Author Topic: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?  (Read 332 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5097
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #45 on: October 18, 2020, 10:03:03 pm »
Well... some of those are arguments and some of it is that self-help stuff he puts out there, but sure.  I think that a public moralist would be a great thing right now, and a Canadian conservative would be a perfect fit to host some kind of consensus-building on whatever moral commonality we have these days.

But he's not it.

People aren't interested in consensus building, largely, which is unfortunate.  I don't think that's what Peterson has been doing or even tried to do either, at least with his political arguments.  He's been often a political activist essentially, based on issues where in his perception the left is going too far in some cases.  So in that sense, you're right.  He's not going to bring anyone together.  Because when you fight for your rights or other people's rights, very often the people who oppose you will hate you and try to destroy you.

We're in an ideological war in an era of divisive identity politics.  The left, as is their job, is pushing for the rights of the oppressed (Women, racial minorities, LGBT etc.) because sometimes the right goes too far.  This is good in general, but there's times when the left goes too far pushing back and where they infringe on the rights of those who have traditionally held power, such as white people, straight and cis people, and men etc. 

Any decent person wants women to have the same employment opportunities as men, the question is in how that's achieved?  Do you install gender quotas in fields where there is a gender disparity?  Some schools and employers have.  So then some feminists argue that if say 80% of engineers or IT professionals are men, that shows some kind of gender discrimination against women, which needs to be rectified with quotas that deny men with more merit of a job and give it to women.  Well if you're going to discriminate against someone, you need more evidence than unequal gender numbers in the workforce.  You need to show it is due to discrimination, and not due to different choices women are making.  Peterson has always argued for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.  But some feminists don't want to hear that, and they get very angry, because it's a threat to their interests, and in their view their rights.  And if you put forward arguments and data that show that not all gender disparities in the workforce are due to discrimination, people will get angry and call you a sexist etc.  And some of these people will try to cancel you and get your speeches shut down etc.  Because it's war.  And when you're Peterson and you get your back up against these kinds of constant attacks and insinuations I guess sometimes you can lose your temper and not be as civil as you should be.

I don't listen to Peterson because he's got the magic answers to everything, I listen because he brings educated opinions often with data that make arguments against opinions and policies most other people are too afraid to question because we're all too politically correct and afraid to be called a sexist/racist/transphobe and lose our jobs and friends for it etc and become the pariah he's become.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7931
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #46 on: October 19, 2020, 09:20:31 am »
People aren't interested in consensus building, largely, which is unfortunate.

Well, the alternative is to grumble forever until the status quo changes, ignore people who have problems with the law, or war I guess.

You are saying that our liberal society can't solve this problem.  Ok.

Quote
  I don't think that's what Peterson has been doing or even tried to do either, at least with his political arguments.  He's been often a political activist essentially, based on issues where in his perception the left is going too far in some cases.  So in that sense, you're right.  He's not going to bring anyone together.  Because when you fight for your rights or other people's rights, very often the people who oppose you will hate you and try to destroy you.

But convincing people who are in the middle is part of consensus building.  If he's preaching to the converted, and that's all he ever intends to do he's even more useless than I suspected.  But I doubt that he's doing that.


Quote
We're in an ideological war in an era of divisive identity politics.  The left, as is their job, is pushing for the rights of the oppressed (Women, racial minorities, LGBT etc.) because sometimes the right goes too far.  This is good in general, but there's times when the left goes too far pushing back and where they infringe on the rights of those who have traditionally held power, such as white people, straight and cis people, and men etc. 

Well thanks for the play-by-play.  Yes, I have been alive for more than 30 years (I picked George Bush Sr.'s calling out 'political correctness' as the start of this) so ... yes I'm aware of the landscape here.  What (I think) Peterson represented, at the start, was the opportunity to revisit our principles and move the discussion forward.

Quote
Any decent person wants ....

And now you are getting into the discussion of the arguments themselves.  That's fine but not as interesting as a way forward IMO.

Quote
  Peterson has always argued for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.  But some feminists don't want to hear that, and they get very angry, because it's a threat to their interests, and in their view their rights.

That's one facet of a very long and unsolvable fog of social issues. 

Quote
I don't listen to Peterson because he's got the magic answers to everything, I listen because he brings educated opinions often with data that make arguments against opinions and policies most other people are too afraid to question because we're all too politically correct and afraid to be called a sexist/racist/transphobe and lose our jobs and friends for it etc and become the pariah he's become.

Ok.  I for one don't like to listen to editorialists with whom I agree, at least not too much.  It's pretty clear that a moral case will always fail in this environment, where there are no principles or central leaders.  You said it yourself: people aren't interested in consensus building.

That is where the moralists should focus their criticism - on an expanding set of people who refuse to listen to others.  Peterson covers some of that, but - again - he's not the guy. 

 

Offline Montgomery

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
  • Location: vancouver Island
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #47 on: October 19, 2020, 12:28:04 pm »


I don't listen to Peterson because he's got the magic answers to everything, I listen because he brings educated opinions often with data that make arguments against opinions and policies most other people are too afraid to question because we're all too politically correct and afraid to be called a sexist/racist/transphobe and lose our jobs and friends for it etc and become the pariah he's become.

As with so many rightists of Jordan's ilk, he restrains himself so he can remain at least politically correct enough when in a debate with Sam Harris for instance. But he always is able to convince me that he wants to go much further if he was able to gain momentum with a change in the political atmosphere.

What is it about the rightist political agenda that can be considered acceptable in the 21st. century? What does Jordan seriously promote that could be acceptable for Canada?

Can you accept that Canada is getting it closer to being right about most issues than any other country in the world? If so then you'll understand that's a big challenge to rightists such as Jordan.

Otherwise, it's been an interesting discussion on Jordan from all who have taken part.
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. ~M.T.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5097
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #48 on: October 19, 2020, 11:40:59 pm »
As with so many rightists of Jordan's ilk, he restrains himself so he can remain at least politically correct enough when in a debate with Sam Harris for instance. But he always is able to convince me that he wants to go much further if he was able to gain momentum with a change in the political atmosphere.

It's interesting to be critical of a guy for things he's never said.

Quote
What is it about the rightist political agenda that can be considered acceptable in the 21st. century? What does Jordan seriously promote that could be acceptable for Canada?

Not allowing the radical left minority to morally bully us into accepting unreasonable proposals just because we'd be unfairly labelled a racist or sexist or homophobe if we disagreed.  That's one example.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline Montgomery

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
  • Location: vancouver Island
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #49 on: October 20, 2020, 12:11:35 pm »
It's interesting to be critical of a guy for things he's never said.

Not allowing the radical left minority to morally bully us into accepting unreasonable proposals just because we'd be unfairly labelled a racist or sexist or homophobe if we disagreed.  That's one example.

Good for you on coming up with something! But that which you imply contains no specifics and to provide those is where the questioning begins.

Can you do that? I think the best choice would be on the 'racist' accusations so let's go there. However, if you disagree then we can go with either of the others.

And fwiw, I do believe that the left can be guilty of doing the same thing and then possibly being unfairly labelled. Can you provide the example in the context in which Jordan has raised it and pursued it? We may have some common ground on this if you can fill the bill, so to speak.
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. ~M.T.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5097
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #50 on: October 20, 2020, 01:39:46 pm »
Can you do that? I think the best choice would be on the 'racist' accusations so let's go there. However, if you disagree then we can go with either of the others.

And fwiw, I do believe that the left can be guilty of doing the same thing and then possibly being unfairly labelled. Can you provide the example in the context in which Jordan has raised it and pursued it? We may have some common ground on this if you can fill the bill, so to speak.

Any decent person wants women to have the same employment opportunities as men, the question is in how that's achieved?  Do you install gender quotas in fields where there is a gender disparity?  Some schools and employers have.  So then some feminists argue that if say 80% of engineers or IT professionals are men, or there is any gender disparity in any field where women are the minority, that shows some kind of gender discrimination against women, which needs to be rectified with quotas that deny men with more merit of a job and give it to women.  Well if you're going to discriminate against someone, you need more evidence than unequal gender numbers in the workforce.  You need to show it is due to discrimination, and not due to different choices women are making.  Which Peterson argues.  Peterson has always argued for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.  But some feminists don't want to hear that, and they get very angry.  Peterson argues some of it may be due to discrimination, or it may also or only involve differences in career choices.

He argued the data shows women more often prefer working with people, and men more often refer working with things (there are always many exceptions of course).  There are more female medical doctors than male, for instance.  And psychologists, social workers, teachers, and nurses etc.  So to look at gender disparities we need to look at multiple variables and not just one variable by crying "sexism" every time.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline Montgomery

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
  • Location: vancouver Island
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #51 on: October 20, 2020, 02:33:29 pm »
Any decent person wants women to have the same employment opportunities as men, the question is in how that's achieved?  Do you install gender quotas in fields where there is a gender disparity?  Some schools and employers have.  So then some feminists argue that if say 80% of engineers or IT professionals are men, or there is any gender disparity in any field where women are the minority, that shows some kind of gender discrimination against women, which needs to be rectified with quotas that deny men with more merit of a job and give it to women.  Well if you're going to discriminate against someone, you need more evidence than unequal gender numbers in the workforce.  You need to show it is due to discrimination, and not due to different choices women are making.  Which Peterson argues.  Peterson has always argued for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.  But some feminists don't want to hear that, and they get very angry.  Peterson argues some of it may be due to discrimination, or it may also or only involve differences in career choices.

He argued the data shows women more often prefer working with people, and men more often refer working with things (there are always many exceptions of course).  There are more female medical doctors than male, for instance.  And psychologists, social workers, teachers, and nurses etc.  So to look at gender disparities we need to look at multiple variables and not just one variable by crying "sexism" every time.

I think you've very ably restated Jordan's case for him and I have to commend you for that!

But wait!

Quote
Any decent person wants women to have the same employment opportunities as men,..............

First of all, is that really true? And secondly, is that the real point of contention here?

So first, is it true that employers correct the inequity in pay for equal work done?  No, they do not in many cases if not most.

And second, the 'employment opportunity' to which you speak isn't the property of the left to correct. So assuming that it actually does exist, it becomes the property of employers to correct.

Social responsibility is the property of the left and is so by definition. "Socialism".  A socially responsible person won't, or shouldn't, make accusations based on preferences being different between men and women.  The extent to which it exists is a given in my opinion and I would criticize any person claiming social responsibility if they don't take that into consideration.

If an employer chooses a man for the job over a woman then in some cases his choice will be justified. For the sake of the conversation I'll refer to a ditchdigger. First, the woman doesn't want the job and secondly she isn't physically capable of doing the job. And so discrimination isn't a  valid issue to hold against an employer.

But let's now take the example of an employer consistently choosing men over women for  engineering jobs.  That can be validly called discrimination unless the employer can make a case for it not being so.

In either case, it's not the left making the decisions, it's the rightist.  The leftist, or at least the true leftist will do the socially responsible thing and not discriminate. After all, it's the leftist that makes an issue over discrimination.

Unfortunately, your explanation still lacks the specific case upon which Jordan is motivated to object to the claim of discrimination.

I hope you'll see that I still don't totally disagree with what you've stated on Jordan's behalf, I've just questioned whether or not his talking point is valid.

And now to the point, or at least the point as I see it. Jordan is trying to justify unequal pay for equal work and he fails to lay the responsibility for correcting that wrong on the employer. Or, as you also suggest, not laying the blame squarely on the employer who is guilty of discrimination. Supposing that does happen?

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. ~M.T.

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7931
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #52 on: October 20, 2020, 02:36:00 pm »
Any decent person wants women to have the same employment opportunities as men, the question is in how that's achieved?  Do you install gender quotas in fields where there is a gender disparity?  Some schools and employers have.  So then some feminists argue that if say 80% of engineers or IT professionals are men, or there is any gender disparity in any field where women are the minority, that shows some kind of gender discrimination against women, which needs to be rectified with quotas that deny men with more merit of a job and give it to women.

Is this actually a widespread belief ?  It seems like our open marketplace of ideas is actually highlighting the phenomenon and maybe doing something about it with messaging.  Who is doing this and how is it going really ?

Quote
  Well if you're going to discriminate against someone, you need more evidence than unequal gender numbers in the workforce.  You need to show it is due to discrimination, and not due to different choices women are making.  Which Peterson argues.  Peterson has always argued for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.  But some feminists don't want to hear that, and they get very angry.  Peterson argues some of it may be due to discrimination, or it may also or only involve differences in career choices.

That's interesting.  But this is also not a field where he can garner an audience of people who don't already follow him.

Quote
He argued the data shows women more often prefer working with people, and men more often refer working with things (there are always many exceptions of course).  There are more female medical doctors than male, for instance.  And psychologists, social workers, teachers, and nurses etc.  So to look at gender disparities we need to look at multiple variables and not just one variable by crying "sexism" every time.

Wow.  Another completely specious argument from Peterson.  "Women prefer working with people"... answers it all... wow.

Anyway, he's back now... supposedly better again...

Offline Montgomery

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
  • Location: vancouver Island
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #53 on: October 20, 2020, 02:45:59 pm »


Wow.  Another completely specious argument from Peterson.  "Women prefer working with people"... answers it all... wow.

Anyway, he's back now... supposedly better again...

I too suspected that to be a specious point but I didn't jump on it because I see more important issues on which to jump on Jordan. I truly believe Jordan's real issue is in defending unequal pay for women for equal work. If he said so then that would make him honest. He could at least state some justifications for employers in some instances. For example, if a woman persists in demanding equal pay for packing 100 pound sacks of potatoes around then she will have to be content with less pay.
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. ~M.T.

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7931
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #54 on: October 20, 2020, 02:52:21 pm »
jump on Jordan.

Jump on Jordan would be a great talk show.  WKRP in Cincinatti's Gordon Jump (who played Mr. Carlson) could sit in a swivel chair, on a 1970s TVO set and postulate on Jordan.

Quote
I truly believe Jordan's real issue is in defending unequal pay for women for equal work. If he said so then that would make him honest. He could at least state some justifications for employers in some instances. For example, if a woman persists in demanding equal pay for packing 100 pound sacks of potatoes around then she will have to be content with less pay.

Yeah, except... they hire weaker men to work beside stronger men too.  What does it matter to legislate such things really ?  Women make less money anyway and there's no way to balance that, assuming the maternity part is not the reason.

I would rather educate people through positive shaming, and eliminate secrecy and superstition in pricing and wages, then have the government top off people. 

Could Peterson even step into a conversation where math is involved though ?

Offline Montgomery

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
  • Location: vancouver Island
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #55 on: October 20, 2020, 03:02:49 pm »
Jump on Jordan would be a great talk show.  WKRP in Cincinatti's Gordon Jump (who played Mr. Carlson) could sit in a swivel chair, on a 1970s TVO set and postulate on Jordan.

Yeah, except... they hire weaker men to work beside stronger men too.  What does it matter to legislate such things really ?  Women make less money anyway and there's no way to balance that, assuming the maternity part is not the reason.

I would rather educate people through positive shaming, and eliminate secrecy and superstition in pricing and wages, then have the government top off people. 

Could Peterson even step into a conversation where math is involved though ?

To be completely honest, I would hire a man instead of a woman if I suspected that maternity leave would be a consideration. I've been a small business owner and my business wouldn't have survived that.

But there's an answer for that issue too. Give men maternity leave benefits. Or run a business that doesn't include maternity leave.
Capitalism allows for that. No union and no minimum wage scale.

I'm not a capitalist, I'm a socially responsible capitalist.
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. ~M.T.

Offline the_squid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3103
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #56 on: October 20, 2020, 04:25:05 pm »

Wow.  Another completely specious argument from Peterson.  "Women prefer working with people"... answers it all... wow.

You donít think career preferences are different between women and men?

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5097
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #57 on: October 20, 2020, 05:12:27 pm »
I hope you'll see that I still don't totally disagree with what you've stated on Jordan's behalf, I've just questioned whether or not his talking point is valid.

And now to the point, or at least the point as I see it. Jordan is trying to justify unequal pay for equal work and he fails to lay the responsibility for correcting that wrong on the employer. Or, as you also suggest, not laying the blame squarely on the employer who is guilty of discrimination. Supposing that does happen?

The problem is Jordan has never made such an argument.  He's said that sometimes people including women are discriminated against and that's wrong.  His problem is with people who whenever they see a gender discrepancy in favour of men it is automatically assumed to be caused by discrimination.  And sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.  And sometimes it is and also involves other factors.

To say the gender wage gap never involves discrimination is wrong, and to do it's completely due to discrimination is wrong.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5097
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #58 on: October 20, 2020, 05:21:37 pm »
Wow.  Another completely specious argument from Peterson.  "Women prefer working with people"... answers it all... wow.

Anyway, he's back now... supposedly better again...

No it doesn't explain everything, but it might explain why more men go into engineering and more women go into medicine etc.

Of course, more women graduate from university, but few say men are being discriminated against in this regard.  Personal preference is a variable that matters.

So is having babies and spending less time in the workplace thus, or being more agreeable in contract negotiations.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline Montgomery

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
  • Location: vancouver Island
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #59 on: October 20, 2020, 05:23:32 pm »
The problem is Jordan has never made such an argument.  He's said that sometimes people including women are discriminated against and that's wrong.  His problem is with people who whenever they see a gender discrepancy in favour of men it is automatically assumed to be caused by discrimination.  And sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.  And sometimes it is and also involves other factors.

No, Jordan wouldn't want to call it that. So in reality Jordan isn't making any point worth defending.

To say the gender wage gap never involves discrimination is wrong, and to (say)do it's completely due to discrimination is wrong.
[/quote]

That's not really saying very much. I think that Jordan wants to say a lot more, and will do so if he gets some wind behind him. I'm not at all impressed with his schtick and you haven't provided anything to change my mind. He's likely in it for the money and not much else.

There's really nothing of any importance in the conservative or Conservative agenda that they can go forward with anymore. Certainly not healthcare reform but if you have something to propose I'm always interested in hearing it.
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. ~M.T.