Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

Plant A Tree wrote: »

I just don't get the rage he provokes in the eh, 'liberal' left.

And I fully agree with him in that case. I don't want my door being kicked in by the police because I refused to call some lad xur or xam.

Shouldn't the liberals be on his side?

I understand you. And I agree with him too. It's not just "liberals." I'm very left leaning on most issues but I wouldn't agree with our government having such laws. I spend a lot of time in creative arts so freedom of expression is of great value to me. And maybe you can say it's a slippery slope fallacy, but I think those laws once implemented could expand it to other territories that would detrimental to an open and free society.

Having said that. I absolutely want trans people to feel accepted in society and not predjudiced against. But it's really a sort of domestic matter when it comes to pronouns. When people engage with each other face to face and one asks to be called "They/Them" or whatever, I think most people out of respect would do that.

What I worry about is, if such speech or "hate" laws were implemented, they would be abused by the government to shut down music they don't like, films they don't like etc etc. It would be such a regressive move. Like living under a theocracy again.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It was his opposition that put him on the pedestal..

Actually it’s the people who make YouTube videos about him, quote him online and shell out money to see him speak live that do that.

Tony EH

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Everyone got what they wanted from it. He got on fox news and other outlets to sell his wears to his American conservative audience. The conservative audience got a clever sounding guy giving clever sounding reasons to back up the prejudice they already held. Everyone's a winner.

Of course. Peterson knows his base and he peddles his wears to a particular audience, who will find common ground in his vague statements and fireside words of wisdom.

But this is a problem with a lot of these nouveaux American "thinkers". They're salesmen, pushing a product to an audience that were already receptive to certain ideas before they even heard a single word.

Their interest in their business, not arenas for debate and thought, which they will often shy away from. I've lost count of the amount of YouTube vids that come into my feed that tell me about a Jordan Peterson "interview", which turns out to be nothing more that two like minded people (Americans usually) agreeing with each other. That's not an interview.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He has published over 130 academic papers, written two books, one of which was fairly weighty, lectured at several universities..like, if he's not an intellectual, I don't know who is..I think half the problem is people aren't capable of understanding him..

Yet he spends most of his time these days talking nonsense about subjects beyond the sphere of his knowledge. It’s strange. It’s almost as if he found a gap in the market and filled it.

I understand everything he says. I just disagree gree with it mostly.

Tony EH

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

I understand you. And I agree with him too. It's not just "liberals." I'm very left leaning on most issues but I wouldn't agree with our government having such laws. I spend a lot of time in creative arts so freedom of expression is of great value to me. And maybe you can say it's a slippery slope fallacy, but I think those laws once implemented could expand it to other territories that would detrimental to an open and free society.

The vast, vast, majority of people wouldn't either, regardless of what flavour of politics they currently hold. It's a minute fraction of folk who wish to see legislation imposed on peoples speech and they are usually single issue types with no other political ideals at all. But this tiny group is often held up by those on the so called "right" to damn the so called "left" in its entirety.

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

Having said that. I absolutely want trans people to feel accepted in society and not predjudiced against. But it's really a sort of domestic matter when it comes to pronouns. When people engage with each other face to face and one asks to be called "They/Them" or whatever, I think most people out of respect would do that.

To me, it's a matter of mere politeness. What I would object to, however, are laws telling me that I have to curtail speech or talk in a certain way to certain people.

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

What I worry about is, if such speech or "hate" laws were implemented, they would be abused by the government to shut down music they don't like, films they don't like etc etc. It would be such a regressive move. Like living under a theocracy again.

And this, of course, is the deeper issue. Once laws are passed they can and are manipulated into certain shapes, depending of the nature of those in power. Laws can often be a double edged sword.

But most of these blue haired single issue shouters who are in favour od hate speech laws and whatnot aren't old enough to remember any time before their own particular chosen cause. I would argue that such people AREN'T liberal in any way, despite being used to damn liberal or left leaning principled people. They very people who fought for free speech long before that shouty blue hair was born.

We're in a very strange situation at the moment and once again we have the worst and most absurd of America to thank for it.

El_Duderino 09

He'd have to be on the side of "traditional marriage" ,(read opposed to gay marriage and support for Christian views on marriage) because that's still a reasonably important issue for his conservative American audience. Its probably not as big an issue as it was during president Bush's time in officer. Karl Rove turned it into a wedge issue.

Its just a part of the sales pitch. Things his conservative American audience wants to hear.

Brian?

Paolo Maldini 122 wrote: »

People are free to discuss whatever the want, it would be very boring if people only stuck to their area of expertise. Interesting that you mostly agree with everything he says. I'd probably agree with about 60-70 percent of what he says.

It’s painful how often I have to say this: he’s free to speak about whatever he wants. I’m free to disagree with him. He’s no more of an expert on the subjects than I am, so I owe him no deference.

His underlying principal for how people and the world should work appears to be whatever progresses civilisation. Marriage for example has been a key component of the advancement of civilisation over the millenia, therefore he tends to voice arguments which support the institution of marriage. I for one believe that marriage cause psychological pain for people because it fundamentally is contrary to human nature.

I don’t hold an opinion on marriage.

Silentcorner

There is too much disagreement here...We need to get some empowered 16 year old girls opinion on him....it's the only rational thing to do!

El_Duderino 09

Silentcorner wrote: »

There is too much disagreement here...We need to get some empowered 16 year old girls opinion on him....it's the only rational thing to do!

Oh right. Yeah.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Actually it’s the people who make YouTube videos about him, quote him online and shell out money to see him speak live that do that.

The people bursting into his lectures and shouting him down came first..

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The people bursting into his lectures and shouting him down came first..

The people disrupted empty lectures?

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

The people disrupted empty lectures?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

He has published over 130 academic papers, written two books, one of which was fairly weighty, lectured at several universities..like, if he's not an intellectual, I don't know who is..I think half the problem is people aren't capable of understanding him..

People often speak beyond their area of expertise. The people disagreeing might be knowledgeable in one of the areas he’s not

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Tony EH wrote: »

Of course. Peterson knows his base and he peddles his wears to a particular audience, who will find common ground in his vague statements and fireside words of wisdom.

But this is a problem with a lot of these nouveaux American "thinkers". They're salesmen, pushing a product to an audience that were already receptive to certain ideas before they even heard a single word.

Their interest in their business, not arenas for debate and thought, which they will often shy away from. I've lost count of the amount of YouTube vids that come into my feed that tell me about a Jordan Peterson "interview", which turns out to be nothing more that two like minded people (Americans usually) agreeing with each other. That's not an interview.

Like Ben Shapiro malfunctioning when he realised that Andrew Neil was interviewing him and not debating him. The best part was Shapiro bizarrely implying that Neil is left-wing. No, Ben, he’s right-wing. He’s just interviewing you and some of those questions might be challenging.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

People often speak beyond their area of expertise. The people disagreeing might be knowledgeable in one of the areas he’s not

Haha.. yeah..

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

Haha.. yeah..

Excuse me?

Peterson is an academic. He’s not the only academic.

Tony EH

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Like Ben Shapiro malfunctioning when he realised that Andrew Neil was interviewing him and not debating him. The best part was Shapiro bizarrely implying that Neil is left-wing. No, Ben, he’s right-wing. He’s just interviewing you and some of those questions might be challenging.

Exactly like Shapiro who, frankly, is just a little shite and not even fit to lick Jordan Peterson's boots. He got schooled and schooled hard by Andrew Neil. I almost felt embarrassed for him, especially when he started spitting bile because Neil got his goat, as he couldn't even counter his very mild questions. I've seen Andrew Neil go harder on many other people.

The problem, as I've said, is that these internet right wingers aren't used to actual interviews. They're happy going on a stage and talking at people who want to hear their message, they're happy on their YouTube channel yapping bollocks and they're settled when they are "interviewed" by people of a like mind so they can both push a political point of view.

But when interviewed properly, where the interviewers job is to push the interviewee and see where their points fall down or where their strengths are, they fall to pieces and start whinging.

This is usually the case when they venture outside of America, who's media leaves a lot to be desired these days and who thrive on the current schism that causes such a stench in US politics.

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And the above is why someone like JP was welcomed so much by many males on the internet.

Because they feel threatened by transsexual people?

It’s a little sad to be honest

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

Because they feel threatened by transsexual people?

It’s a little sad to be honest

No... it's the extreme reactions. Just like yours TBH. (although unfortunately, it's becoming more commonplace and less extreme. This push to place every kind of resistance to your views into the "very negative" category)

Someone can be unwilling to be forced to change their language due to a percentage of people they're rarely, if ever, to meet. In my whole life, I've encountered two trans-gendered people in the west, and there was no interaction with them. And that's including the time I hung around the gay/bisexual scene in Europe. I've encountered more in Asia, and had conversations with them, but there was no expectation for others to change their language to make them feel more comfortable about their life choices.

And it's not simply the case of when someone meets a transgender and being asked to address them in a chosen pronoun. We're being told that we must change our language usage for every instance related to transgender people, like referring to articles or people (who aren't present), just in case, a trans-gendered person might, possibly, be watching, and could, possibly, be made uncomfortable by that other phrasing. We're still talking about an extreme minority of the population, of which, many couldn't give a F what pronoun they're referred to by strangers. [We're also supposed to include people who haven't done any actual surgery or treatments to physically change, but inside (not physically), they're different... and then there's those who can change their gender or identity whenever they want.. they still need their appropriate pronouns.)

My problem with people like yourself, and the other poster, with regards to trans issues, is that there's no middle ground. You simply can't tolerate anyone who doesn't fully embrace the issue, and adapt accordingly. Instead, the trans-phobia label comes out or that we're feeling threatened by Trans-gendered people.

I have no issue with transgender people, or the choice they make as adults. I do have issues with adults encouraging minors to undergo transgender surgery or treatments to deal with teenage or even childlike issues. I've always felt that people can do whatever they want to themselves, as long, as they keep me out of it.. and if they want me to be part of it, well... perhaps ask me. Nobody has asked me. I've just been told that this is the way it's going to be, and if I don't accept it, without any qualms or resistance, then I'm a trans-phobic, or some other nonsense..

It's annoying because so many of those who are hellbent on pushing the "acceptance" of different pronouns aren't even trans themselves. It's a crusade with transgender people being absent.

You called the situation sad.. and I agree. That you, and others, would be so intolerant of other peoples opinions that you feel the need to diminish their own feelings on the matter. Personally, I imagine you're actually doing more damage to the gradual acceptance of transgender issues, because you try so hard to ram it down peoples throats. Accept everything or you're a bad person! Society and culture generally takes time to adapt to changes but you've got no patience in allowing those changes to happen naturally.

So, yes, it is sad. Sad that you and others always need to take the extreme angle to other peoples resistance regardless of whether they actually have any real issues with trans people, or whether they just need some time to adjust to the changes. God forbid, that we try to consider the long term implications of accepting and encouraging trans issues into society... let's not consider whether encouraging it for vulnerable teenagers is a good idea or not. Instead, lets just blindly accept everything, and sure, it'll be grand. :rolleyes:

Tony EH

^

The problem is this all or nothing approach that takes a lot of people today. Your needle has to be buried in one direction or the other, or else your some sort of "ist" or an "SJW", depending on who's condemning you.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Tony EH wrote: »

Exactly like Shapiro who, frankly, is just a little shite and not even fit to lick Jordan Peterson's boots. He got schooled and schooled hard by Andrew Neil. I almost felt embarrassed for him, especially when he started spitting bile because Neil got his goat, as he couldn't even counter his very mild questions. I've seen Andrew Neil go harder on many other people.

The problem, as I've said, is that these internet right wingers aren't used to actual interviews. They're happy going on a stage and talking at people who want to hear their message, they're happy on their YouTube channel yapping bollocks and they're settled when they are "interviewed" by people of a like mind so they can both push a political point of view.

But when interviewed properly, where the interviewers job is to push the interviewee and see where their points fall down or where their strengths are, they fall to pieces and start whinging.

This is usually the case when they venture outside of America, who's media leaves a lot to be desired these days and who thrive on the current schism that causes such a stench in US politics.

Shapiro’s reaction to Neil highlighted how fucked the American media is. He was completely flustered by mildly tough questioning and instead of adjusting, he went on the attack. He couldn’t seem to conceive of being questioned by somebody quite close to him on the political spectrum. He apparently had to frame it as “Well, you’re the enemy” for it to make sense to him.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I think that people with reactionary views were desperate for a champion with a degree of credibility -- Peterson was a good man for the job, being a Professor and all. Peterson is the personification of an 'appeal to authority' fallacious stance. Peterson is a Professor who has written books, and you're just some dude on the internet, what would you know?

QED.

Deleted User wrote: »

He has published over 130 academic papers, written two books, one of which was fairly weighty, lectured at several universities..like, if he's not an intellectual, I don't know who is..I think half the problem is people aren't capable of understanding him..

DEFTLEFTHAND

I could never get Peterson.

He just relays objective facts of nature and what we all feel deep down inside, our innate instinct. What's so revolutionary about this thought process?


Granted he's brave for publicly expressing these views in the strange world that we live in today but he's certainly not the great philosopher of our age.

take everything

Can't believe the nastiness of some people in this thread not wishing him a full recovery (and thanking such posts).

Crowd of kants.

Gynoid

Pagluica wrote: »

They're bullies, they want to see others in pain to make themselves feel better.

There are people in the Caroline Flack thread bemoaning bullying media and social media mobs, yet a week or so ago there was a pile on for a poster named Srameen where people could not say enough about how much some anonymous old guy on the internet annoyed them, and the schadenfreude in here about a person being addicted to anti anxiety meds and possibly now seriously unwell has been horrible. But social media bullying boo hoo.....

Pagluica

Pagluica wrote: »

They're bullies, they want to see others in pain to make themselves feel better.

I dunno. I think there's a wave of righteousness sweeping the Internet, and the media. Previously, it would have been related to religion, but now, people have their crusades for minority causes.

And with the importance/impact of the internet through the use of social media, it's difficult to get away from their moralising. They get to virtue signal on all manner of mediums, and "force" their opinions on to other people. In a way, I suspect, that many of these people consider themselves to be protecting the victims of society. As if being a minority means automatic victim-hood, and then, they're justified in being bullies. It's the "good" fight against the majority who are unreasonable for not accepting and embracing these minorities.

Rather than making themselves feel better, I feel it's an addiction to virtue signalling. They just can't stop mounting their ivory tower of high moral conviction, and cast thunderbolts of righteous indignation at those who don't embrace their cause. The mask slips though when they turn all nasty by insulting and demeaning others. It's a shame really. There's a lot of space for them to do good, if they stopped being so hostile.

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No... it's the extreme reactions. Just like yours TBH. (although unfortunately, it's becoming more commonplace and less extreme. This push to place every kind of resistance to your views into the "very negative" category)

Someone can be unwilling to be forced to change their language due to a percentage of people they're rarely, if ever, to meet. In my whole life, I've encountered two trans-gendered people in the west, and there was no interaction with them. And that's including the time I hung around the gay/bisexual scene in Europe. I've encountered more in Asia, and had conversations with them, but there was no expectation for others to change their language to make them feel more comfortable about their life choices.

And it's not simply the case of when someone meets a transgender and being asked to address them in a chosen pronoun. We're being told that we must change our language usage for every instance related to transgender people, like referring to articles or people (who aren't present), just in case, a trans-gendered person might, possibly, be watching, and could, possibly, be made uncomfortable by that other phrasing. We're still talking about an extreme minority of the population, of which, many couldn't give a F what pronoun they're referred to by strangers. [We're also supposed to include people who haven't done any actual surgery or treatments to physically change, but inside (not physically), they're different... and then there's those who can change their gender or identity whenever they want.. they still need their appropriate pronouns.)

My problem with people like yourself, and the other poster, with regards to trans issues, is that there's no middle ground. You simply can't tolerate anyone who doesn't fully embrace the issue, and adapt accordingly. Instead, the trans-phobia label comes out or that we're feeling threatened by Trans-gendered people.

I have no issue with transgender people, or the choice they make as adults. I do have issues with adults encouraging minors to undergo transgender surgery or treatments to deal with teenage or even childlike issues. I've always felt that people can do whatever they want to themselves, as long, as they keep me out of it.. and if they want me to be part of it, well... perhaps ask me. Nobody has asked me. I've just been told that this is the way it's going to be, and if I don't accept it, without any qualms or resistance, then I'm a trans-phobic, or some other nonsense..

It's annoying because so many of those who are hellbent on pushing the "acceptance" of different pronouns aren't even trans themselves. It's a crusade with transgender people being absent.

You called the situation sad.. and I agree. That you, and others, would be so intolerant of other peoples opinions that you feel the need to diminish their own feelings on the matter. Personally, I imagine you're actually doing more damage to the gradual acceptance of transgender issues, because you try so hard to ram it down peoples throats. Accept everything or you're a bad person! Society and culture generally takes time to adapt to changes but you've got no patience in allowing those changes to happen naturally.

So, yes, it is sad. Sad that you and others always need to take the extreme angle to other peoples resistance regardless of whether they actually have any real issues with trans people, or whether they just need some time to adjust to the changes. God forbid, that we try to consider the long term implications of accepting and encouraging trans issues into society... let's not consider whether encouraging it for vulnerable teenagers is a good idea or not. Instead, lets just blindly accept everything, and sure, it'll be grand. :rolleyes:

I have never used any of these new pronouns that we are all apparently having foisted on us.

If I met someone who asked to be identified as a different pronoun I would be accommodating to their wishes rather than taking it as a personal attack on my own freedom of expression.

The thing I feel is sad, is that the likes of Peterson have blown up this SJW malarkey into some kind of existential crisis for white male identity. It is sad that there are so many insecure ‘snowflakes’ who are so easily offended and so weak that they cannot stand up for themselves.

Society is becoming more open to diversity and accepting of people who want to express what they feel is their true identity. Your Mrs Lovejoy ‘Won’t somebody think of the children’ attitude is bullsh1t when you consider how pervasive homophobic attitudes were in Ireland mere decades ago, and how much more welcoming and joyful it is to be in 21st century Ireland where my gay friends can live their lives openly and without shame.

The tiny number of freaks who want to force their world onto unwilling children should not cause you to stand in the way of the majority of transgender people who are just trying to get on with a life that they can feel comfortable living.

Unfortunately children will always be vulnerable to being exploited and abused by adults in their lives, but I would suggest to you that it is far from transgender activists who are the biggest threat to children

Akrasia

Tony EH wrote: »

^

The problem is this all or nothing approach that takes a lot of people today. Your needle has to be buried in one direction or the other, or else your some sort of "ist" or an "SJW", depending on who's condemning you.

No it doesn’t. The vast majority of people will accept nuanced views. There are some sh1t stirrers on social media who will ‘call people out’ but you have to go actively looking for these people to even know they exist and likes of JP and the rest of the MRA people on social media feed into their own sense of self importance in a sad little exchange between a bunch of nobodies thinking they’re at the forefront of a global culture war

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I dunno. I think there's a wave of righteousness sweeping the Internet, and the media. Previously, it would have been related to religion, but now, people have their crusades for minority causes.

And with the importance/impact of the internet through the use of social media, it's difficult to get away from their moralising. They get to virtue signal on all manner of mediums, and "force" their opinions on to other people. In a way, I suspect, that many of these people consider themselves to be protecting the victims of society. As if being a minority means automatic victim-hood, and then, they're justified in being bullies. It's the "good" fight against the majority who are unreasonable for not accepting and embracing these minorities.

Rather than making themselves feel better, I feel it's an addiction to virtue signalling. They just can't stop mounting their ivory tower of high moral conviction, and cast thunderbolts of righteous indignation at those who don't embrace their cause. The mask slips though when they turn all nasty by insulting and demeaning others. It's a shame really. There's a lot of space for them to do good, if they stopped being so hostile.

There is a good book called ‘The Authoritarians’ by Robert Altemeyer

https://theauthoritarians.org/Downloads/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

which talks about people with personality types that are high on the Right Wing Authoritarian’ (RWA) scale https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

Even though a lot of these SJWs claim to be liberal or left leaning, many of them are High RWA personality types, and so are many of the Men’s Rights or JP fans. There are two tribes who are clashing because they both want to force everyone else to behave a certain way

Both the SJW and MRA groups have language and codes and modes of thought that they use to signal amongst themselves that they are in the same group and can therefore be trusted and identify members of opposing groups and target them.

With high RWA people, they’re typically very loyal and trusting of their authority figures they choose to follow, they congregate under a ‘Double high’ RWA Individual who becomes their leader and he feeds off their support and can direct them to do his will.

Akrasia

Just for the laugh, here’s a link to a RWA test if you’re interested in your own score

https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/RWAS/

(My score was 9.66%)