Jordan Peterson interview on C4

20Cent · 26-01-2018 12:48pm

stunmer wrote: »

Haha! The paragraph you quoted from the article literally does exactly the same as the Cathy Newman did in the interview. It plainly misrepresents Jordan Petersen in a way to try to discredit him.

Replace the bolded bits above with "So what you're saying is" and you have another typical Cathy Newman style bullsh*t response.

It's a summary if Peterson's main points. Do you disagree?

yosser hughes · 26-01-2018 1:01pm

20Cent wrote: »

Good article lays out the arguments against Peterson.

Is Jordan Peterson the stupid man’s smart person?
http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/

Last paragraph sums up this thread:

What he’s telling you is that certain people—most of them women and minorities—are trying to destroy not only our freedom to spite nonbinary university students for kicks, but all of Western civilization and the idea of objective truth itself. He’s telling you that when someone tells you racism is still a problem and that something should be done about it, they are, at best, a dupe and, at worst, part of a Marxist conspiracy to destroy your way of life.

It's not a 'good' article, that's your opinion. The 'article' as you call it; does nothing to counter or even engage with Peterson's points.
To counter it, have a look at the below:

Charmeleon · 26-01-2018 1:08pm

The author of that article doesn’t seem to understand the concept of a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are specifically about secret plans and plotting to change the course of events. Marxists and other far-left travelers are extremely open about wanting to dismantle state institutions and traditions while undermining popular value systems. Unlike the ‘patriarchy’ which is a genuine paranoid conspiracy theory which insists men are doing this covertly to retain or regain their supposed grip on power to the exclusion of women.

Fr Tod Umptious · 26-01-2018 1:11pm

professore wrote: »

When my daughter was 15 her history teacher told them about the idea of socialism and how everyone got an "equal" share of everything etc and asked how many in the class thought that was a good system. Most of the class did, but she didn't and said it would never work as no one would be motivated to do anything. She hit the nail on the head IMO.

I bust my ass working trying to build a business and better myself - under any other system I'd stop doing that and just do as little as possible - as would 99% of people. It's human nature.

What's even worse is that under any other system if I did manage to make some money, the state would wade in and take it off me and give it to some bums sitting on their ass all day (in the ideal version) or in the real world version distribute it among the party apparatchiks and haul me off to the salt mines as an "enemy of the people".

IMO Ireland is already quite a socialist country - lots of handouts if you do nothing and lots of taxes if you do.

Caught the last few minutes of Question Time on BBC last night.

Last question was a about whether it was right that Alexis Sanchez a soccer player who moved to Manchester Utd from Arsenal this week gets paid £600k a week.

As it was the last question they just do a quick around the table and get a one sentence answer from each person on the panel.

One lady on the panel (no idea who she was) basically shouted
"There should be a commission on high pay, because high pay drives inequality"

And I thought to myself, "what a load of complete and utter rubbish"

Why should ones hard work and dedication not be rewarded at the level the market decides.

tritium · 26-01-2018 1:50pm

Brian? wrote: »

Tucker Carlson is a nasty piece of work. He’s not really a white supremacist, but he loves some identity politics. The GOP invented identity politics, lest we forget.

So the other poster was incorrect to use that term.

With respect to identity politics, regarding who invented it, the best answer I can find is that it’s was developed by the civil rights movement in the 70s. Either way, it’s become a tool for actors on all sides. Elements of the left have shown a particular propensity for it in recent years though the current US political model is such a cluster**** that everyone looks to be at it

Brian? · 26-01-2018 4:31pm

tritium wrote: »

So the other poster was incorrect to use that term.

Yes. That's why I said it.

With respect to identity politics, regarding who invented it, the best answer I can find is that it’s was developed by the civil rights movement in the 70s. Either way, it’s become a tool for actors on all sides. Elements of the left have shown a particular propensity for it in recent years though the current US political model is such a cluster**** that everyone looks to be at it

Look harder. It was the GOP in the 60s as a reaction to the civil rights movement. It started with Nixon's campaign using the southern strategy.

JMNolan · 26-01-2018 5:28pm

Brian? wrote: »

Look harder. It was the GOP in the 60s as a reaction to the civil rights movement. It started with Nixon's campaign using the southern strategy.

I looked harder, the GOP is mentioned no where here https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/

Earthhorse · 26-01-2018 5:34pm

Intothesea wrote: »

I have to wonder why Peterson is not making any attempt to analyse the reasons for and not just the apparent identity and effect of the movements he complains about. Also, common psychological sense would inform him that pure facts and logic can't win any ostensible wars against an ideological enemy. For that, there must be some compassion, and some positive regard for what the other side is responding to. Could Peterson be setting the west up for more polarization? Could his motivations be less than pure?

It's almost as if he is so caught up in the false dichotomy of left-right politics that he can't bring himself to blame the right for anything or else he knows his goose is cooked if he does or he just isn't the intellectual heavyweight he seems to believe he is.

Charmeleon · 26-01-2018 5:35pm

Brian? wrote: »

Yes. That's why I said it.

Look harder. It was the GOP in the 60s as a reaction to the civil rights movement. It started with Nixon's campaign using the southern strategy.

That's more your common or garden scapegoating and race baiting. Identity politics encourages people to perceive oppression everywhere they look due to the social group they belong to.

tritium · 26-01-2018 5:40pm

Brian? wrote: »

Yes. That's why I said it.

Look harder. It was the GOP in the 60s as a reaction to the civil rights movement. It started with Nixon's campaign using the southern strategy.

I assure you I’ve looked quite hard. Your view is not a common one even among the left

Professor Moriarty · 26-01-2018 5:42pm

tritium wrote: »

I assure you I’ve looked quite hard. Your view is not a common one even among the left

What's a "left"?

tritium · 26-01-2018 5:54pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What's a "left"?

Usually the left are considered to be ideological opposites to the right......,

professore · 26-01-2018 6:11pm

Brian? wrote: »

professore wrote: »

When my daughter was 15 her history teacher told them about the idea of socialism and how everyone got an "equal" share of everything etc and asked how many in the class thought that was a good system. Most of the class did, but she didn't and said it would never work as no one would be motivated to do anything. She hit the nail on the head IMO.

I bust my ass working trying to build a business and better myself - under any other system I'd stop doing that and just do as little as possible - as would 99% of people. It's human nature.

What's even worse is that under any other system if I did manage to make some money, the state would wade in and take it off me and give it to some bums sitting on their ass all day (in the ideal version) or in the real world version distribute it among the party apparatchiks and haul me off to the salt mines as an "enemy of the people".

IMO Ireland is already quite a socialist country - lots of handouts if you do nothing and lots of taxes if you do.

So you have a fundamental misunderstanding of socialism, therefore it doesn’t work?

Ireland isn’t a socialist country. The Irish state massively authoritarian. We still haven’t shaken off the yoke of the Catholic Churche’s influence on public policy.

I’ll say it again, the goal is a stateless society. No central authority. No coercion.

Socialism is authoritarian.
A stateless society? How's that going to work?

professore · 26-01-2018 6:14pm

20Cent wrote: »

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMrFgVVMqto

Professor makes uncomfortable observation of the Left: Any statement must be gauged not only on the basis of its truth-value, but on the basis of whether it is likely to offended perceived victims.

White supremacist Tucker Carlson is s fan big suprise.
Tell the truth, don't let your kids be assholes (Tucker nods his head and says very smart) his main piece of advice "pay attention to what you say". Like I said he states the bleedin obvious as if its some amazing insight he's discovered. The stupid persons smart person indeed.

Who is the smart person's smart person in your opinion then?

professore · 26-01-2018 6:17pm

20Cent wrote: »

My toddler spilt my coffee when he slammed his copy of the complete works of Beckett onto the table and announced that capitalism is not working.

That's the intellectual level we are dealing with ladies and gentlemen.

Brian? · 26-01-2018 6:55pm

professore wrote: »

Socialism is authoritarian.

No it isn’t.

A stateless society? How's that going to work?

Brilliantly.

Why am I responding to these same questions repeatedly. Can no one google anything? Even a cursory Wikipedia would do the job.

pumpkin4life · 26-01-2018 7:19pm

Brian? wrote: »

No it isn’t.

Brilliantly.

Why am I responding to these same questions repeatedly. Can no one google anything? Even a cursory Wikipedia would do the job.

No you're wrong. You're getting the terms mixed up again.

Socialism is the social ownership of economic productivity and the redistribution of resources for each according to their needs, in theory. Who chooses that? Who chooses where my money goes? The government? That is by the very definition of the word authoritarian. What you're thinking of is a communist society, where socialism makes the transition from socialism/the dictatorship of the proletariat to the stateless society, in the Marxist sense.

Professor Moriarty · 26-01-2018 7:24pm

tritium wrote: »

Usually the left are considered to be ideological opposites to the right......,

So what ideologies does a left have?

mariaalice · 26-01-2018 7:26pm

To me the nub of the matter is the difference between evidence and proof plus rationalisations in our modern society wants to eliminate any indeterminate and ambiguous elements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygmunt_Bauman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_modernity

Brian? · 26-01-2018 7:41pm

pumpkin4life wrote: »

No you're wrong. You're getting the terms mixed up again.

Socialism is the social ownership of economic productivity and the redistribution of resources for each according to their needs, in theory. Who chooses that? Who chooses where my money goes? The government? That is by the very definition of the word authoritarian. What you're thinking of is a communist society, where socialism makes the transition from socialism/the dictatorship of the proletariat to the stateless society, in the Marxist sense.

No. It’s not.

tritium · 26-01-2018 7:48pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So what ideologies does a left have?

Why are you asking about a left rather than the left?

pumpkin4life · 26-01-2018 7:55pm

Brian? wrote: »

No. It’s not.

Fine. Let's take a look at the definition of socialism from Webster's dictionary.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Definition of socialism:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods <- See above.

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property <- Private property is by definition, distinguishable from public property in that it is not owned by the state.

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. <- Fairly black and white this one.

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done <- What I said.

Like I said, you're advocating communism, not socialism.

Brian? · 26-01-2018 7:57pm

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Fine. Let's take a look at the definition of socialism from Webster's dictionary.

Definition of socialism:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods <- See above.

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property <- Private property is by definition, distinguishable from public property in that it is not owned by the state.

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. <- Fairly black and white this one.

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done <- What I said.

Like I said, you're advocating communism, not socialism.

I am advocating libertarian socialism.

The definitions above don’t take the anti authoritarian strands of socialism into account at all.

I’ve explained this all before. On this thread.

markodaly · 26-01-2018 8:27pm

Brian? wrote: »

Right. So you believe societies can only be organized through coercion?

Not at all but how does Socialism work without a state.
You said that socialists want a stateless society but how do we get there?

It seems you are just a libertarian but don't have the guts to call yourself one so stick, socialism on it to make yourself feel better about your choice.

Professor Moriarty · 26-01-2018 8:38pm

tritium wrote: »

Why are you asking about a left rather than the left?

Just because. What are the ideologies of the left?

s7ryf3925pivug · 26-01-2018 8:57pm

Genuine stateless post-scarcity Communism isn't possible without huge advances in technology and society. Maybe even then people just aren't going to organise themselves that way. In any real terms for the here and now the term is synonymous with police states such as the former Soviet Union.

tritium · 26-01-2018 9:12pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Just because. What are the ideologies of the left?

Which flavor of the left for a start? It’s not exactly a single homogenous concept, as you may already be aware

Edit: same rule applies the concept of ‘the right’

Professor Moriarty · 26-01-2018 9:24pm

tritium wrote: »

Which flavor of the left for a start? It’s not exactly a single homogenous concept, as you may already be aware

Edit: same rule applies the concept of ‘the right’

You said this:

"I assure you I’ve looked quite hard. Your view is not a common one even among the left"

What are the ideologies of "the left"?

Brian? · 26-01-2018 10:17pm

markodaly wrote: »

Not at all but how does Socialism work without a state.
You said that socialists want a stateless society but how do we get there?

It seems you are just a libertarian but don't have the guts to call yourself one so stick, socialism on it to make yourself feel better about your choice.

It seems to me that you’ve no idea what you’re talking about. I am a libertarian. A libertarian socialist.

s7ryf3925pivug · 26-01-2018 10:26pm

Thread should be renamed 'glossary of political terms'

benjamin d · 26-01-2018 10:34pm

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say I'm bored of this now. Unfollowing.

YFlyer · 26-01-2018 10:46pm

benjamin d wrote: »

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say I'm bored of this now. Unfollowing.

Its like reading the comments on Indymedia on difference between Socialist Party and SWP.

tritium · 27-01-2018 1:00am

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You said this:

"I assure you I’ve looked quite hard. Your view is not a common one even among the left"

What are the ideologies of "the left"?

Your question makes no sense, I ascribed no ideology to the left. I simply referenced the group that’s left of the centre.

But of course you already know that

Intothesea · 27-01-2018 2:21am

Earthhorse wrote: »

It's almost as if he is so caught up in the false dichotomy of left-right politics that he can't bring himself to blame the right for anything or else he knows his goose is cooked if he does or he just isn't the intellectual heavyweight he seems to believe he is.

Hehe, true enough. I'd say it isn't a case of the eye evading what the mind doesn't want to acknowledge. I know he's Canadian, but he can't be that out of the western social/political loop. Hopefully the vague smell of just-rendered goose fat will help to prevent different types of attack on humanities departments across America, for example :pac:

To his credit, it seems as though he's adopting a lovingly outraged paternal persona to model a daring intellectual iconoclasm, aimed solely at, and for the benefit of, lost young people. At the same time, he's lining his pockets to an unknown tune, stirring up directive passion, and ignoring some basic identities in his own argument. A suitably cynical Martin Luther King for the cynical age, maybe

GerryDerpy · 27-01-2018 3:03am

Am I the only one that watches the interview every day???

Makes me smile every time.

GerryDerpy · 27-01-2018 3:05am

Intothesea wrote: »

Hehe, true enough. I'd say it isn't a case of the eye evading what the mind doesn't want to acknowledge. I know he's Canadian, but he can't be that out of the western social/political loop. Hopefully the vague smell of just-rendered goose fat will help to prevent different types of attack on humanities departments across America, for example :pac:

To his credit, it seems as though he's adopting a lovingly outraged paternal persona to model a daring intellectual iconoclasm, aimed solely at, and for the benefit of, lost young people. At the same time, he's lining his pockets to an unknown tune, stirring up directive passion, and ignoring some basic identities in his own argument. A suitably cynical Martin Luther King for the cynical age, maybe

And have you considered the other possibility that he is genuine? That we are getting the real man?

Intothesea · 27-01-2018 3:35am

GerryDerpy wrote: »

And have you considered the other possibility that he is genuine? That we are getting the real man?

No, I make off-the-cuff judgments about social campaigners because I'm a neo-liberal snowflake :pac:

On first approach I thought him to be genuine and supremely mindful of the potential effect of his utterances. After viewing more of his talks, it seems his directives to young people could bring about more polarization in society with a stronger likelihood of bringing down the west, as Peterson seems to fear.

It's also evident that his logical edition of 'the cause' is missing some key, and utterly obvious factors to someone as educated and obviously clever as he is. So, while his efforts to help young men shake off their malaise, and infuse them with positive attitude, will, and sense of self are very valuable, it seems that the foundations of his arguments are prone to collapse, let's just say.

I'm sure time will tell, and of course, he might decide to change his analysis and presentation over time. No one can discount the idea that he's such a fan of neo-liberal thinking that he simply can't address the elephant in the room, so to speak.

GerryDerpy · 27-01-2018 4:59am

Intothesea wrote: »

No, I make off-the-cuff judgments about social campaigners because I'm a neo-liberal snowflake :pac:

On first approach I thought him to be genuine and supremely mindful of the potential effect of his utterances. After viewing more of his talks, it seems his directives to young people could bring about more polarization in society with a stronger likelihood of bringing down the west, as Peterson seems to fear.

It's also evident that his logical edition of 'the cause' is missing some key, and utterly obvious factors to someone as educated and obviously clever as he is. So, while his efforts to help young men shake off their malaise, and infuse them with positive attitude, will, and sense of self are very valuable, it seems that the foundations of his arguments are prone to collapse, let's just say.

I'm sure time will tell, and of course, he might decide to change his analysis and presentation over time. No one can discount the idea that he's such a fan of neo-liberal thinking that he simply can't address the elephant in the room, so to speak.

But he doesn't have an agenda. He is a clinical physiologist. His advice is tuned from thousands of hours of counselling.

conorhal · 27-01-2018 5:13am

Intothesea wrote: »

No, I make off-the-cuff judgments about social campaigners because I'm a neo-liberal snowflake :pac:

On first approach I thought him to be genuine and supremely mindful of the potential effect of his utterances. After viewing more of his talks, it seems his directives to young people could bring about more polarization in society with a stronger likelihood of bringing down the west, as Peterson seems to fear.

It's also evident that his logical edition of 'the cause' is missing some key, and utterly obvious factors to someone as educated and obviously clever as he is. So, while his efforts to help young men shake off their malaise, and infuse them with positive attitude, will, and sense of self are very valuable, it seems that the foundations of his arguments are prone to collapse, let's just say.

I'm sure time will tell, and of course, he might decide to change his analysis and presentation over time. No one can discount the idea that he's such a fan of neo-liberal thinking that he simply can't address the elephant in the room, so to speak.

Well that's a long winded way to say noting at all but, yeah, I don't like the guy, for 'reasons'.

Intothesea · 27-01-2018 5:22am

GerryDerpy wrote: »

But he doesn't have an agenda. He is a clinical physiologist. His advice is tuned from thousands of hours of counselling.

I'm pretty sure he has an agenda, that ostensibly relates to healing what he sees as widespread malaise issues in the west. It's difficult to tell if his key concern is the apparent fall of the west, or if this is a theatrical prop for his production, along with deliberately misidentifying the cause of the malaise.

Being a clinical psychologist doesn't preclude someone from fighting a good fight for the wrong reasons, or a bad fight for the right ones, regardless of the source or genuineness of the driving concern. Why would it?

Intothesea · 27-01-2018 5:23am

conorhal wrote: »

Well that's a long winded way to say noting at all but, yeah, I don't like the guy, for 'reasons'.

And that's a short way to say that you don't like my observations about Peterson. What are your 'reasons'? :pac:

conorhal · 27-01-2018 5:36am

Intothesea wrote: »

And that's a short way to say that you don't like what my observations about Peterson. What are your 'reasons'? :pac:

Observations? Of what?

Regards that interview, here's somebody capable of them!

It seems that Channel 4 doesn't care for actual opinions......
According to Karen Straughan
"Within ten minutes of this video going up, Channel 4 had hit me with a copyright takedown. I filed a dispute based on fair use and it's now viewable again."

For a video 39 minutes long, that's an interesting approach from C4 considering they couldn't have actually watched it, it's almost as if they didn't want this critique. And it's a great critique BTW. Possible a definitive one.

Intothesea · 27-01-2018 5:46am

conorhal wrote: »

Observations? Of what?

Well, the eye definitely evades what the mind can't acknowledge here. Or, you could say that referring to, but denying the existence of certain unwelcome criticisms is evidence of untenable cognitive dissonance

I'm glad to inform you that you have perfect analogues on the other side of the apparent ideological dichotomy: your friendly neighbourhood neo-feminists :pac:

conorhal · 27-01-2018 5:50am

Intothesea wrote: »

Well, the eye definitely evades what the mind can't acknowledge here. Or, you could say that referring to, but denying the existence of certain unwelcome criticisms is evidence of untenable cognitive dissonance

I'm glad to inform you that you have perfect analogues on the other side of the apparent ideological dichotomy: your friendly neighbourhood neo-feminists :pac:

Is your mastermind specialty subject, word salad that means nothing?

Intothesea · 27-01-2018 5:55am

conorhal wrote: »

Is your mastermind specialty subject, word salad that means nothing?

Is yours making yourself look brainless because you don't like someone's take?

It's entirely your call.

conorhal · 27-01-2018 5:58am

Intothesea wrote: »

Is yours making yourself look brainless because you don't like someone's take?

It's entirely your call.

So, 'what you're saying' is, I have no understanding of irony...:D

Intothesea · 27-01-2018 6:06am

No, more that you're invalidating your own invalidating efforts by making a laughably lazy move to ignore based on the pretense of your own ignorance.

As Peterson would doubtlessly say: Stand up and tell the truth! Stand up straight and counteract something you believe to be untrue! Don't sink to the bent and twisted techniques of the opposing side! Pretending a criticism you don't like is ignorable because you don't agree with it is the type of intellectual dishonesty that is bringing down the west, it's a showcase of post-modernist destruction!

Anyway, good evening.

conorhal · 27-01-2018 6:10am

Intothesea wrote: »

No, more that you're invalidating your own invalidating efforts by making a laughably lazy move to ignore based on the pretense of your own ignorance.

As Peterson would doubtlessly say: Stand up and tell the truth! Stand up straight and counteract something you believe to be untrue! Don't sink to the bent and twisted techniques of the opposing side! Pretending a criticism you don't like is ignorable because you don't agree with it is the type of intellectual dishonesty that is bringing down the west, it's a showcase of post-modernist destruction!

Anyway, good evening.

Bye!

Anyway, people should watch Karen Straughan's analysis and response to the interview. She's a formidable woman and possibly smarter and certainly more direct than Peterson.

Professor Moriarty · 27-01-2018 9:21am

tritium wrote: »

Your question makes no sense, I ascribed no ideology to the left. I simply referenced the group that’s left of the centre.

But of course you already know that

Who are the people in 'the group that's left of centre'? What are their defining features?

tritium · 27-01-2018 9:59am

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Who are the people in 'the group that's left of centre'? What are their defining features?

So, based on the standard AH rules of debate at this stage your either a) taking the piss with a view to at some later stage claiming some victory or superiority based on a semantic point nitpicked from a string of banal questions b) looking to drag yet another tangent out of this thread or c) live under a rock and have never heard of the internet.

So I’m going to do you a HUGE favour!

I’m going to give you a solution, an answer to not only those questions, but also many of the possible future questions you could ask!

Really!

Www.google.com

There you go, something for you to try! You’re very welcome.

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Comments