Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Zubeneschamali · 21-09-2018 11:52AM

Ha ha!

https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/jordan-peterson-threatened-to-sue-feminist-critic-kate-manne.html

Excerpt:
But Peterson’s affection for unbounded “linguistic territory” only goes so far, it seems. In June, he threatened to sue Down Girl author and Cornell University assistant professor Kate Manne for defamation, after she criticized his book, 12 Rules For Life, and more generally called his work misogynistic in an interview with Vox. (Peterson previously filed a lawsuit against a university whose faculty members, in a closed-door meeting, argued that showing his videos in a classroom created an unsafe environment for students.) In letters to Manne, Cornell, and Vox, Peterson’s lawyer, Howard Levitt, demanded that all three parties “immediately retract all of Professor Manne’s defamatory statements, have them immediately removed from the internet, and issue an apology in the same forum to Mr. Peterson. Otherwise, our client will take all steps necessary to protect his professional reputation, including but not limited to initiating legal proceedings against all of you for damages.”

Comedy Gold:

Manne, who coined the instantly immortal portmanteau “himpathy” to describe the disproportionate sympathy our society extends towards men, says her fellow academic’s letter is “morally disappointing, but seems quite predictable.” So far, Peterson hasn’t made good on his threat to file suit, though neither she, Cornell, or Vox have complied with his requests. “It’s a classic attempt to chill free speech,” Manne says. “Like many of his ilk, what he really seems to be demanding — when one examines his actions rather than words — is to be able to speak free from legitimate social consequences, such as other people talking back.”

Brian? · 21-09-2018 11:54AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Oh and Brian, I forgot to say ... who cares what he tells young people to do or not do ? He's not passing that into law like. He's just as free to speak out what he thinks as you or I, it's not like it's going to stop them doing it. That's freedom of speech, in the same way you have a right to say you think it's wrong.

The "picking a subset of society based on their age is wrong" bit, that doesn't hold really with me. Yeah, there's some generalization there, and we know that's generally not a good idea, but he is generalizing for a pretty good reason insofar as he's a psychologist, and he knows better than most about human development.

I'd like to hear the bit you are incensed about too, if you don't mind, it would help judge if he was indeed a bit too angry and got carried away, or if he was a bit more specific.

I'm only guessing that this was said in relation to a specific group of students who have a gripe against him, more than likely from the University of Toronto, and possibly from a few US universities (I've a notion I heard him mention a uni in Virginia some time).

I'm not incensed, I'm mildly irked at the hubris displayed.

As in most circumstances, he was vague at best. Which only added to my annoyance.

It occurs to me that he regularly argues from a position of eminence and his followers swallow it whole. Because he's highly educated there's an inherent value to everything he says, in your opinion and his own. I prefer to approach each issue based on evidence.

RandomName2 · 21-09-2018 01:54PM

Brian? wrote: »

He was talking about young people, he wasn't exactly clear about when they stopped being young and started being old enough to protest.

His general point was: "What do they know, they haven't sorted out their own lives yet."

Yeah, I was kind of hoping to actually see what he said so I could make my own judgement of it. The context could be important if it was apropos of one of those protests that took place at a talk he was attending.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Ha ha!

Is there a point you are making? Oh yeah, it must be the 'Us and Them' mentality you are adhering to, believing for some reason that everyone who doesn't attack Peterson is actually a devoted follower agreeing with every utterance of his.

Oh, Peterson's attack on the himpathy

Sorry I got a bit sick there, uh. Woah. I somehow feel more stupid too. Where was I?

Oh yeah, Peterson's attack on the himpathy one's attack on him could constitute an affront on free speech, whatever will I do? Don't worry, you'll get thanked by everyone on the same 'side' as you, regardless of the validity and logic of your 'ha ha'.

Zubeneschamali · 21-09-2018 01:58PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Is there a point you are making?

Peterson is a giant hypocrite.

Brian? · 21-09-2018 02:03PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yeah, I was kind of hoping to actually see what he said so I could make my own judgement of it. The context could be important if it was apropos of one of those protests that took place at a talk he was attending.

Can't find the video, sorry. It was part of a greater discussion with someone, but I can't remember who. You'll have to take my word for it unfortunately.

RandomName2 · 21-09-2018 02:10PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Peterson is a giant hypocrite.

Apparently she compared him to Hitler. He could argue that this could damage him professionally (I doubt it) and defamation is only actionable when it can be proven not to be true. She didn't say he was Hitler, just like Hitler, so that's doubtful too, I think.

Personally I don't see why he would bother stroking the ego of someone whose whole purpose in life is to waffle about how men are bad.

This is very much cherry picking on your part (well, not so much your part, you're just echoing a left wing publication), but you are, arguably, correct. Tenuous, though. Pretty tenuous.

Brian? · 21-09-2018 02:20PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Apparently she compared him to Hitler. He could argue that this could damage him professionally (I doubt it) and defamation is only actionable when it can be proven not to be true. She didn't say he was Hitler, just like Hitler, so that's doubtful too, I think.

Personally I don't see why he would bother stroking the ego of someone whose whole purpose in life is to waffle about how men are bad.

This is very much cherry picking on your part (well, not so much your part, you're just echoing a left wing publication), but you are, arguably, correct. Tenuous, though. Pretty tenuous.

Is it tenuous though? He's an outspoken proponent of unlimited free speech, who threatened to sue for defamation.

RandomName2 · 21-09-2018 02:30PM

Brian? wrote: »

Is it tenuous though? He's an outspoken proponent of unlimited free speech, who threatened to sue for defamation.

Well she seems to have done the equivalent of calling him a giant poopie head, and he's ostensibly suing because of the ad hominem attack, which is a bit different from attacking someone for criticizing his positions.

In reality though I imagine that he was somewhat motivated by her attacks on his book as well.

Also, technically, he hasn't actually sued, merely considered it to date.

But yes, it does contradict the 'say whatever you want' line, though I will reiterate, that defamation is fundamentally based upon falsehood, not disagreement.

Zubeneschamali · 21-09-2018 02:40PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well she seems to have done the equivalent of calling him a giant poopie head, and he's ostensibly suing because of the ad hominem attack, which is a bit different from attacking someone for criticizing his positions.

He is an outspoken proponent of free speech for himself even when it offends other people (trans people who prefer he not use his favourite pronouns for example).

But when a feminist calls him a misogynist he calls his lawyer?

Utter hypocrisy.

storker · 21-09-2018 03:07PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

He is an outspoken proponent of free speech for himself even when it offends other people (trans people who prefer he not use his favourite pronouns for example).

But when a feminist calls him a misogynist he calls his lawyer?

Utter hypocrisy.

I think the contradiction is more apparent than real. The free speech issue is about people being silenced because others don't approve of what they say. Libel laws are about holding people to account for what they do say. I don't recall Peterson ever arguing against libel laws.

There is a difference between failing to use someone's preferred terminology and libeling someone's character - which I don't believe actually happened, but that's for the courts to decide, if it goes that far...which I doubt it will.

Mountainsandh · 22-09-2018 02:00PM

Brian? wrote: »

I'm not incensed, I'm mildly irked at the hubris displayed.

As in most circumstances, he was vague at best. Which only added to my annoyance.

It occurs to me that he regularly argues from a position of eminence and his followers swallow it whole. Because he's highly educated there's an inherent value to everything he says, in your opinion and his own. I prefer to approach each issue based on evidence.

I found what is called the "rant", and I suppose it is.
I love it, and I agree with it. It's passionate.
His point is that students would be much better advised to wait, and seize the opportunity to study, read, and become well rounded and more balanced individuals, before they start attempting to change the world.
In his words, and I share that opinion, university students are very lucky to have a system and a family to support them at that moment in their lives, and the best way to use that is to study, learn, become a person that has the power to change things.
Then go forth and do it.

He says "you see these Yale students complaining about their oppression it's just...it just leaves me aghast. It's like, "well, we're against the ruling class", it's like no no no, you're baby ruling class members, you're young."

His argument here is that obviously, the older you grow, the more money and power you will stack up, simply because you have been working at that all your life.

I'm not sure I fully agree there since some relatively young people seem to have accessed positions of power and outrageous money in recent years, then again, it could be argued that these young people are often exceptional in their dedication to a goal (I'm thinking of the Mark Zuckenberg or Elon Musks of this world). (As in, they made it all happen sooner, and fair fks to them)

https://youtu.be/tmZ5AxFkjvg

I remember watching it with a better sound quality (I think), so if sound doesn't suit you have a look elsewhere for that particular bit.

It's not to say Brian, your argument that young people precipitated social change in the past is a good one that could be discussed, and I would think that he'd engage fully in that discussion if someone put it to him reasonably.
I think his issue (he says it more explicitly elsewhere) is more with the weak manner in which protests are held, I would guess that a student engaging in dialogue or raising issues in an essay/academic paper for example would fit in more with his idea of "growing up".

Mountainsandh · 22-09-2018 02:09PM

storker wrote: »

I think the contradiction is more apparent than real. The free speech issue is about people being silenced because others don't approve of what they say. Libel laws are about holding people to account for what they do say. I don't recall Peterson ever arguing against libel laws.

There is a difference between failing to use someone's preferred terminology and libeling someone's character - which I don't believe actually happened, but that's for the courts to decide, if it goes that far...which I doubt it will.

I'd love to find out about this more, so if anyone has any links it would be great to see them. I've tried a search so I kind of know who the woman is, and I've read one article on what she has to say, but I don't think I'm getting the full picture.

I would tend to think that he would get more annoyed at her misrepresenting the contents of the book than calling him names, then again maybe being called Hitler is where he draws a line. (not making a value judgement there maybe he's wrong to do so)

Brian? · 22-09-2018 02:41PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well she seems to have done the equivalent of calling him a giant poopie head, and he's ostensibly suing because of the ad hominem attack, which is a bit different from attacking someone for criticizing his positions.

In reality though I imagine that he was somewhat motivated by her attacks on his book as well.

Also, technically, he hasn't actually sued, merely considered it to date.

But yes, it does contradict the 'say whatever you want' line, though I will reiterate, that defamation is fundamentally based upon falsehood, not disagreement.

He hasn’t sued because it would be a waste of time. The burden of proof for a defamation case is unbelievably heavy in the states. In a way it makes it worse that it was an empty threat.

Brian? · 22-09-2018 05:12PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I found what is called the "rant", and I suppose it is.
I love it, and I agree with it. It's passionate.
His point is that students would be much better advised to wait, and seize the opportunity to study, read, and become well rounded and more balanced individuals, before they start attempting to change the world.
In his words, and I share that opinion, university students are very lucky to have a system and a family to support them at that moment in their lives, and the best way to use that is to study, learn, become a person that has the power to change things.
Then go forth and do it.

He says "you see these Yale students complaining about their oppression it's just...it just leaves me aghast. It's like, "well, we're against the ruling class", it's like no no no, you're baby ruling class members, you're young."

His argument here is that obviously, the older you grow, the more money and power you will stack up, simply because you have been working at that all your life.

I'm not sure I fully agree there since some relatively young people seem to have accessed positions of power and outrageous money in recent years, then again, it could be argued that these young people are often exceptional in their dedication to a goal (I'm thinking of the Mark Zuckenberg or Elon Musks of this world). (As in, they made it all happen sooner, and fair fks to them)

https://youtu.be/tmZ5AxFkjvg

I remember watching it with a better sound quality (I think), so if sound doesn't suit you have a look elsewhere for that particular bit.

It's not to say Brian, your argument that young people precipitated social change in the past is a good one that could be discussed, and I would think that he'd engage fully in that discussion if someone put it to him reasonably.
I think his issue (he says it more explicitly elsewhere) is more with the weak manner in which protests are held, I would guess that a student engaging in dialogue or raising issues in an essay/academic paper for example would fit in more with his idea of "growing up".

That video is worse than the one I saw. The arrogance of the man.

You can’t see he’s flat wrong, you love the rant. I will never convince you of anything if that’s the case.

On the point of engagement, I think Peterson would engage with me on the subject. But I’m easy meat for him. He will not engage with someone like Zizek though as he knows he’ll be dismantled.

Mountainsandh · 22-09-2018 06:54PM

Brian? wrote: »

That video is worse than the one I saw. The arrogance of the man.

You can’t see he’s flat wrong, you love the rant. I will never convince you of anything if that’s the case.

On the point of engagement, I think Peterson would engage with me on the subject. But I’m easy meat for him. He will not engage with someone like Zizek though as he knows he’ll be dismantled.

I guess you're right Brian, we are probably miles apart and I wouldn't expect to be able to convince you of anything either

Resverathrole · 22-09-2018 07:10PM

Are people still talking about Jordan Peterson. He's click bait all over youtube. "Jordan Peterson picks apart needy feminst" and the like. I'd avoid him like the plague.

RandomName2 · 22-09-2018 09:58PM

Resverathrole wrote: »

Are people still talking about Jordan Peterson. He's click bait all over youtube. "Jordan Peterson picks apart needy feminst" and the like. I'd avoid him like the plague.

I think it's a little unfair to criticize him for videos and video titles he hasn't put up. If you look at his own channel, it's a bit bible-thumping, but not clickbaity.

Brian? wrote: »

That video is worse than the one I saw. The arrogance of the man.

I can't disagree with peaceful protest on principle. I don't really think it matters how well thought out the protest is, I don't care how well educated the protesters are, their age, or their social status, in the same way that these things don't matter when voting (except that people must be adults, and I think that the merit of that is even possibly debatable).

However! Although I don't care how well thought out protests are, I do think it is important how protests are conducted. If the protests are an active threat to individuals or groups of people, then that's not okay. If the protests are obstructionist, and are disrupting people not part of the protest that's not okay. If the protest is breaking the law that's not okay - with the exception of laws against protests or anything else that threatens free speech.

I also think that people are likely to protest sexy topics that they think will make them look good, but that's massively different from the very topic of whether people who may or may not be ignorant should protest in the first place. I disagree with Peterson on this. There's no magical age of enlightenment, no specific bar of understanding that people can cross and suddenly have a full mastery of knowledge of the world. I don't disagree with his right to articulate this view though.

SterlingArcher · 22-09-2018 10:33PM

Brian? wrote: »

That video is worse than the one I saw. The arrogance of the man.

On the point of engagement, I think Peterson would engage with me on the subject. But I’m easy meat for him. .

Really? You'd be easy meat for him. Talk about weak. Then what is the point?

Do you forget you have invested so much energy into this thread on the guy( what's that about then?), you think you'd have something of substance to show for it or at least a firm belief that you were so dead right in your assessment of the persons ideas that you could dismantle them no sweat.

Pffft no **** you'd be easy meat for him.

Brian? · 22-09-2018 10:53PM

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Really? You'd be easy meat for him. Talk about weak. Then what is the point?

Do you forget you have invested so much energy into this thread on the guy( what's that about then?), you think you'd have something of substance to show for it or at least a firm belief that you were so dead right in your assessment of the persons ideas that you could dismantle them no sweat.

Pffft no **** you'd be easy meat for him.

You think I should be delusional enough to think I could take him on in a live debate? Not having debated live in over 20 years. That would be ridiculously arrogant. Live debate is a skill, and the person who’s actually right doesn’t necessarily win.

You prefer me to say I could dismantle his ideas? Imagine the howling derision here if I did.

My point is: he won’t debate difficult opponents who’ve called him out. It would be embarrassing for him

SterlingArcher · 23-09-2018 08:39AM

Brian? wrote: »

You think I should be delusional enough to think I could take him on in a live debate? Not having debated live in over 20 years. That would be ridiculously arrogant. Live debate is a skill, and the person who’s actually right doesn’t necessarily win.

You prefer me to say I could dismantle his ideas? Imagine the howling derision here if I did.

My point is: he won’t debate difficult opponents who’ve called him out. It would be embarrassing for him

So sure it would be embarrassing for him aren't you, just because you arrogantly deemed this or that person worthy or interesting to debate, does not make it so.

"You prefer me to say I could dismantle his ideas? Imagine the howling derision here if I did"

Wow you are quick and fast with the cowardice for someone calling someone out for not having the balls to debate.

I hope at least you can respect Peterson for having a backbone, standing up for what he believes in. He certainly has alot more on the line and to worry about, than the howling derision of some anonymous forum when speaking his mind or sharing his ideas.

Brian? · 23-09-2018 09:07AM

SterlingArcher wrote: »

So sure it would be embarrassing for him aren't you, just because you arrogantly deemed this or that person worthy or interesting to debate, does not make it so.

"You prefer me to say I could dismantle his ideas? Imagine the howling derision here if I did"

Wow you are quick and fast with the cowardice for someone calling someone out for not having the balls to debate.

I hope at least you can respect Peterson for having a backbone, standing up for what he believes in. He certainly has alot more on the line and to worry about, than the howling derision of some anonymous forum when speaking his mind or sharing his ideas.

You’re a delight eh? What’s the point of all this nonsense?

Resverathrole · 23-09-2018 01:10PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

I think it's a little unfair to criticize him for videos and video titles he hasn't put up. If you look at his own channel, it's a bit bible-thumping, but not clickbaity.

I heard him say that it was sociopathic for PUAs to approach a stranger for no other reason than to have to goal of sleeping with her! When I heard him say that, I realised this fcuker doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

He has to be a bit of an attention seeker!

SterlingArcher · 23-09-2018 03:15PM

Brian? wrote: »

You’re a delight eh? What’s the point of all this nonsense?

It is fair to say from your posts you dislike Peterson. You read the media around him, post here, and watch his videos. Why? Why would you invest so much energy into someone you clearly dislike.

Yet with all this time and effort you are putting in ,still cannot confidently put forward good arguments why others should not like or listen to him.

And you ask me what is the point.

Mountainsandh · 23-09-2018 06:25PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

He is an outspoken proponent of free speech for himself even when it offends other people (trans people who prefer he not use his favourite pronouns for example).

But when a feminist calls him a misogynist he calls his lawyer?

Utter hypocrisy.

The bold bit is not accurate.
He is a proponent of free speech alright.
The pronouns issue is simply that a law was being passed forcing people to use certain words in certain circumstances.

He's opposed to such a law.

Let's imagine a similar situation here, where the law would enforce that any person who thinks they deserve it on grounds of say, education, should be called "your highness". This is law.
You now have to call your teachers, your doctors, anyone who claims they prefer it "your highness".

You are liable to sanctions if you do not call them "your highness", and you had better teach your kids to call them that too, because this is part of life now, and the authorities have the power to enforce this.

He thinks this is a slippery slope, and against the principles of democracy.
The law should simply not touch language, except for hate speech and defamation.

He has made it very clear multiple times that in his every day life, if a trans person asks to be called a particular pronoun, he has no problem using it. That's when the law enforces it that he has a problem.

It seems very difficult indeed to find information about what this lady said, and what brought about his suggestions that he might sue.
If she misrepresented what's in the book, I would totally understand that he might sue, as this could effect sales.

Other situations might not be as clear cut, but again, there are several people here giving out about this rumour without being able to provide precise information on what exactly the problem is.

Brian? · 23-09-2018 07:11PM

SterlingArcher wrote: »

It is fair to say from your posts you dislike Peterson. You read the media around him, post here, and watch his videos. Why? Why would you invest so much energy into someone you clearly dislike.

Yet with all this time and effort you are putting in ,still cannot confidently put forward good arguments why others should not like or listen to him.

And you ask me what is the point.

Actually, I neither like nor dislike Peterson. I just think he’s wrong. I’ve said this repeatedly. I have confidently put forward many reasons he’s wrong. Like/dislike is irrelevant.

Zubeneschamali · 23-09-2018 10:48PM

That's when the law enforces it that he has a problem.

Hypocritical then for him to be threatening others with lawyers over their speech when it is about him.

El_Duderino 09 · 24-09-2018 03:52PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

When you combine a social science with philosophy and then bring a god into the equation, you’re multiplying the variables. It becomes very difficult to tell it apart from complete gobbledygook. You acknowledged you can’t tell how close to correct Peterson’s hypothesise are.

No, you said I can't tell if they are correct or not. (not "close to correct")

Hypotheses and theories are never proven correct or not, some may have stronger evidence than others, but they are not facts.

Since JP deals in sciences where (as you acknowledge) it is very difficult to prove one thing or another, it can't be stated that this one is wrong, or that one is correct, and it's even more nonsensical to demand that listeners (however academic) tell whether that particular theory is correct or this hypothesis is wrong.

Sure he himself doesn't categorically say he's correct about things. He seems more confident about some things than others, but the fact that he engages in discussions such as the one with Sam Harris for example, illustrates how he is open to challenge and further investigation.

The steel manning at the start of the discussions above shows this well : Sam Harris saying "JP thinks that ... according to him... his idea is that...", and then JP doing the exact same thing : "Sam is of the opinion that... Sam's theory is that ... Sam's point of view is that..."

How can you still ask how a listener should decide one thing is correct or not in Sam Harris, or Jordan Peterson's, or other academics' discussions or lectures ?

It just doesn't make sense.

I can attempt to judge (for myself) which theory or which hypothesis is the strongest, in my opinion.
I simply cannot tell whether it is correct, as neither of them (academics) can.

I definitely did ask how you knew if he was correct or not or which bits are correct or closer to correct. I did it to cover however literally you took the question. To clarify I’m asking how you rate the verisimilitude of Peterson’s sermons. The ‘truth likeness’

Long reply but no answer. Reading between the lines, You make up your own mind based on the very limited information available to you.

I imagine you will probably say that’s what we do about all subjects where we’re not experts. But you’ll also declare Peterson a genius even though you don’t have a clue about how to tell how good/likely/close to truth his hypotheses are.

Mountainsandh · 24-09-2018 06:43PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I definitely did ask how you knew if he was correct or not or which bits are correct or closer to correct. I did it to cover however literally you took the question. To clarify I’m asking how you rate the verisimilitude of Peterson’s sermons. The ‘truth likeness’

Long reply but no answer. Reading between the lines, You make up your own mind based on the very limited information available to you.

I imagine you will probably say that’s what we do about all subjects where we’re not experts. But you’ll also declare Peterson a genius even though you don’t have a clue about how to tell how good/likely/close to truth his hypotheses are.

Ok whatever. You are doing nicely conversing with yourself above so I'll let you to it

El_Duderino 09 · 24-09-2018 11:28PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Ok whatever. You are doing nicely conversing with yourself above so I'll let you to it

Ah. That's poor.

I've asked you a few times and in a few different ways how you can tell if Peterson's talking rubbish or not. You sometimes admit you can't actually know if it's rubbish or not because you would need to do a load of research which you haven't done. But you're willing to declare Peterson a genius and then not discuss it. And then you get annoyed when I say that back to you.

Mountainsandh · 25-09-2018 12:15AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah. That's poor.

I've asked you a few times and in a few different ways how you can tell if Peterson's talking rubbish or not. You sometimes admit you can't actually know if it's rubbish or not because you would need to do a load of research which you haven't done. But you're willing to declare Peterson a genius and then not discuss it. And then you get annoyed when I say that back to you.

I have explained multiple times my point of view. I'm not willing to rephrase and paraphrase myself over and over again. You don't agree, or get my point of view, fine. We're not going to go on and on like that.

I think the guy has a wealth of knowledge, and his arguments and lectures are interesting, just deal with it.
You are trying to argue ad infinitum that a guy who's got multiple credentials and qualifications to his name is really conning people and would people ever wake up to it.

Jeebus, off you go tell that to Toronto University, Harvard, and all the prestigious platforms he has been spreading his lies to, all these people he has fooled up until now, El D, in all your great wisdom and knowledge.

Be one of these people who record their own Youtube videos to vent out their anger at the man maybe, that might let a bit of that rancour out, and what with the comments and the likes, you might get the same validation as you seem to search for incessantly.

I'll return to my online lectures, and tend to my shrine.

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Comments