Jordan Peterson interview on C4

tritium wrote: »

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.

So you use a sweeping generalisation that you describe as "the left" and the only definition or explanation of your generalisation that you have to offer is a search engine. Hmmm.

Quite a few pages ago there was a clip of Peterson being interviewed by Dutch web site Geenstijl.

Here the full interview if anyone is interested. It is almost 2 hours...

Starts with discussing the Channel4 interview

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So you can't define 'the left'. Maybe you shouldn't use the term in that case. Just a thought.

I already defined the left for you, in the generally accepted fashion -you accused me of a sweeping generalization. Which is a pretty daft claim given it’s one of just three terms that between them encompass the spectrum of political ideology, I.e its meant to be broad

There’s actually an, admittedly slightly loose at times explanation here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

Since you struggle with search engines I’ll even give you a compare and contrast for free
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

And for broad completeness

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism

Maybe you should learn to do your own research like the rest of us- just a thought

Now I’m through pulling this off topic at your behest ....

VonZan wrote: »

Anyone else feel like this pronoun debate is nothing but a load of nonsense? People want to wash away years of evolution and human instinct becuase they become mildly offended by people using language in an attempt to identify someone.

Some people really struggle to integrate into society and instead of trying to adjust they expect everyone else to conform to their beliefs.

Bingo. Couldn't agree more, for all the fuss and blustering Transgender people make up less than 1% of the population. That is rising, and is rising quite exponentially from what I can tell, it's almost a fashion of sorts. I think we've got a long road ahead with this and need to think very carefully about nonsense laws we will or won't have.

VonZan wrote: »

Anyone else feel like this pronoun debate is nothing but a load of nonsense? People want to wash away years of evolution and human instinct becuase they become mildly offended by people using language in an attempt to identify someone.

Some people really struggle to integrate into society and instead of trying to adjust they expect everyone else to conform to their beliefs.

There is an idea that the advocates for these pronouns are a manifestation of malignant narcissism.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Did you know that use of the terms "left" and "right" come from the French Revolution.

At one of the many assemblies formed during the revolutionary period the more radical members sat on the left of the chamber while the conservative ones sat on the right.

It was not the left as we know them today, basically anyone who opposed the establishment sat on the left. The far left then were laissez-faire free-marketeers (Frédéric Bastiat) the centrists were anarchists (Pierre-Joseph Proudhon) and on the right side of the left were the State socialists.

20Cent wrote: »

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

"Stupid", "Racist", "Nazi", "Neo-Nazi" a whole load of childish name twists, followed by Cathy Newmanesque mischaracterisations. Come to think of it, that article perfectly describes your position.

20Cent wrote: »

Do you think there is such thing as a trans person? .

You're obviously a Postmodern Leftist, so you tell me.

Only one of two things can be true:
1) There is no such thing as a male brain and a female brain. Thusly the fact that there are more men than women in STEM can only be ascribed to misogyny and social conditioning, and it require "diversity" policies in universities and companies like Google (Hello James Damore) to "correct" all of the above injustices of imposing un-natural social constructs of gender on people. It also justifies Postmodern Feminism, because women have been disadvantaged by their imaginary gender.

The problem with this is that if true, it makes transgenderism impossible. Because to claim that a male can transition to female or vice versa, then gender must be real and inherent.
2) There are two sexes/genders are there is no/limited difference between biological sex and gender. This explanation permits trans-genenderism (because it is possible to have a woman's brain in a man's body if gender is real and based in physiology), but it also explains why there are more men than women in STEM work, more men than women in positions of power, because gender affects things like cognitive capabilities, work choices, life choices and so on.

So which is it? Is gender real and rooted in biology? Or is transgender-ism impossible because gender is nothing but a social construct, thus "man" and "woman" are figments of our social conditioning?

If no why are they doing it then.

1) Maybe you should call someone by their made up pronoun, but it raises questions:
* What about people who claim to be neither? Do you have to use terms like ze, xe, xym, xyr?

For my part, I will admit I am torn. I feel nothing but sympathy for anyone who does not feel like they fit in their own skin, but at the same time wonder how far I should go in enabling or acknowledging claims that contradict physical reality, whether that is actually the best thing for the individuals concerned or society as a whole. And where does it end?
Calling someone who claims to be the other sex their preferred pronoun? Maybe, even if I don't believe it, I might call a man "she" or "her" just to be polite. Or more likely "them" "you" "they".
Calling someone xe, ze, xym or zyr? No way.
Calling Rachael Doelzal black or White man Ja Du a Filipina woman? Emm ...
Is "Nano" a human being or a cat? Seriously, get help.

(To be clear, I feel really sorry for Ja Du, but no matter how much time he spends listening to Philippine music and driving that ridiculous pink Tuk-tuk around Florida, he's still a white man. Ditto for Nano. No matter how much she meows, hisses at dogs or sleeps on window-sills, she's still not a cat.)

If yes what's the big deal referring to them using the correct pronoun?

I object to any "forced speech" laws that require me to recognise anything that is not true. Bill C16 will criminalise people who do not go along with (one suspects) ever increasing absurdity. That's the problem. It's criminalising a perfectly legitimate point of view that stems from reality.

20Cent wrote: »

Carlson rants against multiculturalism says it's better to have races living seperatly. Hardly a rejection of identity politics or belief in the individual not grouping people together.

Just one example.

https://youtu.be/_brXEFpemTM

No. That's a lie. People don't set off suicide bombs in teenage concerts because of their RACE. there is nothing inherent to brown skinned people that makes them want to kill Jews, Christians, apostates, blasphemers, homosexuals and other filthy kuffars. For those that do, they do so because of the CULTURE. There is a difference between race and culture.

TC does not claim that white, black, brown and yellow man who share a culture should not live side-by-side, he claims (at least in this video) that multi-culturalism does not work. Multi-culturalism is distinct from race because race =/= culture. You claim that TC is racist is a scurrilous lie.

tritium wrote: »

I already defined the left for you, in the generally accepted fashion -you accused me of a sweeping generalization. Which is a pretty daft claim given it’s one of just three terms that between them encompass the spectrum of political ideology, I.e its meant to be broad

There’s actually an, admittedly slightly loose at times explanation here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

Since you struggle with search engines I’ll even give you a compare and contrast for free
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

And for broad completeness

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism

Maybe you should learn to do your own research like the rest of us- just a thought

Now I’m through pulling this off topic at your behest ....

But that is a very broad and vague generalisation. 'Loose' as you say yourself. When you say 'the left' this and 'the left' that, how many people are you talking about? Who are these people? Must they all think the same way? What are the identifying beliefs?Are whole nations 'left'. Maybe you don't know?

tritium wrote: »

Nope, not playing. If you want to debate the actual topic go right ahead. If you just want to keep trying to drag it off topic for whatever reason go find someone else to play your silly games with

Saying 'the left' thinks this or does that has no meaning for me. I'm not a fan of lazy generalisations.

tritium wrote: »

No not at all, you’d never post something like this on a thread for example....,




Because that’s full of lazy generalizations

That thing you can see disappearing in the distance is your credibility by the way

You pluck a post of mine from another thread, completely out of context, and present it as proof of something while simultaneously missing the irony in the post. Never mind, have a good weekend.

20Cent wrote: »

C 16 doesn't do that. It added the words “gender identity and expression” to the section that defines groups for the purposes of “advocating genocide” and “the public incitement hatred”

No one is being forced to use any pronouns.

Seems reasonable. Not many people object to the other protections which are for colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability.


Peterson took this to mean if you refuse to call someone ze or whatever you'd be carted off to jail.

Didn't he go before a senate hearing about this bill along with some other Canadian legal professionals also opposed to it.

And you claim he simply didn't understand the bill or misinterpreted it.

I think you are the one not grasping the issue.

Bambi wrote: »

His views are probably a result of being involved in campus life which seems to have taken a turn towards the utterly Orwellian.

Feel free to collapse those arguments while you're here anyway

True enough, I imagine he has clocked this aspect of the problem at close range for a long time. However, the guy is a very intelligent adult, obviously a 'global' thinker, and can add more than one and one together logically.


This is why his glaring omission of half the causal picture is so curious. As well, he seems to be committing a fundamental attribution error in blaming the 'other side' in a way that suggests its output is a result of wrong thinking and corrupt values. The guy is a clinical psychologist, so to say he has no insight into the circumstance and psychological motivations of the other side is some sort of political nonsense.


After this, it's a case of discerning what his politics consist of. Since the potential for more trouble in society goes up with every fundamental angle he willfully ignores, there's a distinct chance that his claim of being most concerned about the fate of the west is not quite true. He's a psychologist, so there's a chance that his desire to help young western people overrides everything else. Except that he most certainly knows that the future of the western world depends mostly on the harmonious realignment of men and women, -- not on winning a war for his bank balance, being adored by throngs of lost men, or even successfully bolstering their self-esteem.



So, this is the basis of my criticism here. To attempt to address the apparent imminent failure of the western world, both men (lost in malaise), and women (apparently lost in willfully illogical entitlement) -- and both parties lost in necessary group-think, have all got to be rehabilitated. Peterson most certainly understands this, he also understands that economic and social factors can produce exactly these flavours of negative affects according to multiple variables, including gender.


According to this, if his desire and interest is as comprehensive and far reaching as affecting the future of the western world, his approach is without the full complement of his understanding and capability. But then again, we have no idea what the guy is really thinking, what his long-term plan may look like (according to indications now, it looks like he's entrenching himself behind a 'one side' barricade for the foreseeable future), and how he really conceives of the issue.


My best guess is that he thinks the error on the 'other side' is a failure of logic, a kind of braindead selfishness, which if accurate, should be dispellable with legions of logically secure, unapologetic men. Which might eventually solve and re-balance things, if the system to be addressed was actually a dichotomy, and the other side willful enactors of destruction.


In my opinion, Peterson knows this is not just wrong, but impossible. The rise of post-modernist thought is related to the specific mode and social effect of modern economics. Neo-feminism is ostensibly the response of young women with a reactive narcissism issue (related to the boom and false expectations), and a very obvious loss of compassion and concern, for themselves, others, and the future. The malaise in men that Peterson is responding to is more complex, and has been building slowly for as long as the west has made an effort to screen out 'male aggression' via parenting and within society.



Anyway, I hope that Peterson moves to either modify his approach to match what he claims his overall aim is, or, modifies his stated interest to match his apparent approach. By not addressing more of the more complete picture, or orienting his followers positively towards this picture, he doesn't seem to mind the devil having to take the hindmost. A most modern approach, in some ways

silverharp wrote: »

her twitter is comical at this stage, lots of people are using cathy speak in the replies

I haven't actually seen Newman or C4 comment sensibly on the fallout from the interview with Peterson. For that matter I haven't seen any rational defence of Newman from third parties either. There seems to be an effort to completely draw a line under the interview itself. Peterson has offered to have a second interview with Newman - no reply.

Instead C4, the Guardian and other media has tried to portray Newman as a damsel in distress, receiving credible death threats from vile, misogynistic supporters of Peterson. The only problems being there's no evidence of any such threats (she is getting laughed at and mocked), and its a nasty attempt to smear Peterson.

It is an example of 'fake news' as practised by outlets like C4 and the Guardian.