you think he was a Mother as well?

ancapailldorcha

Bambi wrote: »

Jaysus, I though you were going to at least go to the effort of regurgitating some of Ruth Dudely Edwards efforts.


He wrote a poem about having two sons, do you think he was a Mother as well?

If people want to see him as a sacred cow who should never be criticised then that's their call. The thread is not about him so I'm not going to go any further with this. I was just dropping whatever examples first entered my head in my above post.

Rodin

This interviewer is awful.

She's inherently biased.
Probably thinks he's sexist.

Awful, awful stuff.

Equal opportunity not outcome should be the target.

El_Duderino 09

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If people want to see him as a sacred cow who should never be criticised then that's their call. The thread is not about him so I'm not going to go any further with this. I was just dropping whatever examples first entered my head in my above post.

Well, to be fair, the accusation has been made which is interesting, but I won't make any conclusions about PP based on the accusation and the poem. It's interesting though.

ancapailldorcha

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well, to be fair, the accusation has been made which is interesting, but I won't make a by conclusions about PP based on the accusation and the poem. It's interesting though.

Well, when someone's response is as above then I do not see any point in continuing. I've not read biographies of Pearse, just giving my opinion on what I do know.

El_Duderino 09

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, when someone's response is as above then I do not see any point in continuing. I've not read biographies of Pearse, just giving my opinion on what I do know.

That's fair enough for you because you've done the reading. I haven't so I don't know.

Edit, I thought you said you had read biographies.
Anyway, we've gone off topic.