Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Will I Am Not

Rory28 wrote: »

But to link him to antifa is absurd. i hate antifa as much as the next guy but antifa didnt shoot up the las vegas strip.

Yeah I’m not saying it was anything to do with antifa but he could well have shared the same mindset for all we know.
Saying he was just a sick f*ck doesn’t rule anything out.

Brian?

SSr0 wrote: »

Are you having a fücking laugh or what?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/antifa-domestic-terrorists-us-security-agencies-homeland-security-fbi-a7927881.html

Sure what would the US Homeland Security know, huh?

So answer the question then. What acts of terrorism have Antifa committed? I actually have a miniscule amount of faith is the Department of Homeland Security.

Brian?

CarlosHarpic wrote: »

We still do not know for sure the motivations behind the Las Vegas mass slaughter.

True. Are you saying the shooter was in Antifa?

Brian?

cantdecide wrote: »

I see where you're going wrong there. You see, the far left have a free pass on reprehensible behaviour on account of being drunk on righteous moral superiority.

If you're far left, hate is perfectly admirable when leveled against 'haters' (assuming that objectively, your 'haters' are indeed full of hate).

Absolute nonsense. No one has a free pass. It all gets reported and criticised. As it should.

Brian?

conorhal wrote: »

I would prefer that the courses they taught actually dabated the philosophy they present honestly and allow it to be critiqued as part of the course.

I would prefer that universities were real safe spaces, safe spaces in which honest debate and dialogue were permitted.
A course that presents ideas that cannot be critiqued isn't teaching, it's indocrtinating.
Take the case of Lindsay Shepherd.
In a class debating communications, Shepherd, a teaching assistant, played an interview from a local news network with Peterson debating Bill C16.
For doing so she was reported for creating a transphobic and toxic enviornment and sanctioned for playing a video that one of the pannel of university staff questioning her described as akin to playing one of Hitler's speaches to her students.

When university lecturers are stifiling intelectual debate and demanding ideological purity without question on pain of sanctions in their classes, they could be at the very least described be as failing at their job to educate critical thinkers.

I completely agree. However it's not a problem just left wing professors have. That's my point. There are shockingly blind ideologues on both sides. To paint this as a problem on the left have is disengenuous at best.

Brian?

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

Yeah I’m not saying it was anything to do with antifa but he could well have shared the same mindset for all we know.
Saying he was just a sick f*ck doesn’t rule anything out.

You're not saying it was Antifa, but you're implying they may have been involved. Based on nothing as far as I can see.

Charmeleon

Brian? wrote: »

I completely agree. However it's not a problem just left wing professors have. That's my point. There are shockingly blind ideologues on both sides. To paint this as a problem on the left have is disengenuous at best.

It might be easier to dismiss if academia were not overwhelmingly left to far left leaning as it is now. Academia has been actively engaged in ideological cleansing since the early 1980s, even those who are not left or Marxist are afraid to contradict the established groupthink.

That means that the vast majority of graduates have only been exposed to one ideology and have been encouraged to consider moderates and conservatives with nothing but contempt.

The transformation is almost entirely complete in the humanities but the pressure is now on the STEM fields not to do or publish science that ‘gives comfort to conservatives’.

It’s one of the greatest challenges we face into the future. It will only start to get better when upcoming generations feel secure enough to ridicule and criticise far left and Marxist ideologies.

Brian?

Charmeleon wrote: »

It might be easier to dismiss if academia were not overwhelmingly left to far left leaning as it is now. Academia has been actively engaged in ideological cleansing since the early 1980s, even those who are not left or Marxist are afraid to contradict the established groupthink.

That means that the vast majority of graduates have only been exposed to one ideology and have been encouraged to consider moderates and conservatives with nothing but contempt.

The transformation is almost entirely complete in the humanities but the pressure is now on the STEM fields not to do or publish science that ‘gives comfort to conservatives’.

It’s one of the greatest challenges we face into the future. It will only start to get better when upcoming generations feel secure enough to ridicule and criticise far left and Marxist ideologies.

Can I see some evidence that it's effecting research in STEM subjects?

I'd also point out that "the left" are not an homogenous group. There's a massive variance. I don't believe everyone on the right is an anarcho capitalist or a fascist. It would really raise the standard of debate of large scale generalisation was stopped by both sides.

ancapailldorcha

That line is trotted out a lot. Is there any sort of objective evidence that academia is left wing?

Charmeleon

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That line is trotted out a lot. Is there any sort of objective evidence that academia is left wing?

See the graph and explanation for the U.S. here:
https://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/01/09/professors-moved-left-but-country-did-not/

Brian?

Charmeleon wrote: »

See the graph and explanation for the U.S. here:
https://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/01/09/professors-moved-left-but-country-did-not/

People with higher education tend to be more progressive and left leaning. The clear implication here is that it’s because of indoctrination. It’s not. It’s always been thus.

johnp001

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That line is trotted out a lot. Is there any sort of objective evidence that academia is left wing?

The wikipedia page
Liberal bias in academia
cites numerous studies which address this topic although a lot of the references are quite old and it would be interesting to see some more recent studies.

conorhal

Brian? wrote: »

I completely agree. However it's not a problem just left wing professors have. That's my point. There are shockingly blind ideologues on both sides. To paint this as a problem on the left have is disengenuous at best.

'Both sides' are systemically no platforming speakers or political positions on college campuses? Citation needed!.....

Brian?

conorhal wrote: »

'Both sides' are systemically no platforming speakers or political positions on college campuses? Citation needed!.....

So we're artificially confining all political discourse to US college campuses? That's handy for you to prove a point.

professore

SeanW wrote: »

[*]The n-word is not an accurate description for a black person. It's a slur. "Man", "male", "Sir" etc. are accurate terms for a person with XX chromosomes.

Just to be clear, a person with XX chromosomes would be genetically female. XY is male.

I agree with your sentiments. I think Peterson's point is that if I as a middle aged Irishman suddenly decide to identify as a 10 year old Filipino woman, no one should be criminalsed for saying I am a middle aged Irishman.

Calling someone a racial slur is a whole other thing.

Brian?

johnp001 wrote: »

The wikipedia page
Liberal bias in academia
cites numerous studies which address this topic although a lot of the references are quite old and it would be interesting to see some more recent studies.

Only a loon would argue there isn't a left leaning bias in academia. People with a third level education are generally more left leaning. It's the genisis of this bias I take issue with. I also take issue with it being painted as a problem. Who cares who a physics or engineering lecturer votes for? It doesn't change the speed of light.

Will I Am Not

Brian? wrote: »

You're not saying it was Antifa, but you're implying they may have been involved. Based on nothing as far as I can see.

Nope.

benjamin d

It's interesting that those coming at this thread in a way that's sympathetic to the left wing argument have made this a left vs right thing. Peterson has just as much disdain for the right as he does the left as far as I can see.

It's a snapshot of the type of "othering" the left (and the right, but I'd argue to a less visible extent in mainstream sources or only at the more extreme end of the right) engage in when anyone deviates even slightly from the established groupthink.

Your average citizen who doesn't buy into EVERY LITTLE BIT of the ideology is somehow worse than the worst extremes of the other side. Search Twitter or, if you dare, Tumblr for Taylor Swift, Germaine Greer or Catherine Deneuve and the word feminism and you'll see the type of attitude taken against people who should ostensibly be fully one of their own. Justin Timberlake is currently on the end of it too at the moment. It's a strange phenomenon.

ancapailldorcha

Charmeleon wrote: »

See the graph and explanation for the U.S. here:
https://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/01/09/professors-moved-left-but-country-did-not/

Thanks for that. Reading it now.

It doesn't say what in particular caused these professors to identify as left and far left (or right and far right for that matter). There's also a good comment from Paul Krugman cited:

Overall, the evidence looks a lot more consistent with a story that has academics rejecting a conservative party that has moved sharply right than it does with a story in which academics have moved left.

The Republican party as a vessel for the ideas of Lincoln and Reagan is well and truly dead. If people are identifying as left wing purely on the basis that they dislike the direction the American right has taken then I wouldn't necessarily equate that with being left wing.

20Cent

professore wrote: »

Just to be clear, a person with XX chromosomes would be genetically female. XY is male.

I agree with your sentiments. I think Peterson's point is that if I as a middle aged Irishman suddenly decide to identify as a 10 year old Filipino woman, no one should be criminalsed for saying I am a middle aged Irishman.

Calling someone a racial slur is a whole other thing.

You couldn't change race or age but considering the wide range of people in the world why is the idea that someone could be a female in a male body so difficult to understand.

Also surprised by why people care so much. If someone else wants to be called he or she so what. Like they are doing it for some other reason.

professore

20Cent wrote: »

You couldn't change race or age but considering the wide range of people in the world why is the idea that someone could be a female in a male body so difficult to understand.

Also surprised by why people care so much. If someone else wants to be called he or she so what. Like they are doing it for some other reason.

It's not difficult to understand, least of all for him - he's a clinical psychologist. He has nothing whatsoever against transgender people.

People for the most part don't care, that's precisely his point. However being forced to say black is white because someone else wants you to is a big deal. It should be your right to say "I think you are a man" if that's what you believe. Do you disagree?

JMNolan

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That line is trotted out a lot. Is there any sort of objective evidence that academia is left wing?

Brian? wrote: »

People with higher education tend to be more progressive and left leaning. The clear implication here is that it’s because of indoctrination. It’s not. It’s always been thus.

Brian? wrote: »

Only a loon would argue there isn't a left leaning bias in academia. People with a third level education are generally more left leaning. It's the genisis of this bias I take issue with. I also take issue with it being painted as a problem. Who cares who a physics or engineering lecturer votes for? It doesn't change the speed of light.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Thanks for that. Reading it now.

It doesn't say what in particular caused these professors to identify as left and far left (or right and far right for that matter). There's also a good comment from Paul Krugman cited:



The Republican party as a vessel for the ideas of Lincoln and Reagan is well and truly dead. If people are identifying as left wing purely on the basis that they dislike the direction the American right has taken then I wouldn't necessarily equate that with being left wing.

Lads. ye're embarrassing yerselves to be fair.

conorhal

Saruhashi wrote: »

Peterson: We diverged from lobsters evolutionary history about 350 million years ago. And lobsters exist in hierarchies. They have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin just like ours. The nervous system of the lobster and the human being is so similar that anti-depressants work on lobsters. And it’s part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with socio-cultural construction, which it doesn’t.

Newman: Let me get this straight. You’re saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?

Amazing.

I think this my flat our favourite response to that hilarious bit of strawmanning on the video:

"Newman is just engaging in lobfuscation." :pac::pac::pac:

Personally, if Kathy Newman deserves to become a virally mocked loon, it really should have been for this little gem.....

Go to 0:40secs... and try not to cringe so hard you crush your spinal column!

Brian?

JMNolan wrote: »

Lads. ye're embarrassing yerselves to be fair.

What a wonderfully well thought out, detailed rebuttal. How could I have been so wrong?!?!?
/sarcasm


Have you a point to make? You could at least try instead of throwing a random insult out that doesn’t address any of the points either of us made.

ancapailldorcha

JMNolan wrote: »

Lads. ye're embarrassing yerselves to be fair.

Reminds me of this:

johnp001

Brian? wrote: »

Only a loon would argue there isn't a left leaning bias in academia. People with a third level education are generally more left leaning. It's the genisis of this bias I take issue with. I also take issue with it being painted as a problem. Who cares who a physics or engineering lecturer votes for? It doesn't change the speed of light.

I don't think many people are arguing that liberal bias is responsible for influencing the value of the explicit constants as measured by physicists.
In other academic fields bias would be more relevant.
An example I saw recently was from a psychology professor who mentions publication bias for studies in a number of areas that would be more relevant to what are considered by some to be liberal agendas below:
Steve Stewart-Williams twitter
https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/status/878031781198417923

johnp001

Brian? wrote: »

People with higher education tend to be more progressive and left leaning. The clear implication here is that it’s because of indoctrination. It’s not. It’s always been thus.

Are you implying that because higher education recipients have tended over an extended time period to be more progressive and left leaning than the general population that this precludes the possibility that these tendencies are due to indoctrination?

givyjoe

johnp001 wrote: »

Are you implying that because higher education recipients have tended over an extended time period to be more progressive and left leaning than the general population that this precludes the possibility that these tendencies are due to indoctrination?

Jesus lads.. this is after hours.. this has descended into an intellectual p1ssing contest :eek:

20Cent

professore wrote: »

It's not difficult to understand, least of all for him - he's a clinical psychologist. He has nothing whatsoever against transgender people.

People for the most part don't care, that's precisely his point. However being forced to say black is white because someone else wants you to is a big deal. It should be your right to say "I think you are a man" if that's what you believe. Do you disagree?

I met a trans person recently (female to male). This guy had a beard and unless you were told you'd think they were a guy. It would be ridiculous making him use the womens toilets or calling him her. It would also be extremely hurtful. Imagine your teacher kept calling you she in the classroom (if you were a male).
In an ideal world people would respect each other but unfortunately we need human rights and anti discrimination legislation because there are a lot of a holes about who enjoy bullying and putting others down.

10000maniacs

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That line is trotted out a lot. Is there any sort of objective evidence that academia is left wing?

You mentioned in a previous thread that it was a "crap interview" and down to Newman, but nothing to do with liberals.
What did you mean?
It was a crap interview for liberals to watch, but it was hardly a crap interview.
Any liberal interviewer in any television studio would be eaten alive by Peterson.