Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Sand · 17-08-2018 09:25PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Christ... No. I am saying that going down well with their most lucrative demographic helps them look good. Yet as I also pointed out the same platforms continue to host views the same as his(and worse views unrelated to him). He got nuked because they saw it as great optics in their pretence of actually giving a crap. Note how one kicked it off, then the rest of the herd followed in a stampede? All eager to try and share the same optics. If there was enough whining from their demographic against a "Left" platformer they'd be nuked too. As 20cent notes they're corporatist, they give two hoots about politics unless it suits. Indeed they donate to both sides of US politics. If these corporations are so "left" how come they "avoid" tax like the plague, seriously look down on even the sniff of unions and are happy to outsource their operations to third world crapholes where labour is much cheaper?

I think the most worrying aspect of it is the general approval people have for corporations imposing arbitrary restrictions on wrongthink. Previously if people had an issue, they would lobby elected governments operating under a constitution. Now they lobby corporations operating only under terms of service which the corporations can and do change to suit themselves. People may have cause to regret accepting Google Inc as the final arbitrator of what is or is not acceptable to say. These corporations already donate to political causes. We've seen the effect of apparent Russian meddling in social media. What is to prevent US corporations restricting information that is hostile to their chosen candidate? If people think that Russian social media campaigns secured victories for Trump and Brexit, do they truly believe the power of social media is to be entrusted to Zuckerberg and friends without oversight or accountability?

20Cent · 17-08-2018 11:20PM

One of the most ironic things happening recently is right wingers complaining that private companies are doing whatever they want and should be regulated. Break me hole laughing at that argument.

BuyersRemorse · 18-08-2018 08:01AM

I rather admire the attitude some of the residents of Berlin have taken to Google's plans to open one of their repugnant 'Google Academies' in the creative hub of the city in an attempt to siphon off the talent. Catchy name they've given their campaign too:

https://****offgoogle.de/#g-entrification

EDIT: you'll have to alter the URL as it's blocked the f word

Undividual · 20-08-2018 02:21PM

20Cent wrote: »

One of the most ironic things happening recently is right wingers complaining that private companies are doing whatever they want and should be regulated. Break me hole laughing at that argument.

Does that not suggest a lack of understanding of so-called right wingers? Do you believe those people are in favour of child labour regulations/restrictions, for example?

Undividual · 20-08-2018 02:33PM

I'm curious to know what others thought of JP's comments regarding Alex Jones being banned from YouTube etc?

I believe he said that this moved these companies into a position where they were now taking responsibility for the content of their users, rather than just facilitating communication. He said that this represented the undertaking of an impossible task, as the sheer amount of oversight required for this would mean an even decreasing number of content providers. He outlined how specific legislation had been passed in the US in the early 2000s so that social media sites were not held responsible for the content posted by their users.

Additionally, he said that these actions taken by YouTube and co had cost them the trust of a significant user base and that platforms with an emphasis on free speech could surpass YT, for example, over the next 10 years.

Dyr · 20-08-2018 02:55PM

Undividual wrote: »

Additionally, he said that these actions taken by YouTube and co had cost them the trust of a significant user base and that platforms with an emphasis on free speech could surpass YT, for example, over the next 10 years.

Seems unlikely. As a response to the policies of Youtube et al numerous websites sprung up that placed an emphasis on not policing content. Recently many of these sites had their accounts shutdown by their payment processors: Stripe, Patreon and such.

If you were a cynic you'd wonder about the timing what with those looming mid term elections in the US

Undividual · 20-08-2018 03:04PM

Bambi wrote: »

Undividual wrote: »

Additionally, he said that these actions taken by YouTube and co had cost them the trust of a significant user base and that platforms with an emphasis on free speech could surpass YT, for example, over the next 10 years.

Seems unlikely. As a response to the policies of Youtube et al numerous websites sprung up that placed an emphasis on not policing content. Recently many of these sites had their accounts shutdown by their payment processors: Stripe, Patreon and such.

If you were a cynic you'd wonder about the timing what with those looming mid term elections in the US

I know what you mean but I wonder if the current climate (including Trump's shockingly cogent tweets) about the censorship could signal a chance for opportunists or some of those affected to attempt a collective endeavor. Seems like it would only take a Peter Thiel type to invest and a few big content providers to defect to be sustainable.

Most content providers would post to both platforms if there was any kind of demand for it.

20Cent · 20-08-2018 06:15PM

Undividual wrote: »

Does that not suggest a lack of understanding of so-called right wingers? Do you believe those people are in favour of child labour regulations/restrictions, for example?

I'm refering to those who complain about government red tape halting progress when "the markets" can solve all problems. Now they want government to regulate these social media companies. Dunno what your point about child labour is about.

20Cent · 20-08-2018 06:37PM

Undividual wrote: »

I know what you mean but I wonder if the current climate (including Trump's shockingly cogent tweets) about the censorship could signal a chance for opportunists or some of those affected to attempt a collective endeavor. Seems like it would only take a Peter Thiel type to invest and a few big content providers to defect to be sustainable.

Most content providers would post to both platforms if there was any kind of demand for it.

There is a twitter alternative that advertises itself as having no censorship and being for conservatives who find twitter has too many rules. It's called gab and it promptly turned into a hotbed of racism. They have had trouble finding servers to host it.

El_Duderino 09 · 20-08-2018 06:47PM

20Cent wrote: »

There is a twitter alternative that advertises itself as having no censorship and being for conservatives who find twitter has too many rules. It's called gab and it promptly turned into a hotbed of racism. They have had trouble finding servers to host it.

I hadn't heard that. I think it's sometimes sensible to sensor the racism etc, but it gives the impression that fewer people enjoy racism than is actually the case because we don't see so much of it . You'd think that a US presidential candidate would be finished for being racists, but in fact a lot of people like t hear someone voice the racism they hold. Same with Borris Johnson, same with Jordan Peterson.

I'm sure it played very well with his base to say 'isnt it terrible how they're treating poor Tommy Robinson'. And he also gets to say he never explicitly endorsed Robinson's views.

Sand · 20-08-2018 07:14PM

Undividual wrote: »

I know what you mean but I wonder if the current climate (including Trump's shockingly cogent tweets) about the censorship could signal a chance for opportunists or some of those affected to attempt a collective endeavor. Seems like it would only take a Peter Thiel type to invest and a few big content providers to defect to be sustainable.

Most content providers would post to both platforms if there was any kind of demand for it.

Its catch 22. Content providers need an audience. Youtube/Twitter/Facebook has the audience. There are in a way natural monopolies. People are of course free to move, but inertia means they rarely do. New platforms can arise, they can be objectively superior to existing platforms but its irrelevant if they don't have an audience.

And lets face it, the vast majority of content providers and their audiences don't care about censorship. They're highly unlikely to make a moralistic stand on it. Look at Facebook: its blatantly obvious they are selling users data for dubious purposes, and yet users still go up and up.

20Cent · 20-08-2018 07:19PM

Latest super genius finding:

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1031174952408559617

ancapailldorcha · 20-08-2018 07:23PM

Sand wrote: »

Its catch 22. Content providers need an audience. Youtube/Twitter/Facebook has the audience. There are in a way natural monopolies. People are of course free to move, but inertia means they rarely do. New platforms can arise, they can be objectively superior to existing platforms but its irrelevant if they don't have an audience.

And lets face it, the vast majority of content providers and their audiences don't care about censorship. They're highly unlikely to make a moralistic stand on it. Look at Facebook: its blatantly obvious they are selling users data for dubious purposes, and yet users still go up and up.

The problem with the tech giants is that it isn't the platforms or services at all that gives them the edge. It's the data they collect on users. Any would be challengers to incumbents would start from scratch and have no way to mount any sort of meaningful challenge. Once they reach a certain size, they can simply buy up said challengers and startups and incorporate their ideas into their own platforms which protects them from change.

Undividual · 21-08-2018 10:39AM

20Cent wrote: »

Undividual wrote: »

Does that not suggest a lack of understanding of so-called right wingers? Do you believe those people are in favour of child labour regulations/restrictions, for example?

I'm refering to those who complain about government red tape halting progress when "the markets" can solve all problems. Now they want government to regulate these social media companies. Dunno what your point about child labour is about.

You said "One of the most ironic things happening recently is right wingers complaining that private companies are doing whatever they want and should be regulated", so that apparent generalization is what I was challenging. [/color]

I don't know how I feel about social media companies censoring some and not others and whether the government should intervene. If these companies are getting involved in politics by preferentially favoring one side (which they seem to be) perhaps there is a case for government intervention

alaimacerc · 03-09-2018 09:23AM

There's no getting away from JP and his nonsense. I groaned to find out that "Start the Week"'s slot on R4 has been replaced by conservative harumpher Jonathan Sacks. And his first interviewee? A quarter of an hour of Peterson squealing indignantly about there being not enough collective responsibility, too much collective responsibility, and generally there being the wrong sort of collective responsibility. (EVIL LEFTISTS!)

I'm sure we'll shortly learn from his many superfans what JP UTTERLY DEMOLISHED in this particular piece. Other than my radio-listening enjoyment.

alaimacerc · 03-09-2018 09:32AM

Undividual wrote: »

I don't know how I feel about social media companies censoring some and not others and whether the government should intervene. If these companies are getting involved in politics by preferentially favoring one side (which they seem to be) perhaps there is a case for government intervention

Are you familiar with the Citizens United SCOTUS judgement? (By your US spelling, I'd hope so. Certainly we appear to be discussing US companies, in the main, in any event.) That makes it not merely legal, but unconstitutional to make illegal, corporations explicitly campaigning for or against political candidates.

Your thought is to start banning Teh Ebil Librul Lamestream Social Meedya merely because of your subjective perception of its "preference" (i.e., they don't sufficiently accord with your own) is quite a few steps beyond that.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 03-09-2018 09:51AM

alaimacerc wrote: »

There's no getting away from JP and his nonsense. I groaned to find out that "Start the Week"'s slot on R4 has been replaced by conservative harumpher Jonathan Sacks. And his first interviewee? A quarter of an hour of Peterson squealing indignantly about there being not enough collective responsibility, too much collective responsibility, and generally there being the wrong sort of collective responsibility. (EVIL LEFTISTS!)

I'm sure we'll shortly learn from his many superfans what JP UTTERLY DEMOLISHED in this particular piece. Other than my radio-listening enjoyment.

If you offered a rebuttal to any of his points maybe that would encourage some discussion.

alaimacerc · 03-09-2018 09:54AM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

If you offered a rebuttal to any of his points maybe that would encourage some discussion.

If I ever discern anything resembling a coherent point in his assorted high-pitched hyperbole, I'll be sure to get right on that.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 03-09-2018 10:45AM

alaimacerc wrote: »

If I ever discern anything resembling a coherent point in his assorted high-pitched hyperbole, I'll be sure to get right on that.

So you can't discern any points from what he's saying, but you understand enough to know that it's all nonsensical and worthy of ridicule?

Hande hoche! · 03-09-2018 01:14PM

Amazing how much he winds some people up.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 03-09-2018 01:17PM

20Cent wrote: »

Latest super genius finding:

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1031174952408559617

Except for his editorialising what’s wrong about the statistics that 30% of ants do 70% of the work?

That’s either true. Or it isn’t true.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 03-09-2018 01:20PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

Are you familiar with the Citizens United SCOTUS judgement? (By your US spelling, I'd hope so. Certainly we appear to be discussing US companies, in the main, in any event.) That makes it not merely legal, but unconstitutional to make illegal, corporations explicitly campaigning for or against political candidates.

Your thought is to start banning Teh Ebil Librul Lamestream Social Meedya merely because of your subjective perception of its "preference" (i.e., they don't sufficiently accord with your own) is quite a few steps beyond that.

I’m pretty sure that there’s plenty of evidence on the preferences of the main stream media. The preferences tend to be liberal/neo liberal and pro corporate.

I’m old enough to remember when the idea that the media was hegemonic was a left wing one.

El_Duderino 09 · 03-09-2018 01:42PM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

alaimacerc wrote: »

If I ever discern anything resembling a coherent point in his assorted high-pitched hyperbole, I'll be sure to get right on that.

So you can't discern any points from what he's saying, but you understand enough to know that it's all nonsensical and worthy of ridicule?

I’d challenge Peterson’s apologists to say they understood all of that word salad.

But sone parts were in plain English. Like how, as an old conservative, he thinks young people are doing it all wrong and young people were better back in the old days. If you’re old you can blame the left for creating today’s problems so no need to worry if you’re conservative, you’re definitely not at fault.

Identity politics is bad and it’s all the leftist’s fault. Identifying with your race or gender is bad. And identifying with religion is bad ( presumably he’s not talking about conservative evangelical Christian voters in the US) had doesn’t mention those people. Nor does he mention gun rights or abortion ‘single issue voters’.

That doesn’t seem to be worth a mention but LEFTIST identity politics is dreadful.

It could be summed us as ‘ Peterson says things conservatives would enjoy hearing. Including the classic tracks ‘it’s all the left’s fault’, and ‘young people nowadays do it wrong’’

Giraffe Box · 03-09-2018 01:48PM

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Amazing how much he winds some people up.

It's not so much the man himself, it's more his devoted fanboys.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 03-09-2018 01:51PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’d challenge Peterson’s apologists to say they understood all of that word salad.

But sone parts were in plain English. Like how, as an old conservative, he thinks young people are doing it all wrong and young people were better back in the old days. If you’re old you can blame the left for creating today’s problems so no need to worry if you’re conservative, you’re definitely not at fault.

Identity politics is bad and it’s all the leftist’s fault. Identifying with your race or gender is bad. And identifying with religion is bad ( presumably he’s not talking about conservative evangelical Christian voters in the US) had doesn’t mention those people. Nor does he mention gun rights or abortion ‘single issue voters’.

That doesn’t seem to be worth a mention but LEFTIST identity politics is dreadful.

It could be summed us as ‘ Peterson says things conservatives would enjoy hearing. Including the classic tracks ‘it’s all the left’s fault’, and ‘young people nowadays do it wrong’’

I haven't listened to the specific interview, if someone cared to link it it'd be great. He can be a bit long winded in what he's saying sometimes, I'd agree. I don't think it's a deliberate masquerade of some sort, I think he's trying to be precise in his speech and avoid oversimplifying what he's trying to say.

While he might say a lot of things that conservatives like, I think it's a stretch to say that he says these things BECAUSE conservatives like them. Additionally I don't think what he says should be ignored or sneered at without any consideration, only because they are sentiments sometimes expressed by conservatives.

xckjoo · 03-09-2018 02:17PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’d challenge Peterson’s apologists to say they understood all of that word salad.

But sone parts were in plain English. Like how, as an old conservative, he thinks young people are doing it all wrong and young people were better back in the old days. If you’re old you can blame the left for creating today’s problems so no need to worry if you’re conservative, you’re definitely not at fault.

Identity politics is bad and it’s all the leftist’s fault. Identifying with your race or gender is bad. And identifying with religion is bad ( presumably he’s not talking about conservative evangelical Christian voters in the US) had doesn’t mention those people. Nor does he mention gun rights or abortion ‘single issue voters’.

That doesn’t seem to be worth a mention but LEFTIST identity politics is dreadful.

It could be summed us as ‘ Peterson says things conservatives would enjoy hearing. Including the classic tracks ‘it’s all the left’s fault’, and ‘young people nowadays do it wrong’’

I find him more critical of the older generation than the younger. Anything I've heard him criticise about universities has been focused on administrative aspects and "how things have been let get this far" type scenarios. He's generally seems quite passive about younger people; seeing their issues as a failure of the older generation to pass on/prepare them.
He seems to be a one-man Rorschach Test.

El_Duderino 09 · 03-09-2018 02:19PM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

I haven't listened to the specific interview, if someone cared to link it it'd be great. He can be a bit long winded in what he's saying sometimes, I'd agree. I don't think it's a deliberate masquerade of some sort, I think he's trying to be precise in his speech and avoid oversimplifying what he's trying to say.

While he might say a lot of things that conservatives like, I think it's a stretch to say that he says these things BECAUSE conservatives like them. Additionally I don't think what he says should be ignored or sneered at without any consideration, only because they are sentiments sometimes expressed by conservatives.

He’s long winded, but he doesn’t try to be precise. He uses metaphor and redefined words so often that he build in loads of ambiguity and room for interpretation.

He shouldn’t he dismissed because its conservative. It’s like Fox News. It’s conservative content designed to sell to a conservative audience. I’m sure Fox News is correct on some issues, but I wouldn’t recommend using it as a reliable source of information.

xckjoo · 03-09-2018 02:24PM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

I haven't listened to the specific interview, if someone cared to link it it'd be great. He can be a bit long winded in what he's saying sometimes, I'd agree. I don't think it's a deliberate masquerade of some sort, I think he's trying to be precise in his speech and avoid oversimplifying what he's trying to say.

While he might say a lot of things that conservatives like, I think it's a stretch to say that he says these things BECAUSE conservatives like them. Additionally I don't think what he says should be ignored or sneered at without any consideration, only because they are sentiments sometimes expressed by conservatives.

Nobody in this thread backs up their claims so don't hold your breath. It's all about the outrage

7aubzxk43m2sni · 03-09-2018 02:25PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He’s long winded, but he doesn’t try to be precise. He uses metaphor and redefined words so often that he build in loads of ambiguity and room for interpretation.

He shouldn’t he dismissed because its conservative. It’s like Fox News. It’s conservative content designed to sell to a conservative audience. I’m sure Fox News is correct on some issues, but I wouldn’t recommend using it as a reliable source of information.

Do you really believe it's "designed to sell"? The man has been putting his thoughts and lectures on youtube for years because he believes them to be true, not to "sell" a product. He got thrown into fame after the backlash to his video objecting to C16. I don't see how you can make a case that he's a conservative mouthpiece trying to sell content to an audience.

El_Duderino 09 · 03-09-2018 02:25PM

xckjoo wrote: »

I find him more critical of the older generation than the younger. Anything I've heard him criticise about universities has been focused on administrative aspects and "how things have been let get this far" type scenarios. He's generally seems quite passive about younger people; seeing their issues as a failure of the older generation to pass on/prepare them.
He seems to be a one-man Rorschach Test.

I’m not aware
If him blaming older people. It would be the implication but I’m not aware of him ever making that point. He blames Marxism and the left, but that’s as far as the blame goes.

I’d safely say he’s not making the point that older conservative people have any blame- unlike those leftists.

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Comments