Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm guessing you didn't bother reading the national post article that your link was based on. It gave the reasons for going to Russia, and why they didn't want further treatments in the US. i.e. the pushing of other drugs.

And he is apparently making a recovery. Smiling, and joking a bit. Some neurological damage, but no specifics on severity, although his recovery will take time. You seem to be getting a perverse joy in pushing the negative aspect of his condition. Saying he has brain damage is a rather strong remark without any details on his actual condition.

Neurological damage is definitely confirmed. It sounds like his family brought him to a Russian quack.

Normal Doctors will use a librium taper. But you still 'kick'.

His family seem more concerned about his reputation than him. His daughter seems more slimy than him.

Lets be honest it wasn't just benzos.

Deleted User wrote: »

neurological damage... yup. And you have absolutely no idea of the severity. It could be slight damage or something more serious. You. Have. No. Bloody. Idea.

You're jumping up and down claiming that you're right about your claims, with no evidence to back them up. Just as you had no way of proving that legally he was proven not to be an expert. You keep making statements about him, as if they're completely true and can't be denied, but they're based on nothing substantial.

Wow ...are you having a meltdown?

He's loser. You were wrong to believe anything he said. And you were wrong to put faith in his character or believe anything about him.

Its all lies.

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope. Perfectly fine. A little frustrated with your sensationalism, but.. hey.. it tends to happen with posters like yourself. I guess I'm a little out of practice dealing with it.

yeah sure

Deleted User wrote: »

And you are wrong to believe that I've said that I believed anything he said, or that I put any faith in his character or believe anything about him.

Because I haven't said any such thing. You do have a habit of assuming things about posters.

I'm well educated, experienced, and I'm fully capable of thinking for myself. Don't need JP to do that for me. I do, however, agree with many (not all) of his statements regarding coercion of speech, the salary gap, and feminism....

As for it all being lies... nah. I'm sure there are inaccuracies, and outright mistakes. I'm sure he's biased on certain issues. But then who isn't these days? It's also hard to know what is the truth considering the amount of misinformation, and dodgy biased research that has come out of the US over the last 2-3 decades. So.. nope. Not buying into your perception of the world, any more than I would buy into JP's.

You have just contradicted yourself.

Well all i will say is this. If the answer to addiction was to send our junkies to russia ....every rock star would be doing it.

Gynoid wrote: »

Ugh. Im going to stop engaging with you now as it is unpleasant. And encourages bad behaviour in you.

I am not a fan of his. But I am or try to be humane. No matter who I heard about having a really bad time I would feel sorry for them. I do not judge people by their helpless characteristics like skin pigmentation, height, sexual preference etc. How can one? But people's optional characteristics like shouty schadenfreude or such, yep, I think they are open to judgement. Even so one hopes people expressing sentiments like that would recover from such addictions.

Oh please the man is vile.

Stop being so fake. You just went on a transphobic rant like two mins ago.

He's a junkie! If he were a junkie in the streets you would call him scum and you know it. All his followers would.

Now he and his family have made some terrible life decisions and still his followers act like his every choice is sane.

We can scrutinize people that have been held up by some to be role models. People that have lectured others on addiction.

Paolo Maldini 122 wrote: »

This is your problem, you project into people who agree with Jordan Peterson your imagined motivations.

Ah, 'tis yourself. My personal rereg troll. My most devoted fan lol.

Plant A Tree wrote: »

Why do 'progressive' people seethe with rage over Jordan Peterson so much?

I mean so what if he won't call a transgender person some silly made up pronoun, why does it bother you so much?

Funny, even you got it wrong. He never said he wouldn't use gender pronouns. His stance was against the goverment mandating speech. Totally different.

But most people offended took it as your explaination.

Tony EH wrote: »

A lot of his acolytes tend not to understand that however.

Everyone got what they wanted from it. He got on fox news and other outlets to sell his wares to his American conservative audience. The conservative audience got a clever sounding guy giving clever sounding reasons to back up the prejudice they already held. Everyone's a winner.

Plant A Tree wrote: »

I just don't get the rage he provokes in the eh, 'liberal' left.

And I fully agree with him in that case. I don't want my door being kicked in by the police because I refused to call some lad xur or xam.

Shouldn't the liberals be on his side?

I understand you. And I agree with him too. It's not just "liberals." I'm very left leaning on most issues but I wouldn't agree with our government having such laws. I spend a lot of time in creative arts so freedom of expression is of great value to me. And maybe you can say it's a slippery slope fallacy, but I think those laws once implemented could expand it to other territories that would detrimental to an open and free society.

Having said that. I absolutely want trans people to feel accepted in society and not predjudiced against. But it's really a sort of domestic matter when it comes to pronouns. When people engage with each other face to face and one asks to be called "They/Them" or whatever, I think most people out of respect would do that.

What I worry about is, if such speech or "hate" laws were implemented, they would be abused by the government to shut down music they don't like, films they don't like etc etc. It would be such a regressive move. Like living under a theocracy again.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Everyone got what they wanted from it. He got on fox news and other outlets to sell his wears to his American conservative audience. The conservative audience got a clever sounding guy giving clever sounding reasons to back up the prejudice they already held. Everyone's a winner.

Of course. Peterson knows his base and he peddles his wears to a particular audience, who will find common ground in his vague statements and fireside words of wisdom.

But this is a problem with a lot of these nouveaux American "thinkers". They're salesmen, pushing a product to an audience that were already receptive to certain ideas before they even heard a single word.

Their interest in their business, not arenas for debate and thought, which they will often shy away from. I've lost count of the amount of YouTube vids that come into my feed that tell me about a Jordan Peterson "interview", which turns out to be nothing more that two like minded people (Americans usually) agreeing with each other. That's not an interview.

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

I understand you. And I agree with him too. It's not just "liberals." I'm very left leaning on most issues but I wouldn't agree with our government having such laws. I spend a lot of time in creative arts so freedom of expression is of great value to me. And maybe you can say it's a slippery slope fallacy, but I think those laws once implemented could expand it to other territories that would detrimental to an open and free society.

The vast, vast, majority of people wouldn't either, regardless of what flavour of politics they currently hold. It's a minute fraction of folk who wish to see legislation imposed on peoples speech and they are usually single issue types with no other political ideals at all. But this tiny group is often held up by those on the so called "right" to damn the so called "left" in its entirety.

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

Having said that. I absolutely want trans people to feel accepted in society and not predjudiced against. But it's really a sort of domestic matter when it comes to pronouns. When people engage with each other face to face and one asks to be called "They/Them" or whatever, I think most people out of respect would do that.

To me, it's a matter of mere politeness. What I would object to, however, are laws telling me that I have to curtail speech or talk in a certain way to certain people.

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

What I worry about is, if such speech or "hate" laws were implemented, they would be abused by the government to shut down music they don't like, films they don't like etc etc. It would be such a regressive move. Like living under a theocracy again.

And this, of course, is the deeper issue. Once laws are passed they can and are manipulated into certain shapes, depending of the nature of those in power. Laws can often be a double edged sword.

But most of these blue haired single issue shouters who are in favour od hate speech laws and whatnot aren't old enough to remember any time before their own particular chosen cause. I would argue that such people AREN'T liberal in any way, despite being used to damn liberal or left leaning principled people. They very people who fought for free speech long before that shouty blue hair was born.

We're in a very strange situation at the moment and once again we have the worst and most absurd of America to thank for it.