Jordan Peterson interview on C4

20Cent · 18-02-2020 10:30AM

Deleted User wrote: »

He makes references to the artificial aspects of a women's' sexuality, that women get a free pass on from society, but leaves it up to his audience to decide whether they're right or wrong to do so, because his audience are representatives of that very society...

You think he's wrong to mention that lipstick, high-heels, lingerie, perfume, etc were all intentionally designed to affect a males subconscious and attract their attention? ......and that while women today might (some are, some aren't) not be interested in attracting that type of attention, the triggers remain for the males. And that males should be aware of those triggers, because conscious awareness of triggers tends to lessen their automatic effects, giving a person more control over their situation, and thus, giving more choices in how to behave.

He leaves it to the listener because to do otherwise would make him a target for every instance a female got assaulted/abused/rapes/insulted etc and people said her appearance was a factor. Line up the expert, and tear him to pieces because many people (especially those on social media) are looking for absolutes and extremes these days.

Exactly my point he throws out some descriptive information and doesn't apply it or express and opinion leaving the audience to fill in the blanks. In this case that women are asking to be harassed or assaulted. This is why incels love him tells them what they want to hear. Dangerous territory l, like how hard is it to say don't assault women.

s7ryf3925pivug · 18-02-2020 10:30AM

From a purely pragmatic point of view it's better that one person gets sick than lots and lots of people ruin their health. He advocated an absurdly restrictive diet of only beef and salt. His illness must undermine ideas that it is a good idea.

20Cent · 18-02-2020 10:36AM

TomSweeney wrote: »

So the people on here that hate JP, what did you think of the interview with Cathy Newman ?
did you agree with her ?

Do you at least agree with Peterson on his basic points that men and women do TEND to be different ?? ... that compelled use of prounouns is a slippery slope ??

Cathy Newman is an excellent investigative journalist. She doesn't suffer fools gladly unlike the usual type of interviewer. American grifters go to Europe expecting an easy ride like they get in the US and are shocked when challenged. She was trying to contextualise and apply Peterson points to the real world but he wasn't having it.

There is no compulsory use of gender pronouns. The law Peterson was whinging about passed yet no one has been sent to jail for using the wrong pronoun. As experts said at the time he was wrong about the law. Managed to kick off a nice earner for himself though.

18-02-2020 10:46AM

20Cent wrote: »

Exactly my point he throws out some descriptive information and doesn't apply it or express and opinion leaving the audience to fill in the blanks. In this case that women are asking to be harassed or assaulted. This is why incels love him tells them what they want to hear. Dangerous territory l, like how hard is it to say don't assault women.

Telling people not to assault women, suggests that he believes that they will assault women. It's the same argument that males should not be told to rape. It's a ridiculous argument.

In any case, in most vids of his, there is a general expectation of showing respect to other people. As for women asking to be assaulted/harassed, you're dumbing down the suggestions and the reasons behind them. It's common enough with people who believe that victims have zero responsibility for placing themselves in dangerous positions. Just as any such discussions will swing between generalizations and demands for "some" people, to reinforce how unreasonable it is to ask people to be more careful. Not getting into such an argument here.. and I've no intention of defending JP for his points. He can do that himself, if you bother to watch the vids with a semi-open mind rather than seeking things to argue about. (which I suspect many of those objecting are doing)

As for dangerous territory... it's all dangerous territory. Everything he says or talks about can be reinterpreted/twisted. It's the nature of the feminist/SJW debates/discussions that happen. Most posters who argue in such debates will understand that feminist advocates tend to do it, to find justifications for their points.

18-02-2020 10:53AM

20Cent wrote: »

Cathy Newman is an excellent investigative journalist. She doesn't suffer fools gladly unlike the usual type of interviewer. American grifters go to Europe expecting an easy ride like they get in the US and are shocked when challenged. She was trying to contextualise and apply Peterson points to the real world but he wasn't having it.

There is no compulsory use of gender pronouns. The law Peterson was whinging about passed yet no one has been sent to jail for using the wrong pronoun. As experts said at the time he was wrong about the law. Managed to kick off a nice earner for himself though.

Cathy Newman was pushing a feminist agenda with regards to wage discrimination and was slapped down for being overly aggressive. She sought to lead her guest into traps for him to sacrifice himself on, and when he was intelligent enough to avoid them, resorted to reinterpreting his points.. Hardly excellent journalism. She might be a good journalist in other situations, but she messed up that interview big time.

Which is wonderful because it showed up just how unreasonable the feminist driven agenda towards employment and discrimination is. And so, JP was elevated to a high position and gained a massive following. TBH I'd never heard of him until someone sent me the link to the interview. I then watched all of his vids. Some were good, some excellent, many rubbish... but it was the Cathy Newman interview that really put him on the radar for a lot of people.

20Cent · 18-02-2020 10:56AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Telling people not to assault women, suggests that he believes that they will assault women. It's the same argument that males should not be told to rape. It's a ridiculous argument.

In any case, in most vids of his, there is a general expectation of showing respect to other people. As for women asking to be assaulted/harassed, you're dumbing down the suggestions and the reasons behind them. It's common enough with people who believe that victims have zero responsibility for placing themselves in dangerous positions. Just as any such discussions will swing between generalizations and demands for "some" people, to reinforce how unreasonable it is to ask people to be more careful. Not getting into such an argument here.. and I've no intention of defending JP for his points. He can do that himself, if you bother to watch the vids with a semi-open mind rather than seeking things to argue about. (which I suspect many of those objecting are doing)

As for dangerous territory... it's all dangerous territory. Everything he says or talks about can be reinterpreted/twisted. It's the nature of the feminist/SJW debates/discussions that happen. Most posters who argue in such debates will understand that feminist advocates tend to do it, to find justifications for their points.

Victims do have zero blame when assaulted yes, and making it explicit that assault and rape are wrong is actually a good thing from an influential person he should do it.

20Cent · 18-02-2020 10:58AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Cathy Newman was pushing a feminist agenda with regards to wage discrimination and was slapped down for being overly aggressive. She sought to lead her guest into traps for him to sacrifice himself on, and when he was intelligent enough to avoid them, resorted to reinterpreting his points.. Hardly excellent journalism. She might be a good journalist in other situations, but she messed up that interview big time.

Which is wonderful because it showed up just how unreasonable the feminist driven agenda towards employment and discrimination is. And so, JP was elevated to a high position and gained a massive following. TBH I'd never heard of him until someone sent me the link to the interview. I then watched all of his vids. Some were good, some excellent, many rubbish... but it was the Cathy Newman interview that really put him on the radar for a lot of people.

Silly woman being uppity need to be slapped down by superior man.
How dare she try and interpret what he is saying (which is nothing).

Wibbs · 18-02-2020 11:01AM

Collagen40 wrote: »

He said it worked for him, and it absolutely makes sense such a diet would result in less inflammation and other problems that people suffer from while eating a modern diet of grains and vegetable oils.

Actually the sense involved is well up for debate. Indeed other research shows a meat only diet can increase inflammation. The problem with this current exclusion diet stuff is that there is a lot of half truths and quackery on all sides. Ask a fruitarian acolyte and they'll dig up research that "proves' their position. There can be an awful lot of woo and food fetish to this stuff. Never mind the basic fact that modern humans(who aren't isolated hunter gatherers) are quite different to humans of 20,000 years ago, which makes fads like the "paleo diet" a bit of a nonsense. Never mind that there are vanishingly few foods you can buy in a shop that are like their wild cousins. Some of the biggest changes to the human genome have been adaptations to "modern" foods. If you gave a caveman a ham sandwich with a beer he'd get a woeful attack of the liquid sitdowns(he'd be missing the genes for lactose, gluten and alcohol tolerance).

18-02-2020 11:06AM

20Cent wrote: »

Victims do have zero blame when assaulted yes, and making it explicit that assault and rape are wrong is actually a good thing from an influential person he should do it.

Difference of opinion. I believe in a measure of personal responsibility for the situations that someone places themselves in, and people can avoid becoming victims by showing more awareness...

And no... that's a statement of belief. I'm not going down the rabbit hole of discussing it here. If you want to know what I feel about it, do some searching on boards. I've discussed it plenty of times before. And yes, I recognise that you believe differently.

As for making it explicit that assault and rape are wrong... why? Can't such a thing be assumed? Do you have to tell everyone you meet that you believe that X,Y,Z are wrong and that you would never engage in such a thing? Don't most people believe that assault/rape/violence/murder/etc is wrong and assume that you believe the same thing.... Should every prominent figure in society also make such a statement?

18-02-2020 11:10AM

20Cent wrote: »

Silly woman being uppity need to be slapped down by superior man.
How dare she try and interpret what he is saying (which is nothing).

He said nothing? Ahh yes.. we're seeing a trend with you about not watching vids or reading up on this subject, while still making judgmental comments on the material.

If you watched the video, he says a lot. He attempts to answer her questions..... when she gives him time to answer although generally she'll interrupt when he doesn't give the answer she wants, and then jumps to another question. Rinse and repeat.

20Cent wrote: »

Silly woman being uppity need to be slapped down by superior man.

Which is not what I said. Back to the reinterpreting to suit the points you want to make.. :rolleyes:

20Cent · 18-02-2020 11:12AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Difference of opinion. I believe in a measure of personal responsibility for the situations that someone places themselves in, and people can avoid becoming victims by showing more awareness...

And no... that's a statement of belief. I'm not going down the rabbit hole of discussing it here. If you want to know what I feel about it, do some searching on boards. I've discussed it plenty of times before. And yes, I recognise that you believe differently.

As for making it explicit that assault and rape are wrong... why? Can't such a thing be assumed? Do you have to tell everyone you meet that you believe that X,Y,Z are wrong and that you would never engage in such a thing? Don't most people believe that assault/rape/violence/murder/etc is wrong and assume that you believe the same thing.... Should every prominent figure in society also make such a statement?

Seems it can't be assumed by your reply that the victim has some responsibility for being attacked.

18-02-2020 11:18AM

20Cent wrote: »

Seems it can't be assumed by your reply that the victim has some responsibility for being attacked.

Which doesn't say that I think that males (or females) should harass/assault/rape other people.

Saying that a victim shares some responsibility for the position they put themselves in, doesn't stop them from being a victim. Nor does it seek to justify the behavior of the aggressor.

You really are doing a wonderful job in proving/showing my point about twisting/reinterpreting things to justify your own opinions.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 18-02-2020 11:23AM

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I knew someone who was trans in secondary school who got an absolutely awful time of it. A couple of the guys in our year were gay and I can say those 5 years were easily the worst times of my life (and it's not like I'm that long out of secondary school) but they paled in comparison to what the trans person went through in our school.

Nobody deserves to be bullied, including anyone suffering from gender dysphoria. So, of course we should take steps to protect such people when they are targeted in schools, etc.

But that's not the issue here. Trans activists' demands go far beyond the reasonable expectation that trans individuals should be protected from violence and discrimination. The demands have become ontological. People are the gender they identify as, so they believe. These activists want everyone to regard a biological male identifying as female as indistinguishable from a natural-born woman — they want us to refer to such a person as "she"; give "her" access to women's bathrooms, changing rooms, domestic violence refuges, and prisons; permit "her" to compete against women in athletic competitions; and tell lesbians that refusing to sleep with "women" who have penises is hate-filled bigotry.

Of course, all of us can tell the difference between a natural-born woman and a gender dysphoric biological male wearing makeup and a dress. Deep down, I suspect none of us genuinely believes that one is the same as the other — and yet few give voice to that doubt for fear of being accused of transphobic bigotry and hate.

We're deep into 1984 territory here. To quote Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense."

LineOfBeauty · 18-02-2020 11:37AM

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Nobody deserves to be bullied, including anyone suffering from gender dysphoria. So, of course we should take steps to protect such people when they are targeted in schools, etc.

But that's not the issue here. Trans activists' demands go far beyond the reasonable expectation that trans individuals should be protected from violence and discrimination. The demands have become ontological. People are the gender they identify as, so they believe. These activists want everyone to regard a biological male identifying as female as indistinguishable from a natural-born woman — they want us to refer to such as person as "she"; give "her" access to women's bathrooms, changing rooms, domestic violence refuges, and prisons; permit "her" to compete against women in athletic competitions; and tell lesbians that refusing to sleep with "women" who have penises is hate-filled bigotry.

Of course, all of us can tell the difference between a natural-born woman and a gender dysphoric biological male wearing makeup and a dress. Deep down, I suspect none of us genuinely believes that one is the same as the other — and yet few give voice to that doubt for fear of being accused of transphobic bigotry and hate.

We're deep into 1984 territory here. To quote Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense."

Literally had this debate yesterday, I really don't want to get into bathrooms/changing rooms/athletics again today. I only posted because of the assertion from Klaz that transgender people only exist to be "cool" or "seek attention" is so wide of the mark that I suspect he's never actually spoken to a trans person in his life.

20Cent · 18-02-2020 11:51AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Which doesn't say that I think that males (or females) should harass/assault/rape other people.

Saying that a victim shares some responsibility for the position they put themselves in, doesn't stop them from being a victim. Nor does it seek to justify the behavior of the aggressor.

You really are doing a wonderful job in proving/showing my point about twisting/reinterpreting things to justify your own opinions.

The victim shares some responsibility. You've stated it twice now.

20Cent · 18-02-2020 11:54AM

A fraction of 1% of the population. The chances of meeting a trans person, noticing they are trans are very slim. Even if you do just be respectful like one should be with everyone. How hard is that!

Hysterical reactions that this is like 1984 is hilarious.

18-02-2020 11:59AM

20Cent wrote: »

The victim shares some responsibility. You've stated it twice now.

Yes. I did. Having some responsibility for what happens does not negate being a victim nor does it justify the actions of the aggressor.

What responsibility did I say the victim had? Or is it the case that being specific must be turned into a broad statement?

This is common with these kind of discussions. If I am specific in what I say, you'll come along and post an objection or question to have it cover every situation, thus making it unreasonable.

But as I said, I'm not going down that rabbit hole, and getting into a conversation about personal responsibility for victims.

sbsquarepants · 18-02-2020 12:05PM

20Cent wrote: »

The victim shares some responsibility. You've stated it twice now.

Say you and i are neighbours. We go away for the weekend, perhaps to see a Jordan Peterson lecture;) Both of our houses are robbed on the night.

You had yours locked up, alarm on - the usual.

I left my door and windows open, all the lights on and the blinds up.

Would you say we were equally blameless?

20Cent · 18-02-2020 12:17PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Say you and i are neighbours. We go away for the weekend, perhaps to see a Jordan Peterson lecture;) Both of our houses are robbed on the night.

You had yours locked up, alarm on - the usual.

I left my door and windows open, all the lights on and the blinds up.

Would you say we were equally blameless?

How does this analogy apply to women?
Lock up your house = don't make yourself look attractive.

18-02-2020 12:20PM

And here we go... :rolleyes: stereotypical responses.

Folks, can we not have a discussion on personal responsibility or personal safety here on this thread. It's a circular argument, and it's extremely divisive. There have been plenty of other threads on the subject. Resurrect one of them, and leave this thread to dealing with JP related issues?

LineOfBeauty · 18-02-2020 12:22PM

Deleted User wrote: »

And here we go... :rolleyes: stereotypical responses.

Folks, can we not have a discussion on personal responsibility or personal safety here on this thread. It's a circular argument, and it's extremely divisive. There have been plenty of other threads on the subject. Resurrect one of them, and leave this thread to dealing with JP related issues?

You rambled for 8 pages yesterday about trans people and the dangers of bathroom access. I'd say somebody should remove themselves from their high horse fairly quickly.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 18-02-2020 12:36PM

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Literally had this debate yesterday, I really don't want to get into bathrooms/changing rooms/athletics again today.

My post was only peripherally about bathrooms, etc.

I'm noting that we can adequately protect the rights of trans individuals without insisting that a gender dysphoric biological male is ontologically female.

The core dispute is over the popular politically correct slogan that "transwomen are women." They are not women. A biological male might identify as female, might wear feminine clothes, take hormones, etc., but he can never actually become female. It's an insult to women when we redefine the very concept of "woman" to include men.

That said, people can be coerced into silence when trans activists (wielding various -ists and -phobics as clubs) insist that 2+2=5.

LineOfBeauty · 18-02-2020 12:41PM

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

My post was only peripherally about bathrooms, etc.

I'm noting that we can adequately protect the rights of trans individuals without insisting that a gender dysphoric biological male is ontologically female.

The core dispute is over the popular politically correct slogan that "transwomen are women." They are not women. A biological male might identify as female, might wear feminine clothes, take hormones, etc., but he can never actually become female. It's an insult to women when we redefine the very concept of "woman" to include men.

That said, people can be coerced into silence when trans activists (wielding various -ists and -phobics as clubs) insist that 2+2=5.

Dude my post was literally solely about Klaz saying trans people only do it because it's "cool" and to "seek attention" 2 things that I can absolutely assure you in my experience of actually talking to and being friends with different trans people that is absolutely not the case, and thinking it is ludicrous and makes me wonder if Klaz has ever talked to a trans person in real life before (something he hasn't answered).

The more in depth stuff I talked about yesterday (including with you), your messages have just gone off on some tangent that in no way relates to my actual comment.

Gynoid · 18-02-2020 12:45PM

20Cent wrote: »

A fraction of 1% of the population. The chances of meeting a trans person, noticing they are trans are very slim. Even if you do just be respectful like one should be with everyone. How hard is that!

Hysterical reactions that this is like 1984 is hilarious.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-42221629

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/09/one-50-prisoners-identify-transsexual-first-figures-show-amid/amp/

1 in 50 prisoners in the UK identifies as trans, 1500 people in total.
50% at least of those male bodied people who are in prisons with women are sexual offenders.

Fractions. Very slim. Never happens. All a storm on a tea cup. Flap flap flap shut your silly mouths you silly girls.

sbsquarepants · 18-02-2020 12:52PM

Franco Baresi55 wrote: »

Blame is the wrong word, neither are to blame for the crime, however one of you needs to be more personally responsible for your own well being.

Exactly. It is complete nonsense to suggest that you have every right to put yourself in harms way and yet expect no harm to come from it.

20Cent wrote: »

How does this analogy apply to women?
Lock up your house = don't make yourself look attractive.

The analogy applies to any situation where a bit of foresight or self care could have helped.

"Be careful" is never bad advice, but these days suggesting that maybe getting shít faced drunk and staggering through the inner city dressed like hookers is anything other than the birth right of women everywhere and you may as well be wearing a Larry Murphy for President t-shirt.

You should be able to go wherever and do whatever the hell you want without consequence, but you aren't - that's just a stone cold fact of life. Denying that, is at best very stupid and at worst potentially extremely dangerous.

LineOfBeauty · 18-02-2020 01:03PM

Gynoid wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-42221629

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/09/one-50-prisoners-identify-transsexual-first-figures-show-amid/amp/

1 in 50 prisoners in the UK identifies as trans, 1500 people in total.
50% at least of those male bodied people who are in prisons with women are sexual offenders.

Fractions. Very slim. Never happens. All a storm on a tea cup. Flap flap flap shut your silly mouths you silly girls.

How woefully misleading this is. The percentage is lower than what you've made out given that the article says it doesn't account for short stay, likely non sexually related cases and also it makes clear in order for a trans person to be placed in a prison of their gender they need to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate, something that, the article says, is very difficult to get (5 years). It's not a case of a guy walking into court that morning and saying "I identify as a woman."

Actually reading the article from the 1st link it seems to outline that it's mountain out of molehill stuff, basically a non-issue that certain groups try to target in the guise of caring about the welfare of women when in reality it's a not very subtle attack on a vulnerable minority. Weird article to link to when you're trying to make an argument basically against what the article says.

Wibbs · 18-02-2020 01:26PM

Franco Baresi55 wrote: »

Modern humans may be quite different to humans of 20000 years ago however they clearly haven't adapted to a diet of grains and vegetable oils that we eat today. These foods quite commonly have awful effects on the human body.

"Clearly haven't adapted" is a nonsense, because outside of isolated populations and those with actual food allergies(not the tanorexics claiming one to cover their eating disorders), the adaptations are written into our DNA. We can even date their spread through populations. The Mediterranean diet contains lashings of both and has been proven to be one of the healthier diets out there, by actual science over many decades.

Like I said there's an awful lot of quackery and BroScience and ChickThink around this subject peddled in the media, offline and on, which changes with the breeze. I mean when such nutritional giants as Joe bloody Rogan are wheeled out you know the woo is wooing. Peterson fell for one such example of BroScience woo. Going to Russia and getting put in a coma for a week was the icing on the gluten free, organic animal fat cake.

20Cent · 18-02-2020 01:36PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Exactly. It is complete nonsense to suggest that you have every right to put yourself in harms way and yet expect no harm to come from it.

The analogy applies to any situation where a bit of foresight or self care could have helped.

"Be careful" is never bad advice, but these days suggesting that maybe getting shít faced drunk and staggering through the inner city dressed like hookers is anything other than the birth right of women everywhere and you may as well be wearing a Larry Murphy for President t-shirt.

You should be able to go wherever and do whatever the hell you want without consequence, but you aren't - that's just a stone cold fact of life. Denying that, is at best very stupid and at worst potentially extremely dangerous.

Difference between be careful and saying the victim has some responsibility. Sex offenders often use the same excuse. They were asking for it.

sbsquarepants · 18-02-2020 01:41PM

20Cent wrote: »

Difference between be careful and saying the victim has some responsibility. Sex offenders often use the same excuse. They were asking for it.

The attacker is always to blame, i don't think i've ever heard anyone argue otherwise.

Bu the fact remains, you ignore danger at your peril.

Stay away from dodgy areas, lock your doors, keep your wits about you - it's all rock solid advice!

Wibbs · 18-02-2020 01:46PM

Franco Baresi55 wrote: »

Most people today have worse teeth than prior to the agricultural revolution, if we have adapted I would expect that not to be the case.

Common misconception though oft repeated. While there was some shift after the agricultural revolution tooth decay (and jaw development) show their biggest change when sugar became a commodity in 15th century Europe. Death from tooth infections started to be noted in local records, where before it was almost unknown. Before that teeth were much healthier(with some localised differences such as ancient Egypt where the sand in the cereals wore down enamel). Romans and Greeks had pretty good teeth overall and considering the lack of dentists likely better than many people today. Rates of gum disease were also lower.

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Comments