Jordan Peterson interview on C4

2 Scoops · 04-04-2018 10:02am

aidoh wrote: »

I wasn't inferring any of them are "alt-right", though I suspect a handful of them are extremely conservative in their views.

I don't think they're part of some clique necessarily - I was lumping them together in that post as an example of talking heads who make money off of impotent rage. I suppose they're good at articulating what many people think but can't quite put their finger on - so maybe have that in common too.

Off topic but Joe's is a good podcast and I've been listening for a decade. He's definitely guilty of cashing in on the anti-SJW circle-jerk too though.

Misunderstood ya then, apologies. Big fan of some of the names on your list so a natural defence mechanism set in.

Joe is great yeah, the only time I seen him lose it was the Stephen Crowder podcast which created a lot of controversy. In fairness to him he was drunk.

2 Scoops · 04-04-2018 10:11am

Maxpfizer wrote: »

For Peterson, it even reaches the level of mainstream media outlets either trying to misrepresent him or outright lie about him.

The Guardian is a joke and so is most of the liberal media, all they do is smear and use the classic trick of guilt by association. Look at this article and the headline...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest

"He is also adored by figures on the so-called alt-light (basically the “alt-right” without the sieg heils and the white ethnostate), including Mike Cernovich, Gavin McInnes and Paul Joseph Watson."

aidoh · 04-04-2018 4:06pm

It is absolutely crazy that so many once-reputable news outlets like the Guardian, Telegraph, CNN etc., hell, even the Irish Times, are so heavily informed by an obsession with identity politics that it's gotten to a stage where they'll label anyone who isn't a special needs minority transgender communist as 'privileged' and therefore inherently guilty of something.

I do think that's a huge part of the appeal of many of the 'controversial' YouTube celebrities - they provide an alternative source of information that people find more important than 'decolonising your patriarchal white privileged office environment' or some such absolute horse-sh!t.

Only point I've been making is that the YouTube celebs (and I do personally enjoy their content) make a lot of money off riling people (like me) up. It's absolutely in their best interests to represent things (feminism, Islam or whatever the hot topic of the day is) as worse than they are and, for that reason, we should be skeptical of them to a certain extent. Just as we should be skeptical of mainstream media.

Robsweezie · 04-04-2018 6:09pm

so you're saying we should all drink entire bottles of heinz ketchup on a tuesday?!

Sand · 04-04-2018 9:54pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

The Guardian is a joke and so is most of the liberal media, all they do is smear and use the classic trick of guilt by association. Look at this article and the headline...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest

"He is also adored by figures on the so-called alt-light (basically the “alt-right” without the sieg heils and the white ethnostate), including Mike Cernovich, Gavin McInnes and Paul Joseph Watson."

I don't think its unfair to associate Peterson with the alt-light. They are individualists, hostile to SJWs and identity politics, and Peterson has said in the hypothetical situation he was forced to vote between Clinton and Trump he would vote Trump. His point being he preferred the open, unscripted lying of Trump over the more deliberate, scripted lying and dishonesty of Clinton. Peterson is adored by figures in the alt-light because they agree with many of his views. The alt-light is fairly non-controversial in their views, being mainly libertarians gone wild.

It is unfair to smear him with the alt-right reference which is completely unnecessary (and misleading) to insert. They might as well have explained the Green party by saying its like the Nazi party without the holocaust and aryan master race ideology. The alt right are collectivists, consider SJWs largely irrelevant and accept/endorse (white) identity politics. Essentially everything Peterson (and the alt-light) is against. About the only thing they would have in common with Peterson is tactical support of Trump over Clinton.

mzungu · 04-04-2018 10:06pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Or they may be greater than some suggest. I'm sure you're familiar with the Bret Weinstein story as well? And it is increasing. Privilege race in Trinity was a good one, really wish I'd still been there, they would have been pretty surprised how far I would've gotten as a white guy. :P Bill Mahar getting protested, comedians completely skipping colleges whether it's Chris Rock or Jerry feckin Seinfeld.

Aye, I heard about the Weinstein story. It's bizarre stuff, no doubt about it. I won't deny that there has been some nasty episodes in the US of late, but I would not put it down as cultural Marxism. It has become a catchall term to lump everything under, and as I said a few posts ago I think it's original meaning has been lost pretty much since the turn of the millennium...and possibly a bit before. It should also be noted that people of both a left and right wing persuasion would be against what happened to Weinstein. It seems like more a case of weak willed college authorities not stamping down on (ironically enough) a bunch of privileged brats!! I do think violence and disruptions on the college speaking circuit are a problem (eg. there was nearly a riot when Charles Murray was speaking) but it must certainly is not a left wing thing as most people of either persuasion do not agree with it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Had she not recorded it would she have gotten the same result?

A fair point, but that would be unrelated to any notion of cultural Marxism. That simply strengthens my belief that her superiors were not suited at all for their role. Although that kind of carry on would not be confined to a university campus. There are a lot of people working in positions that they should never have been let within a country mile of. As most people will attest, you will find those people in all walks of life and one would be lucky to go their working life without coming across at least one or two of them.

To answer the question, if she had not recorded it she would have been a lot worse off and there would have been no apology forthcoming. IMO she made a smart move by making the recording.

2 Scoops wrote: »

Fair enough but imo they only apologized because she recorded it. I listened to the entire thing where they openly and clearly state other opinions aren't allowed and compared Peterson to Hitler. Imo that way of thinking and authoritarianism is the norm in positions of power throughout social science faculties, obviously I can't prove that, Shepard is just a singular case.

We hear of these cases because they make big news, but the vast majority of universities are plugging away with zero controversy. Sure, you do get a fair share of overzealous ideologues, but you also get loads more who are not.

Ipso · 05-04-2018 12:47am

Why is there an alt-right but not an alt-left?
The alt-left can be associated with various scummy groups such as the nation of islam and a lot of them are a bit sympathetic to dictatorships (Cuba).

2 Scoops · 05-04-2018 3:40am

What an ugly racist that female news commentator is, the other gulag isn't far behind

Brian? · 05-04-2018 9:19am

Ipso wrote: »

Why is there an alt-right but not an alt-left?
The alt-left can be associated with various scummy groups such as the nation of islam and a lot of them are a bit sympathetic to dictatorships (Cuba).

The Nation of Islam are left wing? That’s a revelation

Brian? · 05-04-2018 9:57am

2 Scoops wrote: »

What an ugly racist that female news commentator is, the other gulag isn't far behind

Who's an ugly racist? Do I have to watch that video to find out?

Ipso · 05-04-2018 4:44pm

Brian? wrote: »

The Nation of Islam are left wing? That’s a revelation

I was talking about guilt by association. Recently it has emerged that leaders of the recent pro woman rallies have been supportive of Farrakhan and many democrats have attended conferences/rallies that he attended.
If Peterson is going to be labeled alt-right because un-savoury people like him, why not be consistent and label the people who associate with Farrakhan accordingly.

Brian? · 05-04-2018 5:47pm

Ipso wrote: »

I was talking about guilt by association. Recently it has emerged that leaders of the recent pro woman rallies have been supportive of Farrakhan and many democrats have attended conferences/rallies that he attended.
If Peterson is going to be labeled alt-right because un-savoury people like him, why not be consistent and label the people who associate with Farrakhan accordingly.

Why not? Because it’s wrong and it’s hypocritical.

If you’re going to object to how Peterson is labeled, have the decency to do the same for people you don’t like.

Chris_Heilong · 05-04-2018 6:53pm

Ipso wrote: »

Why is there an alt-right but not an alt-left?
The alt-left can be associated with various scummy groups such as the nation of islam and a lot of them are a bit sympathetic to dictatorships (Cuba).

There is an alt-left but is more a collective as opposed to a white nationalist movment, they are the people who engage in intersectionality, label everyone racist, fascist and misogynistic, they hate white men and White people in general, even if they themselves are white, who use violence(Antifa + Black Lives Matters) to try and silence people with different opinions to theirs and I would say there are a lot more of them than people on the alt-right.

Mutant z · 05-04-2018 6:59pm

Peterson tells the truth no wonder the left hate him so much i have seen some of the pathetic carry on from the feminazis whenever he tries to speak at college campuses and they have the absolute audacity to call him unreasonable those fools wouldnt know reasonable if it smacked them with a rock across their face a bunch of sad babies who throw a tantrum when they dont get their own way.

Sand · 05-04-2018 7:31pm

Ipso wrote: »

Why is there an alt-right but not an alt-left?
The alt-left can be associated with various scummy groups such as the nation of islam and a lot of them are a bit sympathetic to dictatorships (Cuba).

The alt-right is an American reaction to the perceived failure American conservatism. From their perspective, US conservatism is individualistic, weak and failing since the 1950s. The alt-right portrays itself as an alternative to that conservatism and a rejection of it. The conservatives for their part largely revile the alt-right, being individualists. The alt-right in turn despise conservatives as 'boomers' and 'cucks'. The Republican horror at Trump and his alt-right supported hijack of their party in 2016 was largely genuine.

There is no need for an alt-left term as the mainstream leftist groups are almost entirely captured by radical identity politics of the left. What would the 'alt-left' be rejecting? Look at UK Labour which is so absolutely lost that it thought associating itself with Munroe Bergdorf in *any* capacity was a good idea. In the US, a supposedly mainstream Womans March thought it was acceptable to invite a speaker convicted for kidnapping, torturing, raping and murdering a 62 year old. She was just lucky her victim was a man. This is the mainstream left which has normalised this level of bat **** crazy.

So there's no need for the radicals on the left to establish their own identity distinct from the mainstream left. The radicals are the mainstream left.

2 Scoops · 05-04-2018 8:54pm

Brian? wrote: »

Who's an ugly racist? Do I have to watch that video to find out?

The black news anchor, who likely ended up on television because of her skin colour and racism and not her intelligence. But yeah, it's a few minutes into the video.

This is hilariously accurate...

20Cent · 06-04-2018 10:43am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A7UJDN_hcU

silverharp · 23-04-2018 8:26am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wLCmDtCDAM

El_Duderino 09 · 23-04-2018 1:37pm

silverharp wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wLCmDtCDAM

I listened to that full interview and was surprised as how little he actually said. It could be summarised as “Old man thinks things were better in the old days and children had more respect. Other old people think it’s fierce clever altogether”.

FWIW i agree that free thought might harm someone’s feelings. Them’s the breaks.

Huntergonzo · 23-04-2018 1:47pm

Anyone know if Peterson's new book is any good?

qwerty ui op · 23-04-2018 10:32pm

silverharp wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wLCmDtCDAM

That little moment they had about parents and kids is complete rubbish. The whole area around authority, rules,boundries and spoiling kids is a natural aspect of parenting and the majority of parents would generally be on the same page. Like everything you'll have a few that this doesn't come naturally to and they always stand out.
Bill is right in his description when he asks " how did parents get so pussy whipped" as in, this is how you'd describe these uncommon parents but Peterson takes it a step further with "they think authority will crush the creative spirit of the child".
I'm a parent and many of my friends are parents of young children and this is just complete rubbish almost nobody has anything even close too this line of thinking, yes, some are just naturally hopeless in this area but to suggest that they've some reasoning behind their failures is nonsense.

Underground · 23-04-2018 10:45pm

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Anyone know if Peterson's new book is any good?

I'm about halfway through it. It's generally quite good and occasionally fascinating so far, but it's a slow burner that gets off to a crawling start.

The first chapter was kind of heavy going, he goes into really minute detail on the biology of lobsters which was just way over the top and unnecessary. Once I got through that chapter though, things started picking up. There's a chapter about friends and the company you choose to keep which I found really interesting. I'm on the chapter that Bill Maher talks about in that video now and enjoying it so far.

Brian? · 25-04-2018 10:12am

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Anyone know if Peterson's new book is any good?

If you agree with everything Peterson says, I hear it’s great.

Brian? · 25-04-2018 10:16am

silverharp wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wLCmDtCDAM

The real question here is: What the hell is Peterson wearing? A double breasted waist coat with a single breasted suit!?!

You know what Jordan. Before you go telling young men how to live their lives, maybe you should learn to dress yourself.

This is a joke. But it’s eerily similar to the nonsense Peterson spouts.

markodaly · 25-04-2018 11:58pm

qwerty ui op wrote: »

That little moment they had about parents and kids is complete rubbish. The whole area around authority, rules,boundries and spoiling kids is a natural aspect of parenting and the majority of parents would generally be on the same page. Like everything you'll have a few that this doesn't come naturally to and they always stand out.
Bill is right in his description when he asks " how did parents get so pussy whipped" as in, this is how you'd describe these uncommon parents but Peterson takes it a step further with "they think authority will crush the creative spirit of the child".
I'm a parent and many of my friends are parents of young children and this is just complete rubbish almost nobody has anything even close too this line of thinking, yes, some are just naturally hopeless in this area but to suggest that they've some reasoning behind their failures is nonsense.

We are not too bad in Ireland regards parenting. We still have a bit of old school discipline, boundaries, cop on and a get on with it attitude. It stands to us and our future generation well. However, in the US its a different story especially in the more middle class liberal coastal areas where kids run rough shod over their well meaning but hopelessly out of depth parents.

I have seen this with my own eyes, this type of parenting technique where you never say no, anytime I visit family over there in the US. Bless them. The adults/parents are very nice, too nice in fact but the kids? Entitled brats who know no boundaries, manners or cop on. In fact they will grow up to be over sized children who thus emotionally crippled because no one ever said no to them and will either have to be medicated or some other such nonsense to get through life.

Then again, I have family in rural Colorado who I visit from time to time and its a different story. They are much more down to earth, like to hunt and fish, be outdoors and all that carry on. Different world to that on the coast but it makes one much more balanced and well rounded than the brats I know on the east coast.

It is one of the reasons why I raised my family in Ireland. I wanted my kids to grow up Irish and with that, will bring out a level of cop on, groundedness, levelheadedness and scepticism of dogma against most ism's. They are pretty much grown up now and much the better for it, where they can be confident to go out in the world, without being medicated or having the need for safe spaces because they are emotionally retarded.

Brian? · 26-04-2018 7:24am

markodaly wrote: »

We are not too bad in Ireland regards parenting. We still have a bit of old school discipline, boundaries, cop on and a get on with it attitude. It stands to us and our future generation well. However, in the US its a different story especially in the more middle class liberal coastal areas where kids run rough shod over their well meaning but hopelessly out of depth parents.

That’s simply not true. There are a minority of parents who allow their kids to run wild.

I have seen this with my own eyes, this type of parenting technique where you never say no, anytime I visit family over there in the US. Bless them. The adults/parents are very nice, too nice in fact but the kids? Entitled brats who know no boundaries, manners or cop on. In fact they will grow up to be over sized children who thus emotionally crippled because no one ever said no to them and will either have to be medicated or some other such nonsense to get through life.

Then again, I have family in rural Colorado who I visit from time to time and its a different story. They are much more down to earth, like to hunt and fish, be outdoors and all that carry on. Different world to that on the coast but it makes one much more balanced and well rounded than the brats I know on the east coast.

It is one of the reasons why I raised my family in Ireland. I wanted my kids to grow up Irish and with that, will bring out a level of cop on, groundedness, levelheadedness and scepticism of dogma against most ism's. They are pretty much grown up now and much the better for it, where they can be confident to go out in the world, without being medicated or having the need for safe spaces because they are emotionally retarded.

I lived in the states and witnessed the complete opposite. Peterson must know he’s wildly generalising. He’s either lying or blind.

markodaly · 26-04-2018 11:19am

Brian? wrote: »

That’s simply not true. There are a minority of parents who allow their kids to run wild.

Over 8 million kids in America are on some sort of psychiatric drug.
This is not normal by any stretch of the imagination.

I lived in the states and witnessed the complete opposite. Peterson must know he’s wildly generalising. He’s either lying or blind.

As I said, in some areas and depending on the parents its fine. In other circles though the parents are thick stupid and let the kids run wild.

Brian? · 26-04-2018 11:32am

markodaly wrote: »

Over 8 million kids in America are on some sort of psychiatric drug.
This is not normal by any stretch of the imagination.

I agree, it’s not. But they wasn’t the question at hand. It was whether kids are being spoiled

As I said, in some areas and depending on the parents its fine. In other circles though the parents are thick stupid and let the kids run wild.

So we’re agreed. Peterson is wrong to generalise.

markodaly · 26-04-2018 11:53am

Brian? wrote: »

I agree, it’s not. But they wasn’t the question at hand. It was whether kids are being spoiled

No, that is not the question either. The question was about parenting and why many Americans are so bad at it now. I feel the proliferation of kids on psychiatric drugs is not to help the kids but to help the parents as they cannot parent.

So we’re agreed. Peterson is wrong to generalise.

As per above, there is an issue with parenting in the US. Why are the younger generation so emotionally retarded and sensitive?

cantdecide · 26-04-2018 12:03pm

markodaly wrote: »

Why are the younger generation so emotionally retarded and sensitive?

Children having children is how I describe it. The slow decline of family norms and traditional values such that less emotionally capable people are having children in less emotionally stable circumstances... and of course, it's easier to medicate away weak parenting because it couldn't possibly be my deficiencies - it has to be a condition with a name.

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Comments