Jordan Peterson interview on C4

RandomName2 · 23-07-2018 05:58PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

In certain contexts, they aren't pejorative. So your question is subjective. SJW is always pejorative. You know, like 'snowflake' and 'cuck'.

I struggle to think of a time that Nazi or Bolshevist aren't used in a perjorative sense.. which is partially why I used fascist and communist instead, but also that these are more accurate terms.

We all know who I mean when I refer to SJW, but I don't really know what they refer to themselves as. Their armed wing generally describes itself as Antifa, but that's no more a collective term than Sturmabteilung. While I would prefer a more academic term with which to classify these activists, one which otherwise accurately encompasses this movement is not forthcoming.

Moreover, someone like Brian? was able to say he wasn't a social justice warrior, so despite the fact that he thanked your post saying that is is exclusively used in a pejorative sense, it is clear it also has a utilitarian capacity.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Words that clueless and angry people use when venting their blind and incoherent rage on the internet.

Not always exclusively

Giraffe Box · 23-07-2018 06:28PM

^Why so eager to place an individual poster - namely our Brian? - into a group of your own choosing.
Stop bullying him, and as a Jordan Peterson fanboy you, of all people, should know how the great man- that's JP and not our Brian? - abhors group identity.
You're doing it wrong.:)

Professor Moriarty · 23-07-2018 06:38PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

I struggle to think of a time that Nazi or Bolshevist aren't used in a perjorative sense.. which is partially why I used fascist and communist instead, but also that these are more accurate terms.

'Nazi' doesn't equate to 'fascist'. Similarly, Bolshevist doesn't equate to 'communist'.

We all know who I mean when I refer to SJW,

It's a simplistic generalisation so I don't know who you mean.

but I don't really know what they refer to themselves as.

So how do you know who 'they' are?

Their armed wing generally describes itself as Antifa,

This statement is untrue. It's simply a lazy and very inaccurate generalisation.

but that's no more a collective term than Sturmabteilung.

Point?

While I would prefer a more academic term with which to classify these activists, one which otherwise accurately encompasses this movement is not forthcoming.

Which activists? LGBT? Feminists? Anti-fascists? Socialists? Conservatives? Capitalists, Protestants? You need to define what you mean by 'SJW'.

Moreover, someone like Brian? was able to say he wasn't a social justice warrior, so despite the fact that he thanked your post saying that is is exclusively used in a pejorative sense, it is clear it also has a utilitarian capacity.

I have no idea why he thanked my post. Why don't you ask him before assuming?

Not always exclusively

Correct. But in my experience, almost always.

RandomName2 · 23-07-2018 07:03PM

Giraffe Box wrote: »

^Why so eager to place an individual poster - namely our Brian? - into a group of your own choosing.
Stop bullying him, and as a Jordan Peterson fanboy you, of all people, should know how the great man- that's JP and not our Brian? - abhors group identity.
You're doing it wrong.:)

This post has left me more confused than any other in a long time, which is really saying something as it comes hot on the heels of Lux23's contribution. My apologies if it is meant in jest and I couldn't read it.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

'Nazi' doesn't equate to 'fascist'. Similarly, Bolshevist doesn't equate to 'communist'.

Exactly, they are subdivisions, more specific than the general term, which is why they are generally not appropriate.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's a simplistic generalisation so I don't know who you mean.

Either you're being disingenuous, or you genuinely don't. In the case of the latter, why would you have a problem what I call people, when you don't know to whom I am referring?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So how do you know who 'they' are?

I would in all honesty answer this in detail. I probably should. But we both know why you're asking the question, and it certainly isn't to produce a non-pejorative term with which to describe people who are anti-libertarian, anti free-speech, social justice activists.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This statement is untrue. It's simply a lazy and very inaccurate generalisation.

Point?

You answered your own question there (reverse order).

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Which activists? LGBT? Feminists? Anti-fascists? Socialists? Conservatives? Capitalists, Protestants? You need to define what you mean by 'SJW'.

You have to define what you mean by feminists. What a sloppy and generalized term you used, Moriarty. Do you mean sufragettes? Neopagans? Third-wave? Socialist? Anti-abortionist? Pro free choice? Ecofeminists? Liberal-feminist? Radical-feminist? You're talking about a huge movement that spanned the globe and even various religions, and is over a hundred years old.

But before you answer (probably fourth wave with elements of various sub-streams), ask yourself first: am I doing this just to be a pain in the arse?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I have noidea why he thanked my post. Why don't you ask him before assuming?

Okay, so nobody knows what an SJW is.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Correct. But in my experience, almost always.

Same with 'fascist' I am pretty sure you'd find Moriarty.

Professor Moriarty · 23-07-2018 07:30PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Exactly, they are subdivisions, more specific than the general term, which is why they are generally not appropriate.

So don't use them

Either you're being disingenuous, or you genuinely don't. In the case of the latter, why would you have a problem what I call people, when you don't know to whom I am referring?

No. Define what you mean by SJW.

I would in all honesty answer this in detail. I probably should. But we both know why you're asking the question, and it certainly isn't to produce a non-pejorative term with which to describe people who are anti-libertarian, anti free-speech, social justice activists.

Any answer to my questions would be welcome.

You answered your own question there (reverse order).

Perhaps you could just answer the question? What was your point?

You have to define what you mean by feminists. What a sloppy and generalized term you used, Moriarty. Do you mean sufragettes? Neopagans? Third-wave? Socialist? Anti-abortionist? Pro free choice? Ecofeminists? Liberal-feminist? Radical-feminist? You're talking about a huge movement that spanned the globe and even various religions, and is over a hundred years old.

Sure. So what do you mean by 'SJW'? Can a Protestant be a SJW? A gay woman? A capitalist? An answer would be great.

But before you answer (probably fourth wave with elements of various sub-streams), ask yourself first: am I doing this just to be a pain in the arse?

No. I'm asking you to define a lazy generalisation that you used in the context of a rant about terms that you, ironically, believe are 'bullying'.

Okay, so nobody knows what an SJW is.

So why use the term?

Same with 'fascist' I am pretty sure you'd find Moriarty.

No. 'Fascism' is a definitive political philosphy. Unlike 'SJW' which has no meaning.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 23-07-2018 07:39PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

RandomName2 wrote: »

So don't use them

No. Define what you mean by SJW.

Any answer to my questions would be welcome.

Perhaps you could just answer the question? What was your point?

Sure. So what do you mean by 'SJW'? Can a Protestant be a SJW? A gay woman? A capitalist? An answer would be great.

No. I'm asking you to define a lazy generalisation that you used in the context of a rant about terms that you, ironically, believe are 'bullying'.

So why use the term?

No. 'Fascism' is a definitive political philosphy. Unlike 'SJW' which has no meaning.

SJW absolutely has a meaning - 'Social Justice Warrior - a person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views.

RandomName2 · 23-07-2018 08:03PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So don't use them

I didn't. :mad:

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No. Define what you mean by SJW.

Oh I mean a radical social justice activist. What, you already knew that? Ah, come now Moriarty, what are you trying to get at? Me producing an overly specific definition just in order to trip me up? This is because providing a specific instance for any umbrella term (like fascist, feminist, communist, capitalist, etc.) is going to exclude cases that clearly fit under the umbrella term. We both agreed that non-generalized terms are not very useful.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Any answer to my questions would be welcome.

It might be unfair of me, but I question your motive. Are you confused by what I mean, or are you opposed to what I say? I'm going to say that your combative stance would make me assume that it isn't the former.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Sure. So what do you mean by 'SJW'? Can a Protestant be a SJW? A gay woman? A capitalist? An answer would be great.

Can a Protestant be a feminist? A gay woman? A capitalist? An answer would be great.

Yes to all of them. This also applies to both fascism and communism. As a caveat a gay woman would probably want to be either non-practicing or well connected within either fascism or communism, but there's technically nothing preventing such beyond that. That's what you get with umbrella terms.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No. I'm asking you to define a lazy generalisation that you used in the context of a rant about terms that you, ironically, believe are 'bullying'.

Ah, now it all makes sense. You're in favor of the terms, so you are opposed to my classifying it as being indicative of scummy people. Your question was never about me defining a term you already well understood, outside of it being merely a slur. Because if I were merely using a slur, I'd say something like 'scummy'.

The people who believe that your gender, sexual orientation, creed, or skin-color bestows certain virtues and authority in terms of being able to write, or speak. These people I term scum, and the terms they have invented to give moral fortitude to their clearly immoral stance is itself scummy.

Professor Moriarty · 23-07-2018 08:07PM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

SJW absolutely has a meaning - 'Social Justice Warrior - a person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views.

Are you a 'SJW' according to your definition?

2 Scoops · 23-07-2018 08:10PM

Those SJW's are a nasty bunch, look what they did this poor individual

RandomName2 · 23-07-2018 08:14PM

2 Scoops wrote: »

Those SJW's are a nasty bunch, look what they did this poor individual

I've been checking my irony meter for everything I've seen posted on this thread for the last couple of pages, and I'm pretty sure it's broken by now.

Giraffe Box · 23-07-2018 08:16PM

2 Scoops wrote: »

Those SJW's are a nasty bunch, look what they did this poor individual

The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.
Scorn not his simplicity but rather try and love him all the more.:pac:

Professor Moriarty · 23-07-2018 08:20PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

I didn't. :mad:

Very wise.

Oh I mean a radical social justice activist. What, you already knew that? Ah, come now Moriarty, what are you trying to get at? Me producing an overly specific definition just in order to trip me up? This is because providing a specific instance for any umbrella term (like fascist, feminist, communist, capitalist, etc.) is going to exclude cases that clearly fit under the umbrella term. We both agreed that non-generalized terms are not very useful.

No. Those are specific terms. Why not save yourself all of this evasion and simply give your definition of a 'SJW'?

It might be unfair of me, but I question your motive. Are you confused by what I mean, or are you opposed to what I say? I'm going to say that your combative stance would make me assume that it isn't the former.

Just passing time pleasantly. Any chance of defining what you mean by 'SJW'?

Can a Protestant be a feminist? A gay woman? A capitalist? An answer would be great.

Yes to all of them. This also applies to both fascism and communism. As a caveat a gay woman would probably want to be either non-practicing or well connected within either fascism or communism, but there's technically nothing preventing such beyond that. That's what you get with umbrella terms.

How about a SJW? Can any human being be a SJW regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation etc.?

Ah, now it all makes sense. You're in favor of the terms, so you are opposed to my classifying it as being indicative of scummy people. Your question was never about me defining a term you already well understood, outside of it being merely a slur. Because if I were merely using a slur, I'd say something like 'scummy'.

What not simply define 'SJW'? It's not like you'd use it in a bullying or cajoling way is it?

The people who believe that your gender, sexual orientation, creed, or skin-color bestows certain virtues and authority in terms of being able to write, or speak. These people I term scum, and the terms they have invented to give moral fortitude to their clearly immoral stance is itself scummy.

So, according to you: All religious people are scum. All racists are scum. All misogynists are scum. All homophobes are scum. You're quite an advocate for social justice, aren't you?

2 Scoops · 23-07-2018 08:29PM

I'll try.. SJW = college students and activists indoctrinated by identity politics to the point it shapes their worldview and defines them as a person. When you question their viewpoint they don't just see it as someone questioning their beliefs, they see it as an attack on their identity and as such their retort is not one of reason and debate but rather emotion and violence.

Giraffe Box · 23-07-2018 08:30PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Were the uses of 'fascist' and 'communist' also ironic, and if not, why not?

'12 Rules for Life' by the great man is supposed to be An Antidote to Chaos
You're causing ructions here with your bullish ways.
It's all very upsetting.
Relax, have a sandwich or something.

RandomName2 · 23-07-2018 08:31PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No. Those are specific terms.

Seeing that your disingenuity is now spreading to every aspect of your post, there are diminishing returns in replying to you.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Any chance of defining what you mean by 'SJW'?

I have, but you already know that.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How about a SJW? Can any human being be a SJW regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation etc.?

Of course, it's a generalized term. The fact that anyone can be a fascist, or a communist, or a capitalist, or an SJW doesn't mean that it isn't going to be predominantly within a particular demographic though. You forgot age and nationality by the way.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What not simply define 'SJW'? It's not like you'd use it in a bullying or cajoling way is it?

No more than saying that communism is communism is bullying or cajoling. Communism leads to mass murder. Oh I am so bullying.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So, according to you: All religious people are scum. All racists are scum. All misogynists are scum. All homophobes are scum. You're quite an advocate for social justice, aren't you?

I have no idea what you mean by social justice. Nobody knows what you mean when you say that term.

Giraffe Box wrote: »

'12 Rules for Life' by the great man is supposed to be An Antidote to Chaos
You're causing ructions here with your bullish ways.
It's all very upsetting.
Relax, have a sandwich or something.

Well if I considered Peterson to be some sort of prophet, I may have to follow his book like it were scripture, but as I don't, I don't.

Professor Moriarty · 23-07-2018 08:34PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Seeing that your disingenuity is now spreading to every aspect of your post, there are diminishing returns in replying to you.

I have, but you already know that.

Of course, it's a generalized term. The fact that anyone can be a fascist, or a communist, or a capitalist, or an SJW doesn't mean that it isn't going to be predominantly within a particular demographic though. You forgot age and nationality by the way.

No more than saying that communism is communism is bullying or cajoling. Communism leads to mass murder. Oh I am so bullying.

I have no idea what you mean by social justice. Nobody knows what you mean when you say that term.

Sure. Where is your definition of 'SJW'?

7aubzxk43m2sni · 23-07-2018 08:38PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Are you a 'SJW' according to your definition?

It's not my definition, it's Oxford dictionary's.

Much like modern day feminism, the word has been dirtied and the word contains similar negative connotations.

No, I wouldn't call myself a social justice warrior. I don't spend my time virtue signalling on the internet

RandomName2 · 23-07-2018 08:38PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Sure. Where is your definition of 'SJW'?

.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh I mean a radical social justice activist. What, you already knew that?

RandomName2 wrote: »

The people who believe that your gender, sexual orientation, creed, or skin-color bestows certain virtues and authority in terms of being able to write, or speak.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 23-07-2018 08:38PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Sure. Where is your definition of 'SJW'?

What are you trying to accomplish?

RandomName2 · 23-07-2018 08:40PM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

What are you trying to accomplish?

He's very irritated that I criticized terms he likes, so he wants to do a
'So you're saying we should be like the lobsters' move.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 23-07-2018 08:43PM

Giraffe Box wrote: »

^Why so eager to place an individual poster - namely our Brian? - into a group of your own choosing.
Stop bullying him, and as a Jordan Peterson fanboy you, of all people, should know how the great man- that's JP and not our Brian? - abhors group identity.
You're doing it wrong.:)

Do you have anything to contribute to the thread?

Giraffe Box · 23-07-2018 08:44PM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Do you have anything to contribute to the thread?

Professor Moriarty · 23-07-2018 08:49PM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's not my definition, it's Oxford dictionary's.

Much like modern day feminism, the word has been dirtied and the word contains similar negative connotations.

No, I wouldn't call myself a social justice warrior. I don't spend my time virtue signalling on the internet

So you say that a SJW - Social Justice Warrior - is a person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views? Cool. I like that.

What's your problem with people promoting or expressing socially progressive views?

RandomName2 · 23-07-2018 08:50PM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Do you have anything to contribute to the thread?

Ah elongated container isn't doing any harm

RandomName2 · 23-07-2018 08:59PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What's your problem with people promoting or expressing socially progressive views?

That's a weak lobster move, but I'm sure you're warming up to something.

Professor Moriarty · 23-07-2018 09:01PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

.

I mean a radical social justice activist. What, you already knew that?

The people who believe that your gender, sexual orientation, creed, or skin-color bestows certain virtues and authority in terms of being able to write, or speak.

So, according to your definition: All religious people are scum. All racists are scum. All misogynists are scum. All homophobes are scum. Oh and radical SJWs. Apparently.

Professor Moriarty · 23-07-2018 09:02PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

That's a weak lobster move, but I'm sure you're warming up to something.

No idea what you are talking about. No interest either.

RandomName2 · 23-07-2018 09:13PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So, according to your definition: All religious people are scum. All racists are scum. All misogynists are scum. All homophobes are scum. Oh and radical SJWs. Apparently.

Déja-vu? Déja-vu.

Not quite. Just going to leave out the 'all religious people' bit altogether. Bigots would have been a better word to use there, surely? But 'all' for any of the categories doesn't quite cut it. It's in the ballpark, but honestly, I think my definition was closer to the mark. We could stick with that.

But why do you like SJW so much? Ah, now I know why you had the pretended ignorance about the term, you can't be asked that question if you don't know what it means. Even though you clearly have a.. position.. you used that so you never had to state your views, but merely set yourself up as some sort of interrogator.

As much as I admire the tactic, the insincerity is a bit too obvious. You'd also want a different handle to pull it off with more pathos

.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No idea what you are talking about. No interest either.

Ah I think a lot of people on this thread will know what I mean.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Professor Moriarty · 23-07-2018 09:21PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Déja-vu? Déja-vu.

Not quite. Just going to leave out the 'all religious people' bit altogether. Bigots would have been a better word to use there, surely? But 'all' for any of the categories doesn't quite cut it. It's in the ballpark, but honestly, I think my definition was closer to the mark. We could stick with that.

Nope. Your definition applies to all of those terms. In fact, a lot more accurately than your vague definition of SJW.

But why do you like SJW so much? Ah, now I know why you had the pretended ignorance about the term, you can't be asked that question if you don't know what it means. Even though you clearly have a.. position.. you used that so you never had to state your views, but merely set yourself up as some sort of interrogator.

I don't give a crap about the term other than I have a mild distatste for lazy generalisations.

As much as I admire the tactic, the insincerity is a bit too obvious. You'd also want a different handle to pull it off with more pathos

.

Oh I am sincere. No tactics, just passing time pleasantly.

RandomName2 · 23-07-2018 09:54PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I don't give a crap about the term other than I have a mild distatste for lazy generalisations.

Then you surely must not like the terms 'fascist', 'communist', etc.? Wait, those are 'specific' terms, are they?

At this point I could say 'define them'

Then you reply back with 'dictatorship of the proletariat' for communism and something like 'far-right nationalism' for fascist.

I reply back saying that those are actually pretty vague.

Seeing that you haven't actually said you dislike fascism or communism I can't do what I otherwise would do at this stage and turn our question on its head, which would be 'you hate all cultists, all racists, all misogynists, all homophobes'? I could always get that admission from you, if you'd answer the question.

At which point you could either say 'yes' or say 'what the hell has that got to do with either fascism or communism'. If it's the second choice I could say how those things are contained within both ideologies (racism in communism would be a bit more tricky, but for an ideology which spans the world and has so many splinter groups I'd be bound to find something).

You could then reply saying 'that doesn't fit the criteria of 'all'' or 'that's simply cherry-picking' which you'd be totally right about, but I'd have plenty of wriggle room with such broad ideologies.

And it's interesting that fascism is still such a broad church, from the Portuguese Republic to Empire of Japan. And so much of it is debatable, but people who are debating it will fall into one of three groups: people who are genuinely interested from an academic point of view, people who are attempting to use to vagueness of it for fairly anachronous analogies (like saying that Trump is a fascist), or those that are just being long-winded pains.

And why is the third group a long-winded pain? Because we all know what fascism is, and debating whether Franco was truly a fascist because he didn't take part in the Holocaust, and never declared war on anyone, is somewhat missing the point.

Using vague generalized terms like feminism suits you when you want it to. :pac:

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Comments