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

Options
1…117118120122123…201

Comments

  • Options
    #3572
    Giraffe Box
    Closed Accounts Posts: 259 ✭✭Giraffe Box


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    No idea what you're on about here, sorry. What parameters have I put down, specifically? I'm actually saying that we should be placing as few parameters as possible on the free exchange of opinions and ideas.

    That's a pretty crucial part of what most people believe constitutes progressive dialogue.

    I'm talking about you being very quick to chide me for being, quote: ''so quick to undermine the stated opinions and political outlooks of strangers whom you do not know''
    Yet you do the same thing to me (whom you do not know) without compunction.
    Did you tut-tut the poster who accused me - a stanger to him - of 'bitterness' in my posts? That'll be a no too.
    As I said your parameters, in that I can't criticise a stranger, but you of course can.


  • Options
    #3573
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Giraffe Box wrote: »
    Thus spoke one of Jordan Peterson's army of individuals....irony or what?

    Again, you are just displaying this distorted vision of the world.

    You seem to have a very personal dislike for the man, and it seems to really irk you that some people listen to his content and think about the issues he raises.

    It seems like you have built this little bubble of "JP and his followers" out of your own imagination, based on a very reticent experience of a minimum of content from him.

    If you think he's trying to rally an army of individuals, then you really have not sussed the guy at all.

    It seems you are intent on just passing judgment about people rather than engage in discussion, and as you can see from your earlier post on the thread, that shuts down dialogue.


  • Options
    #3574
    Giraffe Box
    Closed Accounts Posts: 259 ✭✭Giraffe Box


    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    Again, you are just displaying this distorted vision of the world.

    You seem to have a very personal dislike for the man, and it seems to really irk you that some people listen to his content and think about the issues he raises.

    Again, you are just displaying this distorted vision of the world.

    If you think he's trying to rally an army of individuals, then you really have not sussed the guy at all.

    It seems you are intent on just passing judgment about people rather than engage in discussion, and as you can see from your earlier post on the thread, that shuts down dialogue.

    ''You seem to have a very personal dislike for the man''

    I don't actually, but would it be terribly wrong if I did?

    ''Again, you are just displaying this distorted vision of the world.''

    Distorted vision ...of the world no less, that's a bit melodramatic.
    I'm not sure that I even have a 'vision of the world' at all, frankly it sounds
    rather grand, or even a bit dangerous.
    Show me in my posts where I've displayed 'this vision thing' please.

    ''It seems you are intent on just passing judgment about people''

    Given that you lined up three of my posts, had a pop, and accused me
    of bitterness.
    It seems the most succinct answer to that one would be 'SNAP'!


    But these posts are tit for tat, pointless and derailing the thread. You may freely decide what my political leanings are, I don't really care that you do, and let's just let people chat about JP and the interview.

    Who posted the above only two days ago I wonder?
    What happened, perhaps you saw a post that was critical of me and were
    sufficiently emboldened to have another pop.

    That's my 'vision' of your contribution..


  • Options
    #3575
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Giraffe Box wrote: »
    ''You seem to have a very personal dislike for the man''

    I don't actually, but would it be terribly wrong if I did?

    ''Again, you are just displaying this distorted vision of the world.''

    Distorted vision ...of the world no less, that's a bit melodramatic.
    I'm not sure that I even have a 'vision of the world' at all, frankly it sounds
    rather grand, or even a bit dangerous.
    Show me in my posts where I've displayed 'this vision thing' please.

    ''It seems you are intent on just passing judgment about people''

    Given that you lined up three of my posts, had a pop, and accused me
    of bitterness.
    It seems the most succinct answer to that one would be 'SNAP'!


    But these posts are tit for tat, pointless and derailing the thread. You may freely decide what my political leanings are, I don't really care that you do, and let's just let people chat about JP and the interview.

    Who posted the above only two days ago I wonder?
    What happened, perhaps you saw a post that was critical of me and were
    sufficiently emboldened to have another pop.

    That's my 'vision' of your contribution..

    Ok. I think other posters understood my post above, so yeah, the kind of dialogue above is not what I'm looking for, you're right on that one.


  • Options
    #3576
    7aubzxk43m2sni
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭7aubzxk43m2sni


    Giraffe Box wrote: »

    But these posts are tit for tat, pointless and derailing the thread. You may freely decide what my political leanings are, I don't really care that you do, and let's just let people chat about JP and the interview.

    Who posted the above only two days ago I wonder?
    What happened, perhaps you saw a post that was critical of me and were
    sufficiently emboldened to have another pop.

    That's my 'vision' of your contribution..

    You do nothing but sneer at whatever Peterson says, denounce him because he's "right wing", and denounce anyone who likes anything he says because they must be right wing too, and since they're nor part of your group they must be wrong.

    I haven't seen you address a single actual point, and I'm beginning to think you're a troll.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3577
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,344 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Giraffe Box wrote: »
    Why do you need my assessment.
    Look into your heart and be honest with yourself as to where you stand.
    And if you are right-wing then admit it, it's still not a crime.
    If you're not, then grand.


    lol. What part of my post did you interpret as anybody "needing your assessment"? I wanted to get a sense of how you're thinking about things, but from your replies I don't think you've fully formed these thoughts and are just reactionary.


  • Options
    #3578
    Ulysses Gaze
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,570 ✭✭✭Ulysses Gaze


    Giraffe Box wrote: »
    'Rightwing Professor', is that really 'clickbait'?

    'Sex Dwarf Lures 100 Disco Dollies to a Life of Vice'...that's clickbait!

    It's clickbait because it will lure in Peterson supporters in droves to defend him. It also lures in those that rail against him in to attack him.


  • Options
    #3579
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    As someone who is usually dismissed a wooly liberal leftie, or whatever other adjectives are now in vogue, I find it fascinating to see another genuine left-winger, such as yourself, so quick to play the man and not the ball as soon as you encounter an opinion that is not in accordance with your own.

    The trouble here is that JP is very apt to grab the ball, stuff it up his jersey, and wave his arms around yelling about how white males are being oppressed in their ball access. Ball-playing at this point becomes somewhat tricky, and indeed after a while the shtick is apt to make it unclear what sport we're even supposed to be playing. Beyond Cult of Me.

    What sort of "issue" does he actually add more light than heat to? I'll grant you he's able to add syllables. (The bar for being a right-wing "public intellectual" is hardly especially high these days, especially given the collegial assessment of the education attainment of the Leader of the Free World.)


  • Options
    #3580
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    flexcon wrote: »
    They seem to always go back, that most people voted for Hilary - not Trump. Even if the USA took that number and Hilary was now the president, that's still 49.8% of the USA voted for Trump. It's like those individuals choose to ignore this.

    Well, 46.1% of those that choose/were eligible/able to vote, to be a tad more accurate. Or as DJT would say, "a landslide".

    But a marvel of mathematical precision, compared to JP's "our cousins the lobsters" factoid. (Hauling it back to the C4 interview, however fleetingly!)


  • Options
    #3581
    flexcon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,618 ✭✭✭flexcon


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    The trouble here is that JP is very apt to grab the ball, stuff it up his jersey, and wave his arms around yelling about how white males are being oppressed in their ball access.


    Not sure why you get that impression.

    He gets asked a question by the media and answers the questions.

    I've read his latest book "12 rules to life" and on the balance of fairness I cannot remember one area where this was suggested. Not....once. Only in response to interviewers questions.

    He often states that this idea that the ALL white males are tyrants and BAD is just wrong. Basically he detests that whenever he is confronted, it's always "all" or "everyone" rather than the use of "some"

    I do find his way of describing life quite accessible and it's no doubt aided myself in understanding the people around myself much better. I am no right winger, and I suddenly won't be some crazy right lunatic from listening to his talks. What he has taught me though personally is "being a sheep in life is the best route for success in life. It's a lovely safe zone to be in"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3582
    flexcon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,618 ✭✭✭flexcon


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    Well, 46.1% of those that choose/were eligible/able to vote, to be a tad more accurate. Or as DJT would say, "a landslide".

    But a marvel of mathematical precision, compared to JP's "our cousins the lobsters" factoid. (Hauling it back to the C4 interview, however fleetingly!)

    He never said our cousins were lobsters.

    And - You need to post a link that says we do not share this social attributes of a lobster. Otherwise it comes across that because you find the idea so insane, it must not be correct.

    To add, when you search online you end up on some well known media outlets that suggest the same, that lobsters is an odd animal to use, that in fact, hierarchy is shown in lots of other species.


  • Options
    #3583
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,344 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    flexcon wrote: »
    Not sure why you get that impression.

    He gets asked a question by the media and answers the questions.

    I've read his latest book "12 rules to life" and on the balance of fairness I cannot remember one area where this was suggested. Not....once. Only in response to interviewers questions.

    He often states that this idea that the ALL white males are tyrants and BAD is just wrong. Basically he detests that whenever he is confronted, it's always "all" or "everyone" rather than the use of "some"

    I do find his way of describing life quite accessible and it's no doubt aided myself in understanding the people around myself much better. I am no right winger, and I suddenly won't be some crazy right lunatic from listening to his talks. What he has taught me though personally is "being a sheep in life is the best route for success in life. It's a lovely safe zone to be in"


    Which reminds me, isn't his whole shtick about taking personal responsibility for your own life? Doesn't seem compatible with the people saying that he's crying oppression of his white brethren.


  • Options
    #3584
    johnp001
    Registered Users Posts: 658 ✭✭✭johnp001


    flexcon wrote: »
    He never said our cousins were lobsters.

    And - You need to post a link that says we do not share this social attributes of a lobster. Otherwise it comes across that because you find the idea so insane, it must not be correct.

    To add, when you search online you end up on some well known media outlets that suggest the same, that lobsters is an odd animal to use, that in fact, hierarchy is shown in lots of other species.

    I think the point of the lobster is that it exemplifies that hierarchy isn't a human invention. Conversely it is rooted in genetics that go back much further than our mammal ancestors. Hence hierarchy is found in lots of other species but the example of lobsters in this context makes the point more strongly than if apes or baboons were used as the example.


  • Options
    #3585
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    flexcon wrote: »
    He never said our cousins were lobsters.

    I'm paraphrasing. But we are cousins of the lobster -- that's not the part he botched his factoid on.

    He threw in a date for our most recent common ancestor, unasked and without much in the way of reason or context, and got it fairly wildly wrong. Just as well he doesn't bill himself as an "evolutionary psychologist", though the "right-wing just-so stories with no actual science" riff is otherwise rather similar.


  • Options
    #3586
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    johnp001 wrote: »
    Hence hierarchy is found in lots of other species but the example of lobsters in this context makes the point more strongly than if apes or baboons were used as the example.

    "Strongly", as in implying a much stronger claim than he's actually able to stand up.


  • Options
    #3587
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    xckjoo wrote: »
    Which reminds me, isn't his whole shtick about taking personal responsibility for your own life? Doesn't seem compatible with the people saying that he's crying oppression of his white brethren.

    I think it's entirely compatible. "Tidy up your room. Then you'll be entitled to whine that society hasn't 'enforced' your getting a girlfriend."


  • Options
    #3588
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,344 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    I think it's entirely compatible. "Tidy up your room. Then you'll be entitled to whine that society hasn't 'enforced' your getting a girlfriend."


    Ah here. Is that your only reason for saying that? Because I already posted a link to his page where he talks about what he means by the enforced monogamy. Maybe you still don't agree with his opinion but you clearly haven't informed yourself on what it is first.


    I think I'm going to cash out of this thread guys. Too many are only interested in feeling like they're the ones that can see the 'truth' without putting in the effort to find out what that truth is.



    One quick question before I go. Did anything ever come of the tweet he made about climate change? Was there any follow up?


  • Options
    #3589
    johnp001
    Registered Users Posts: 658 ✭✭✭johnp001


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    "Strongly", as in implying a much stronger claim than he's actually able to stand up.

    That doesn't make any sense to me. Please can you clarify what you mean?


  • Options
    #3590
    7aubzxk43m2sni
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭7aubzxk43m2sni


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    I'm paraphrasing. But we are cousins of the lobster -- that's not the part he botched his factoid on.

    He threw in a date for our most recent common ancestor, unasked and without much in the way of reason or context, and got it fairly wildly wrong. Just as well he doesn't bill himself as an "evolutionary psychologist", though the "right-wing just-so stories with no actual science" riff is otherwise rather similar.

    What are you talking about? This post is very confusing. Can you please attempt to clarify what you mean?


  • Options
    #3591
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    xckjoo wrote: »
    Ah here. Is that your only reason for saying that? Because I already posted a link to his page where he talks about what he means by the enforced monogamy. Maybe you still don't agree with his opinion but you clearly haven't informed yourself on what it is first.
    "Clearly", eh? Why do you think I put in quotes? Enforced means "not enforced at all" when that suits him, and "actually enforced" when that does. It's either deliberate bait-and-switch on his part, or -- gasp! -- lamentably imprecise use of language.
    I think I'm going to cash out of this thread guys. Too many are only interested in feeling like they're the ones that can see the 'truth' without putting in the effort to find out what that truth is.
    It's a wise person that knows which those people actually are.
    One quick question before I go. Did anything ever come of the tweet he made about climate change? Was there any follow up?

    Why's this a "quick" question? Isn't "whole new can of worms" more apt?

    If you want a "quick" summary, then what happened is that he pandered shamelessly to the usual right-wing suspects, the usual right-wing suspects loved it, everyone else with a lick of regard to scientific fact sighed wearily.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3592
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    xckjoo wrote: »
    One quick question before I go. Did anything ever come of the tweet he made about climate change? Was there any follow up?
    I've gone back through his recent tweets but cannot find it. What was the tweet?

    If he's some climate change denier, which I tend to suspect, that's sort of a /thread moment.


  • Options
    #3593
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »
    What are you talking about? This post is very confusing. Can you please attempt to clarify what you mean?

    Only if you make at least the slightest sign of a good-faith attempt at outlining what part you were confused regarding. "Say that all again, but entirely differently" smacks of time-wasting.


  • Options
    #3594
    7aubzxk43m2sni
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭7aubzxk43m2sni


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    I've gone back through his recent tweets but cannot find it. What was the tweet?

    If he's some climate change denier, which I tend to suspect, that's sort of a /thread moment.

    https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1024870660022124544?lang=en


    I don't know where I stand on it. It seems a bit childish at best.


  • Options
    #3595
    7aubzxk43m2sni
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭7aubzxk43m2sni


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    Only if you make at least the slightest sign of a good-faith attempt at outlining what part you were confused regarding. "Say that all again, but entirely differently" smacks of time-wasting.

    Ok..
    alaimacerc wrote: »
    Well, 46.1% of those that choose/were eligible/able to vote, to be a tad more accurate. Or as DJT would say, "a landslide".

    But a marvel of mathematical precision, compared to JP's "our cousins the lobsters" factoid. (Hauling it back to the C4 interview, however fleetingly!)

    So here you're saying ... nothing?
    alaimacerc wrote: »
    I'm paraphrasing. But we are cousins of the lobster -- that's not the part he botched his factoid on.

    He threw in a date for our most recent common ancestor, unasked and without much in the way of reason or context, and got it fairly wildly wrong. Just as well he doesn't bill himself as an "evolutionary psychologist", though the "right-wing just-so stories with no actual science" riff is otherwise rather similar.

    When/ where did he "throw in a date", and what did he get wrong? In other words, what are you talking about?


  • Options
    #3596
    flexcon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,618 ✭✭✭flexcon


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    "Clearly", eh? Why do you think I put in quotes? Enforced means "not enforced at all" when that suits him, and "actually enforced" when that does. It's either deliberate bait-and-switch on his part, or -- gasp! -- lamentably imprecise use of language.


    It's a wise person that knows which those people actually are.



    Why's this a "quick" question? Isn't "whole new can of worms" more apt?

    If you want a "quick" summary, then what happened is that he pandered shamelessly to the usual right-wing suspects, the usual right-wing suspects loved it, everyone else with a lick of regard to scientific fact sighed wearily.


    Dude. I am no longer going to respond now. Well done.

    If JP is a climate change denier, then as someone who listens intently to his expression - I don't agree with him.

    Just kindly F*ck off with the usual phrases " Usual Right-wing suspects".


  • Options
    #3597
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    johnp001 wrote: »
    That doesn't make any sense to me. Please can you clarify what you mean?

    He's setting up an argument where he's essentially pretending that Nasty Left-Wing Marxist Feminists Postmodernists supposedly claimed that there were no hierarchies ever before modern human societies, and uses the idiotic "lobsters!" example to knock down his own straw man. Then apparently seeks to imply that this someone means that hierarchies are not only not unprecedented -- which no-one disputed in the first place -- but effectively that they're inevitable and desirable.

    I trust that made even less sense to you. At least you might realize you'd been better off before!


  • Options
    #3598
    7aubzxk43m2sni
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭7aubzxk43m2sni


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    He's setting up an argument where he's essentially pretending that Nasty Left-Wing Marxist Feminists Postmodernists supposedly claimed that there were no hierarchies ever before modern human societies, and uses the idiotic "lobsters!" example to knock down his own straw man. Then apparently seeks to imply that this someone means that hierarchies are not only not unprecedented -- which no-one disputed in the first place -- but effectively that they're inevitable and desirable.

    I trust that made even less sense to you. At least you might realize you'd been better off before!

    If you listened to more than snippets and hit piece articles you might understand that acknowledging the existence of something, hierarchies in this example, does not defend them.

    Yes, they're absolutely inevitable.

    The problem with leftists / sjw's is that they assume that the existing structure until now has always been "the patriarchy", an inherently corrupt hierarchy designed by and for powerful rich white men.


  • Options
    #3599
    besserwisser
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭besserwisser


    Apologies if previously posted. Interesting opinion piece in the Toronto Star:-

    https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html


  • Options
    #3600
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1024870660022124544?lang=en


    I don't know where I stand on it. It seems a bit childish at best.
    I'm definitely not qualified to critique the views of an MIT professor, but it's clear that the majority scientific opinion, even within climate science, is against him.

    I notice that on Lindzen's wikipedia page he relies on the fact that science has been wrong before, as being somehow supportive of the implication that science is wrong about climate change. That's a whopping great logical fallacy. Just because science was once incorrect about the geometry of the planet, doesn't mean that it's also wrong about every subsequent claim like atomic theory, evolution, or for that matter, climate change.

    I've always gotten the impression that Jordan Peterson is reticent or even skeptical of man-made climate change and its implications, and to be honest, this seems like a blow to his credibility (and I'm on of those people who think the opposition to Jordan Peterson is generally hysterical and unfounded).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3601
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    flexcon wrote: »
    Dude. I am no longer going to respond now. Well done.
    There's not really a lot of "responding" going on this thread at the best of times., frankly.
    If JP is a climate change denier, then as someone who listens intently to his expression - I don't agree with him.
    I don't know for certain if he "identifies" as such. Perhaps another Operation Motte and Bailey exercise on his part. I wasn't entirely clear which tweet was being referred to by the other poster, but seemingly there's something of a track-record of at best snidey comments on the topic.
    Just kindly F*ck off with the usual phrases " Usual Right-wing suspects".
    Neither kindly nor unkindly, nope. If the glove doesn't fit, on whose behalf are you taking offence? His CC tweets very clearly went down well in the drill-baby-drill segment of the political market. My characterisation is accurate, and their reaction entirely unsurprising.


Advertisement