Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Brian? · 24-07-2018 10:54AM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Privilege. I couldn't remember the word you used. Now I've looked back, it was privilege. That was the other nonsense. No tactics involved.

If you’re going to describe the contents of my posts as nonsense, that is a tactic. A poor one. Not everything you disagree with is nonsense, it completely lowers the tone.

Giraffe Box · 24-07-2018 10:55AM

Brian? wrote: »

If you’re going to describe the contents of my posts as nonsense, that is a tactic. A poor one. Not everything you disagree with is nonsense, it completely lowers the tone.

Couldn't agree more.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 24-07-2018 10:59AM

Brian? wrote: »

No thanks. As we agreed previously, can’t we debate what Peterson says instead. What does Peterson say about toxic masculinity?

This thread spirals out of control too easily.

You're happy to accuse a poster of displaying 'toxic masculinity' for admiring Peterson's calm exterior in the face of stress, and then you won't back it up at all, for fear of derailing the thread?

This is the part of your post that I imagine most people had trouble with:

How did the poster "display his privilege and bias"?

What privilege does he have and how did he display it?
What bias does he have and how did he display it?

Brian? wrote: »

Do we know the poster is a he?

Does it matter ? Seems like you're avoiding the question.

Let me rephrase to avoid assuming someone's gender.

How did the poster "display their privilege and bias"?

What privilege does the poster have and how did they display it?
What bias do they have and how did they display it?

7aubzxk43m2sni · 24-07-2018 10:59AM

Brian? wrote: »

If you’re going to describe the contents of my posts as nonsense, that is a tactic. A poor one. Not everything you disagree with is nonsense, it completely lowers the tone.

Fair enough, point taken, next time I'll look back and quote it accurately.

Brian? · 24-07-2018 11:00AM

2 Scoops wrote: »

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.

So nothing like me? Thanks for that. Can everyone lazily calling me a SJW apologise to me please.

RandomName2 · 24-07-2018 11:01AM

Brian? wrote: »

If you’re going to describe the contents of my posts as nonsense, that is a tactic. A poor one. Not everything you disagree with is nonsense, it completely lowers the tone.

He didn't say the post was nonsense, just the word.

Brian? wrote: »

That’s right. I said privilege and bias. Let the “snowflake” screaming begin.

And he's totally right. 'Privilege' is the worst defense that can be produced for an argument, but seeing as this wasn't your main tenet you could have just be putting it in to sh*tstir

edit

Brian? wrote: »

Like a lot of his supporters, you’re displaying your own privilege and bias. It’s not about minorities, it’s aboit society as a whole.

This is actually correct - it was never about the 0.01%. There are less people who want to be called by the alternative pronouns, than there are alternative pronouns. This was being used as a case for compelled speech, it had nothing to do with the electorate per se.

Brian? · 24-07-2018 11:02AM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

You're happy to accuse a poster of displaying 'toxic masculinity' for admiring Peterson's calm exterior in the face of stress, and then you won't back it up at all, for fear of derailing the thread?

Does it matter ? Seems like you're avoiding the question.

Let me rephrase to avoid assuming someone's gender.

How did the poster "display their privilege and bias"?

What privilege does the poster have and how did they display it?
What bias do they have and how did they display it?

Why have you edited my post this way and selectively responded? What about the ongoing discussion at the start you just left out?

7aubzxk43m2sni · 24-07-2018 11:08AM

Brian? wrote: »

Why have you edited my post this way and selectively responded? What about the ongoing discussion at the start you just left out?

This is the part I left out:

Brian? wrote: »

The minority was being used by the poster I responded to, to attack the laws. By someone who was supposedly in agreement with Peterson. It’s my understanding that Peterson disagrees with all compelled speech, in all circumstances. Further the same poster made a case for compelled speech in favour of the majority, Peterson would not agree with this to the best of my knowledge.

So it left me in the strange position of explaining and supporting Peterson to his own supporter.

I'll need to read back in the thread where the same poster made a case for compelled speech in favour of the majority, I must have completely missed it. Of course, if that's the case, peterson would also not agree.

What do you want as a response to that?

Please don't take this as an opportunity to deflect the questions of my first reply.

Brian? · 24-07-2018 11:08AM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

You're happy to accuse a poster of displaying 'toxic masculinity' for admiring Peterson's calm exterior in the face of stress, and then you won't back it up at all, for fear of derailing the thread?

There’s a hypocrisy to that. You’re right.

The admiration of bring calm and unemotional is an aspect of toxic masculinity IMO. It teaches boys to internalise and repress emotions. It teaches boys that boys don’t cry etc. . Repression of feelings can cause a huge psychological backlash as they get older. Men who express their emotions should be admired, but they are generally ridiculed.

Does it matter ? Seems like you're avoiding the question.

Let me rephrase to avoid assuming someone's gender.

How did the poster "display their privilege and bias"?

What privilege does the poster have and how did they display it?
What bias do they have and how did they display it?

They displayed privilege and bias by ranting against a minority. Simples

Brian? · 24-07-2018 11:10AM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

This is the part I left out:

I'll need to read back in the thread where the same poster made a case for compelled speech in favour of the majority, I must have completely missed it. Of course, if that's the case, peterson would also not agree.

What do you want as a response to that?

Please don't take this as an opportunity to deflect the questions of my first reply.

I want a response to all or none of my posts. It’s hardly a big ask.

Brian? · 24-07-2018 11:12AM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

This is the part I left out:

I'll need to read back in the thread where the same poster made a case for compelled speech in favour of the majority, I must have completely missed it. Of course, if that's the case, peterson would also not agree.

What do you want as a response to that?

Please don't take this as an opportunity to deflect the questions of my first reply.

You also left out the part where you defended someone calling me “cognitively disabled”. I’d like some response to that.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 24-07-2018 11:13AM

Brian? wrote: »

There’s a hypocrisy to that. You’re right.

The admiration of bring calm and unemotional is an aspect of toxic masculinity IMO. It teaches boys to internalise and repress emotions. It teaches boys that boys don’t cry etc. . Repression of feelings can cause a huge psychological backlash as they get older. Men who express their emotions should be admired, but they are generally ridiculed.

Being calm in the face of immediate stress is completely different to the idea that boys don't or shouldn't cry.

Being calm and rational in a conversation or debate is clearly the correct way to go about it.

Brian? wrote: »

They displayed privilege and bias by ranting against a minority. Simples

Where was the rant against a minority? The poster argued against compelled speech and the activists who pursue it.

And surely in the case of a rant against a minority, that's perhaps bias/prejudice against them, but nothing to do with privilege?

kubjones · 24-07-2018 11:13AM

Brian? wrote: »

There’s a hypocrisy to that. You’re right.

The admiration of bring calm and unemotional is an aspect of toxic masculinity IMO. It teaches boys to internalise and repress emotions. It teaches boys that boys don’t cry etc. . Repression of feelings can cause a huge psychological backlash as they get older. Men who express their emotions should be admired, but they are generally ridiculed.

They displayed privilege and bias by ranting against a minority. Simples

I recall a video Dr. Peterson made about a year, possibly two years ago. He began to cry talking about the rates at which young men were committing suicide.

He was ridiculed, not by his follows, but by his detractors. The same detractors that might argue that admiration of his calm disposition would be an aspect of Toxic Masculinity.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 24-07-2018 11:14AM

Brian? wrote: »

I want a response to all or none of my posts. It’s hardly a big ask.

Ok.

Brian? wrote: »

You also left out the part where you defended someone calling me “cognitively disabled”. I’d like some response to that.

I'm making the point that the poster was probably going for "stupid" rather than "retarded". If you choose to take it as the latter and take offence to it, that's completely up to you.

Brian? · 24-07-2018 11:15AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

He didn't say the post was nonsense, just the word.

“Other nonsense” isn’t very specific.

And he's totally right. 'Privilege' is the worst defense that can be produced for an argument, but seeing as this wasn't your main tenet you could have just be putting it in to sh*tstir

edit

This is actually correct - it was never about the 0.01%. There are less people who want to be called by the alternative pronouns, than there are alternative pronouns. This was being used as a case for compelled speech, it had nothing to do with the electorate per se.

So we’re agreed?

RandomName2 · 24-07-2018 11:16AM

Brian? wrote: »

“Other nonsense” isn’t very specific.

Two terms, male-toxicity and privilege

Brian? wrote: »

So we’re agreed?

Yes, I think that might be the case.

Brian? wrote: »

They displayed privilege and bias by ranting against a minority. Simples

For anyone who wants to know the ahem.. rant.. being described, here you go

Rennaws wrote: »

I'm also probably privileged (your term, not mine), I don't know how you define it and I don't care enough to ask but I'm guessing you're also privileged which again begs the question, so what ?

I speak about minorities because i'm not going to let .3% of the population determine how I raise my children and what words I use when I speak..

If the .3% become 30% of the population then we'll have something to talk about but my point is, the numbers matter..

Why ? Because we live in a democracy with majority rule.. Therefore society will always be driven by the majority.

That's how it should be but some quarters are challenging this notion.

I mean majority rule is correct as far as it goes in a democracy, but you (Brian?) are also correct that this particular law had very little to do with the minority in question.

The minority to be blamed, if one is to ascribe blame, are not transgender people, but rather a small handful of people with executive power, and political influence. That's your 'privilege', right there.

Brian? · 24-07-2018 11:17AM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Ok.

I'm making the point that the poster was probably going for "stupid" rather than "retarded". If you choose to take it as the latter and take offence to it, that's completely up to you.

If they meant stupid, they would have said stupid. Why do you feel the need to defend it? Even if they were calling me stupid.

You seriously think I’d ever use “retarded”?

Brian? · 24-07-2018 11:19AM

kubjones wrote: »

I recall a video Dr. Peterson made about a year, possibly two years ago. He began to cry talking about the rates at which young men were committing suicide.

He was ridiculed, not by his follows, but by his detractors. The same detractors that might argue that admiration of his calm disposition would be an aspect of Toxic Masculinity.

Did I ridicule him? No I did not.

He regularly gets emotional. It’s admirable. Even if he’s wrong.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 24-07-2018 11:19AM

Brian? wrote: »

If they meant stupid, they would have said stupid. Why do you feel the need to defend it? Even if they were calling me stupid.

You seriously think I’d ever use “retarded”?

Ok, they shouldn't have called you cognitively disabled. They should have been clearer with what they meant to say.

I doubt that you would use "retarded".

Giraffe Box · 24-07-2018 11:21AM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Ok.

I'm making the point that the poster was probably going for "stupid" rather than "retarded". If you choose to take it as the latter and take offence to it, that's completely up to you.

Fair enough I suppose, though the poster did seriously contravene the great man's rule number 10, or 10th commandment if you will: 'Be Precise in Your Speech'!

RandomName2 · 24-07-2018 11:22AM

Giraffe Box wrote: »

Fair enough I suppose, though the poster did seriously contravene the great man's rule number 10, or 10th commandment if you will: 'Be Precise in Your Speech'!

And got thread-banned for his error.

Brian? · 24-07-2018 11:24AM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Being calm in the face of immediate stress is completely different to the idea that boys don't or shouldn't cry.

Being calm and rational in a conversation or debate is clearly the correct way to go about it.

I disagree. One can be rational while displaying emotion.

You see, this is what I’m talking about. You’re equating displaying emotion with irrationality. It underpins my point how some think men/boys should behave.

Where was the rant against a minority? The poster argued against compelled speech and the activists who pursue it.

And surely in the case of a rant against a minority, that's perhaps bias/prejudice against them, but nothing to do with privilege?

Someone just posted it. It wasn’t a rant against a specific minority as such, but a rant against minorities dictating laws. It’s easy to have a rant like that when you’re secure in the knowledge that you’re never going to be in such a minority. That’s what I meant by privilege.

Giraffe Box · 24-07-2018 11:25AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

And got thread-banned for his error.

Thank goodness.

bnt · 24-07-2018 11:26AM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

I'll need to read back in the thread where the same poster made a case for compelled speech in favour of the majority, I must have completely missed it. Of course, if that's the case, peterson would also not agree.

It might be worth reminding ourselves that Peterson first came to mainstream public visibility through his opposition to the C-16 bill in Canada. The bill was passed last year, and in this report Peterson is not mentioned by name, but he was one of those "arguing it undermines free speech, “criminalizes” incorrect pronoun use and threatens “women only” spaces such as rape crisis centers".

So if anyone's arguing for "compelled speech" - whether in favour of a majority or a minority - Peterson would not be on your side.

Brian? · 24-07-2018 11:26AM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Ok, they shouldn't have called you cognitively disabled. They should have been clearer with what they meant to say.

I doubt that you would use "retarded".

They should have stuck to debating and not slinging insults.

kubjones · 24-07-2018 11:27AM

Brian? wrote: »

Did I ridicule him? No I did not.

He regularly gets emotional. It’s admirable. Even if he’s wrong.

You didn't. But to on one hand say that his calmness in the face of adversity is in some sort of way "Toxic", and on the other hand admire him for his emotion, both instances are coming from the same man.

He even got angry during the Vice documentary (agreeably so, the interviewer was incredibly pretentious.) But his usual demeanor during confrontation is obviously practiced, probably comes from a grounding of certainty.

There are plenty of examples of women keeping a calm demeanor during adversity, how in any way is anything about what he does, or even the admiration for anything he does "Toxic Masculinity?"

Are you Trolling?

WhiteMemento9 · 24-07-2018 11:34AM

Brian? wrote: »

There’s a hypocrisy to that. You’re right.

The admiration of bring calm and unemotional is an aspect of toxic masculinity IMO. It teaches boys to internalise and repress emotions. It teaches boys that boys don’t cry etc. . Repression of feelings can cause a huge psychological backlash as they get older. Men who express their emotions should be admired, but they are generally ridiculed.

It is not only that emotion is admirable which it is, but it humanises the person. You can be rational with an emotional understanding. That doesn't mean as one poster suggested that you are losing your **** in a debate. It means that your view is rooted through rationality with understanding. I tend to steer well clear of people who can't show that quality.

Brian? · 24-07-2018 11:34AM

kubjones wrote: »

You didn't. But to on one hand say that his calmness in the face of adversity is in some sort of way "Toxic", and on the other hand admire him for his emotion, both instances are coming from the same man.

He even got angry during the Vice documentary (agreeably so, the interviewer was incredibly pretentious.) But his usual demeanor during confrontation is obviously practiced, probably comes from a grounding of certainty.

There are plenty of examples of women keeping a calm demeanor during adversity, how in any way is anything about what he does, or even the admiration for anything he does "Toxic Masculinity?"

Are you Trolling?

Why is it that every time a rational debate breaks out, someone has to ruin it with accusations of trolling?

I was trying to make a serious point.

I can admire things about people I disagree with. I can dislike things about people I agree with. It’s a perfectly normal approach to life.

Peterson’s supporters regularly post about his calmness. This is the first time I’ve seen admiration of his ability to display emotion.

Professor Moriarty · 24-07-2018 11:35AM

kubjones wrote: »

Would agree with you insofar that it is a broad generalization of various different movements occuring, almost exclusively left-leaning.

But so are most labels of groups.

For instance, in the same vein these same left-leaning groups would label anything right-of-center as "Alt-Right", when really that label belongs solely to the likes of Richard Spencer and his kin.

In relation to what I think of SJWs, I think their hearts are in the right place, but their reactionary nature is based off of more emotion and less logic, which is also fairly indicative of further left-leaning groups.

I think their practices and goals overall are dangerous, mostly culturally (due to the stifling of expression which we can see in Comedy, Media, Art, etc.) and even at the greater extremes physically (Antifa as an example).

This isn't to say they don't have a place, because left unchallenged the right are AT LEAST equally as dangerous. Both sides need each other, over the last few years we have seen SJWs get a bit out of hand, claiming practices to better society when in actual fact there was no evidence to substantiate their claims and plenty to disprove them, including affirmative action, Cultural Appropriation, the idea of "Toxic Masculinity" and segregation based on race or culture.

So overall, not a massive fan, but glad they came around because we didn't really have many examples of ways in which the left side of the political spectrum could go too far.

So we have no better definition of these kind of people for now. Language is funny because we don't get to pick what sticks and what doesn't, and the behaviour of the people that fall under this generalization has led to the term becoming pejorative in nature.

Good post. I agree with much of what you say. It's that bite point where sections of society that are, or believe they are, discriminated against and feel that they must be activist in their promotion of what they see as equality or parity of esteem. Following on from that, it's the level of activism and the form it takes. Sometimes it's excessive and impinges on the rights of others but at other times it's necessary to disrupt the status quo. Both 'sides' need each other for healthy debate but there are elements on both sides that push things too far which dilutes and distracts from the substantive issues.

Language matters and interpretation of language matters. Equally, definitions matter. Personally, I don't have a problem with 'Toxic Masculinity' as some elements of masculinity do impact negatively on others' rights. Lad Culture springs to mind. However, being 'masculine' isn't toxic. Similarly, I would have no problem with 'Toxic Feminists'.

Professor Moriarty · 24-07-2018 11:36AM

Lux23 wrote: »

I think people use the term without really understanding it to delegitimise the beliefs or arguments of people they don't like. I am sick of having debates in which my arguments are ignored because 'Oh, you're a feminazi, you're an SJW etc. etc.'

Very well put.

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Comments