Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Ulysses Gaze · 21-01-2018 9:39pm

20Cent wrote: »

He has made loads of videos. He has his own youtube channel, website interviews etc. Made my mind up from watching them rather than this one video.

Well then you are in a perfect position to watch the C4 video, debunk what Peterson says and prove he is a spoofer.

Have at it...

20Cent · 21-01-2018 9:51pm

Max Prophet wrote: »

You're commenting on a thread about a specific video which you refuse to watch. Instead you choose to watch some of the 500 odd other Peterson videos?

Hmmm. Are you fibbing or (pathetically) trolling?

The reviews in this thread all say he wasn't allowed speak, was interrupted and misinterpreted. Why would one make a judgement on a person from such a video when there are loads more of them speaking his own mind without interpretation or interruption?

Grayditch · 21-01-2018 9:54pm

She did him a massive favour by making him choose his words carefully by trying to put the wrong ones in his mouth. Newman has clearly not learned when to use the "just enough rope" technique and showed her hand at every opportunity.

Max Prophet · 21-01-2018 9:58pm

20Cent wrote: »

The reviews in this thread all say he wasn't allowed speak, was interrupted and misinterpreted. Why would one make a judgement on a person from such a video when there are loads more of them speaking his own mind without interpretation or interruption?

Oh my ! Do stop digging !

Tom Mann Centuria · 21-01-2018 10:08pm

I watched the video, wouldn't be a fan of Peterson or his apparent ideology (only basing this on having watched a couple of videos after seeing this one, hadn't heard of him before and reading what his supporters post) but that really was a terrible interview, numerous attempts at ambushing him failed and she came across particularly poorly. He came across as a far more reasonable person than the interviewer.

By the by, I'm not sure Newman is particularly left wing her self.

Wibbs · 21-01-2018 10:15pm

20Cent wrote: »

What's your point?

This is like what Peterson does.lol

The point is (lol) how can one hold an opinion on a video without watching said video?

I watched that one and went off and watched a few more and read a little on him. Found him pretty OK and I noticed quite often he comes across as a nice man at the core. Of course he's a product of his own background as are we all, so there is that socially, spiritually, conservative, pre modernist* streak to him that gets filtered and focused through his opinions. And yes I personally would consider psychology one of the "softer" sciences, in the sense that much of is wide open and much of it based on pretty shaky, often self reported data(though I consider something like sociology as soft as a nonagenarian in a knocking shop). So much of it is and can only be opinion.

His set of opinions are often compelling to me anyway, from my admittedly brief gaze at it. He seems to be a major Jung fan. I would be myself, so that could be part of it. I have a vague rule when it comes to philosophy and philosophers and thinkers in general; if I can dismiss it as navel gazing fruity ballsology and subsequent readings confirm this, then for me it is ballsology(Jung's "other", Freud would fall into this category, as would Derrida, even Descarte. He was a pioneer and a wide ranging giant of a mind, but..). If I first dismiss it as navel gazing fruity ballsology, but subsequent readings reveal more than I thought and more readings again have my brain hurting with the level of thought behind it that I struggle to process, then that's a different matter. Plato would defo fall into this category for me - the sheer horsepower of the Greek lad's mind remains staggering even today - and so would Jung.

Though to make a clumsy comparison to computers(though I do not believe we operate that way) all the psychology and sociology theories are akin to the fancy graphic user interface reporting and tweaking, neuroscience is looking at the chip design, but there lays a vast gulf between those two disciplines.

But I digress. It's me. I've had a long week. Anyway, yeah. I don't buy the the 1970's Blank Slate hippy dippy idea of the mind, or gender. It;s demonstrably ballsology of the highest order. As for the Canadian chap, I do like anyone who can play their own riff well, with clear and consistent notes and he can. IN this interview she couldn't. Though if I were to try similar it would be akin to a hyper stream of consciousness Robin Williams sans the funny style. On barbiturates.

*thank christ as post modernism is almost entirely full of sh1te wherever it points its gaze.

Pac1Man · 21-01-2018 10:16pm

Powerful Jordan Peterson.

Wibbs · 21-01-2018 10:17pm

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

By the by, I'm not sure Newman is particularly left wing her self.

That would have been my take too funny enough. I would have pegged her as centre right myself? An intelligent and ambitious person who worked her way to her position. She didn't get to where she is by being wishy washy.

s7ryf3925pivug · 21-01-2018 10:32pm

NICU nurses get 40k. That's shockingly low for what they do. They are generally both female and agreeable. Maybe shafting people for having agreeable personalities is a really bad thing to do.

He is right about the agreeableness thing with salaries, but it's sucky and dumb. My observation is that the agreeable types eventually just leave, and the employers are worse off as a result.

Noveight · 21-01-2018 10:41pm

I've enjoyed watching Peterson speak for a good while now. His ability to hold it together when faced with reems of nonsense is second to none.

When she pauses at 23 minutes in...

kneemos · 21-01-2018 10:43pm

Primary school teachers (mostly women) average thirty thousand for a basically part time job.

Shenshen · 21-01-2018 10:50pm

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

NICU nurses get 40k. That's shickingly low for what they do. They are generally both female and agreeable. Maybe shafting people for having agreeable personalities is a really bad thing to do.

He is right about the agreeableness thing with salaries, but it's sucky and dumb. My observation is that the agreeable types eventually just leave, and the employers are worse off as a result.

I saw the interview at the time it was aired and felt rather disappointed in Newman - that certainly wasn't anywhere near her usual standards.

However, his replies showed clearly that he had inspected the subject and settled on the first answer that pleased him and complied with his pre-conceived ideas of the world.
Yes, there certainly is a difference between men and women in the jobs they choose, and in their levels of "agreeableness". Someone seriously interested in the subject would ask "Why? Where does that come from?", whereas he's perfectly happy to just stop there.

Aidric · 21-01-2018 10:50pm

Newman is a pretty competent interviewer and I'm a big fan of Channel 4 News in general as they tend to allocate their time wisely in going beyond the generic relay of the important stories and very often throw up very interesting interviews.

Her mistake here was the complete loss of impartiality, a key quality for any interviewer. She went in with an agenda and as the answers didn't stack up to her agenda she dug in deeper and buried herself further. Peterson's calm logic batted away her increasing hysterics and she couldn't adjust.

Hadn't heard anything about Peterson before this interview but I liked the ideas he put forward. Just ordered his latest book as a result.

21-01-2018 10:55pm

I've been watching him for a while now too..
Yeah, he's intelligent, but he has his biases too.
He can come across as arrogant, and quite condescending.. (who here has heard of George Orwell??..I mean seriously..who hasn't heard of George Orwell)..
He's introduced me to jung, so I'm thankful for that..
But there is kind of an air of "Cometh the hour.." off him..
It will be interesting to see if he does embark on a political crusade and become a tool of the right..

His self authoring thing is probably worth doing too..(I'll get around to it at some point..)

tritium · 21-01-2018 11:11pm

Shenshen wrote: »

I saw the interview at the time it was aired and felt rather disappointed in Newman - that certainly wasn't anywhere near her usual standards.

However, his replies showed clearly that he had inspected the subject and settled on the first answer that pleased him and complied with his pre-conceived ideas of the world.
Yes, there certainly is a difference between men and women in the jobs they choose, and in their levels of "agreeableness". Someone seriously interested in the subject would ask "Why? Where does that come from?", whereas he's perfectly happy to just stop there.

I think that’s probably a little unfair to Peterson. Generally, in an interview that wasn’t so confrontational, the interviewer would be expected to tease a lot of those channels out and give him the opportunity to expand the topic. That it didn’t happen here was very much down to the way Newman interviewed, with a very aggressive style- put simply she didn’t do her job here, treating this more like a poor attempt to discredit her subject. I’m not sure if that’s down to what she was instructed to do or her own biases. Given she’s apparently quite open about beIng biased in favour of women I’d imagine there’s at least a little bit of instinctive dislike at Peterson’s message. Peterson on the other hand has come out of this looking rather gracious, even to the extent of calling for any abuse on Twitter to stop.

ancapailldorcha · 21-01-2018 11:13pm

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

I watched the video, wouldn't be a fan of Peterson or his apparent ideology (only basing this on having watched a couple of videos after seeing this one, hadn't heard of him before and reading what his supporters post) but that really was a terrible interview, numerous attempts at ambushing him failed and she came across particularly poorly. He came across as a far more reasonable person than the interviewer.

By the by, I'm not sure Newman is particularly left wing her self.

I've just started it. He's not the most confident of speakers and I'd be very wary of anyone adored by the American right, Steve Bannon's sock puppet being a prime example.

However, I am disappointed that Newman doesn't appear to have even the most tenuous grasp of courtesy and manners. Is she a journalist? Not by this video.

I am enjoying Peterson's careful use of language. It's gone under her radar so many times now that I'm struggling to see how she is getting paid for this. There are also a few nice memes emerging.

Roger Hassenforder · 21-01-2018 11:14pm

Aidric wrote: »

Hadn't heard anything about Peterson before this interview but I liked the ideas he put forward. Just ordered his latest book as a result.

ditto!

koumi · 21-01-2018 11:27pm

Hey lobster, how you feeling today?
um..yeah, much better Dave thanks for asking. *sighs*

ancapailldorcha · 21-01-2018 11:29pm

"You saying that we should organise our societies in the same way as Lobsters?"

Yeah....

The Rape of Lucretia · 22-01-2018 12:13am

suicide_circus wrote: »

A very petulant interviewing style

21Savage wrote: »

She got schooled. Schooled badly. Hard to watch.

Wibbs wrote: »

The interview went badly for her for a few reasons. She's obviously intelligent, but he's more intelligent and speaking on a subject he is an expert in, whereas she has to quickly swot up on the subject of whomever she's interviewing next.

Lukker- wrote: »

Schooled by philosophical Kermit the frog

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

She was completely destroyed on all facets of her arguments and counter arguments although I am sure she thinks she "won" the debate.

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Her AR5E handed to her on a plate

I still think she's lovely. Such a sweet smile too.

Icemancometh · 22-01-2018 12:29am

I'm not sure if it was quite as one sided as people here make out. I don't know much about Peterson's background, but Newman continually referenced his book. Without having read his book I didn't quite understand a lot of her points. I think that if I knew more about his background, I might have understood her arguments a little better.

That said, the lobster comparison and Pinochet as a left-wing totalitarian were pretty nutty.

koumi · 22-01-2018 12:36am

Icemancometh wrote: »

I'm not sure if it was quite as one sided as people here make out. I don't know much about Peterson's background, but Newman continually referenced his book. Without having read his book I didn't quite understand a lot of her points. I think that if I knew more about his background, I might have understood her arguments a little better.

That said, the lobster comparison and Pinochet as a left-wing totalitarian were pretty nutty.

yeah, I was intrigued up until that point and then I started watching his body language and everything got lost on me, was like watching a pua in action. I'm always going to associate ssris with depressed lobsters now though. Hardly a bad thing.

Arghus · 22-01-2018 12:45am

Icemancometh wrote: »

I'm not sure if it was quite as one sided as people here make out. I don't know much about Peterson's background, but Newman continually referenced his book. Without having read his book I didn't quite understand a lot of her points. I think that if I knew more about his background, I might have understood her arguments a little better.

That said, the lobster comparison and Pinochet as a left-wing totalitarian were pretty nutty.

I broadly agree with this - she floundered badly at times, but she asked a few reasonable questions of Peterson as well, but often failed in addressing what he had to say in response - a better interviewer would have been in on top on some of the somewhat nuttier things he had to say. He was a quietly domineering interviewee and was able to articulate himself well and he made plenty of reasonable points, but I'd be wary of eating up and believing everything he has to say, just because he says certain other things that people deem to be profound truthes. Some of his assertions were arguable at best - not cast iron fact. And there were a few that sounded a little bit crazy.

And I often feel that there's a touch of intelligently presented bullshit to a proportion of what he has to say - and it's this proportion of his work that tends to garner the most attention and support. Not that I think he frequently isn't on to something - I think he has got worthwhile things to say. But I wouldn't forget that his background is in a science that isn't exactly amongst the most-rock solid of hard and I think when he crosses over into the realms of philosophy I wonder how rigorous and objective his conclusions really are.

Pac1Man · 22-01-2018 12:58am

Arghus wrote: »

I broadly agree with this - she floundered badly at times, but she asked a few reasonable questions of Peterson as well, but often failed in addressing what he had to say in response - a better interviewer would have been in on top on some of the somewhat nuttier things he had to say.

I don't think he had a chance to fully clarify. Any time he attempted to, she interjected with a strawman before he could finish.

I would hardly call his reasoning nutty either.

Arghus · 22-01-2018 1:24am

Pac1Man wrote: »

I don't think he had a chance to fully clarify. Any time he attempted to, she interjected with a strawman before he could finish.

I would hardly call his reasoning nutty either.

I don't think his reasoning as a whole is nutty either - I say that in my post. But I think that not everything he has to say is gospel - and he does say a few things that are a bit daft in that interview.

For instance equating the ideology, or at least the driving motivation, behind trans activists - and notice how he makes no distinction between any varying level of activism - to ideologies that led to the deaths of millions in the twentieth century. That might sound good to some ears, but it's a serious stretch on his part. It's an opinion he has, not an actual factual statement - you can't claim that's a fact: what rigorous research and evidence is he basing that on? But yet he claims it like it's an absolute categorical truth and he makes everything that comes out of his mouth sound like a categorical truth - even if it's far from it, at times.

I don't think he's a spoofer. He's an intelligent and oftentimes profound man, but he has a tendency to ascribe truth to everything he says; he has biases and blind-spots just like the rest of us.

markodaly · 22-01-2018 2:18am

Shenshen wrote: »

Yes, there certainly is a difference between men and women in the jobs they choose, and in their levels of "agreeableness". Someone seriously interested in the subject would ask "Why? Where does that come from?", whereas he's perfectly happy to just stop there.

To be honest, that is up to the interviewer to follow up on.

The interviewer should have asked more probing questions about say, why are females more argeable and what is the root cause of that? Is it nature and evolution or is it environmental?

Instead, she asked ridiculous follow up questions again and again, so he had to repeat and reword what he actually said, so that it was clear what he was communicating and not projecting something she thinks he was saying.

22-01-2018 2:35am

markodaly wrote: »

why are females more arguable and what is the root cause of that?

That would have been some Freudian slip..

dayslikethis · 22-01-2018 2:37am

lol neumann v peterstein
its like watching 2 bums fighting over a shekel

but in fairness to peterstein she was literally dripping after 20;29
wetter than a cup of tea

take everything · 22-01-2018 3:49am

Love Jordan Peterson.

She was utterly embarrassing.
Useless at her job.

take everything · 22-01-2018 4:01am

It's terrible watching guy's like Peterson, a truly deep thinker, having to put up with a fool like this.

s7ryf3925pivug · 22-01-2018 4:57am

kneemos wrote: »

Primary school teachers (mostly women) average thirty thousand for a basically part time job.

30k isn't high.

Have you ever done teaching? I have, at third level. It's exhausting and stressful. I even did a few weeks where the format was similar to primary teaching - teaching the same class continuously all day. Really draining.

Personally I'd prefer wages for teaching to be high, and for the selection process to be rigorous and appropriate. It's in everyone's interest for teachers to be very good at what they do...

Anyway men are generally sought after for primary teaching. I understand there is consensus that a better balance of sexes would be preferable. I don't think men are physically well suited to being NICU nurses though. The main reason is that the male response to stress is not appropriate.

Men experience much higher cortisol levels from stress and from anticipation of stress. The fight or flight instinct is in fact fairly specific to males. Does an emergency require kicking doors in or shouting? Then you want males.

Women experience no cortisol increase from anticipation apparently. The increased cortisol in an emergency is lower, and accompanied by greatly increased oxytocin - the nurturing hormone. So women's emergency response is better described as tend or befriend.

https://www.webmd.com/women/features/stress-women-men-cope#1

Neither response is innately better - it's entirely contextual. The same is true for men and women in general. We've evolved complementary skills. Generally we work best together, some situations enter suit one or the other.

I do think it's true that feminine skills are frequently undervalued though. I think NICU nurses are a good example of this. Routinely heroic, yet not celebrated or compensated well enough.

I don't think it's just sexism behind it though. I think people just get rewarded better if they're able to be judiciously aggressive when it comes to getting rewarded, an approach that suits men better. But I think that it would be better for society and institutions if we were better at rewarding people for their value instead of their leverage.

Bob Harris · 22-01-2018 10:04am

She wilfully ignored well articulated and reasoned points throughout the interview to the point that it seemed that she was doing so just to be artificially obstinate rather than really disagreeing with what he said.

LuckyLloyd · 22-01-2018 10:10am

Arghus wrote: »

I don't think his reasoning as a whole is nutty either - I say that in my post. But I think that not everything he has to say is gospel - and he does say a few things that are a bit daft in that interview.

For instance equating the ideology, or at least the driving motivation, behind trans activists - and notice how he makes no distinction between any varying level of activism - to ideologies that led to the deaths of millions in the twentieth century. That might sound good to some ears, but it's a serious stretch on his part. It's an opinion he has, not an actual factual statement - you can't claim that's a fact: what rigorous research and evidence is he basing that on? But yet he claims it like it's an absolute categorical truth and he makes everything that comes out of his mouth sound like a categorical truth - even if it's far from it, at times.

I don't think he's a spoofer. He's an intelligent and oftentimes profound man, but he has a tendency to ascribe truth to everything he says; he has biases and blind-spots just like the rest of us.

Fully reasonable criticism I’d say. I don’t think equating trans activists with Mao or Stalin is a productive line of argument at all.

amcalester · 22-01-2018 10:14am

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

30k isn't high.

Anyway men are generally sought after for primary teaching. I understand there is consensus that a better balance of sexes would be preferable. I don't think men are physically well suited to being NICU nurses though. The main reason is that the male response to stress is not appropriate.

Men experience much higher cortisol levels from stress and from anticipation of stress. The fight or flight instinct is in fact fairly specific to males. Does an emergency require kicking doors in or shouting? Then you want males.

So you're saying men don't make good NICU nurses because in a stressful situation they'll just kick in a door?

bnt · 22-01-2018 10:27am

I haven't listened to this interview - don't think I need to after reading this thread - but I have seen a few of Peterson's videos and listened to his discussions with Sam Harris (here and here).

I don't get the impression that he set out to be any kind of celebrity, online or offline, but rather that it started with his academic work spilling out in to the world. So now he has a new book to promote, one aimed at the general public (unlike his previous books), and that means going on a book tour and engaging in these sorts of interviews. He's got some interesting ideas, and I agree with some of them, but I doubt he's looking for a "following", which is fine by me.

But if some folks see Dr. Peterson as some kind of leader, that in itself is an interesting topic, and it says far more about them than it does about him. At the risk of stating the obvious, it looks to me like there is a demographic - angry men - who are in need of a leader, or at least some kind of mission or direction. This is a problem, and insulting or denigrating them will not help. (Look at the last US Presidential election, with Hillary's "basket of deplorables", for an example of how well that works.) But that's a bigger topic beyond the scope of this thread.

22-01-2018 11:00am

bnt wrote: »

But if some folks see Dr. Peterson as some kind of leader, that in itself is an interesting topic, and it says far more about them than it does about him.

Is it kind of a consequence of the whole identity politics thing that this is happening..it's textbook Freudian identification anyway..the t shirts are funny..and as for lads finding god because they watched a few youtube videos..
But it's surely because there's a need for what he's saying at the minute..

conorhal · 22-01-2018 11:22am

bnt wrote: »

I haven't listened to this interview - don't think I need to after reading this thread - but I have seen a few of Peterson's videos and listened to his discussions with Sam Harris (here and here).

I don't get the impression that he set out to be any kind of celebrity, online or offline, but rather that it started with his academic work spilling out in to the world. So now he has a new book to promote, one aimed at the general public (unlike his previous books), and that means going on a book tour and engaging in these sorts of interviews. He's got some interesting ideas, and I agree with some of them, but I doubt he's looking for a "following", which is fine by me.

But if some folks see Dr. Peterson as some kind of leader, that in itself is an interesting topic, and it says far more about them than it does about him. At the risk of stating the obvious, it looks to me like there is a demographic - angry men - who are in need of a leader, or at least some kind of mission or direction. This is a problem, and insulting or denigrating them will not help. (Look at the last US Presidential election, with Hillary's "basket of deplorables", for an example of how well that works.) But that's a bigger topic beyond the scope of this thread.

I saw this clip of Peterson addressing the subject of alienated young men during a radio interview.
He actually broke down and cried in the interview while discussing the response he recieved from young men after a talk he gave as many approched him just to say what a difference he had made in their lives.

Cathy Newman's suggestion that Peterson's audience is mostly male comes with an implicit critisism. Oh you're just running a 'boys club for angry young men'.

What's clear from this clip is just how badly young men today need a figure that speaks, not for them, but to them, who offers them advice and guidance and Peterson's work is clearly fulfilling that role for many young men in a very positive way.

Why is it OK for the likes of Newman to praise Meryl Streep or Emma Watson for 'giving young women a voice' and 'speaking to their worth in society', but if a man does the same for young men, there's a negative spin to it? A spin that comes from a place of inherrent distate and distrust of men and masculinity IMO.

LuckyLloyd · 22-01-2018 11:24am

conorhal wrote: »

I saw this clip of Peterson addressing the subject of alienated young men during a radio interview.
He actually broke down and cried in the interview while discussing the response he recieved from young men after a talk he gave as many approched him just to say what a difference he had made in their lives.

Cathy Newman's suggestion that Peterson's audience is mostly male comes with an implicit critisism. You're running a 'boys club for angry young men'.

What's clear from this clip is how badly young today men need a figure that speaks to them, who offers advice and guidance and how Peterson's work is clearly fulfilling that role for many young men in a very positive way.
Why is it OK for the likes of Newman to praise the likes of Streep or Emma Watson for 'giving young women a voice' and speaking to their worth, but if a man does the same for young men, there's a negative spin to it? A spin that comes from a place of inherrent distate and distrust of men IMO.

It's simpler than that. If you've convinced yourself that Western Society is an oppressive patriarchy then you simply won't / can't appreciate that men are in need of role models or help. Your answer for everything will be feminism.

suicide_circus · 22-01-2018 11:31am

He's filling a void.

Men have been told that their essential masculinity is the root cause of all the evil in the world for the last 50 years. From the the oppression and brutalisation of women to war and capitalism. Patriachy and toxic masculinity. The world would be better if men were more like women.

Someone who provides an alternative narrative is going to be popular with a group who don't recognise their part in the feminist doctrine and who are dropping out of eduction and society at large in ever increasing numbers.

Pac1Man · 22-01-2018 11:32am

Quote from the Guardian.

"It is much to Newman’s credit that, 23 minutes in, she drew breath, paused and considered her position."

To be fair the article was basically sitting on the fence championing free speech from both sides without the vitriol but the above quote is hilarious.

brevity · 22-01-2018 11:38am

Building up men doesn't mean you are tearing down women and building up women doesn't mean you are tearing down men.

Why more people don't realise this is puzzling.

Both camps have their concerns and they should try to cooperate to help each other where they can.

tritium · 22-01-2018 11:42am

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Fully reasonable criticism I’d say. I don’t think equating trans activists with Mao or Stalin is a productive line of argument at all.

Except that’s not really what he’s doing. Or rather he’s not saying that trans activists are as bad in their deeds as Stalin- this is another example of the need to be very precise with words. He’s saying that the ideology that led Mao or Stalin to where they ended up is essentially the same ideology that activists in these groups follow. Peterson appears to be a strong advocate of the individual and individual responsibility over the collectivism that many left wing (and some right wing ) ideologies espouse. I had a look at some of his other work over the weekend where he explains the point far better, possibly because he’s not being harangued in an effort to discredit him. Peterson sees Mao or Stalin as just ordinary people who embraced a monster that exists within all of us, and indeed that is a necessary part of us.

Jay Pentatonic · 22-01-2018 11:52am

Pac1Man wrote: »

Powerful Jordan Peterson.

He must be taking some of that Alpha Brain!

cantdecide · 22-01-2018 11:53am

brevity wrote: »

Building up men doesn't mean you are tearing down women and building up women doesn't mean you are tearing down men.

Why more people don't realise this is puzzling.

A fair-minded, empathetic egalitarian attitude doesn't put bums on seats, sell newspapers or get blog hits. Activism sells and the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

JP is one of the few voices out there telling men that they're not walking around like cocked guns just for existing.

padd b1975 · 22-01-2018 11:55am

Very enjoyable interview.

It's just a shame it wasn't that pompous windbag Jon Snow getting his arse handed to him.

That would have been the icing on the cake.

Pac1Man · 22-01-2018 12:02pm

Jay1989 wrote: »

He must be taking some of that Alpha Brain!

He's definitely Onnit.

donaghs · 22-01-2018 12:21pm

Great thread, regardless of your views on the topic. A sign of the times that discussion of very topical stuff ends in up in After Hours.

markodaly · 22-01-2018 12:36pm

brevity wrote: »

Building up men doesn't mean you are tearing down women and building up women doesn't mean you are tearing down men.

Why more people don't realise this is puzzling.

Both camps have their concerns and they should try to cooperate to help each other where they can.

100% this but how many of today high profiles feminists do this? Third wave feminist thinking is pretty much mainstream especially in University and Media circles, so it tends to dominate the debate.

We often hear the remark that men are free to advocate for their own causes, like a fair go in the family courts. Yet, their is natural hostility to them when they organise in anyway a suspicion that they somehow want to dominate women and send them back to the dark ages.

A great example is this interview, when the interviewer questioned Peterson about helping men, 'Whats in it for women?' As if helping men alone was not a good thing? It always have to be framed that women need help first and foremost.

I hope Peterson and others like him take this further but he will have to battle as feminists hate competition.

s7ryf3925pivug · 22-01-2018 12:43pm

amcalester wrote: »

So you're saying men don't make good NICU nurses because in a stressful situation they'll just kick in a door?

Arne_Saknussem · 22-01-2018 12:47pm

markodaly wrote: »

100% this but how many of today high profiles feminists do this? Third wave feminist thinking is pretty much mainstream especially in University and Media circles, so it tends to dominate the debate.

We often hear the remark that men are free to advocate for their own causes, like a fair go in the family courts. Yet, their is natural hostility to them when they organise in anyway a suspicion that they somehow want to dominate women and send them back to the dark ages.

A great example is this interview, when the interviewer questioned Peterson about helping men, 'Whats in it for women?' As if helping men alone was not a good thing? It always have to be framed that women need help first and foremost.

I hope Peterson and others like him take this further but he will have to battle as feminists hate competition.

Can't see the likes of C4 or BBC giving him a platform again, he's pretty good at dodging the mud they fling and as such they won't be wanting to broadcast his WrongThink over the air.

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Comments