Jordan Peterson - The "Intellectual" We Deserve

Helio said:

Wait until we get some Rule 34.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Oh. I'm sure that already exists.

UnpopularBlargh said:

Oh. I'm sure that already exists.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I hope someone tweets them to him

Lost it at "don't listen to his reasoning". So much cringe.

"You know you can say, 'Well isn't it unfortunate that chaos is represented by the feminine' — well, it might be unfortunate, but it doesn't matter because that is how it's represented. It's been represented like that forever. And there are reasons for it. You can't change it. It's not possible. This is underneath everything. If you change those basic categories, people wouldn't be human anymore. They'd be something else. They'd be transhuman or something. We wouldn't be able to talk to these new creatures."

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Mr. Peterson's home is a carefully curated house of horror. He has filled it with a sprawl of art that covers the walls from floor to ceiling. Most of it is communist propaganda from the Soviet Union (execution scenes, soldiers looking noble) — a constant reminder, he says, of atrocities and oppression. He wants to feel their imprisonment, though he lives here on a quiet residential street in Toronto and is quite free.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The left, he believes, refuses to admit that men might be in charge because they are better at it. "The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don't want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence," he said.

Mr. Peterson illustrates his arguments with copious references to ancient myths — bringing up stories of witches, biblical allegories and ancient traditions. I ask why these old stories should guide us today.


"It makes sense that a witch lives in a swamp. Yeah," he says. "Why?"

It's a hard one.

"Right. That's right. You don't know. It's because those things hang together at a very deep level. Right. Yeah. And it makes sense that an old king lives in a desiccated tower."

But witches don't exist, and they don't live in swamps, I say.

"Yeah, they do. They do exist. They just don't exist the way you think they exist. They certainly exist. You may say well dragons don't exist. It's, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. It's a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious. You say, 'Well, there's no such thing as witches.' Yeah, I know what you mean, but that isn't what you think when you go see a movie about them. You can't help but fall into these categories. There's no escape from them."

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Oh and wait for his hot take on the incels

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

"He was angry at God because women were rejecting him," Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. "The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That's actually why monogamy emerges."

Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn't make either gender happy in the end.


"Half the men fail," he says, meaning that they don't procreate. "And no one cares about the men who fail."

I laugh, because it is absurd.

"You're laughing about them," he says, giving me a disappointed look. "That's because you're female."

But aside from interventions that would redistribute sex, Mr. Peterson is staunchly against what he calls "equality of outcomes," or efforts to equalize society. He usually calls them pathological or evil.

He agrees that this is inconsistent. But preventing hordes of single men from violence, he believes, is necessary for the stability of society. Enforced monogamy helps neutralize that.

In situations where there is too much mate choice, "a small percentage of the guys have hyper-access to women, and so they don't form relationships with women," he said. "And the women hate that."

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Women must marry the incels to stop the incel violence!

Mr. Nestor says he recently wrote a paper on how testosterone levels and sperm count are dropping. He argues sociocultural transformations are probably making men less virile, and Mr. Peterson nods along.


At one point in the discussion, Mr. Peterson, who had been relatively quiet, becomes heated on the topic of women who find marriage oppressive.

"So I don't know who these people think marriages are oppressing," he says. "I read Betty Friedan's book because I was very curious about it, and it's so whiny, it's just enough to drive a modern person mad to listen to these suburban housewives from the late '50s ensconced in their comfortable secure lives complaining about the fact that they're bored because they don't have enough opportunity. It's like, Jesus get a hobby. For Christ's sake, you — you — "

Mr. Nestor says he was an engineering student at the University of California, Berkeley, but decided to transfer after feeling overcome by the liberal dogma when he took theater classes for his humanities requirement.

"They were teaching in classrooms things like Martin Luther King Jr. would have supported violent rebellion, and marriage is an institution that is designed to control the sexuality of women," he says.

Mr. Peterson has a verbal tic where he makes a sound like m-hmm, a guttural forceful noise to signify agreement barked in two distinct beats; his mouth stays closed.

"I've talked to a few young women, and they have told me they do wish that they could be housewives," Mr. Nestor says. "But what they've said to me is that they feel as though if they were to pursue that, other people would look down on them."


"I've had lots of women tell me that," Mr. Peterson says. "Women will never admit that publicly." Women are likely to prioritize their children over their work, he says, especially "conscientious and agreeable women."

When Mr. Peterson talks about good women — the sort a man would want to marry — he often uses these words: conscientious and agreeable.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

When Mr. Peterson comes down the line shaking hands, the crowd cheers in a way that is not normal for a book tour. He is wearing a new three-piece suit, shiny and brown with wide lapels with a decorative silver flourish.

It is evocative of imagery from a hundred years ago. That's the point. His speech too is from another era — stilted, with old-timey phrases, a hypnotic rhythm. It's a vocal tactic he came to only recently. Videos from a few years ago have him speaking and dressing in a more modern way.

I ask him about the retro clothes and phrases. He calls it his prairie populism.

"That's what happens when you rescue your father from the belly of the whale," he says. "You rediscover your tradition."

Inside among the crowd was Sue Bone, 66, a retired flight attendant from Halifax.

Ms. Bone loved her flight attendant job until she began to find it dehumanizing and corporate. Her friend told her the airlines were now run by "angry gay queens," she says. She found Mr. Peterson. She feels he understands the danger of these strange new social forces.

"He's waking us up in the West," she says.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Lion Arar, 22, a theater student in Montreal, says Mr. Peterson's discussion of gender brought him back to religion.

"It made sense in a primordial way when he breaks down Adam and Eve, the snake and chaos," Mr. Arar says. "Eve made Adam self-conscious. Women make men self-conscious because they're the ultimate judge. I was like, 'Wow this is really true.'"

The changes in his life include starting to clean his room. "My mom's been nagging me for years, but I've never done it until Dr. Peterson," he says.

"You organize one shelf, you do that, just incremental challenges," he says. "That makes you realize, 'O.K., this is how I grow up.'"

Andrew McVicar, 45, a waiter, says it was good to hear someone finally talk about how hierarchies were okay. He says current politics are pushing for everyone to be the same, promoting women and minorities into unearned positions.

"It's forced diversity, it's saying you must have X percent of A-B-C," he says. "How about, look at yourself?"

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

"Campus censorship has been a problem when I was at university too," he says at Hemingway's one recent afternoon.

I ask for an example.

"One law professor said something like, 'You young ladies should get married and start families,' and he got fired," Mr. Shepherd says. "The message was just you'll have a happier life if you get married instead of focusing on your career."

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

"It made sense in a primordial way when he breaks down Adam and Eve, the snake and chaos," Mr. Arar says. "Eve made Adam self-conscious. Women make men self-conscious because they're the ultimate judge. I was like, 'Wow this is really true.'"

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Hahaha. Send help.

Two new Peterson videos:

This passage from the NYT article is fucking blowing my mind. This is my favorite part of all this weird Petersonism. We must all celebrate the glories of Western civilization, like science and the Enlightenment, which is why we all need to consider society and gender through this weird forest mysticism of Jungian archetypes I made up.

iksenpets said:

This passage from the NYT article is fucking blowing my mind. This is my favorite part of all this weird Petersonism. We must all celebrate the glories of Western civilization, like science and the Enlightenment, which is why we all need to consider society and gender through this weird forest mysticism of Jungian archetypes I made up.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This reads like a parody of "what a stupid person thinks a smart person sounds like."

Thanks for the clarification

we now have a Peterson OT here and it's this thread completely dunking on him from post 1

all as it should be.

Theologian said:

Two new Peterson videos:

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Who does Peterson think is responsible for the abolitionist movement? I mean, sure that movement wasn't about "political correctness", but the concept that people regardless of race should be treated fairly and one race shouldn't enslave another and that sort of thing seems to be what PC is derived from.

The show must go on!!!!

I don't get these incels at all, they want to blame all of their troubles on everything and everyone around them. If girls don't like you try a little harder, look at yourself and try to think from the women's perspective. I get that's the root of their problems; they can't see themselves through a different lens, but if they think the solution is forced marriage they are so stupid and deserve to be celebate.

After going down the rabbit hole with Youtube comments, what struck me the most about some of his fans is they seem more well-read than Peterson himself. It's as if they project their own knowledge and reasoning onto him. At least the one's who aren't insisting you're taking his words out of context, or reinterpreting his lectures to mean something that's not falsifiable. My favorite is "When he talks about how postmodernism is literally Marxist philosophy in disguise, he doesn't really mean that postmodernism is literally Marxism in disguise! He's just worried about how the two philosophies end up with the same result!"

I don't know much about philosophy, but I know enough to recognize a man on my level of understanding trying to mash complicated concepts into a form that molds to his narrow worldview.

Here's the video - ignore the channel name; it's actually an extremely non-inflammatory, even-tempered look at JBP.

BuddyDharma said:

Here's the video - ignore the channel name; it's actually an extremely non-inflammatory, even-tempered look at JBP.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I knew it was Cuck Philosophy. When I came across his channel, I was hesitant, too, but I looked at his other videos and he seems alright.

The most surprising thing from NYT's liberal hit piece against Jordan Muad'dib is that he has a room full of Soviet shit.

Peterson goes on rants about Communists and the Left in general. He even threatened to punch Marxists (if he can't even verbally admonish a toddler that was messing with his own kid despite fantasizing about kicking said toddler, I doubt he has the guts to resort to any kind of physical violence). For the alt-right, he only wags a finger at them. He'll tell them that they have no right to claim the accomplishments of past whites and will say that they are engaging in identity politics themselves (which is absolutely true), but he says his ire for the Left. This is a man who entertains the Jewish Question, a white supremacist notion, with laughs, exasperated or not, but when asked if he's worried about the alt-right using him, he gets angry. Peterson said that Trudeau making half of his cabinet women is a murderous equity doctrine, but for the actual murderous alt-right, barely anything. Peterson is a man chasing after ghosts.



The question Peterson was asked was laden with coded language (Western civilization, "darkened" souls) and Peterson, instead of getting to the heart of it because he either won't or can't, calls for rugged individualism and thinks that is a panacea for all of society's ills. The alt-right had just murdered someone and assaulted many others at Charlottesville, but Peterson stills frames it as an us vs. them dichotomy saying that even if the questioner won the game, he won the left's game and paint's the left in a negative light. For as much as Peterson says that individual is the ideal, does he push for the nazis to see their victims as individuals? No. In fact, Peterson answered the Jewish Question by saying that Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQs which would make them more likely to be leftists, but even so, you shouldn't kill them because you don't want to waste their high IQs. It's a meandering thought when it should be a brick wall of "fucking no, you shouldn't commit genocide you fucking nazi!"

I'm not saying Peterson is a nazi/alt-right. I think he's their useful idiot and he gives them more leeway than he does the left. He doesn't give as much attention to the alt-right as he does to the left.

This Reddit post on his "Enforced Monogamy" BS was too good not to share https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal..._peterson_custodian_of_the_patriarchy/dz8m5gt

I find it fascinating that he and his cult will latch onto nonsensical buzzwords like "postmodern marxism", all while the core philosophy of Jordan Peterson is quite literally Sexual Marxism.

Think about it.

Jordan Peterson's views on feminism and sexual liberation boil down to the idea that the free market of sex has failed and the bourgeoisie of men, the Sexual Capitalists, have monopolized the means of reproduction.

Jordan Peterson is a voice to the sexual proletariat, the "half of men who fail to reproduce", and he says: The Sexual Capitalists, the bourgeoisie Chads, they have stolen from the hard working proletariat men for too long! We must rise up and seize the means of reproduction!

It's hilarious because the Petersonian sex worldview is quite literally Marxist. It's a class struggle between the Chads and the Incels, and it treats women as nothing more than a commodity.

I wish I was talented enough to get a bunch of cuckbois to hate "Marxism" while teaching them to worship at the altar of Marx's "grand theory of society regarding the tension between the haves and the have nots"

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Kirblar said:

This Reddit post on his "Enforced Monogamy" BS was too good not to share https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal..._peterson_custodian_of_the_patriarchy/dz8m5gt

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That was very good.

Damn, I had taken it as a point of pride to have posted a quote so inane it got a thread locked.

I wish i wasn't lazy to post the pictures of Peterson's house on the other thread, it looks crazy and could be made a fun haunted house tour




Found, the last one may or may not be real

Kirblar said:

This Reddit post on his "Enforced Monogamy" BS was too good not to share https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal..._peterson_custodian_of_the_patriarchy/dz8m5gt

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This is brilliant

Kirblar said:

This Reddit post on his "Enforced Monogamy" BS was too good not to share https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal..._peterson_custodian_of_the_patriarchy/dz8m5gt

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

When your reading of Marx is marginally less bonkers than Peterson's.

Jordan Peterson is a Sexual-Marxist!

From now on every time I refer to him I'm going to address him as "Sexual-Marxist Jordan Peterson".

BuddyDharma said:

Here's the video - ignore the channel name; it's actually an extremely non-inflammatory, even-tempered look at JBP.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Listening to this now.

13:50 - "I genuinely suggest you watch my video on Sonic Adventure 2"

...this just got a lot more interesting.

Pantaghana said:

Listening to this now.

13:50 - "I genuinely suggest you watch my video on Sonic Adventure 2"

...this just got a lot more interesting.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It's a fun video that helps explain the more abstract and academic principles of deconstructive philosophy in ways that can be found even in simple narratives. It shows how philosophical binaries like good and evil are inherently unstable and should be constantly re-evaluated to maximize their usefulness. Sonic Adventure 2 is a simple story about a bunch of good-intentioned actors (Gerard Robotnick, particularly) committing evil, and subsequently a bunch of evil-intentioned actors turning good after reevaluating the premise of their misdeeds. The narrative begins as a fundamental conflict between diametrically opposed forces but ends through sythesis of both ideologies into a new, better concept of good and evil.

Basically any story where a character changes his convictions in opposition to another character can be viewed as a sort of postmodern deconstruction. It's a fundamental observation on the limitations of structural binaries. Gurren Lagann is another really easy example of this.

In honor of the reopening

Sub Boss said:

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

No one told me our good friend J-Pete was a member of Slipknot.

Also, Lowtax interviewed him for his incredibly popular website. Very shocking stuff. Yep.

Resetta Stone said:

No one told me our good friend J-Pete was a member of Slipknot.

Also, Lowtax interviewed him for his incredibly popular website. Very shocking stuff. Yep.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

lol, Lowtax sees him for what he is.

Edit: Some great lines in that:

When I pressed Peterson for more detail regarding Neptune and Atlantis, he changed the subject. "Look over there, where I am pointing," he demanded. I turned my head to see. "That's the direction I'm pointing," he triumphantly proclaimed.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Free speech debate. Stephen Fry and Jordan debate Michael Eric Dyson and Michelle Goldberg



Really good debate for anyone on either side.

I've listen to a few JP vids. It seems hard to challenge him because it's hard for him to commit to a term. A premise of what is truth or what is religion cannot even be agreed upon and when you can't even agree on the premise of what is being argued, it doesn't become productive all that much.

In the longer conversations I've seen, a lot of time is spent attempting to hash out definitions rather than the subject itself. I do think it's necessary, but this is how I imagine JP is able to essentially fool a lot of people. The shorter appearances allows him to get away with such unexplained concepts. It's like how Sam Seder says. Take a proper read and he gets to cry foul and say you're miscontruing what he is saying. It's like a lose/lose to argue against him.

sph3re said:

Apologies if this video has been posted already.

I'll admit, I've been apprehensive about writing off Jordan Peterson for a while. He's smart, but he is definitely a "pseudo intellectual." To date, I have not seen a video more telling of this "pseudo intellectualism" than this one.

I don't know how one fails at logic so intensely hard like he did here.

Let me break it down for you:

• Dr. Peterson is asked how he feels about people raising a child as a homosexual couple
• He states that children where a mother and father are both present have better mental health than those raised by single mothers
• Dr. Peterson also states (the relevance to the topic I still can't fully grasp) that children like to wrestle and playfight with their fathers and that doing so is beneficial to their mental health
• He ends the video by saying he believes the Nuclear Family is the best option for raising a child

Is he insinuating that gay men are inherently feminine? Is he insinuating that all successful Nuclear Families are those with masculine fathers and feminine mothers? Does he not understand that the reason children raised by single mothers have more mental health issues than those raised by two of parents is due to the number of parents, not the amount of sexes in the house?

I'm blown away at how someone who teaches psychology at that high a level has such a poor grasp of logic.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I think while he was a bit all over the place (probably because he already had too many discussions regarding this subject in particular), ultimately what he's saying is that it's easier for the typical family unit comprised of a mother and a father to raise stable kids with a cohesive understanding of both male and female attributes. He also didn't invalidate gay parents' ability to raise a healthy child maybe even better than the average typical family, just that it requires more work to compensate and fill those roles.

He emphasizes the importance of tackling all these obstacles in a serious and realistic manner during different stages of child growth, and ignoring any of it, pretending that everything will be fine and not taking them into consideration is akin to burying one's head in the sand.

I'm not very familiar with this dude. Just recently I see him pop up all over the place. Stuff I've seen so far is mostly things I already knew, but it seems to me that he cares about reaching deep into the truth more so than anything else.

Should check out more of his stuff and the past 33 pages of this thread.

y2dvd said:

I've listen to a few JP vids. It seems hard to challenge him because it's hard for him to commit to a term. A premise of what is truth or what is religion cannot even be agreed upon and when you can't even agree on the premise of what is being argued, it doesn't become productive all that much.

In the longer conversations I've seen, a lot of time is spent attempting to hash out definitions rather than the subject itself. I do think it's necessary, but this is how I imagine JP is able to essentially fool a lot of people. The shorter appearances allows him to get away with such unexplained concepts. It's like how Sam Seder says. Take a proper read and he gets to cry foul and say you're miscontruing what he is saying. It's like a lose/lose to argue against him.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yeah, between me and my friends "you're actually misinterpreting professor Peterson, you need to watch 11 hours of YouTube videos and read all his books before you can properly contextualize this 2-sentence quote about women never having been discriminated in history" is a meme because of how often we see Peterson supporters use that exact same argument. Every single time. One can never take him at face value apparently. Because he coaches his words with extreme amounts of verbaciousness to make everything a dog whistle instead of a direct statement. It's an extremely disingenuous way to present oneself. But it works with his audience, and gives them ammo to shield him and themselves as well.

entremet said:

Free speech debate. Stephen Fry and Jordan debate Michael Eric Dyson and Michelle Goldberg



Really good debate for anyone on either side.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Sorry but that debate was terrible all around.

Here's a better debate over PC

Stephen Fry allying himself with Jordan Peterson.

I've friggin' seen it all.

Theologian said:

Two new Peterson videos:

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Give us some context for these, for Christ's sake. No one is interested in blindly watching Peterson ramble other than his subreddit cultists.

I will have to admit that I fell for the persona that this man was portraying, and gave his book a try. Somehow, all that biblical reference and needless filler bore me to death. At least I got to return the book! Phew.

Okay I've watched some videos.

Dude knows how to talk, but some of his ideas about truth and reality are very weird and illogical.

Truth is that which guides an action that promotes our survival? wtf is this

Seems to me that he is trying to mix up his Christian side with his rational side, and the two don't mix well and the end result is this rambling.

Edit: Yeah I'll admit that I find his manner of speech and demeanor attractive. Listening to some of his interviews, I went from liking the dude to thinking he meant good while failing to present himself or his ideas properly... to starting to believe he's just plain deceitful trying his best to mask his more illogical and cynical views.

Interesting character.

Thread there. TL;DR:

nynt9 said:

Yeah, between me and my friends "you're actually misinterpreting professor Peterson, you need to watch 11 hours of YouTube videos and read all his books before you can properly contextualize this 2-sentence quote about women never having been discriminated in history" is a meme because of how often we see Peterson supporters use that exact same argument. Every single time. One can never take him at face value apparently. Because he coaches his words with extreme amounts of verbaciousness to make everything a dog whistle instead of a direct statement. It's an extremely disingenuous way to present oneself. But it works with his audience, and gives them ammo to shield him and themselves as well.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I don't think he's verbose to dog whistle, I think he speaks in a vaguely academic vacuous way to avoid actually making any specific points that can be critiqued. This allows morons to read whatever they want into him and think he's a genius for saying essentially nothing.

Cocaloch said:

I don't think he's verbose to dog whistle, I think he speaks in a vaguely academic vacuous way to avoid actually making any specific points that can be critiqued. This allows morons to read whatever they want into him and think he's a genius for saying essentially nothing.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yeah I don't think he's using dog whistles for the most part. I think he's ignorant of them. In the video I posted above, he was asked a question that was full of dog whistles but he didn't acknowledge them. So he'll reuse these words without knowing what the connotations are. He's unwittingly being a pawn for the alt-right, and that's painting him in a positive light.

I can actually see what Peterson is talking about but he's so bad at speaking it's impossible to tell without at least 3 rereadings.

RE: Witches and dragons, he's talking about the cultural concepts of witches and dragons that are ingrained inside our head. Of course if he had a modicum of knowledge about anthropology he'd be able to figure out why "witches live in swamps". And it's likely because the people who older societies labeled witches were local pariahs and outcasts, and where would you be able to live if you were a social outcast? Probably somewhere undesirable where no one will bother you, aka, a swamp. Dragons come to us, likely, from ancient interaction with dinosaur bones. He just... has no idea or is willfully ignorant of how human society functions. Before I thought he was just a charlatan but he's actually deranged in a Trump-esque kind of way. Instead of laboring under the delusion that he's a savvy businessman/politician, like Trump, Peterson fancies himself as a philosopher/sociologist.

entremet said:

Free speech debate. Stephen Fry and Jordan debate Michael Eric Dyson and Michelle Goldberg



Really good debate for anyone on either side.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This is actually a fascinating interview, though not (necessarily) because of anything anyone actually says, but rather how it unfolds.

night814 said:

I don't get these incels at all, they want to blame all of their troubles on everything and everyone around them. If girls don't like you try a little harder, look at yourself and try to think from the women's perspective. I get that's the root of their problems; they can't see themselves through a different lens, but if they think the solution is forced marriage they are so stupid and deserve to be celebate.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The entitlement they're on is well beyond simple self-help. They're convinced of their lesser status, that nothing they can do will change it, and -- this is crucial -- openly scoff at ever considering a woman who isn't beautiful by their warped standards.

This is why they constantly opine about the state intervening, and why almost the only proactive action they discuss taking amounts to various brands of terrorism. They're marking themselves as beyond help in this current life. They don't care about washing their clothes and bathing and learning to be a good conversationalist so they can meet women they might have a happy relationship with.

Hence the movement starting as a backlash to the (also deeply misogynist) PUA movement. A lot of these guys are angry that there isn't an actual cheat code to get an insanely beautiful woman to love and be subservient to them. Once they're in incel circles, that's over and done with.

And for some horrifying reason a bunch of relatively mainstream figures are giving their greivances a serious look. In the wake of a very recent terrorist attack in their name, no less.

This is the fire Peterson plays with when he applies his mealy-mouthed, woman-blaming Jungian mysticism bullshit to the incel problem.

entremet said:

Free speech debate. Stephen Fry and Jordan debate Michael Eric Dyson and Michelle Goldberg



Really good debate for anyone on either side.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This was a really, really, really, bad interview for all parties involved..

Spoo said:

This is actually a fascinating interview, though not (necessarily) because of anything anyone actually says, but rather how it unfolds.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

..for this reason. They were rarely on topic, there was a ton of grandstanding, it was unnecessarily personal and aggressive at times (even moreso towards the end), etc. Just bad all around. Peterson was his usual moral high ground self, Dyson felt like he was talking to himself most of the time, Goldberg seem to get flustered and fumble rebutting every time she was called upon - Stephen Fry was the only one who tried to re-centre the discussion and was most even-handed about things but even he had some reductionist, eye-rolly perspectives (i.e. Liberals did this to themselves).

Wrong thread.

Cocaloch said:

I don't think he's verbose to dog whistle, I think he speaks in a vaguely academic vacuous way to avoid actually making any specific points that can be critiqued. This allows morons to read whatever they want into him and think he's a genius for saying essentially nothing.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yes, he's a well-oiled horoscope.

So after two days, JP finally decides to clarify what he "really" meant by the "forced monogamy" comment, and one of them involves quoting a defense from one of his lobsters on his subreddit (LOL):

https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

enzo_gt said:

This was a really, really, really, bad interview for all parties involved..


..for this reason. They were rarely on topic, there was a ton of grandstanding, it was unnecessarily personal and aggressive at times (even moreso towards the end), etc. Just bad all around. Peterson was his usual moral high ground self, Dyson felt like he was talking to himself most of the time, Goldberg seem to get flustered and fumble rebutting every time she was called upon - Stephen Fry was the only one who tried to re-centre the discussion and was most even-handed about things but even he had some reductionist, eye-rolly perspectives (i.e. Liberals did this to themselves).

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Shit.
I mean, there's worse things I guess, but man. Kinda sucks that that's what he thinks.

My problem with 'liberals did this to themselves' is that often it treats the situation as an isolated thing where only left-leaning individuals have agency, whereas if you really want to argue this sort of thing; then the left's need for being 'politically correct' and dipping into 'identity politics' is largely due to how much a lot of right-wing individuals are terrible about issues of LGBT, gender equality, race etc. If the Left did this to themselves, then the Right sure as hell have as well.

Kurona said:

Shit.
I mean, there's worse things I guess, but man. Kinda sucks that that's what he thinks.

My problem with 'liberals did this to themselves' is that often it treats the situation as an isolated thing where only left-leaning individuals have agency, whereas if you really want to argue this sort of thing; then the left's need for being 'politically correct' and dipping into 'identity politics' is largely due to how much a lot of right-wing individuals are terrible about issues of LGBT, gender equality, race etc. If the Left did this to themselves, then the Right sure as hell have as well.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I agree with this. I'm pretty sick of all reductionist arguments in general, and it feels like even moreso in a post-Trump world we're constantly pining for a sole miracle reason or cause so we can solve everything and not have to think about the grand complexity of all these social issues, and yes, that includes listening to an ideologically diverse set of perspectives too. The way Stephen Fry phrased that kind of disappointed me, but he was way more even-keel and conditional in his statements than the rest, which is something I appreciate.

Oblivion said:

So after two days, JP finally decides to clarify what he "really" meant by the "forced monogamy" comment, and one of them involves quoting a defense from one of his lobsters on his subreddit (LOL):

https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This is so fucking stupid. That study is about polygny; a man having multiple wives. Essentially, men were monopolizing women by taking on a lot of wives, leaving other men to be single. Once monogamy was introduced, men became less violent. The current shit is about women simply not wanting to be with certain men because of different reasons, not because they are being monopolized by a single man. In fact, a woman can be with many different men if they choose to do so now. Monogamy has nothing to do with this current problem. So when he says "enforced monogamy", coming from the other direction (meaning instead of polygyny, we have the system where women can be with whomever they want) it sounds like he wants to force people into pairings. He presented a solution that does absolutely nothing.