Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

1…99100102104105…200

Comments

  • #3032
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,065 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    kubjones wrote: »
    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Does any of that suggest Peterson is worth listening to on climate science?

    Where did I say climate science?
    Even when he didn’t give an opinion on the video one way or the other except saying it would wind up t’other side?

    What about that is he wrong about?

    I’ve been talk about the climate video he linked to. You said you’ve concluded he’s worth listening to, so I asked you whether he’s worth listening to on climate science. Simple enough question tbh.


  • #3033
    DickSwiveller Returns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller Returns


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    I've no idea about climate change but I'll try and educate myself about the arguments and counter arguments set forward. Your standard default seems to be that the consensus must be wrong, especially if it has champions on the left.

    I'm not saying it's wrong. The problem with the alarmists is they treat the whole thing as a sort of tribal battle where anyone who dares question them is evil and needs to be shut down. I don't like groupthink on any topic.


  • #3034
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,313 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    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?

    The majority of people in the 17th century thought slavery was also OK.
    The majority of the jury in the OJ Simpson murder trial thought he was not guilty.
    The majority of the people of Ireland passed the 8th amendment in 1983

    See the pattern?

    The majority at any one point of time does not mean they are correct over time.

    Oh and that video, nowhere did that professor state that the climate is not changing, nor that there is zero influence by man on the climate, but the debate is, what is the influence and are there other multi-varied factors involved?

    To me the debate is not that the climate is not changing, it clearly is but how are humans changing it and to what overall extent?


  • #3035
    kubjones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 157 ✭✭kubjones


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    I’ve been talk about the climate video he linked to. You said you’ve concluded he’s worth listening to, so I asked you whether he’s worth listening to on climate science. Simple enough question tbh.

    He didn't talk about climate science. What are you trying to insinuate?


  • #3036
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,711 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »
    It was the general consensus among doctors that it was a good drug to treat morning sickness.

    It was great at treating morning sickness. They weren't wrong.

    The data did not exist on how it effected a fetus's development though. Once that data did exist, the consensus was that it should no longer be used to treat morning sickness.

    The data currently exists on man made climate change. So a consensus can be trusted.

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • Advertisement
  • #3037
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,065 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    kubjones wrote: »
    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    I’ve been talk about the climate video he linked to. You said you’ve concluded he’s worth listening to, so I asked you whether he’s worth listening to on climate science. Simple enough question tbh.

    He didn't talk about climate science. What are you trying to insinuate?
    I’m following on from your conclusion that Peterson is worth listening to. Peterson posted a video about climate science. I’m asking a follow up question about whether you think it’s worth listening to Peterson on climate science. Really simple stuff.


  • #3038
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    kubjones wrote: »
    He didn't talk about climate science. What are you trying to insinuate?

    Do you think he is endorsing the point of view put forward in the video by retweeting it with the tagline 'Something for the anticapitalist environmentalists to hate'


  • #3039
    kubjones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 157 ✭✭kubjones


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    I’m following on from your conclusion that Peterson is worth listening to. Peterson posted a video about climate science. I’m asking a follow up question about whether you think it’s worth listening to Peterson on climate science. Really simple stuff.

    Peterson is worth listening to.

    When he said that video would enough left wing people, he was right.

    I'm taking from it exactly what the text implied.


  • #3040
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,065 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    kubjones wrote: »
    He didn't talk about climate science. What are you trying to insinuate?

    Do you think he is endorsing the point of view put forward in the video by retweeting it with the tagline 'Something for the anticapitalist environmentalists to hate'

    I think he’s being super careful not to actively endorse it. That’s a big part of his schtick. His followers take the implication he intends but he’s free to say he didn’t actually endorse it (precise language and all that guff)


  • #3041
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,065 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    kubjones wrote: »
    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    I’m following on from your conclusion that Peterson is worth listening to. Peterson posted a video about climate science. I’m asking a follow up question about whether you think it’s worth listening to Peterson on climate science. Really simple stuff.

    Peterson is worth listening to.

    When he said that video would enough left wing people, he was right.

    I'm taking from it exactly what the text implied.

    Nicely dodged tbf.


  • Advertisement
  • #3042
    kubjones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 157 ✭✭kubjones


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Nicely dodged tbf.

    Implication is the theme.

    I hope you're having fun.


  • #3043
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    markodaly wrote: »
    The majority of people in the 17th century thought slavery was also OK.
    The majority of the jury in the OJ Simpson murder trial thought he was not guilty.
    The majority of the people of Ireland passed the 8th amendment in 1983

    See the pattern?

    I see the pattern there but in neither case are experts making a decision on their field of expertise. All you have managed to demonstrate is that average joes can be pretty dim. I can't argue with that.


  • #3044
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    I think he’s being super careful not to actively endorse it. That’s a big part of his schtick. His followers take the implication he intends but he’s free to say he didn’t actually endorse it (precise language and all that guff)

    You've hit the nail on the head. He hints at stuff and then when challenged says "well, I never said I support whatever". It's just dog-whistling.


  • #3045
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,065 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    kubjones wrote: »
    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Nicely dodged tbf.

    Implication is the theme.

    I hope you're having fun.

    Word salad.

    On a completely unrelated point, would you think Peterson is worth listening to on climate science? If he were to post a link to a climate scientist on his Twitter for example.


  • #3046
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    kubjones wrote: »
    Peterson is worth listening to.

    When he said that video would enough left wing people, he was right.

    I'm taking from it exactly what the text implied.


    I was led to believe that Peterson is a respected academic, a person of standing in his field.

    Is that the kind of thing you expect from a respected academic - posting things on twitter simply to annoy left-wing people?

    It seems extraordinarily juvenile to me.


  • #3047
    kubjones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 157 ✭✭kubjones


    B0jangles wrote: »
    I was led to believe that Peterson is a respected academic, a person of standing in his field.

    Is that the kind of thing you expect from a respected academic - posting things on twitter simply to annoy left-wing people?

    It seems extraordinarily juvenile to me.

    If your character was being attacked for fairly tame, centrist views, with disinformation regularly being spread about you while ignoring your central Thesis, would you not take part in a little bunting when you could also?
    (Not that I understand what he might have meant by sharing it and disagree with the point of the video, more so touching on the act of sharing the video.)
    Word salad.

    Just because you don't get the point doesn't mean the point isn't there.
    Would you think Peterson is worth listening to on climate science?

    It would depend on how he framed it and it would depend on the context. There's a lot to talk about when it comes to climate science.


  • #3048
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    kubjones wrote: »
    If your character was being attacked for fairly tame, centrist views, with disinformation regularly being spread about you while ignoring your central Thesis, would you not take part in a little bunting when you could also?
    (Not that I understand what he might have meant by sharing it and disagree with the point of the video, more so touching on the act of sharing the video.)



    Just because you don't get the point doesn't mean the point isn't there.



    It would depend on how he framed it and it would depend on the context. There's a lot to talk about when it comes to climate science.


    Well if he wants people to continue to believe that he is a person worthy of respect and not a snakeoil merchant and spreader of quack science, it's probably not a good idea for him to use his newfound fame to spread quack science.


  • #3049
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,065 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    B0jangles wrote: »
    Well if he wants people to continue to believe that he is a person worthy of respect and not a snakeoil merchant and spreader of quack science, it's probably not a good idea for him to use his newfound fame to spread quack science.
    Ah but sure this is it. He isn’t concerned with that stuff. He’s selling his content to those who might want to buy it.


  • #3050
    kubjones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 157 ✭✭kubjones


    B0jangles wrote: »
    Well if he wants people to continue to believe that he is a person worthy of respect and not a snakeoil merchant and spreader of quack science, it's probably not a good idea for him to use his newfound fame to spread quack science.

    I doubt some light banter is going to upend his entire following. The people that are against him are so vehemently against him it doesn't really matter what he does to provoke them.


  • #3051
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Ah but sure this is it. He isn’t concerned with that stuff. He’s selling his content to those who might want to buy it.


    I know, its just fun to see his committed fans try to justify these things when it is patently obvious that he is just spreading his appeal to as wide a base as possible before his 5 minutes in the spotlight is over. Have to keep those patreon donations rolling in!


  • Advertisement
  • #3052
    kubjones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 157 ✭✭kubjones


    B0jangles wrote: »
    I know, its just fun to see his committed fans try to justify these things when it is patently obvious that he is just spreading his appeal to as wide a base as possible before his 5 minutes in the spotlight is over. Have to keep those patreon donations rolling in!

    >committed fans
    >5 minutes in the spotlight
    >Have to keep those patreon donations rolling in!

    Your bias is showing.


  • #3053
    DickSwiveller Returns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller Returns


    kubjones wrote: »
    >committed fans
    >5 minutes in the spotlight
    >Have to keep those patreon donations rolling in!

    Your bias is showing.

    Unbelievable isn't it. What is wrong with them?


  • #3054
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    My 'bias'?

    Are the only postive or neutral opinions of Peterson allowed?

    I think he's Deepak Chopra for the twitter generation; a load of the same old self-help mantras with a shiny new wrapper. He has about 10 minutes of (unoriginal) ideas wrapped in 500 hours of obfuscation and waffling. No-one seems to be able to agree what his opinion is about anything, he's like a walking, talking rorschach test.


  • #3055
    kubjones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 157 ✭✭kubjones


    DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »
    Unbelievable isn't it. What is wrong with them?

    I'm actually not sure like.

    I'm not an avid follow of his by any means, but the level of venom some people have for him astounds me.

    Some of their comments reek of that upper-lip bourgeois scoff at the hint of being challenged on some of their ideas.

    Its no wonder the political left is being villainized when these are the kind of people representing them.


  • #3056
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,313 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    I see the pattern there but in neither case are experts making a decision on their field of expertise. All you have managed to demonstrate is that average joes can be pretty dim. I can't argue with that.

    Never heard of scientific racism?
    Another example, it was not until 1981 that the WHO removed homosexuality as a mental disorder.

    Science is not infallible.


  • #3057
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,065 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    kubjones wrote: »
    DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »
    Unbelievable isn't it. What is wrong with them?

    I'm actually not sure like.

    I'm not an avid follow of his by any means, but the level of venom some people have for him astounds me.

    Some of their comments reek of that upper-lip bourgeois scoff at the hint of being challenged on some of their ideas.

    Its no wonder the political left is being villainized when these are the kind of people representing them.

    Who’s representing the political left?


  • #3058
    kubjones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 157 ✭✭kubjones


    B0jangles wrote: »
    Are the only postive or neutral opinions of Peterson allowed?

    There's having contrasting opinions, and there's being snide.
    a load of the same old self-help mantras with a shiny new wrapper.
    Fair. But he IS helping people. Are you trying to say that's a negative thing?
    He has about 10 minutes of (unoriginal) ideas wrapped in 500 hours of obfuscation and waffling.

    Any reasonable original idea is built upon other people's original ideas. We are but dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants.
    No-one seems to be able to agree what his opinion is about anything, he's like a walking, talking rorschach test.

    Most of what he talks about is psychology and philosophy related, anyone that tells you they're sure about everything in either of these things is a liar.


  • #3059
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    kubjones wrote: »
    There's having contrasting opinions, and there's being snide.
    Fair. But he IS helping people. Are you trying to say that's a negative thing?
    You claim he is helping people - how is promoting climate change denial helping people?
    kubjones wrote: »
    Any reasonable original idea is built upon other people's original ideas. We are but dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants.
    What are these original ideas that Peterson has produced?
    kubjones wrote: »
    Most of what he talks about is psychology and philosophy related, anyone that tells you they're sure about everything in either of these things is a liar.


    I said 'No-one seems to be able to agree what his opinion is about anything', not that he ought to be 'sure about everything', and I stand by that.

    Peterson appears to be intentionally as vague as possible when it comes to expressing a concrete opinion or stance on virtually every topic. It's so consistant that it cannot be unintentional - he clearly wants to avoid alienating any potential follower.

    If he was really concerned with helping people he'd give concrete advice and solid opinions but he hardly ever does; he just keeps on dodging and waffling.


  • #3060
    DickSwiveller Returns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller Returns


    kubjones wrote: »
    I'm actually not sure like.

    I'm not an avid follow of his by any means, but the level of venom some people have for him astounds me.

    Some of their comments reek of that upper-lip bourgeois scoff at the hint of being challenged on some of their ideas.

    Its no wonder the political left is being villainized when these are the kind of people representing them.

    Agreed. I wouldn't call them "left" though. I think that's an insult to genuine left wing people. They're more sneering, bourgeois, Irish Times reading trendies who look down on anyone who doesn't agree with them


  • Advertisement
  • #3061
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,065 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    kubjones wrote: »
    No-one seems to be able to agree what his opinion is about anything, he's like a walking, talking rorschach test.

    Most of what he talks about is psychology and philosophy related, anyone that tells you they're sure about everything in either of these things is a liar.

    Sure. But that wasn’t the point the poster made. They said that even his followers can’t agree on what he’s saying. And I think that’s completely valid point. He’s extremely vague either by accident or design which allows his flock to take whatever they want from his sermons. Meanwhile he can deny holding almost any position of substance because he doesn’t commit to any position of substance.


Advertisement