Jordan Peterson interview on C4

mcmoustache · 03-08-2018 11:33AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

To be fair, Peterson stirring the pot on climate change should be one of the clear examples of how he’s just a character playing to his base.

Indeed. It'll be interesting to see if he tries to tap into the antivax market in the future too.

kunst nugget · 03-08-2018 11:43AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jef2C4T1_A

I know people have called him erudite but this is verbal scutter and to say you should vote against something purely because the 'cultural marxists' will probably vote for it is pure gobshíte talk imo.

ancapailldorcha · 03-08-2018 11:45AM

kunst nugget wrote: »

I know people have called him erudite but this is verbal scutter and to say you should vote against something purely because the 'cultural marxists' will probablyvote for it is pure gobshíte talk imo.

This is when I started listening to him. The chap who introduced me was sharing his "Clean your room" type of videos at the time.

I remember him being asked whether or not he believed in God once and his immediate response was that the interviewer didn't know what they were asking.

Professor Moriarty · 03-08-2018 11:51AM

kunst nugget wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jef2C4T1_A

I know people have called him erudite but this is verbal scutter and to say you should vote against something purely because the 'cultural marxists' will probablyvote for it is pure gobshíte talk imo.

I watched that and listened very carefully. Two observations: 1. He very cleverly avoids giving a definitive opinion with a plethora of obscure and tangential 'arguments' for and against gay marriage. 2. Petersen should get himself assessed for Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

MonkeyTennis · 03-08-2018 12:08PM

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Most of the loudest voices who believe in the man made theory of climate change have no idea about climate science. What's your point?

Example?

7aubzxk43m2sni · 03-08-2018 12:10PM

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

Example?

Every single celebrity?

El_Duderino 09 · 03-08-2018 12:12PM

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Most of the loudest voices who believe in the man made theory of climate change have no idea about climate science. What's your point?

It should be fairly obvious. It’s foolish to put a lot of faith in people who don’t have expertise in what they’re talking about. Particularly so when there is no shortage of actual experts. Wouldn’t you agree?

The broader point is that it’s completely predictable that he sided with the right wing on the issue whether he has expertise in the area or not.

MonkeyTennis · 03-08-2018 12:12PM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Every single celebrity?

Every celebrity?? Trump? Jeremy Clarkson?

Professor Moriarty · 03-08-2018 12:12PM

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Most of the loudest voices who believe in the man made theory of climate change have no idea about climate science. What's your point?

If a theory isn't 'man made' then who should we expect to make it?

kunst nugget · 03-08-2018 12:14PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If a theory isn't 'man made' then who should we expect to make it?

I don't know if you're doing that just to annoy him but I though it was perfectly clear that he meant the theory that climate change was man made.

03-08-2018 12:14PM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Every single celebrity?

I'm gonna side with the overwhelming vast majority of the scientific community even though I know nothing about it. I don't think that's that outrageous.

DickSwiveller Returns · 03-08-2018 12:14PM

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

Example?

Leonardo Di Caprio

El_Duderino 09 · 03-08-2018 12:17PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

When I first started listening to him, I thought he was quite erudite and interesting. As time went on, I started seeing him side with the far right and Trump supporters on various issues for no apparent reason. Why does he even care about climate change? It's got nothing to do with his income or his popularity and he certainly is no expert on it.

Its shoring up his base. He people he appeals to enjoy that kind of thing so it’s a side of chips on the platter that he serves to his supporters.

He’s not interested in challenging his supporters opinions, he’s only really interested in selling them content they already agree with.

DickSwiveller Returns · 03-08-2018 12:18PM

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

Example?

Here is an example of the head of an environmental group who clearly doesn't know anything about climate change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw

And another of a celebrity "scientist" shown up for not knowing anything
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hrUaD86XRw

Don't underestimate the power of fashion when it comes to trendy liberal causes.

kunst nugget · 03-08-2018 12:19PM

20Cent wrote: »

Also the way he worded the tweet. Anticapitalist environmentalists will hate this. Destroying the planet to own the libs.

Well, they're going to need those liberal tears because the water isn't going to drinkable...

DickSwiveller Returns · 03-08-2018 12:19PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Its shoring up his base. He people he appeals to enjoy that kind of thing so it’s a side of chips on the platter that he serves to his supporters.

He’s not interested in challenging his supporters opinions, he’s only really interested in selling them content they already agree with.

Aren't you making some huge generalizations there?

ancapailldorcha · 03-08-2018 12:22PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Its shoring up his base. He people he appeals to enjoy that kind of thing so it’s a side of chips on the platter that he serves to his supporters.

He’s not interested in challenging his supporters opinions, he’s only really interested in selling them content they already agree with.

I feel that this is too easy a conclusion to arrive at but I see no evidence to the contrary.

El_Duderino 09 · 03-08-2018 12:24PM

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Here is an example of the head of an environmental group who clearly doesn't know anything about client change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw

And another of a celebrity "scientist" shown up for not knowing anything
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hrUaD86XRw

Don't underestimate the power of fashion when it comes to trendy liberal causes.

We already have an example of Peterson using climate change to shore up his base. Is that the kind of thing you mean?

MonkeyTennis · 03-08-2018 12:26PM

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Here is an example of the head of an environmental group who clearly doesn't know anything about client change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw

And another of a celebrity "scientist" shown up for not knowing anything
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hrUaD86XRw

Don't underestimate the power of fashion when it comes to trendy liberal causes.

Almost all of Lindzens colleagues fundamentally disagree with him

DickSwiveller Returns · 03-08-2018 12:26PM

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

Almost all of Lindzens colleagues fundamentally disagree with him

So what? The majority aren't always right.

mcmoustache · 03-08-2018 12:35PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm gonna side with the overwhelming vast majority of the scientific community even though I know nothing about it. I don't think that's that outrageous.

When I need medical help, I go to a doctor. If my car doesn't work as it should, I go to a mechanic. If the lights aren't working properly in the house, I get an electrician. If I need legal advice, I get it from a solicitor.

There's a pattern here that I hope people will recognise. It's impossible for one person to know absolutely everything so we get our information from specialists all the time and there's nothing controversial about that. I don't have time to study medicine, motors, wiring or the law so I go to people who have and so does practically everyone else.

Yet, when it comes to climate science, the sceptics think they know more than the climatologists.

kunst nugget · 03-08-2018 12:36PM

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

So what? The majority aren't always right.

The entire faculty of the MIT Atmosphere, Oceans and Climate, 22 professors and associate professors, wrote a letter to Donald Trump to say that they, did not agree with Lindzen's views.

As his colleagues at MIT in the program in atmospheres, oceans and climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science.

The risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide are almost universally agreed by climate scientists to be real ones.

These include, but are not limited to, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and increases in extreme flooding and droughts, all with serious consequences for mankind.

But obviously they are all talking out of their holes and Lindzen's right. Bloody experts, who need's them.

Although that Lindzen is a proper expert that talks sense.

ancapailldorcha · 03-08-2018 12:36PM

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

So what? The majority aren't always right.

So if I found a pic of a Jordan Peterson supporter online waving a Swastika, you'd believe me if I said his followers are all Nazis based on my cherrypicked example?

20Cent · 03-08-2018 12:37PM

Man made clinate change denial is akin to believing the eath is flat at this stage. Embarassing for someone who claims to be rational and scientific. But it does appeal to his right wing followers and sells tickets, clicks and adverts which at the end of the say is all he's about. Squeezing as much cash out of suckers as possible.

ancapailldorcha · 03-08-2018 12:38PM

20Cent wrote: »

Man made clinate change denial is akin to believing the eath is flat at this stage. Embarassing for someone who claims to be rational and scientific. But it does appeal to his right wing followers and sells tickets, clicks and adverts which at the end of the say is all he's about. Squeezing as much cash out of suckers as possible.

I know people who forked out a fortune for the privilege of watching what is basically a Youtube video. Insane.

mcmoustache · 03-08-2018 12:38PM

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

So what? The majority aren't always right.

The majority of doctors tend to be right about the field of medicine.
The majority of solicitors tend to be right about their area of the law.
The majority of accountants tend to be right about accounting.

See the pattern?

DickSwiveller Returns · 03-08-2018 12:40PM

mcmoustache wrote: »

The majority of doctors tend to be right about the field of medicine.
The majority of solicitors tend to be right about their area of the law.
The majority of accountants tend to be right about accounting.

See the pattern?

Not all the time. So it's good to possess a healthy deal of skepticism

mcmoustache · 03-08-2018 12:45PM

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Not all the time. So it's good to possess a healthy deal of skepticism

Have you got an example from the modern era of when the majority of experts in a widely studied field got something completely wrong?

ancapailldorcha · 03-08-2018 12:46PM

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Not all the time. So it's good to possess a healthy deal of skepticism

Sounds like laziness to me. All you've done is dismiss arguments you dislike while either posting Youtube videos or repeat one-liners such as the above.

kunst nugget · 03-08-2018 12:46PM

mcmoustache wrote: »

Have you got an example from the modern era of when the majority of experts in a widely studied field got something completely wrong?

9-11. Inside job. Everyone knows that.

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Comments