Jordan Peterson interview on C4

xckjoo

Akrasia wrote: »

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

I read /watched quite a bit of Petersons stuff about his stance on this stuff when it first happened and I'd say your views are on a par. He never had issue with using the pronouns people wanted. His issue was with the compelled speech part.
I can't remember all the details now but that Canadian law was/is (I think it passed) quite far reaching and not something I'd like to see brought in over here, despite supporting LGBTQ+ rights

xckjoo

Akrasia wrote: »

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%)

28%
I feel like some of those questions need updating. Some of the groupings seem odd to me

nkl12xtw5goz70

Akrasia wrote: »

Society is becoming more open to diversity and accepting of people who want to express what they feel is their true identity.

The left's definition of "diversity" is restricted to race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.

Meanwhile, society is becoming ever more closed to diverse beliefs. It has become a monoculture filled with hectoring sycophants, whose purpose in life is to lecture everyone else on what is and isn't "acceptable."

Someone who identifies as a pro-life Catholic knows how exactly how "accepting" this left-liberal monoculture will be.

Akrasia

xckjoo wrote: »

I read /watched quite a bit of Petersons stuff about his stance on this stuff when it first happened and I'd say your views are on a par. He never had issue with using the pronouns people wanted. His issue was with the compelled speech part.
I can't remember all the details now but that Canadian law was/is (I think it passed) quite far reaching and not something I'd like to see brought in over here, despite supporting LGBTQ+ rights

Bill c-16 just added gender identity to the list of protected classes in Canadian anti discrimination law.
It was no more compelled speech than forcing someone in authority at a university to not refer to black students with the N word

It was a well intentioned harmless piece of legislation that became politicized by Peterson such that he used it to gather a large support base and a platform from where to launch his very conservative agenda

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

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.

That's the point though. If you met someone and they asked you to use their preferred pronoun, you probably would. So would I, because then it's about common politeness to an individual. I might make the occasional slip but overall in my interactions with them, I'd be trying to make them at ease. there would be an effort for both of us to respect each other.

However, this isn't about meeting a transgender person (an individual), and them asking us. This is about a complete change of language usage regardless of whether they're there or not, but also, there's no asking involved. It's a demand for change. It's also a demand for change for an issue that is still constantly changing.

How do we behave with those who have made the full transformation?
Or those who have done a partial change?
Or those who haven't made any physical change, but demand the same recognition?
What about those who are offended by the pronouns used for full transgenders because they want something different for themselves?
what about.... etc

It's an area that hasn't sought any true definition for themselves. Oh, there's plenty of catchphrases (too many in some respects), but there's no structure. And yet, we're all expected to fall into line and accept a way of speech that is likely to change often over the next decade, as some defining groups are established. And yet, part of the whole movement is a resistance to be defined, and so, there will continue to be shifting expectations in how they're addressed and treated by others.

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.

I think you're underestimating the hostility of many SJW's and the hopeless feeling that many males feel. Let me give you an example. I attended a male rights meeting a year ago in London. This was a meeting for men how had recently been divorced, and had been prevented access to their children. Not simply shared parenting but actual access to them. It was a drive to raise funds for these men to legally appeal and fight the injustice done to them.

A group of SJW's/Feminists (two different groups although they intermingled) were present, holding up signs, and chanting slogans. They were predominately female, and very hostile to any male not wearing a uniform T-Shirt displaying their objection to a male rights meeting.

And here's the important part. First, personal space... coming up to our faces, shouting abuse and spitting in our faces as they spoke. Second, actual physical aggression, by pushing, and slapping the arms of the males there. and three, throwing paint/liquids at the males entering or leaving the premises. There was nothing that the males could do. Any physical effort to stop them would be trumpeted as being evidence of male aggression. Any effort to speak to them, and explain the situation was met with shouting and insults. The police who were called to handle the disturbance did nothing, since they were all males, and just as incapable of physically restraining the women. On three different instances, they broke into the actual event, and were escorted out screaming by the events female staff... and then the calls to the hotel to cancel the event, which eventually caused the event to finish three hours earlier than we were supposed to. Yay! A victory for the fair minded SJWs who support other peoples rights.

There are so many protections for women in the law, and society that these SJW/Feminists use to their advantage, and men are stuck unable to respond effectively. Women can be physically and verbally abusive because of gender stereotypes but any male engaging in similar behavior, is just adding fuel to the bonfire.

I'm 192 cm tall, and built like a lamp post. I'm skin and bones. Very little fat on my body, and I'm not very strong. I came back from that meeting covered in bruises. Snowflake? Nope. Powerless to defend ourselves from a mob? Yup.

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.

Ahh well, I'm bisexual, and have been since my teens. I'm also 42 so I can remember what it was like to be gay in somewhat traditional Ireland, and worse yet, I'm from the midlands rather than the more cosmopolitan cities..and the movement to make Trans people accepted is nothing like the movement to make gay people accepted, and even more importantly, the environment or social resistance is completely different. Society has changed. Trans issues will be accepted far more quickly than traditional gay issues, because they are such an extreme minority. There's no traditional resistance to them to be overcome. So.. making such comparisons is kinda insulting to those who did fight for gay rights.

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.

You say freaks, I say misinformed.

Fact is, that this movement which challenges the right of people to resist being changed, also prevents us for establishing a clear idea of what Transgender issues will do to both society and people in the future. The blanket usage of trans-phobia discourages organisations from engaging in important research for fear of being labeled something so negative. Once more, it comes back to my example above about SJWs. They're often extremely hostile, and sometimes violent. Cancel culture is a thing. As are personal attacks against employees on the Internet, even to the point of physical attacks being encouraged online.

There is so much BS floating around about Trans issues. Everyone has become an expert. Psychology has joined in by giving it a free pass, even though they truly don't have any definitive research to back up their claims. The internet is full of misleading, biased, and often completely wrong information about trans issues, and procedures, and there's little chance that it will be countered. Instead, trans procedures will be tolerated because not tolerating them leads to condemnation.

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

Suggest away... but they're still a threat alongside all the other threats within society. Increased diversity without real research into the long-term effects is irresponsible and dangerous. And I say this as someone who has never fitted into mainstream society, both because I'm bisexual, and also because I have a very strong shaking disorder. I know what it's like to be targeted, minimalism, and bullied for something beyond my control. It doesn't change my perception that this drive for diversity without controls being in place (limits) is dangerous. And irresponsible.

Akrasia

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

The left's definition of "diversity" is restricted to race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.

Meanwhile, society is becoming ever more closed to diverse beliefs. It has become a monoculture filled with hectoring sycophants, whose purpose in life is to lecture everyone else on what is and isn't "acceptable."

Someone who identifies as a pro-life Catholic knows how exactly how "accepting" this left-liberal monoculture will be.

You are perfectly entitled to be a pro life catholic and anyone else is entitled to disagree with you. Do you want others to be prevented from voicing an opinion critical of your beliefs?

How should that be enforced?

People object to pro life catholic beliefs when they want to back them up with legislation forcing others to live according to that belief structure

silverharp

Akrasia wrote: »

Bill c-16 just added gender identity to the list of protected classes in Canadian anti discrimination law.
It was no more compelled speech than forcing someone in authority at a university to not refer to black students with the N word

It was a well intentioned harmless piece of legislation that became politicized by Peterson such that he used it to gather a large support base and a platform from where to launch his very conservative agenda

im not sure your analogy works, or is c-16 only to stop using possibly insulting terms like trannies?

nkl12xtw5goz70

Akrasia wrote: »

You are perfectly entitled to be a pro life catholic and anyone else is entitled to disagree with you. Do you want others to be prevented from voicing an opinion critical of your beliefs?

How should that be enforced?

I don't want to silence anyone. But it's undeniable that many on the liberal-left do.

Look at Canada, where a pastor was arrested last year for preaching against homosexuality. Look at Twitter, where the left celebrates vocally every time one of their ideological opponents is banned. Look at universities, where a graduate teaching assistant in Canada was formally reprimanded and accused of creating a "toxic climate" for showing one of Peterson's videos in her class.

There are numerous instances of the "diverse" left silencing opinions that run contrary to the ideological monoculture it wants to enforce on everyone.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

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.

I'm skeptical of nice little categories which sociologists tend to apply to groups of people, especially when they're politically motivated. The labels used "RWA" is indication enough of a bias.

I'll take a look at the book, but based on your explanation, I'm not expecting much from it.

Akrasia wrote: »

No it doesn’t. The vast majority of people will accept nuanced views.

The vast majority of people in RL accept nuanced views because they're typically in the presence of the other person, and there's a responsibility involved. On the internet though, shades of gray have become increasingly less popular, with people swinging towards black/white right/wrong views. Hence the swing to extremes in politics with just the "left"/"right", with moderates being pushed into one side or another, against their will.

Anyway, the posts previously perfectly highlight that some posters don't want nuances unless it's them doing the creating the nuance. Instead, we're phobic, or afraid.

Brian?

take everything wrote: »

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

Crowd of kants.

Can you quote a nasty post? Can you quote a post that isn’t wishing him a full recovery? If they exist, I’ve missed them.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

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%)

"Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us."

Right. Edit: 30.68%.

Akrasia

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

The left's definition of "diversity" is restricted to race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.

Meanwhile, society is becoming ever more closed to diverse beliefs. It has become a monoculture filled with hectoring sycophants, whose purpose in life is to lecture everyone else on what is and isn't "acceptable."

Someone who identifies as a pro-life Catholic knows how exactly how "accepting" this left-liberal monoculture will be.

You are perfectly entitled to be a pro life catholic and anyone else is entitled to disagree with you. Do you want others to be prevented from voicing an opinion critical of your beliefs?

How should that be enforced?

People object to pro life catholic beliefs when they want to back them up with legislation forcing others to live according to that belief structure

xckjoo

Akrasia wrote: »

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

I think you're right about people accepting nuanced views, but mainly face to face and less so online. Online everything seems to be binary and everyone is seen as completely right or completely wrong. I actually think Peterson is a good example of this. He (IMO) has some very good points that he discusses well, but he's not some kind of messiah, nor is he the devil incarnate. You'll see it in this thread where it repeatedly descends into a couple of posters "shouting" out the moderates and only wanting to ram their "extreme" opinions on the guy down everyones throats.
I think it's all probably a teething effect of this new form of communication but it does make me worry about future generations and if they'll lose their ability for nuanced evaluations of people. I'm an optimist though so wouldn't be surprised if they handle it better than we do

Akrasia wrote: »

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.

Yup. You only have to spend a bit of time with people claiming to be hardcore liberals to know this is true. They're some of the most closed minded and exclusionary people I've ever met. I know a lot of people in the gay community that feel ostracised for being different by the very groups that were started to give them a place to feel accepted.
Some people will just use whatever they can to try and exert control over others. They just dress it up differently

xckjoo

Akrasia wrote: »

Bill c-16 just added gender identity to the list of protected classes in Canadian anti discrimination law.
It was no more compelled speech than forcing someone in authority at a university to not refer to black students with the N word

It was a well intentioned harmless piece of legislation that became politicized by Peterson such that he used it to gather a large support base and a platform from where to launch his very conservative agenda

There's that messiah or agent of evil classification coming out again Akrasia
You're looking at how things ended up and assigning an intent. If the guy managed to plan all this from day 1 then he's an absolute genius. More likely that he expressed his opinions and then took advantage of opportunities that arose.
Regarding the bill, Peterson saw some stuff in it that worried him and he felt compelled to express this worry. He seems to do a lot of study on extremist regimes (maybe just personally I dunno) so maybe it was foresight or maybe it was paranoia. Most likely somewhere in the middle and hopefully on the paranoia side. He was only a university lecturer when this all happened so it's not like he was playing to his audience. Again, if he sat at home and planned all this then he must be some kind of genius and should move into some kind of advertising field. He'd make a fortune.

Akrasia

silverharp wrote: »

im not sure your analogy works, or is c-16 only to stop using possibly insulting terms like trannies?

It made it an offense for someone in authority to intentionally misgender somebody. For example, a transgender student who wants to be referred to as female, and her teacher spends the entire year deliberately calling her by male pronouns just to be a dick

Akrasia

Calculon6000 wrote: »

Shall we legalise theft, let people choose themselves if they want to thiever?

Your response to this will be that the theft and abortion are not comparable. My response to this is that they are comparable. The key difference is that people disagree that the victim should be protected, the victim in each case being the person who has been robbed and the unborn child.

Saying that I am pro-choice and agree with abortion being legal. However I also think it is reasonable to believe that abortion is legal and people should not be persecuted for having such a belief, which ultimately is subjective.

What do you mean by persecution though?

People who are extremely anti abortion see the world through a very narrow lens where they cannot accept any circumstances where an abortion becomes lesser of two evils

Everyone else accepts at least some circumstances where abortion is necessary and when you arrive at this position, then the question is how to legislate for abortion.

Pro life people still have an input into our abortion legislation and how it is implemented in Ireland. I trust we will find a balance where everyone except the extremists on both sides can feel is acceptable

I don’t think abortions are a good thing, but I think they are necessary for a variety of reasons

Tony EH

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.

Akrasia wrote: »

No it doesn’t.

No, it doesn't what?

Akrasia wrote: »

The vast majority of people will accept nuanced views.

What part of my comment makes you think I disagree with this?

Akrasia wrote: »

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

And it's these people who think that they're in some "global culture war" that want others to bury their needle one way or the other, depending on which persuasion they hold themselves.

But, sure, as you say "the vast majority of people will accept nuanced views" and meeting the screamers is pretty rare in the real world, especially this side of the Atlantic. They're certainly in the minority in my interactions, but I have met several, who will simply see no other argument but their own and will accept nothing but full agreement with their position and not doing so results in a plethora of pejorative labels being thrust at you.

Akrasia

xckjoo wrote: »

28%
I feel like some of those questions need updating. Some of the groupings seem odd to me

The test was developed in the 80s and 90s in Canada and the US. There have been different versions with slightly different questions

Believe it or not but the test is deliberately blunt because high RWA types are drawn to those particular answers and tend to be proud of these kinds of positions

Akrasia

Calculon6000 wrote: »

Persecution in the form of harassment and personal abuse.

Morality is subjective, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to think that abortion should be illegal as they believe it is the lesser of two evils. I believe that abortion is the lesser of two evils, it's just a different opinion. Neither are objectively wrong, therefore pro life people are perfectly reasonable in campaigning for laws to reflect their view of morality.

Harassment and personal abuse should not be tolerated as part of any sensible discussion and I have taken part in a lot of discussions with people of wildly different beliefs to mine and they usually go fine without either party harassing or abusing the other

Some people take offense much more easily than others though, (on both sides of most debates) and can feel like they are being persecuted just for being challenged on their beliefs

I find the people who happily accuse others of being easily offended tend to be very thin skinned themselves

In real life I don’t engage with people on topics that are sensitive unless I feel they are open to a frank discussion. On a discussion forum where frank discussion is the point, I assume that people are up for it

Zubeneschamali

xckjoo wrote: »

You only have to spend a bit of time with people claiming to be hardcore liberals to know this is true.

Nobody in Ireland claims to be a hardcore liberal. Liberalism got a bad name here during the Famine.

take everything

Brian? wrote: »

Can you quote a nasty post? Can you quote a post that isn’t wishing him a full recovery? If they exist, I’ve missed them.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Perfectly put. Well except for the last line.

This post (thanked by El Duderino) where the last line referred to is a well-wishing sentiment.

Dunno why you couldn't have checked that yourself.

Brian?

Akrasia wrote: »

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%)

Mine was 0%. I’m 100% a woke liberal.

Brian?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nobody in Ireland claims to be a hardcore liberal. Liberalism got a bad name here during the Famine.

Liberal doesn’t mean anything anymore. People regularly call anarchists and communists liberals on here r. It’s hilarious.

Dr Peterson refers to himself as a classic liberal.

Brian?

take everything wrote: »

This post (thanked by El Duderino) where the last line referred to is a well-wishing sentiment.

Dunno why you couldn't have checked that yourself.

Because I wasn’t the one accusing posters of being nasty.

It’s poor taste to wish the man ill.

take everything

Brian? wrote: »

Because I wasn’t the one accusing posters of being nasty.

Which we have just shown.
And which you cast doubt on.

Wibbs

Brian? wrote: »

Mine was 0%. I’m 100% a woke liberal.

Mine was also 0%, mainly because I'm not an American. That "test" is so culturally based it's mad Ted.

Brian?

Wibbs wrote: »

Mine was also 0%, mainly because I'm not an American. That "test" is so culturally based it's mad Ted.

It’s genuinely he worst test of its kind I’ve ever seen.

Brian?

take everything wrote: »

Which we have just shown.
And which you cast doubt on.

I cast doubt on it because I didn’t see it. I asked you to produce evidence to support your accusation. This is super simple stuff.

I agreed that the post you quoted was in poor taste.

take everything

Brian? wrote: »

I cast doubt on it because I didn’t see it. I asked you to produce evidence to support your accusation. This is super simple stuff.

I agreed that the post you quoted was in poor taste.

So maybe read the thread more carefully in future and not be getting people to check things for you.

El_Duderino 09

xckjoo wrote: »

There's that messiah or agent of evil classification coming out again Akrasia
You're looking at how things ended up and assigning an intent. If the guy managed to plan all this from day 1 then he's an absolute genius. More likely that he expressed his opinions and then took advantage of opportunities that arose.
Regarding the bill, Peterson saw some stuff in it that worried him and he felt compelled to express this worry. He seems to do a lot of study on extremist regimes (maybe just personally I dunno) so maybe it was foresight or maybe it was paranoia. Most likely somewhere in the middle and hopefully on the paranoia side. He was only a university lecturer when this all happened so it's not like he was playing to his audience. Again, if he sat at home and planned all this then he must be some kind of genius and should move into some kind of advertising field. He'd make a fortune.

I've no idea whether or not he intended to become a Conservative icon but he's certainly leaned into it. He definitely tailors the message to his audience. I remember watching him go on and on about Marxists and feminists and the left and how dangerous they all are. He was asked if he sees any of this on the right and he said of course he would say the same when he sees it on the right. He said white supremacist terrorists are also bad and he'd also call them out. And then he went back to going on and on and on about the feminists and Marxists and the left.

I really think it would be foolish to pretend his message is an honest assessment of events. It's an intellectual sounding version of Fox News.

Throw in some conservative talking points, add some big words and name drop a few philosophers and be sure to always blame the left, feminist and Marxists for everything. If asked directly about the right, pick an extreme example of white supremacist terrorists to create the idea that the left are equal to that level of extremism and there you have it. A complete package to sell to a Conservative American audience