Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Brian? · 25-03-2018 7:04pm

markodaly wrote: »

Really? I don't fully agree with his social conservatism but stupid he ain't.

He's not stupid. Which makes some of his opinions all the more surprising.

professore · 25-03-2018 7:37pm

Peterson is no better or worse than dumb sh*t like "The Secret" or silly people like Louise O'Neill. They have their audience but they are harmless and if you just leave them alone then it's not a problem.

Ah here. Peterson is widely read and vastly knowledgeable in a wide range of subjects, and can hold an intelligent conversation in them. Oprah or LON are neither of these things, particularly LON. Oprah seems fairly intelligent.

fash · 25-03-2018 9:38pm

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Does Jordan Peterson say anything that's THAT interesting or controversial?
...
They've basically created a situation where people now think this guy is edgy or interesting because you have a constant parade of eejits screeching about his awful views.

Same with Sam Harris. He makes the same old points that people have always made about religion. Not exactly controversial or new. As soon as he goes for Islam people are losing their damn minds.

So, yeah, people are going to pay money to watch 3 guys talking because an environment has been created where these 3 guys with tame and uninteresting opinions are held up as super edgy blokes who are saying almost forbidden things.

These lads must be laughing their asses off when the money comes rolling in. Their biggest critics are the best marketing team they could ever wish for.

Peterson is no better or worse than dumb sh*t like "The Secret" or silly people like Louise O'Neill. They have their audience but they are harmless and if you just leave them alone then it's not a problem.

The attempts to shut this guy down have left him looking like a guy with something much more interesting to say. Then you have dopes like Cathy Newman on C4 who try take him on and end up getting publicly destroyed when she could have just cordially talked about his completely mundane views and maybe see if he slips up and says something daft.

Isn't that the problem? Jordan Peterson /the other guys say/s entirely reasonable or even banal things and large sections of society want to engage in witch burning. If there was no attempt to witch-hunt, there would be no necessity to support JP et Al.

fash · 25-03-2018 9:55pm

Brian? wrote: »

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Calling people part of the Far-Right when they are clearly not is more than a "film review", it's simply demonization.

Don't get me wrong the author should be free to state this but to pretend that this is a fair minded critique is way off.

I would also argue with the modernity of those ideas, the 19th and 20th century figures referenced were simply replying to new philosophies.

Can you quote where the author part of the far-right? I can’t see it.

"This is a common intellectual trajectory among Western right-wingers who swear by Solzhenitsyn and tend to imply that belief in egalitarianism leads straight to the guillotine or the Gulag. A recent example is the English polemicist Douglas Murray"
Defining Douglas Murray as a "right winger" and a "polemicist" is rather (deliberately) reductive.

On Peterson himself:
"Closer examination, however, reveals Peterson’s ageless insights as a typical, if not archetypal, product of our own times: right-wing pieties seductively mythologized for our current lost generations."
"This is a common intellectual trajectory among Western right-wingers who swear by Solzhenitsyn... "
"Peterson confirms his membership of this far-right sect by never identifying the evils caused by belief in profit, or Mammon: slavery, genocide, and imperialism."

Of note, the following comment:
"An earlier version of this essay misidentified The Gulag Archipelago as a novel."

Amazing that Pankaj Mishra, one of the most celebrated intellectuals of our day, scoffs at Solzhenitsyn in @nybooks even though he has not the faintest idea about his work"
I'm afraid I've not actually read Solzhenitsyn - so cannot comment on the veracity.

fash · 25-03-2018 10:01pm

Brian? wrote: »

He's not stupid. Which makes some of his opinions all the more surprising.

I've literally seen about 5 minutes of videos of him. What opinions of his are surprising (from your post, presumably in the sense that they are not consistent with not being stupid).

w.b. yokes · 25-03-2018 10:04pm

Havockk wrote: »

Shapiro is the intellectual equivalent of an amoeba.

He’s incredibly sharp which is why I’m so disappointed he willingly decides to ditch his critical thinking skills when it comes to things like his religion

fash · 25-03-2018 10:08pm

w.b. yokes wrote: »

He’s incredibly sharp which is why I’m so disappointed he willingly decides to ditch his critical thinking skills when it comes to things like his religion

He's Jewish I understand- one can be Jewish and an atheist - the rule is "you can't have any other gods before me" - an atheist is perfectly entitled to be Jewish.

(Even if he is a believing Jew, sure why not/ live and let live/no point in trying to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into etc.)

Brian? · 25-03-2018 10:08pm

fash wrote: »

I've literally seen about 5 minutes of videos of him. What opinions of his are surprising (from your post, presumably in the sense that they are not consistent with not being stupid).

His religious beliefs are the biggest one.

He espouses all sorts of beliefs that surprise me beyond that. Some of which I don't think he actually believes. He's a troll in a lot of ways. He's purposely controversial to garner attention.

Brian? · 25-03-2018 10:09pm

fash wrote: »

"This is a common intellectual trajectory among Western right-wingers who swear by Solzhenitsyn and tend to imply that belief in egalitarianism leads straight to the guillotine or the Gulag. A recent example is the English polemicist Douglas Murray"
Defining Douglas Murray as a "right winger" and a "polemicist" is rather (deliberately) reductive.

On Peterson himself:
"Closer examination, however, reveals Peterson’s ageless insights as a typical, if not archetypal, product of our own times: right-wing pieties seductively mythologized for our current lost generations."
"This is a common intellectual trajectory among Western right-wingers who swear by Solzhenitsyn... "
"Peterson confirms his membership of this far-right sect by never identifying the evils caused by belief in profit, or Mammon: slavery, genocide, and imperialism."

Of note, the following comment:
"An earlier version of this essay misidentified The Gulag Archipelago as a novel."

Amazing that Pankaj Mishra, one of the most celebrated intellectuals of our day, scoffs at Solzhenitsyn in @nybooks even though he has not the faintest idea about his work"
I'm afraid I've not actually read Solzhenitsyn - so cannot comment on the veracity.

Thanks. I did miss that reference to the far right. I wasn't being obtuse.

fash · 25-03-2018 10:10pm

Brian? wrote: »

His religious beliefs are the biggest one.

He espouses all sorts of beliefs that surprise me beyond that. Some of which I don't think he actually believes. He's a troll in a lot of ways. He's purposely controversial to garner attention.

Fair response- thank you: I'll bear it in mind when/if I see any more of his stuff.

fash · 25-03-2018 10:20pm

Brian? wrote: »

Thanks. I did miss that reference to the far right. I wasn't being obtuse.

No worries! I must say that NY piece left a bad taste in my mouth. While I think it is perfectly fair ( from the limited stuff I've seen) to say that JP says only banal stuff etc, there really is a disturbingly large number of media people who are actively out to destroy him by any means necessary - including clearly making up lies about him. For me that is deeply disturbing and gains my sympathy in any case.

w.b. yokes · 25-03-2018 10:33pm

fash wrote: »

He's Jewish I understand- one can be Jewish and an atheist - the rule is "you can't have any other gods before me" - an atheist is perfectly entitled to be Jewish.

(Even if he is a believing Jew, sure why not/ live and let live/no point in trying to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into etc.)

He’s certainly a believing Jew, and I’m certainly not trying to reason him out of his position but as someone with tremendous respect for him it’s worrying to see how enthusiastic he is about the Jewish doctrine; the degree to which it affects his life is at the very least questionable given his famed critical analysis of everything political

Brian? · 25-03-2018 10:48pm

fash wrote: »

No worries! I must say that NY piece left a bad taste in my mouth. While I think it is perfectly fair ( from the limited stuff I've seen) to say that JP says only banal stuff etc, there really is a disturbingly large number of media people who are actively out to destroy him by any means necessary - including clearly making up lies about him. For me that is deeply disturbing and gains my sympathy in any case.

What I don't like is that conflating Peterson with far right ideologues undercuts the valid criticisms in that article. It turns people to Peterson rather than away from him.

2 Scoops · 31-03-2018 7:13am

Coming to Dublin in the next few months together with Sam Harris and Douglas Murray

SterlingArcher · 31-03-2018 11:37am

Brian? wrote: »

What I don't like is that conflating Peterson with far right ideologues undercuts the valid criticisms in that article. It turns people to Peterson rather than away from him.

Don't worry Brian. Most people that read it and want to believe so bad the guy is "far right" to validate their views. They have no issue overlooking or playing fast and loose with the truth....as long as it validates their veiw on the person. It's all about the posturing.

cantdecide · 31-03-2018 12:54pm

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Don't worry Brian. Most people that read it and want to believe so bad the guy is "far right" to validate their views. They have no issue overlooking or playing fast and loose with the truth....as long as it validates their veiw on the person. It's all about the posturing.

Classic strawman antics - his words are invalid because he's a NAZI and therefore somehow worse than Hitler.

johnp001 · 03-04-2018 9:09am

This is a new video about an interview with Cathy Newman which refers to the Peterson interview:

referring to the Guardian article:
Cathy Newman: ‘The internet is being written by men with an agenda’

Wibbs · 03-04-2018 9:53am

“The internet is being written by men with an agenda"? Eh... wut? The "internet" can be written by anyone with a connection. Is 50% of the web's population just sitting there dribbling on themselves? No, they're not. Typical nonsense in the Guardian to be fair.

cantdecide · 03-04-2018 10:10am

Wibbs wrote: »

“The internet is being written by men with an agenda"? Eh... wut? The "internet" can be written by anyone with a connection. Is 50% of the web's population just sitting there dribbling on themselves? No, they're not. Typical nonsense in the Guardian to be fair.

Do you even patriarchy, bro?

aidoh · 03-04-2018 10:47am

Oh man, the smell of cringe off the 3 Arena for that event!

Peterson and Harris showing their true colours cashing in on their recently-founded 'controversial' statuses.
I quite enjoy listening to Peterson talk about mythology etc. and have a lot of time for Harris.

Douglas Murray is a strange one, whose popularity seems to be founded in a deep-seated fear of Islam amongst Europeans since the mass immigration crisis began (as far as I see it anyway).

I've heard him in a couple of podcast interviews where he comes across well measured on one hand, but then starts to bring up very obtuse points about the NI conflict and IRA terrorism. Now I'd be the first to say I find that period of Irish history terrible and the acts of that particular organisation unforgivable. However, it's also telling that Murray seems to have absolutely no cop-on about the causes of that conflict, and seems to instead just cherry-pick the worst parts about the "enemy" (be it immigrants, Islam, the IRA or whatever) and present that as the whole truth.
Makes me wonder how many of the other current "controversial" pop-intellectuals are doing the same thing on purpose in order to gain a bit of notoriety / truck loads of cash? If you watch Shapiro you'll notice he's guilty as sin of this kind of rhetoric.
Maybe it goes back to a good point made a few posts ago about these peoples' seemingly objective opinions being largely (perhaps subconsciously) informed by their underlying identities - as religious or conservative people or whatever. Nothing wrong with being either of those two in my opinion - but to present yourself as an objective, evidence-based rational actor when it's quite obvious that you aren't is misleading at least.

03-04-2018 10:55am

aidoh wrote: »

Oh man, the smell of cringe off the 3 Arena for that event!

Peterson and Harris showing their true colours cashing in on their recently-founded 'controversial' statuses.
I quite enjoy listening to Peterson talk about mythology etc. and have a lot of time for Harris.

I'll not be heading. I'm a loser but I don't want to be part of that crowd. :P
That said, Harris has been "cashing in" for a good while now, he wasn't writing those books for free. :P As stated in this thread and elsewhere on boards Peterson isn't saying anything particularly controversial and the reactions to what he says shows there's a need for someone to say it.

Douglas Murray is a strange one, whose popularity seems to be founded in a deep-seated fear of Islam amongst Europeans since the mass immigration crisis began (as far as I see it anyway).

I've heard him in a couple of podcast interviews where he comes across well measured on one hand, but then starts to bring up very obtuse points about the NI conflict and IRA terrorism. Now I'd be the first to say I find that period of Irish history terrible and the acts of that particular organisation unforgivable. However, it's also telling that Murray seems to have absolutely no cop-on about the causes of that conflict, and seems to instead just cherry-pick the worst parts about the "enemy" (be it immigrants, Islam, the IRA or whatever) and present that as the whole truth.
Makes me wonder how many of the other current "controversial" pop-intellectuals are doing the same thing on purpose in order to gain a bit of notoriety / truck loads of cash? If you watch Shapiro you'll notice he's guilty as sin of this kind of rhetoric.
Maybe it goes back to a good point made a few posts ago about these peoples' seemingly objective opinions being largely (perhaps subconsciously) informed by their underlying identities - as religious or conservative people or whatever. Nothing wrong with being either of those two in my opinion - but to present yourself as an objective, evidence-based rational actor when it's quite obvious that you aren't is misleading at least.

When we're watching our grandkids grow up we'll regret massively that we allowed ourselves to be browbeaten into accepting lunatic fringes into Europe.
Shapiro is just an out and out troll tbh.

silverharp · 03-04-2018 11:02am

aidoh wrote: »

Oh man, the smell of cringe off the 3 Arena for that event!

Peterson and Harris showing their true colours cashing in on their recently-founded 'controversial' statuses.
I quite enjoy listening to Peterson talk about mythology etc. and have a lot of time for Harris.

Douglas Murray is a strange one, whose popularity seems to be founded in a deep-seated fear of Islam amongst Europeans since the mass immigration crisis began (as far as I see it anyway).

I've heard him in a couple of podcast interviews where he comes across well measured on one hand, but then starts to bring up very obtuse points about the NI conflict and IRA terrorism. Now I'd be the first to say I find that period of Irish history terrible and the acts of that particular organisation unforgivable. However, it's also telling that Murray seems to have absolutely no cop-on about the causes of that conflict, and seems to instead just cherry-pick the worst parts about the "enemy" (be it immigrants, Islam, the IRA or whatever) and present that as the whole truth.
Makes me wonder how many of the other current "controversial" pop-intellectuals are doing the same thing on purpose in order to gain a bit of notoriety / truck loads of cash? If you watch Shapiro you'll notice he's guilty as sin of this kind of rhetoric.
Maybe it goes back to a good point made a few posts ago about these peoples' seemingly objective opinions being largely (perhaps subconsciously) informed by their underlying identities - as religious or conservative people or whatever. Nothing wrong with being either of those two in my opinion - but to present yourself as an objective, evidence-based rational actor when it's quite obvious that you aren't is misleading at least.

I listened to Sam Harris and Murray on one of his podcasts recently , they are measured people and not some ranting EDL types. Questions have to be asked and Murray at a basic level wants an honest discourse to take place where one isn't shouted down , accused of being a racist at every turn and being intentionally misquoted in the hope that no one checks what he actually said.

aidoh · 03-04-2018 11:22am

silverharp wrote: »

I listened to Sam Harris and Murray on one of his podcasts recently , they are measured people and not some ranting EDL types. Questions have to be asked and Murray at a basic level wants an honest discourse to take place where one isn't shouted down , accused of being a racist at every turn and being intentionally misquoted in the hope that no one checks what he actually said.

I mostly agree with that. And I definitely agree that governments need to have a serious plan of action when it comes to immigration. On the one hand it's immoral to not give refuge to people fleeing terrible conditions. On the other hand there are sadly many recent examples of the serious problems associated with mass immigration from third-world nations. I have genuinely no idea what a 'good' approach is here, and definitely think the 2015 immigration crisis is an actual crisis in a lot of ways.
I just think there is a hell of a lot of important nuance that gets lost when you have people like Harris and Murray talk about these issues. As I said above, Murray's refusal (intentional or not) to consider the important nuances of, for example, Irish Nationalism makes me suspicious about the nuances of the anti-immigration arguments he puts forward. [edit: the nuances that he may not want to consider].

He may well be representing solid facts in his argument - I really don't know enough about the topic or have the vocabulary to articulate what I think I feel on a gut level - but his objective stance has unravelled a bit for me since seeing his cartoonish opinions on the NI conflict, and makes me wonder if his views are heavily led by an agenda.

Hector Savage · 03-04-2018 11:23am

backspin. wrote: »

Murray is excellent he is quite simply perplexed at what is happening to Europe regarding immigration. I think he is a breath of fresh air, I agree with so much of what he says. Peterson can be very interesting depending on what subjects he discusses. I don't know that much about Sam Harris.

I just finished that book the strange death of europe, I'm both depressed and frightened in equal measure...

silverharp · 03-04-2018 11:30am

aidoh wrote: »

I mostly agree with that. And I definitely agree that governments need to have a serious plan of action when it comes to immigration. On the one hand it's immoral to not give refuge to people fleeing terrible conditions. On the other hand there are sadly many recent examples of the serious problems associated with mass immigration from third-world nations. I have genuinely no idea what a 'good' approach is here, and definitely think the 2015 immigration crisis is an actual crisis in a lot of ways.
I just think there is a hell of a lot of important nuance that gets lost when you have people like Harris and Murray talk about these issues. As I said above, Murray's refusal (intentional or not) to consider the important nuances of, for example, Irish Nationalism makes me suspicious about the nuances of the anti-immigration arguments he puts forward. He may well be representing solid facts in his argument - I really don't know enough about the topic or have the vocabulary to articulate what I think I feel on a gut level - but his objective stance has unravelled a bit for me since seeing his cartoonish opinions on the NI conflict, and makes me wonder if his views are heavily led by an agenda.

I havnt heard his views regarding Ireland , the migration issue at least can be data driven to a point. His "aim" would be to allow migration to the level that these people can be integrated otherwise its dangerous for Europe.

Brian? · 03-04-2018 3:50pm

Hector Savage wrote: »

I just finished that book the strange death of europe, I'm both depressed and frightened in equal measure...

Why?

aidoh · 03-04-2018 5:16pm

silverharp wrote: »

I havnt heard his views regarding Ireland , the migration issue at least can be data driven to a point. His "aim" would be to allow migration to the level that these people can be integrated otherwise its dangerous for Europe.

It may well be, and he may well be correct in his views - I honestly don't know.

I've just become quite suspicious of people like Douglas Murray, Stefan Molyneux, Ben Shapiro, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Sargon of Akkad, Paul Joseph Watson, Stephen Crowder, Gavin McInnes etc. recently.

These are guys who - intentionally or not - become wealthier and wealthier with each 'woke' video that they upload and the cynic in me thinks it's mostly for show and for cash.

My main problem with them is that I don't think that playing to peoples' fears is ever a good thing and would be afraid that the 'SJW GETS OWNED' type YouTube videos turn people down a dark and paranoid path - especially if you're using peoples' genuine fears to get rich. Everyone has an agenda.

I guess my point is that maybe it's healthier to be skeptical of everyone these days since there's so much bullsh!t doing the rounds.

cantdecide · 03-04-2018 5:25pm

aidoh wrote: »

I've just become quite suspicious of people like Douglas Murray, Stefan Molyneux, Ben Shapiro, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Sargon of Akkad, Paul Joseph Watson, Stephen Crowder, Gavin McInnes etc. recently.

These are guys who - intentionally or not - become wealthier and wealthier with each 'woke' video that they upload and the cynic in me thinks it's mostly for show and for cash.

Fundamentally, it's an anti-PC counter-movement. There's a lot of stuff these people say I don't agree with in the same way that there's an awful lot that the far left say that I don't agree with being very left of centre myself but I'm glad there's push back- the conversation has been one-sided forever.

Brian? · 03-04-2018 5:52pm

cantdecide wrote: »

Fundamentally, it's an anti-PC counter-movement. There's a lot of stuff these people say I don't agree with in the same way that there's an awful lot that the far left say that I don't agree with being very left of centre myself but I'm glad there's push back- the conversation has been one-sided forever.

The conversation has never been one sided. This is the greatest myth spun by the alt right. The first time i heard the term “political correctness”, it was someone objecting to it. That was easily 25 years ago.

What has really changed is the ability of the “backlash” to reach people. Facebook, YouTube etc. make it easier to target the message.

cantdecide · 03-04-2018 6:07pm

Brian? wrote: »

The conversation has never been one sided. This is the greatest myth spun by the alt right. The first time i heard the term “political correctness”, it was someone objecting to it. That was easily 25 years ago.

Explain why boys and young men in the West are doing increasingly badly in school and higher education. Maybe girls were just smarter all along? Explain BREXIT. Explain crime trends in Northern Europe. It's not all toxic masculinity.

Shutting down debate is how you get a Trump. Would you like a Trump? I wouldn't and people shouldn't be afraid to speak out and they clearly are speaking with their vote in the fear of all this hashtaggery and right-on FB slacktivism. Social media has been abused as a method of shaming and shutting down debate. This backlash is just an expression of the opposite of what you're saying it is.

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Comments