Jordan Peterson interview on C4

SeanW

professore wrote: »

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

I stand corrected

Brian? wrote: »

Anita Sarkeesian is absolutely not advocating for the censorship ship of games. She’s criticizes the representation of women in games.

There's little difference where Politically Correct Postmodernism is concerned.

I do also find it ironic that you claim only the left hound speakers at universities, when Ms Sarkeesian had to cancel a college speech due to death threats.

Many alleged hate crimes, especially threats claimed by the left are fake. I shouldn't be in the least bit surprised if Anita Sarkeesian's "death threats" were not simply a form of Reichstag Fire.

Brian? wrote: »

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.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/terrorism?s=t

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Literally every time Antifa uses violence to silence a coservative speaker or to prevent a speech or debate they do not want to occur, they are committing an act of terrorism. By the dictionary definition, Antifa are terrorists.

By the same definition, the Vegas shooter was not a terrorist, because, so far as our knowledge extends, he had no political purpose, manifesto or rationale for the violence he committed, no indication that he wanted anything other than to kill people.

20Cent wrote: »

C 16 is an amendment to the the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. They are saying that even if someone has xx chomosomes but identifies as female we should respect that.

You still haven't apologised for slandering people you disagree with by comparing them with racists. That was low.

And this is also not true. While you can argue that one should refer to non-cis people by their chosen pronoun, even if it's something lame like xym or xyr or ze, (and I'm not saying you shouldn't to be clear, for example using a term like "them" or "they" for example might be warranted in some cases) the law does not deal in should or should not. The law deals in MUST and MUST NOT.

You SHOULD brush your teeth every night. You SHOULD save for your pension. You SHOULD NOT do a wide variety of things that are legal but stupid. These are not dealt with in law. You MUST pay your taxes. You MUST have a license, tax and insurance to drive a car. You MUST obey the rules of the road, including speed limits, red lights and so on. You MUST NOT rob, rape, kill, counterfeit banknotes etc. All laws also deal in penalties for transgression MUST and MUST NOT rules. SHOULD has no bearing on anything where laws are concerned. Nothing whatsoever.

Was referring to Milo. He went to a college and put a photo of a trans student up on a screen to slag off https://youtu.be/h2oV1QKUMdM and humiliate.

Milo is a professional troll. What's your point? I also referred to other individuals who are treated the same way when they travel to speak, that being Nigel Farage and Ben Shapiro. By failing to differentiate, it looked like you were casting aspersions on those two as well.

The student was actually in the room at the time.

I see no evidence of that from the video, which comes from someone named "Putin POTUS" who, presumably, believes that Vladimir Putin rules the United States via a puppet regime of Donald Trump. This of course despite the fact that there is at least 100 times more evidence of collusion between the FBI, IRS etc and the Democratic party than there is of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Shapiro also has form attacking trans people.

Examples? What do you mean by "attack?" e.g. call them names or challenge their ideas?

This is literally what you are arguing against. Attacking people because of their words or beliefs!!!!

No. University professors and administrators are not just regular people. Often taking money from taxpayers, they have a duty to ensure that the institutions they control are places of learning, of discovery, exploration, robust challenge, robust debate and knowledge. They have an explicit position of trust.

By turning their institutes into indoctrination camps, they fall far short of what should be a basic minimum standard.

What do you propose we do about these professors? Should we silence them? I would prefer if we present logical arguments as to why they’re incorrect.

They should be held to a basic standard. Ideally they should inspire their students, encourage robust debate, challenge accepted dogmas from wherever they come, and promote genuine knowledge and learning. Failing that, they should at minimum be held to a standard of "don't turn your lecture hall into an indoctrination camp." Any professor who falls short of this basic standard or any administrator who fails to uphold it should be fired by their institutions, or their institutions should de-funded by their governments.

Normally I'd agree with debating something I disagree with, and I do this, but how do you argue against something like "Jews control the world and they stunt the growth of Palestinian children with mad science experiments" or "conservatives should be executed" or "white people who get shot by crazed Bernie Sanders supporters should just be left to die because of white privilege" or "all men secretly want to rape women in their sleep". Oh and Newton's Principia Mathematica is a rape manual aparently. And mathematics is racist. :mad: A healthy society would recognise all of this garbage for what it is and treat it accordingly.

SeanW

SeanW wrote: »

They should be held to a basic standard. Ideally they should inspire their students, encourage robust debate, challenge accepted dogmas from wherever they come, and promote genuine knowledge and learning. Failing that, they should at minimum be held to a standard of "don't turn your lecture hall into an indoctrination camp." Any professor who falls short of this basic standard or any administrator who fails to uphold it should be fired by their institutions, or their institutions should de-funded by their governments.

Normally I'd agree with debating something I disagree with, and I do this, but how do you argue against something like "Jews control the world and they stunt the growth of Palestinian children with mad science experiments" or "conservatives should be executed" or "white people who get shot by crazed Bernie Sanders supporters should just be left to die because of white privilege" or "all men secretly want to rape women in their sleep". Oh and Newton's Principia Mathematica is a rape manual aparently. And mathematics is racist. :mad: A healthy society would recognise all of this garbage for what it is and treat it accordingly.

Spot on.

20Cent

SeanW wrote: »

I stand corrected
There's little difference where Politically Correct Postmodernism is concerned.

Many alleged hate crimes, especially threats claimed by the left are fake. I shouldn't be in the least bit surprised if Anita Sarkeesian's "death threats" were not simply a form of Reichstag Fire.


http://www.dictionary.com/browse/terrorism?s=t
Literally every time Antifa uses violence to silence a coservative speaker or to prevent a speech or debate they do not want to occur, they are committing an act of terrorism. By the dictionary definition, Antifa are terrorists.

By the same definition, the Vegas shooter was not a terrorist, because, so far as our knowledge extends, he had no political purpose, manifesto or rationale for the violence he committed, no indication that he wanted anything other than to kill people.


You still haven't apologised for slandering people you disagree with by comparing them with racists. That was low.

And this is also not true. While you can argue that one should refer to non-cis people by their chosen pronoun, even if it's something lame like xym or xyr or ze, (and I'm not saying you shouldn't to be clear, for example using a term like "them" or "they" for example might be warranted in some cases) the law does not deal in should or should not. The law deals in MUST and MUST NOT.

You SHOULD brush your teeth every night. You SHOULD save for your pension. You SHOULD NOT do a wide variety of things that are legal but stupid. These are not dealt with in law. You MUST pay your taxes. You MUST have a license, tax and insurance to drive a car. You MUST obey the rules of the road, including speed limits, red lights and so on. You MUST NOT rob, rape, kill, counterfeit banknotes etc. All laws also deal in penalties for transgression MUST and MUST NOT rules. SHOULD has no bearing on anything where laws are concerned. Nothing whatsoever.

Milo is a professional troll. What's your point? I also referred to other individuals who are treated the same way when they travel to speak, that being Nigel Farage and Ben Shapiro. By failing to differentiate, it looked like you were casting aspersions on those two as well.

I see no evidence of that from the video, which comes from someone named "Putin POTUS" who, presumably, believes that Vladimir Putin rules the United States via a puppet regime of Donald Trump. This of course despite the fact that there is at least 100 times more evidence of collusion between the FBI, IRS etc and the Democratic party than there is of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Examples? What do you mean by "attack?" e.g. call them names or challenge their ideas?

No. University professors and administrators are not just regular people. Often taking money from taxpayers, they have a duty to ensure that the institutions they control are places of learning, of discovery, exploration, robust challenge, robust debate and knowledge. They have an explicit position of trust.

By turning their institutes into indoctrination camps, they fall far short of what should be a basic minimum standard.

They should be held to a basic standard. Ideally they should inspire their students, encourage robust debate, challenge accepted dogmas from wherever they come, and promote genuine knowledge and learning. Failing that, they should at minimum be held to a standard of "don't turn your lecture hall into an indoctrination camp." Any professor who falls short of this basic standard or any administrator who fails to uphold it should be fired by their institutions, or their institutions should de-funded by their governments.

Normally I'd agree with debating something I disagree with, and I do this, but how do you argue against something like "Jews control the world and they stunt the growth of Palestinian children with mad science experiments" or "conservatives should be executed" or "white people who get shot by crazed Bernie Sanders supporters should just be left to die because of white privilege" or "all men secretly want to rape women in their sleep". Oh and Newton's Principia Mathematica is a rape manual aparently. And mathematics is racist. :mad: A healthy society would recognise all of this garbage for what it is and treat it accordingly.

So you're saying Rangers didn't beat St Mirren 5 -0 in the 1934 Scottish Cup Final?

20Cent

Good article lays out the arguments against Peterson.

Is Jordan Peterson the stupid man’s smart person?
http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/

Last paragraph sums up this thread:

What he’s telling you is that certain people—most of them women and minorities—are trying to destroy not only our freedom to spite nonbinary university students for kicks, but all of Western civilization and the idea of objective truth itself. He’s telling you that when someone tells you racism is still a problem and that something should be done about it, they are, at best, a dupe and, at worst, part of a Marxist conspiracy to destroy your way of life.

rizzles

i cleaned my room
back to work saturday
back to education in september

Intothesea

20Cent wrote: »

Good article lays out the arguments against Peterson.

Is Jordan Peterson the stupid man’s smart person?
http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/

Last paragraph sums up this thread:

What he’s telling you is that certain people—most of them women and minorities—are trying to destroy not only our freedom to spite nonbinary university students for kicks, but all of Western civilization and the idea of objective truth itself. He’s telling you that when someone tells you racism is still a problem and that something should be done about it, they are, at best, a dupe and, at worst, part of a Marxist conspiracy to destroy your way of life.

After watching a few of Peterson's productions I appreciate many of the points in this write-up. Which beggars my belief, because on first-ish pass he appears to be an arch-appropriate antidote to the myopic, illogical, anti-value-pushing neo-feminist front.

From his general presentation I think his main concern is the apparently guaranteed fall of the west. He has an intimate awareness of and acute compassion for lost men/people in the western world, which is coupled with psychological insight and the ability to identify and address key spiritual malaise-related emotional/psychological issues. This gives him great reach and apparent validity. And certainly the desire to ameliorate society from the individual to the grand level is the stuff of any psychologist's dreams. Anyway, I don't think he can be faulted for what seems to be the heart-felt and authentic concern that drives his approach.


The area of concern for me is his conception of exactly what is causing this spiritual malaise in the first place, and its attendant apparent solutions.


According to Peterson, a creeping post-modern/neo-Marxist wave via universities is all but drowning out basic value-stability in the west. What isn't clear is when this reached crisis proportions in western culture, and why it has occurred. On this thread there's a rule definition: academics are left-leaning. Is there value in trying to discern why this seems to be?


The question I'd like to be able to answer is: how much of this problem was apparent or appeared to have the power to usurp western culture before the financial crash of 2008? Did the crash entirely create or just intensify a set path of endless gender/identity/reality war?


When did neo-feminists (roughly definable as self-guiding neo-marxist bombs) come into being? As far as I can tell, this is a gender-based response to the iniquities seeded in the neo-liberal boom, and fully expressed in the post-crash period of austerity.

This would be seeded according to the nature of neo-liberal boom itself, as according to its rule-set, all aspects of the state, broadcasting, and commercial sectors become singularly-focused agents of 'the market'. This leads to false representation of men and women as mindless material acquirers in advertising, television and print: women as stupid girly-item obsessors, and men as meat-headed automatons who can't live without the newest masculinity-enhancing items.


That is to say, the boom itself sets off a re-polarization of the sexes, and in ways that reduce anyone's healthy sense of self. The financial crash reveals these insidious cracks when the tide of money dries up.

In Ireland, previously statically mostly-poor people had their identities and sense of reality drastically changed and then smashed in a short space of time. At the same time, the government (formerly a relatively trustworthy entity) abdicates its duty to protect the people (spot-able in the way the government lowered interest rates when the crash became apparent against official advice) rewards the most damaging and crooked parties for creating the crash, and robs every plebeian in the state to do it. It's enough to set off WWs 3 and 4 in one format or another, I think.


Anyway. It appears that neo-feminism is likely an import directly from an American Reddit sub-folder of people responding to the effects of the American edition of neo-liberalism. This is a very different beast to that in Ireland, in that it is long-matured and in a very large weakly-coherent system. Here, people accept that they have no intrinsic value, believe in nothing but money, and espy all other people as being either of use in their ruthless campaign for more money, or a hindrance. This is my perception from leaving Ireland in the early 2000's anyway.


The American neo-liberal-scape is so devoid of value, that to survive it, you have to cultivate a post-modernist view-point. Reality itself suggests that post-modernism is the only angle that can help you -- not make sense of -- but come to accept your fate in this disjointed, money-defined zone. Money is of such fundamental import that morality itself has been converted from values that hold character-related attributes in high regard, to 'the morality of money'. That is, you're a good person if you pay your bills on time, don't live on credit, run an economical household, send your kids to school at 3 weeks so you can work to make maximum cash, etc. How you make your money to do this is subject to basically no moral judgement. This has to be one format of hell, imho.


So, could the rise of post-modernism (and its weaponization to push dishonest neo-feminist agenda) be related to the intensification of neo-liberal effects on society ('atomization', relative chaos, loss of positive group identity etc. made worse by obscenely punishing crash)?


I have to wonder why Peterson is not making any attempt to analyse the reasons for and not just the apparent identity and effect of the movements he complains about. Also, common psychological sense would inform him that pure facts and logic can't win any ostensible wars against an ideological enemy. For that, there must be some compassion, and some positive regard for what the other side is responding to. Could Peterson be setting the west up for more polarization? Could his motivations be less than pure?


Okay, if you made it this far, fair dues

Pa ElGrande

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMrFgVVMqto

Professor makes uncomfortable observation of the Left: Any statement must be gauged not only on the basis of its truth-value, but on the basis of whether it is likely to offended perceived victims.

tritium

20Cent wrote: »

Good article lays out the arguments against Peterson.

Is Jordan Peterson the stupid man’s smart person?
http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/

Last paragraph sums up this thread:

What he’s telling you is that certain people—most of them women and minorities—are trying to destroy not only our freedom to spite nonbinary university students for kicks, but all of Western civilization and the idea of objective truth itself. He’s telling you that when someone tells you racism is still a problem and that something should be done about it, they are, at best, a dupe and, at worst, part of a Marxist conspiracy to destroy your way of life.

I see you found someone else who didn’t watch the video.,,,,

20Cent

tritium wrote: »

I see you found someone else who didn’t watch the video.,,,,

Article was written before the video so that would not have been possible to comment on it beforehand.

20Cent

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMrFgVVMqto

Professor makes uncomfortable observation of the Left: Any statement must be gauged not only on the basis of its truth-value, but on the basis of whether it is likely to offended perceived victims.

White supremacist Tucker Carlson is s fan big suprise.
Tell the truth, don't let your kids be assholes (Tucker nods his head and says very smart) his main piece of advice "pay attention to what you say". Like I said he states the bleedin obvious as if its some amazing insight he's discovered. The stupid persons smart person indeed.

tritium

20Cent wrote: »

Article was written before the video so that would not have been possible to comment on it beforehand.

I’m not sure they’ve seen any of his videos having read it. Your ‘good article’ reads like a mix of misrepresentations and snide insults. Basically a piss poor tabloidesque hatchet job.

I say that as someone who hadnt seen anything by Peterson till this came out, so I’m hardly a fanboy. The article you linked is frankly pathetic

take everything

20Cent wrote: »

Good article lays out the arguments against Peterson.

Is Jordan Peterson the stupid man’s smart person?
http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/

Last paragraph sums up this thread:

What he’s telling you is that certain people—most of them women and minorities—are trying to destroy not only our freedom to spite nonbinary university students for kicks, but all of Western civilization and the idea of objective truth itself. He’s telling you that when someone tells you racism is still a problem and that something should be done about it, they are, at best, a dupe and, at worst, part of a Marxist conspiracy to destroy your way of life.

I stopped reading after she drew an analogy between Peterson’s concerns and her parents' friends asking her to call her auntie when she was a child. So presumably her parents' friends got some legislation passed back in the day mandating the right of parents' friends to be called auntie by kids.

As usual people like this journalist are being deliberately obtuse or just a bit thick. Genuinely can't tell here.

Noel82

20Cent wrote: »

White supremacist Tucker Carlson is s fan big suprise.

That's you in a nutshell man. You don't listen to people with different ideas, you jump to the easy option of name calling. You'd opt with silencing those with different views every time over engaging with them.

Carlson doesn't agree with identity politics and believes everyone should be treated as an individual and not defined by a group. From what I can tell your entire life view on the world is defined by it. That imo, is a sad existence but I feel little sympathy for you when you have no shame labeling everyone who doesn't conform to your way of thinking a white supremacist.

You are the type of person/movement Peterson is talking about - it's rampant on college campuses and has already become dangerous. You defend the likes of Antifa while shouting racist any every opportunity. Face it man, you are extreme left wing.

tritium

20Cent wrote: »

White supremacist Tucker Carlson is s fan big suprise.
Tell the truth, don't let your kids be assholes (Tucker nods his head and says very smart) his main piece of advice "pay attention to what you say". Like I said he states the bleedin obvious as if its some amazing insight he's discovered. The stupid persons smart person indeed.

So.. that’s a pretty big accusation right there. I know Carlson is conservative with a Capital C (though apparently supports gay marriage oddly enough) but white supremicist? Especially when he’s come out in the past and actively denied being a white nationalist? If you’re going to throw labels like that around you better be basing it on more than the jibes of his political opponents.

silverharp

20Cent wrote: »

White supremacist Tucker Carlson is s fan big suprise.
Tell the truth, don't let your kids be assholes (Tucker nods his head and says very smart) his main piece of advice "pay attention to what you say". Like I said he states the bleedin obvious as if its some amazing insight he's discovered. The stupid persons smart person indeed.

go way really?, you cant be taken seriously as a poster if you call him a white supremacist, you are hallucinating or you are easily led

suicide_circus

20Cent wrote: »

Good article lays out the arguments against Peterson.

Is Jordan Peterson the stupid man’s smart person?
http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/

Last paragraph sums up this thread:

What he’s telling you is that certain people—most of them women and minorities—are trying to destroy not only our freedom to spite nonbinary university students for kicks, but all of Western civilization and the idea of objective truth itself. He’s telling you that when someone tells you racism is still a problem and that something should be done about it, they are, at best, a dupe and, at worst, part of a Marxist conspiracy to destroy your way of life.

Two mentions of "alt right" in the opening paragraphs with a sprinkling of "nazi" later on.

professore

Brian? wrote: »

Utopias never fail because they’ve never existed.

But no, a utopia isn’t feasible. A utopia implies perfection. There will never be a perfect system. It doesn’t mean we can’t have a system that isn’t based on who can accumulate the most wealth

When my daughter was 15 her history teacher told them about the idea of socialism and how everyone got an "equal" share of everything etc and asked how many in the class thought that was a good system. Most of the class did, but she didn't and said it would never work as no one would be motivated to do anything. She hit the nail on the head IMO.

I bust my ass working trying to build a business and better myself - under any other system I'd stop doing that and just do as little as possible - as would 99% of people. It's human nature.

What's even worse is that under any other system if I did manage to make some money, the state would wade in and take it off me and give it to some bums sitting on their ass all day (in the ideal version) or in the real world version distribute it among the party apparatchiks and haul me off to the salt mines as an "enemy of the people".

IMO Ireland is already quite a socialist country - lots of handouts if you do nothing and lots of taxes if you do.

20Cent

professore wrote: »

When my daughter was 15 her history teacher told them about the idea of socialism and how everyone got an "equal" share of everything etc and asked how many in the class thought that was a good system. Most of the class did, but she didn't and said it would never work as no one would be motivated to do anything. She hit the nail on the head IMO.

I bust my ass working trying to build a business and better myself - under any other system I'd stop doing that and just do as little as possible - as would 99% of people. It's human nature.

What's even worse is that under any other system if I did manage to make some money, the state would wade in and take it off me and give it to some bums sitting on their ass all day (in the ideal version) or in the real world version distribute it among the party apparatchiks and haul me off to the salt mines as an "enemy of the people".

IMO Ireland is already quite a socialist country - lots of handouts if you do nothing and lots of taxes if you do.

My toddler spilt my coffee when he slammed his copy of the complete works of Beckett onto the table and announced that capitalism is not working.

20Cent

Noel82 wrote: »

That's you in a nutshell man. You don't listen to people with different ideas, you jump to the easy option of name calling. You'd opt with silencing those with different views every time over engaging with them.

Carlson doesn't agree with identity politics and believes everyone should be treated as an individual and not defined by a group. From what I can tell your entire life view on the world is defined by it. That imo, is a sad existence but I feel little sympathy for you when you have no shame labeling everyone who doesn't conform to your way of thinking a white supremacist.

You are the type of person/movement Peterson is talking about - it's rampant on college campuses and has already become dangerous. You defend the likes of Antifa while shouting racist any every opportunity. Face it man, you are extreme left wing.

Carlson rants against multiculturalism says it's better to have races living seperatly. Hardly a rejection of identity politics or belief in the individual not grouping people together.

Just one example.

https://youtu.be/_brXEFpemTM

Brian?

professore wrote: »

When my daughter was 15 her history teacher told them about the idea of socialism and how everyone got an "equal" share of everything etc and asked how many in the class thought that was a good system. Most of the class did, but she didn't and said it would never work as no one would be motivated to do anything. She hit the nail on the head IMO.

I bust my ass working trying to build a business and better myself - under any other system I'd stop doing that and just do as little as possible - as would 99% of people. It's human nature.

What's even worse is that under any other system if I did manage to make some money, the state would wade in and take it off me and give it to some bums sitting on their ass all day (in the ideal version) or in the real world version distribute it among the party apparatchiks and haul me off to the salt mines as an "enemy of the people".

IMO Ireland is already quite a socialist country - lots of handouts if you do nothing and lots of taxes if you do.

So you have a fundamental misunderstanding of socialism, therefore it doesn’t work?

Ireland isn’t a socialist country. The Irish state massively authoritarian. We still haven’t shaken off the yoke of the Catholic Churche’s influence on public policy.

I’ll say it again, the goal is a stateless society. No central authority. No coercion.

Brian?

tritium wrote: »

So.. that’s a pretty big accusation right there. I know Carlson is conservative with a Capital C (though apparently supports gay marriage oddly enough) but white supremicist? Especially when he’s come out in the past and actively denied being a white nationalist? If you’re going to throw labels like that around you better be basing it on more than the jibes of his political opponents.

Tucker Carlson is a nasty piece of work. He’s not really a white supremacist, but he loves some identity politics. The GOP invented identity politics, lest we forget.

stunmer

20Cent wrote: »

Carlson rants against multiculturalism says it's better to have races living seperatly. Hardly a rejection of identity politics or belief in the individual not grouping people together.

Just one example.

https://youtu.be/_brXEFpemTM

Where? I've just watched the video. At no point does he mention it's better to have races living separately.

Quickly going through the video, I find it difficult to disagree with anything Tucker says in this situation.

What in his video do you not agree with?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_brXEFpemTM

silverharp

20Cent wrote: »

Carlson rants against multiculturalism says it's better to have races living seperatly. Hardly a rejection of identity politics or belief in the individual not grouping people together.

Just one example.

https://youtu.be/_brXEFpemTM

the title of your video literally suggests the opposite

xckjoo

Brian? wrote: »

So you have a fundamental misunderstanding of socialism, therefore it doesn’t work?

Ireland isn’t a socialist country. The Irish state massively authoritarian. We still haven’t shaken off the yoke of the Catholic Churche’s influence on public policy.

I’ll say it again, the goal is a stateless society. No central authority. No coercion.

How does the idea of a stateless society work? Do we not need a central authority for development of things like infrastructure, law and order, trade, etc.?

I can't see how socialism is implementable in the "real world", but I'll admit that my knowledge on the subject is weak at best.

johnp001

Brian? wrote: »

So you have a fundamental misunderstanding of socialism, therefore it doesn’t work?

Ireland isn’t a socialist country. The Irish state massively authoritarian. We still haven’t shaken off the yoke of the Catholic Churche’s influence on public policy.

I’ll say it again, the goal is a stateless society. No central authority. No coercion.

Regarding the last sentence, do you support the use of a central authority and coercion in order to achieve the ultimate goal of a stateless society?

stunmer

20Cent wrote: »

Good article lays out the arguments against Peterson.

Is Jordan Peterson the stupid man’s smart person?
http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/

Last paragraph sums up this thread:

What he’s telling you is that certain people—most of them women and minorities—are trying to destroy not only our freedom to spite nonbinary university students for kicks, but all of Western civilization and the idea of objective truth itself. He’s telling you that when someone tells you racism is still a problem and that something should be done about it, they are, at best, a dupe and, at worst, part of a Marxist conspiracy to destroy your way of life.

Haha! The paragraph you quoted from the article literally does exactly the same as the Cathy Newman did in the interview. It plainly misrepresents Jordan Petersen in a way to try to discredit him.

Replace the bolded bits above with "So what you're saying is" and you have another typical Cathy Newman style bullsh*t response.

buried

Way way too many "So yer sayinnnnn"'ssses.

storker

take everything wrote: »

As usual people like this journalist are being deliberately obtuse or just a bit thick. Genuinely can't tell here.

Don't forget laziness.

Brian?

johnp001 wrote: »

Regarding the last sentence, do you support the use of a central authority and coercion in order to achieve the ultimate goal of a stateless society?

Absolutely not.

Wibbs

take everything wrote: »

I stopped reading after she drew an analogy between Peterson’s concerns and her parents' friends asking her to call her auntie when she was a child. So presumably her parents' friends got some legislation passed back in the day mandating the right of parents' friends to be called auntie by kids.

From my skim of his stuff there is much I don't agree with Peterson on*, however that article was a lot of words equating to the childish equivalent of "he smells!". Wasted opportunity to actually debate the points. Again all to common these days.




*I find him over simplistic and not in that good way of simplicity. I find him quaintly "old fashioned" and again not in a particularly good way and while I admire his hero Jung, the same Jung was often to be found full of sh1t on more than a few levels.