Canadian Political Events

Beyond Politics => General Discussion => Topic started by: Montgomery on October 08, 2020, 01:37:31 pm

Title: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 08, 2020, 01:37:31 pm
Is he still the darling of the right or is he now just a hasbeen fool.

Jordan could never get past his apparent Christian belief in a god and not being a Christian. Or vice versa, depending on how he tried to explain the issue away?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 08, 2020, 02:06:56 pm
Search it up... lots of hits for him when you search...
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 08, 2020, 02:37:37 pm
Search it up... lots of hits for him when you search...

I'm probably as up to date on Jordan as anyone here but searching doesn't answer the question for me. There are lots of pros and cons on him. My best reference on him would be on the way Sam Harris has exposed his problem on his belief/disbelief in a god and christianity.

Sam credits him with high intelligence  and I have to agree on that. The problem is, people of high intelligence can be very wrong on some issues due to political leaning and much more importantly, childhood indoctrination that is so very pwerful.

That's the reason why a brin surgeon, for instance, can be a Christian believer. Much the same as a duckling can believe that the coyote is it's mother if it's imprinted on the coyote.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 08, 2020, 04:41:14 pm
I don't believe people are right or wrong, but different opinions they have are.  So like you say, I agree with him on some things and disagree on others.

He's been very ill recently, so he's been out of the spotlight for awhile.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 08, 2020, 07:11:12 pm
I'm probably as up to date on Jordan as anyone here but searching doesn't answer the question for me. There are lots of pros and cons on him. My best reference on him would be on the way Sam Harris has exposed his problem on his belief/disbelief in a god and christianity.

I listened to that, I think.  Harris (and most intellectuals) tower over him and are kind enough to let him off the hook.  I think because he brings a lot of exposure to whatever channel he is in.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 08, 2020, 07:12:20 pm
The big problem with Peterson is he has to moralize on everything.  He quotes Nietzsche and adds "that's good" to stuff he agrees with.  Gee, thanks Jordan...
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 08, 2020, 11:46:36 pm
The big problem with Peterson is he has to moralize on everything.  He quotes Nietzsche and adds "that's good" to stuff he agrees with.  Gee, thanks Jordan...

Nietzsche literally moralized everything.  His books were called "On the Genealogy of Morality" and "Beyond Good and Evil".

But i see what you're saying.  I think to be an academic, you can't be an activist.  You need to look at things objectively, or else it becomes much easier to run into confirmation bias, and then your research is just worthless lies.  From an academic sense, "Hitler did X and that's bad" isn't nearly as important as "Hitler did X because of Y and Z".

Peterson's perspectives on psychology are 1000x more interesting than his political views.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 09, 2020, 08:13:52 am
Nietzsche literally moralized everything.  His books were called "On the Genealogy of Morality" and "Beyond Good and Evil".

Dissecting morality isn't moralizing ?  What are you talking about ?  It's called "BEYOND" Good and Evil, right ?

Quote
But i see what you're saying.  I think to be an academic, you can't be an activist.  You need to look at things objectively, or else it becomes much easier to run into confirmation bias, and then your research is just worthless lies.  From an academic sense, "Hitler did X and that's bad" isn't nearly as important as "Hitler did X because of Y and Z".

Well, I didn't think of it that way but what you wrote makes sense.  I do think academics can be free to moralize, but their primary goal is to assess and provide a landscape for thought and discussion.

Quote
Peterson's perspectives on psychology are 1000x more interesting than his political views.

I actually think there's lots of room right now for a moralist of his ilk.  But he isn't the guy.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 09, 2020, 11:19:47 am
Nietzsche literally moralized everything.  His books were called "On the Genealogy of Morality" and "Beyond Good and Evil".

But i see what you're saying.  I think to be an academic, you can't be an activist.  You need to look at things objectively, or else it becomes much easier to run into confirmation bias, and then your research is just worthless lies.  From an academic sense, "Hitler did X and that's bad" isn't nearly as important as "Hitler did X because of Y and Z".

Peterson's perspectives on psychology are 1000x more interesting than his political views.

Yes, but consider that Jordan's reputation rests largely on his inability to say what he means on being a Christian believer or not. For a highly intelligent individual, that's completely unacceptable.

Harris had the stake ready to drive into his devious heart but must have seen good reasons to allow him to survive. Perhaps Harris was thinking of his value as a 'moralist', as is being hinted at by MH.

I agree with MH in that if we're to have a moralist then the person who takes on the job will have to start from a less flawed position than Jordan's. He can never doubletalk his way out of his Christian/atheist positions.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 15, 2020, 01:04:00 am
Dissecting morality isn't moralizing ?  What are you talking about ?  It's called "BEYOND" Good and Evil, right ?
Well, "beyond" meaning the world isn't black and white, God vs Satan.  He was a philosopher, their job is often to moralize.

Quote
Well, I didn't think of it that way but what you wrote makes sense.  I do think academics can be free to moralize, but their primary goal is to assess and provide a landscape for thought and discussion.
Is moralizing different than activism?  I don't know.  Some fields you need to moralize, like philosophy, or theology.  It's hard to be a good ie: historian for example when you have a activist agenda and start looking for certain things and ignoring others.  The same with science.  Copper is better at conducting electricity than iron because it is, not because a researcher wants it to be.

Sometimes moralizing is unavoidable, we're human, so you can just try to be as objective as possible.  I took a course on the Israel-Palestine conflict once.  Obviously the subject can be controversial and heated.  The prof was great, she always reminded us to "put our scholar caps on" and look at the issue as academics. It removes your emotional bias and personal moralizing/ideology from the issue.  I'll never forget that.  We all see things from different perspectives based on our life experiences and identity etc.  If you can only look at reality through your own lens you'll often miss a lot.

Quote
I actually think there's lots of room right now for a moralist of his ilk.  But he isn't the guy.

I think he's just a guy among many.  We don't need a saviour, we just need civil discourse.  People like him are important because they express intelligent arguments that are counter to the politically correct moral "consensus".  You need brave people like that, even if they're sometimes wrong.  Ideas that are accepted but never challenged can be dangerous.  History is filled with examples.

Socrates was executed for "corrupting the youth".  Jesus was nailed to a cross.  Who are we crucifying today?  What are our holy beliefs that only heretics question?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 15, 2020, 09:15:21 am
Well, "beyond" meaning the world isn't black and white, God vs Satan.  He was a philosopher, their job is often to moralize.

Right, but he is known chiefly as the person who killed 'God' and morality by dissecting it and breaking it down as a human need.

Quote
Is moralizing different than activism?  I don't know.  Some fields you need to moralize, like philosophy, or theology.  It's hard to be a good ie: historian for example when you have a activist agenda and start looking for certain things and ignoring others.  The same with science.  Copper is better at conducting electricity than iron because it is, not because a researcher wants it to be.

'Activism' is different, but I see what you are saying.  It has come to mean fighting for identity politics and the onboard morality it contains.  I think that the primary goal of an academic is/should be knowledge.

Quote
Sometimes moralizing is unavoidable, we're human, so you can just try to be as objective as possible.  I took a course on the Israel-Palestine conflict once.  Obviously the subject can be controversial and heated.  The prof was great, she always reminded us to "put our scholar caps on" and look at the issue as academics. It removes your emotional bias and personal moralizing/ideology from the issue.  I'll never forget that.  We all see things from different perspectives based on our life experiences and identity etc.  If you can only look at reality through your own lens you'll often miss a lot.

Yes, and politics is difficult between it sits between "pure" knowledge and emotions.  But if it drifts one way or the other then a correction happens.

Quote
I think he's just a guy among many.  We don't need a saviour, we just need civil discourse.  People like him are important because they express intelligent arguments that are counter to the politically correct moral "consensus".  You need brave people like that, even if they're sometimes wrong.  Ideas that are accepted but never challenged can be dangerous.  History is filled with examples.

Socrates was executed for "corrupting the youth".  Jesus was nailed to a cross.  Who are we crucifying today?  What are our holy beliefs that only heretics question?

The thing is, he had a foothold in being a contrarian in the service of "civil discourse" and he blew it.  All he would have had to do is be a little more careful with his language.  Did he deserve to be demonized ?  I would say not, but he was the one who blew it.  You can blame the mob, but I don't blame a dog who bites me I blame the master, the leash maker, my wife, you, Waldo... anybody else... but the dog and myself...
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on October 15, 2020, 11:30:46 am
Quote
Did he deserve to be demonized ?  I would say not, but he was the one who blew it.

This is a contradictory statement.  You’re trying to have your ‘woke’ and eat it too.  He didn’t deserve it, but it was his fault.   

For all the faults I find with the guy, he’s all about civil discourse.  The ‘woke’ activists are the a-holes who can’t handle any disagreement with the positions that they hold sacred.  Their allies, like yourself, make excuses for them, even when they’re clearly in the wrong. 
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 15, 2020, 11:40:30 am
This is a contradictory statement.  You’re trying to have your ‘woke’ and eat it too.  He didn’t deserve it, but it was his fault.   

Ok.  If he was a minimally competent academic, he wouldn't be here.

Quote
For all the faults I find with the guy, he’s all about civil discourse.  The ‘woke’ activists are the a-holes who can’t handle any disagreement with the positions that they hold sacred.  Their allies, like yourself, make excuses for them, even when they’re clearly in the wrong.

I disagree.  He wants to be civil, but he misgenders people ... makes unconsidered statements.... he isn't being civil, he is denying people their rights, associating with extremists and overstating his case.  Nice that he wants to be 'civil' but he should lead by example.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on October 15, 2020, 11:46:06 am
Ok.  If he was a minimally competent academic, he wouldn't be here.

I disagree.  He wants to be civil, but he misgenders people ... makes unconsidered statements.... he isn't being civil, he is denying people their rights, associating with extremists and overstating his case.  Nice that he wants to be 'civil' but he should lead by example.

“Misgendering”  is the discussion.  Why should people have to obey to use a bunch of made-up words?

What extremists does he associate with?  Be specific.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 15, 2020, 11:54:53 am
“Misgendering”  is the discussion.  Why should people have to obey to use a bunch of made-up words?

I think that people have to agree to a set of rules in order to engage in the discussion.  Jordan misgenders people who are in the discussion, which is offensive to the people who are in the discussion.  He is looking for the right to use whatever pronouns he wants, but he should be respectful in the discussion itself.

Otherwise, I guess it would be ok for other people in the discussion to call him fascist, idiot or whatever they like.  (It's not)

Quote
What extremists does he associate with?  Be specific.

The Rebel is a far-right publication that promotes objectionable views.  He jumped into bed with them early on, because they promised to raise money for him.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 15, 2020, 11:55:33 am
Like I say, there is room and even a need for someone like him... early on I had hoped he would be the guy.  But he's not.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on October 15, 2020, 12:09:16 pm
I think that people have to agree to a set of rules in order to engage in the discussion.  Jordan misgenders people who are in the discussion, which is offensive to the people who are in the discussion.  He is looking for the right to use whatever pronouns he wants, but he should be respectful in the discussion itself.

Otherwise, I guess it would be ok for other people in the discussion to call him fascist, idiot or whatever they like.  (It's not)

If anyone thinks that it is a societal norm to use the term ‘zhe’ or another made up term, it’s not.  Hence the discussion about it. 

Quote
The Rebel is a far-right publication that promotes objectionable views.  He jumped into bed with them early on, because they promised to raise money for him.

You’ve gone from ‘extremist’ to ‘objectionable’.  Do you think those two terms are synonymous?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: JuniperRose on October 15, 2020, 12:47:41 pm
If anyone thinks that it is a societal norm to use the term ‘zhe’ or another made up term, it’s not.  Hence the discussion about it. 


Language changes all the time, so if a word became commonly used it wouldn't be a 'made-up term' - I suppose the people who're interested in having a third pronoun to indicate non-gender are hoping for that outcome.

I don't mind calling people what they prefer, so if I met someone that wanted me to refer to them as "zhe', I would try to accommodate that even if I thought it was a bit weird or something.  Also, does spoken 'zhe' sound much like spoken 'she'?

Of course, you might ask me if I'd refer to someone as a pumpkin, if zhe asked me to.  And yes, for the time I was with them, I probably would - unless it was my job to talk them out of referring to themselves as a pumpkin, or if I was on an internet forum in which disagreement was the point of the discussion.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 15, 2020, 12:58:34 pm
If anyone thinks that it is a societal norm to use the term ‘zhe’ or another made up term, it’s not.  Hence the discussion about it. 

You have stepped over my point to make your own.  He misgendered people personally while talking to them.  I'm not saying he refused to say 'zhe'.
 He called someone by a word they didn't want to be called by.  That is another reason he's out of consideration for being in this discussion, for many.

Quote
You’ve gone from ‘extremist’ to ‘objectionable’.  Do you think those two terms are synonymous?

Extremists are a subset of the set of objectionable people.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 15, 2020, 12:59:20 pm
I think that people have to agree to a set of rules in order to engage in the discussion.  Jordan misgenders people who are in the discussion, which is offensive to the people who are in the discussion.  He is looking for the right to use whatever pronouns he wants, but he should be respectful in the discussion itself.

Otherwise, I guess it would be ok for other people in the discussion to call him fascist, idiot or whatever they like.  (It's not)

The Rebel is a far-right publication that promotes objectionable views.  He jumped into bed with them early on, because they promised to raise money for him.

There are many problems with Jordan's behaviour as a debater. Among them are his tendency to raise his voice in an attempt to belittle his opponents. But his big problem is the one he's attempting to build his reputation upon. He's trying to be the atheist and the believer at the same time and then he tries to invent some highly intelligent nuanced explanation for how that is possible. It just isn't of course but his fans are patient with him enough that they will wait in expectation of him delivering a satisfactory explanation. It will 'never' come.

And so that makes their Jordan just a flash in the pan who will never become a Richard Dawkins or a Sam Harris or even a Christopher Hitchens. If anyone thinks otherwise then they are obliged to state just what Jordan has contributed to society.

I'll watch him again on a utube video but it will only be to see somebody like Sam Harris destroy him.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 15, 2020, 01:01:18 pm
There are many problems with Jordan's behaviour as a debater. Among them are his tendency to raise his voice in an attempt to belittle his opponents. But his big problem is the one he's attempting to build his reputation upon. He's trying to be the atheist and the believer at the same time and then he tries to invent some highly intelligent nuanced explanation for how that is possible. It just isn't of course but his fans are patient with him enough that they will wait in expectation of him delivering a satisfactory explanation. It will 'never' come.

 :D

Quote
And so that makes their Jordan just a flash in the pan who will never become a Richard Dawkins or a Sam Harris or even a Christopher Hitchens. If anyone thinks otherwise then they are obliged to state just what Jordan has contributed to society.

I'll watch him again on a utube video but it will only be to see somebody like Sam Harris destroy him.

I saw him with all of those people and they were SO gentle with him.  My suspicious is that they recognize he brings a giant flock of new curious people to wherever he goes and they want a piece of that.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on October 15, 2020, 01:04:12 pm

Extremists are a subset of the set of objectionable people.

So they’re not synonymous? 

Do you think The Rebel are extremists then?

When I think of ‘extremist’ I think of someone who uses or promotes violence to meet their goals.  Maybe you are using ‘extremist’ in another manner, but I don’t think we should be using a term that, in general usage, refers to people who use or promote violence to refer to people who we just disagree with. 

It’s a tactic that the cancel-culture ‘woke’ folks use often, and you seem to be using it too.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 15, 2020, 01:08:12 pm
:D

I saw him with all of those people and they were SO gentle with him.  My suspicious is that they recognize he brings a giant flock of new curious people to wherever he goes and they want a piece of that.

I think that's a good explanation for the reason why highly intelligent people like Sam will debate him. But I wouldn't condemn Sam or any of them for doing what they do with Jordan. It's a perfectly legitimate way of getting an audience to which they can provide enlightenment. After all, there sit thousands of Christians who are listening carefully to real facts being presented by Sam and company.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 15, 2020, 01:10:23 pm
So they’re not synonymous? 

No.

Quote
Do you think The Rebel are extremists then?

Yes.

Quote
When I think of ‘extremist’ I think of someone who uses or promotes violence to meet their goals.  Maybe you are using ‘extremist’ in another manner, but I don’t think we should be using a term that, in general usage, refers to people who use or promote violence to refer to people who we just disagree with. 

I think an extremist is someone with extreme views, such as someone who promotes racial hatred or similar views.

Quote
It’s a tactic that the cancel-culture ‘woke’ folks use often, and you seem to be using it too.

Your mileage may vary, I guess.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on October 15, 2020, 01:13:58 pm
I think that's a good explanation for the reason why highly intelligent people like Sam will debate him. But I wouldn't condemn Sam or any of them for doing what they do with Jordan. It's a perfectly legitimate way of getting an audience to which they can provide enlightenment. After all, there sit thousands of Christians who are listening carefully to real facts being presented by Sam and company.

Petersen’s crowd is a bunch of Christians?   I don’t think you’re reading the room very well.

While Petersen’s take on religion is that it is a necessary cultural phenomenon (for lack of a better term), he never comes out and actually says that God is a real entity.   That’s not a Christian perspective at all.  I think his fans are more about being non-PC, free-speech advocates than they are about being Christians.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 15, 2020, 01:24:54 pm
Petersen’s crowd is a bunch of Christians?   I don’t think you’re reading the room very well.

While Petersen’s take on religion is that it is a necessary cultural phenomenon (for lack of a better term), he never comes out and actually says that God is a real entity.   That’s not a Christian perspective at all.  I think his fans are more about being non-PC, free-speech advocates than they are about being Christians.

I didn't suggest that Jordan's crowd are a bunch of Christians. They're more wannabe intellectuals than that, even though many are expectant Christians.
I think that Jordan offers an expectation for them that their faith can be plausible in the face of evidence that proves it just isn't. They think that Jordan's explaining, doubletalk, and hairsplitting  can make religous faith work.  But of course it never can.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on October 15, 2020, 01:32:21 pm
I didn't suggest that Jordan's crowd are a bunch of Christians. They're more wannabe intellectuals than that, even though many are expectant Christians.
I think that Jordan offers an expectation for them that their faith can be plausible in the face of evidence that proves it just isn't. They think that Jordan's explaining, doubletalk, and hairsplitting  can make religous faith work.  But of course it never can.

I actually agree with you on this, but you also said ‘there sit thousands of Christians’.   I don’t think that’s accurate at all.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 15, 2020, 01:38:25 pm
I actually agree with you on this, but you also said ‘there sit thousands of Christians’.   I don’t think that’s accurate at all.

Well, you can make it as accurate as you think it fits the description. And also note that many come to see Jordan be taken down by opponents of the caliber of Sam Harris.
How is the crowd split? 50/50 or 60/40 for Harris?
I would attend to see Harris or even better still for me would be Dawkins!  Poor dear Jordan.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 15, 2020, 09:07:23 pm
This is a contradictory statement.  You’re trying to have your ‘woke’ and eat it too.  He didn’t deserve it, but it was his fault.   

For all the faults I find with the guy, he’s all about civil discourse.  The ‘woke’ activists are the a-holes who can’t handle any disagreement with the positions that they hold sacred.  Their allies, like yourself, make excuses for them, even when they’re clearly in the wrong.

Jesus Christ...we agree on something!
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 15, 2020, 09:10:22 pm
Jesus Christ...we agree on something!

You're both wrong if you think that the guy who insults people is about 'civil discourse'.

"Jeez, what is wrong with these n***s that they refuse to discuss civilly??"
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 15, 2020, 09:20:44 pm
Right, but he is known chiefly as the person who killed 'God' and morality by dissecting it and breaking it down as a human need.
He killed God but didn't kill morality.  He said God was dead and isn't the maker of our morality any more, we have free will and logic to make our own morality, and this will cause nihilism before you begin to build your moral system based on what you believe is right and wrong, not what the Bible or Church says.

Quote
'Activism' is different, but I see what you are saying.  It has come to mean fighting for identity politics and the onboard morality it contains.  I think that the primary goal of an academic is/should be knowledge.

Yes but also things like climate science.  Even if your hypothesis is wrong you need to report all the data, and not conveniently ignore the data that disproves your "denier" or "alarmist" agenda.
 
Quote
Yes, and politics is difficult between it sits between "pure" knowledge and emotions.  But if it drifts one way or the other then a correction happens.

I think politics is still hard even everyone agrees 100% on all the facts, because people with different moralities (philosophies/ideologies) will still disagree on how to solve whatever problem they're looking at.

Quote
The thing is, he had a foothold in being a contrarian in the service of "civil discourse" and he blew it.  All he would have had to do is be a little more careful with his language.  Did he deserve to be demonized ?  I would say not, but he was the one who blew it.  You can blame the mob, but I don't blame a dog who bites me I blame the master, the leash maker, my wife, you, Waldo... anybody else... but the dog and myself...

He didn't blow it, that's just your opinion.  He's still very popular, he hasn't been working publicly because he's been hospitalized and very sick the last year or so.  He's more careful with his language than anyone, he talks about that all the time, because if he says something in just the wrong way people will slay him for it, because to many people he's the enemy and they're waiting to jump on him on any stumble.  The mob (left or right) attacks anyone who counters their agenda.  It's information warfare out there.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 15, 2020, 09:22:14 pm
Like I say, there is room and even a need for someone like him... early on I had hoped he would be the guy.  But he's not.

He's just a guy, he's not a saviour.  His opinions don't have to 100% have to match yours or mine.  That's the whole point.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 15, 2020, 09:33:36 pm
Ok.  If he was a minimally competent academic, he wouldn't be here.
Because his views offend you?  He's a heretic!  Burn him at the stake!

Quote
I disagree.  He wants to be civil, but he misgenders people
When did he do that?  Link?

Quote
...makes unconsidered statements.... he isn't being civil, he is denying people their rights, associating with extremists and overstating his case.  Nice that he wants to be 'civil' but he should lead by example.
Whose rights is he denying?  His whole argument is that the government is denying HIS rights by enforcing compelled speech.  He's never said he'd not use someone's preferred pronoun, but that the government shouldn't force him to.  I can't name another example of compelled speech in law, can you?

Which extremists is he associating with?  People who happen to follow him on twitter, which is out of his control?  I think you've bought into to the BS social media spin about this guy and not actually what's going on.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 15, 2020, 09:37:48 pm
Language changes all the time, so if a word became commonly used it wouldn't be a 'made-up term' - I suppose the people who're interested in having a third pronoun to indicate non-gender are hoping for that outcome.

I don't mind calling people what they prefer, so if I met someone that wanted me to refer to them as "zhe', I would try to accommodate that even if I thought it was a bit weird or something.  Also, does spoken 'zhe' sound much like spoken 'she'?

Of course, you might ask me if I'd refer to someone as a pumpkin, if zhe asked me to.  And yes, for the time I was with them, I probably would - unless it was my job to talk them out of referring to themselves as a pumpkin, or if I was on an internet forum in which disagreement was the point of the discussion.

I agree it's best to use pronouns that people prefer typically, but that's not Peterson's argument.  Do you think the government should compel us by law to do so?  And if we refuse the punishment is fines, being sued, or men with guns and clubs throwing us in jail.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 15, 2020, 09:40:28 pm
There are many problems with Jordan's behaviour as a debater. Among them are his tendency to raise his voice in an attempt to belittle his opponents.
[/quote]
My only criticism with his behaviour is that at times he can have a short temper and he can lose it on occasion, and so acts less civil.  But it's not like academics on the left are Jesus.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 15, 2020, 09:44:27 pm
So they’re not synonymous? 

Do you think The Rebel are extremists then?

When I think of ‘extremist’ I think of someone who uses or promotes violence to meet their goals.  Maybe you are using ‘extremist’ in another manner, but I don’t think we should be using a term that, in general usage, refers to people who use or promote violence to refer to people who we just disagree with. 

It’s a tactic that the cancel-culture ‘woke’ folks use often, and you seem to be using it too.

I agree, an extremist is someone who uses violence.

The Rebel are really weird illogical people with a fair share of bad arguments who smear a lot with low-brow journalism, but they aren't extremists.  They don't hurt anyone.   They aren't even radicals.  They're just kinda immature and dumb.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 15, 2020, 09:47:27 pm
I didn't suggest that Jordan's crowd are a bunch of Christians. They're more wannabe intellectuals than that, even though many are expectant Christians.
I think that Jordan offers an expectation for them that their faith can be plausible in the face of evidence that proves it just isn't. They think that Jordan's explaining, doubletalk, and hairsplitting  can make religous faith work.  But of course it never can.

This is just nonsense.  I listen to a lot of Jordan's stuff and I'm an athiest.  He does talk about Christianity though and is a Christian but he talks more about Christian mythmaking etc and the moral value and lessons in their stories and whatnot.

I didn't know you were a wannabe intellectual if you listen to the man's perspectives.  Thanks!  Like squiggy said i think you're reading the room wrong.  You clearly are a staunchly leftwing and don't like his views, therefore he and people who listen to him are simpleton retardos to you.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 15, 2020, 09:55:17 pm
The Rebel is a far-right publication that promotes objectionable views.  He jumped into bed with them early on, because they promised to raise money for him.

I think they're just FOX News Canada.  They're definitely strongly rightwing but I wouldn't say far-right, they're right on the edge.  They aren't fascists.  Ezra Levant is Jewish.  His name is Ezra Levant lol.  He's fired someone who made far-right comments.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 16, 2020, 09:29:17 am
He killed God but didn't kill morality.

Yes, you are correct.  What he did was dissect it and see it as a human activity that meets human needs, and framed it as you said correctly.  I wasn't careful enough in my language there.


Quote
Yes but also things like climate science.  Even if your hypothesis is wrong you need to report all the data, and not conveniently ignore the data that disproves your "denier" or "alarmist" agenda.

Well... maybe but I don't think Richard Lindzen or Michael Mann are normally referred to as 'activists'.  They are primarily scientists and if someone tags them as 'activists' I suspect it's an effort to discredit them.  I agree with your principle of intellectual honesty.  Both of these scientists, I'm sure, know the perils of lying.
 
Quote
I think politics is still hard even everyone agrees 100% on all the facts, because people with different moralities (philosophies/ideologies) will still disagree on how to solve whatever problem they're looking at.

Agreed.

Quote
He didn't blow it, that's just your opinion. 

Well, everything here is my opinion really.  Even when I relay facts they're facts that I *believe* are true.

Quote
He's still very popular,

Ok but being popular is under the bar for being able to facilitate discussions such as the ones he tries to broker.  Rush Limbaugh is also 'popular'.

Quote
  He's more careful with his language than anyone, he talks about that all the time, because if he says something in just the wrong way people will slay him for it, because to many people he's the enemy and they're waiting to jump on him on any stumble.

No, he's sloppy with language AND thinking.  I think it was the Joe Rogan podcast where he was talking about imposing social rules on the collective and Rogan caught a contradiction ?  Joe Rogan.  Also there's the ridiculous tendency to call people 'Post Modern Marxists' which sounds incorrect... like saying "Christian Athiest"

Quote
The mob (left or right) attacks anyone who counters their agenda.  It's information warfare out there.

Who cares about the mob ?  If they are so misguided then don't bring them up.  Trump's mob is also idiotic but I don't use them as evidence that Trump's ideas are bad.

He's just a guy, he's not a saviour.  His opinions don't have to 100% have to match yours or mine.  That's the whole point.

I would think that a public intellectual would try to help public conversations happen.  Actually, they should do that.  He fails because he's lazy and appears to offend people on purpose while trying to promote 'civil discourse'. 

Because his views offend you?  He's a heretic!  Burn him at the stake!
When did he do that?  Link?

I have read about it, in the past, in several places.  Quick Google gave me this:
https://thetalon.ca/the-post-truth-politics-of-jordan-petersons-gender-nonbinary-pronoun-debate/

On November 19th, 2016 Dr. Peterson engaged in a debate with UBC’s Dr. Mary Bryson, Senior Associate Dean and Professor in the Faculty of Education, who is gender nonbinary and uses the pronouns “they/them.” ... Peterson repeatedly misgendered Dr. Bryson, referring to them as “she” and “her.


Also, to add: I have been pretty reasonable about my reasons that he should be rejected as anything more than a marginal voice in the discussion.  The 'burn him at the stake !' comment is undermining your assertion that his opponents are unreasonable and his proponents are reasonable.

Quote
Whose rights is he denying?  His whole argument is that the government is denying HIS rights by enforcing compelled speech.

He's denying the right of people to define their gender identity.  He has never been compelled to use a specific word or phrase by the government.

Quote
Which extremists is he associating with?   

The Rebels promotion of race haters, their inclusion of Proud Boys founder and Faith Goldy is a good measure of their extremism.  He signed up to raise money for himself with them.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 16, 2020, 11:55:22 am
This is just nonsense.  I listen to a lot of Jordan's stuff and I'm an athiest.  He does talk about Christianity though and is a Christian but he talks more about Christian mythmaking etc and the moral value and lessons in their stories and whatnot.

And many, if not most are Christians I believe. The political right are Christians believers more often than not.

I didn't know you were a wannabe intellectual if you listen to the man's perspectives.  Thanks!  Like squiggy said i think you're reading the room wrong.  You clearly are a staunchly leftwing and don't like his views, therefore he and people who listen to him are simpleton retardos to you.
[/quote]

I'm definitely leftist as that pertains to Canadian standards but not leftwing. If I was an American you could correctly say I'm leftwing.
I don't consider anybody to be retarded due to their political leaning. But I do consider many rightist views to be wrongheaded and incorrect. Not all, but it would take a calm and nuanced conversation to sort out my pros from my cons.

I'm a bit disappointed in you when you use a word like 'retardos'. However, for now at least I'm still interested in building bridges with you.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 16, 2020, 07:16:13 pm
Well, everything here is my opinion really.  Even when I relay facts they're facts that I *believe* are true.
Ok that's fine.  If you don't like or agree with or are offending by Jordan's opinions or behaviour that's your right.  No provincial human rights commission will haul you in front of a hearing for it.

Quote
No, he's sloppy with language AND thinking.  I think it was the Joe Rogan podcast where he was talking about imposing social rules on the collective and Rogan caught a contradiction ?  Joe Rogan.
So what you're saying is that the standard for which you set for him is perfection.  Do you hold the same standard for thinkers on the left?  That's your prerogative if you do.  He went on Joe Rogan and they didn't call each other names.  He debated a black left-wing professor during a Munk Debate and Jordan was called "a mean mad white man" in anger and very poor taste, and has to deal with the large majority of the mainstream media trying to do everything to undermine and discredit him in endless articles and interviews, so if he loses his cool once in a while i think it's understandable.  If he says something that's incorrect and you or I challenge him on it, great.  That's called civil discourse.  He's not God, he's not a saviour, he doesn't have to be right all the time, I disagree with him on things.

I also don't see him waving the flag of "civil discourse", that sounds like something you've projected on to him.  Like Ben Shapiro, I enjoy listening to him because he provides a different point of view than than the vast majority of the discourse we see, he challenges many of the "holy" assumptions that are shoved down our throats.  And he does it with an intellectual rigor missing from the vast majority of right-leaning commentators who are often a bunch of ignorant boneheads.

Quote
Also there's the ridiculous tendency to call people 'Post Modern Marxists' which sounds incorrect... like saying "Christian Athiest"
Using "cultural marxism" is a bit off as a term, but there's nothing wrong with calling people post-modern marxists if that's what they are.

Quote
Who cares about the mob ?  If they are so misguided then don't bring them up.  Trump's mob is also idiotic but I don't use them as evidence that Trump's ideas are bad.
You're the one you brought it up, i responded to you.

Quote
I would think that a public intellectual would try to help public conversations happen.  Actually, they should do that.
He is having public conversations.  He's going out and doing debates and interviews.  He hasn't called for anyone to be banned or fired or arrested, and he isn't burning cars or looting stores, and he doesn't call people names, unless "cultural marxist" or "post-modernist" is a bad name.

Quote
He fails because he's lazy and appears to offend people on purpose while trying to promote 'civil discourse'.
What are you talking about??  If his opinions are offensive to you or anyone else, that's the whole darn point.  People who interview him or write about him are offensive to him all the time, they attack him and try to discredit him constantly, as you're doing now. I've never seen him purposefully try to offend people just for its own sake, or be unreasonably "provocative".  That's just a meme.  He's not Milo.

Many people don't like his opinions, his narratives are a dangerous threat to their political agendas, and they want to take him down  Do you have anything to say about any of his actual opinions, or do you wish to keep trying to discredit him?

Quote
I have read about it, in the past, in several places.  Quick Google gave me this:
https://thetalon.ca/the-post-truth-politics-of-jordan-petersons-gender-nonbinary-pronoun-debate/
This is a leftwing "alternative" student newspaper in the most leftwing province in Canada that doesn't provide any evidence he "misgendered' anyone.  Let's see the footage.

Quote
Also, to add: I have been pretty reasonable about my reasons that he should be rejected as anything more than a marginal voice in the discussion.  The 'burn him at the stake !' comment is undermining your assertion that his opponents are unreasonable and his proponents are reasonable.
If people disagree with his opinions that's great, that's called civil discourse.  If they just "don't like him", well that's their opinion, but it means nothing.

You can "reject him" all you like, that's your right..  He isn't a marginal voice "in the discussion" (whatever that is) though, because a lot of people are listening to his arguments.  The majority which center around psychology, and about taking responsibility in your life etc. that have had very positive impacts on tens of thousands of people because they write him letters and tell him this after touring lectures.

Quote
He's denying the right of people to define their gender identity.
In what way???  Name one example.  This is a meme told to you in bad faith by the people who wish to discredit him.  And you will repeat these lies to other as you're doing now.  The tactic has worked.

Quote
The Rebels promotion of race haters, their inclusion of Proud Boys founder and Faith Goldy is a good measure of their extremism.  He signed up to raise money for himself with them.

Goldy was fired for things that happened after Jordan appeared on the Rebel.  McGinnis was on the Joe Rogan podcast, is Joe guilty by association?  Is Peterson on the far-right?

Quote
In April 2017, Peterson was denied a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) grant for the first time in his career, which he interpreted as retaliation for his statements regarding Bill C-16.[19] However, a media-relations adviser for SSHRC said, "Committees assess only the information contained in the application."[108] In response, Rebel News launched an Indiegogo crowdfunding campaign on Peterson's behalf,[109] raising C$195,000 by its end on 6 May, equivalent to over two years of research funding.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 16, 2020, 07:25:45 pm
And many, if not most are Christians I believe. The political right are Christians believers more often than not.
Well that's pretty weak evidence.

Quote
But I do consider many rightist views to be wrongheaded and incorrect. Not all, but it would take a calm and nuanced conversation to sort out my pros from my cons.
Sure so do I, and same here.

Quote
I'm a bit disappointed in you when you use a word like 'retardos'. However, for now at least I'm still interested in building bridges with you.

I only use the colloquial use of such words because I am hilarious and enjoy offensive comedy.  I have nothing against actual retards.  (Again, that's a bad taste joke).

I enjoy building bridges with anyone who is willing to put their hand out to meet halfway, i'm glad you have.  I will never call you, personally, a retardo.  That's the last time I will use that word.  In this thread.  For the rest of today.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 16, 2020, 08:22:05 pm
Ok that's fine.  If you don't like or agree with or are offending by Jordan's opinions or behaviour that's your right.  No provincial human rights commission will haul you in front of a hearing for it.

I don't think I said I dislike or disagree with him, and if I did then fine but it's beside the point.

Quote
So what you're saying is that the standard for which you set for him is perfection.

Hahahaha.  Joe Rogan !

Quote
Do you hold the same standard for thinkers on the left?

I believe so.  But there's nothing like a Peterson on the left as far as I can see. 

Quote
...has to deal with the large majority of the mainstream media trying to do everything to undermine and discredit him in endless articles and interviews, so if he loses his cool once in a while i think it's understandable.

Well, it's not though.  What people say matters and it's hard to step back from that.  Hillary Clinton called her opponents 'deplorables' and lost a large swath of voters.  And it's not the media undermining him and discrediting him if he does it himself.

Quote
If he says something that's incorrect and you or I challenge him on it, great.  That's called civil discourse.

No - civil discourse is being CIVIL.  You can't call people the n-word or call them women if they're not and so on.  You didn't talk about that in your definition.

Quote
He's not God, he's not a saviour, he doesn't have to be right all the time, I disagree with him on things.

I don't think being God or a saviour was ever on the table.  The question is does he hold water as a reasonable public intellectual who has earned the attention of a critical mass of "the" public ?  That's a high pedestal, but - no - he doesn't do it.

Quote
I also don't see him waving the flag of "civil discourse", that sounds like something you've projected on to him.

I think others on this thread said it about him, which is why I commented on it.

Quote
  Like Ben Shapiro, I enjoy listening to him because he provides a different point of view than than the vast majority of the discourse we see, he challenges many of the "holy" assumptions that are shoved down our throats. 

Listen to Sam Harris then.  I disagree with him quite a bit on lots of things, but he is immensely thoughtful and precise with his language and ideas.

Quote
And he does it with an intellectual rigor missing from the vast majority of right-leaning commentators who are often a bunch of ignorant boneheads.

You are misunderstanding something here: a *commentator* and an *intellectual* are very far apart and have been since ... well the 80s or early 90s I would say. 

In case you missed it: there is no leftist intellectual who is in the ballpark of what I'm calling for either.

Quote
Using "cultural marxism" is a bit off as a term, but there's nothing wrong with calling people post-modern marxists if that's what they are.

It's an oxymoron, though, right ?  Post-modernism is post-Marxism.  The Marxists I know of are anti-woke. 

Quote
You're the one you brought it up, i responded to you.

I used it because I felt you were tacitly referring to the mob, or at least popular whims, with your statements on page 1:

"Socrates was executed for "corrupting the youth".  Jesus was nailed to a cross.  Who are we crucifying today?  What are our holy beliefs that only heretics question?"

Quote
He is having public conversations.  He's going out and doing debates and interviews.  He hasn't called for anyone to be banned or fired or arrested, and he isn't burning cars or looting stores, and he doesn't call people names, unless "cultural marxist" or "post-modernist" is a bad name.

Your bar is too low.  A public intellectual needs to be held to a higher standard than "not burning cars", seriously.

Quote
What are you talking about??  If his opinions are offensive to you or anyone else, that's the whole darn point.

He insults people to their face, is my point.  Not "he says things to which people take offense".

Quote
you're doing now. I've never seen him purposefully try to offend people just for its own sake, or be unreasonably "provocative".  That's just a meme.  He's not Milo.

But he does.


Quote
Many people don't like his opinions, his narratives are a dangerous threat to their political agendas, and they want to take him down  Do you have anything to say about any of his actual opinions, or do you wish to keep trying to discredit him?

I have been very clear as to why he's to be rejected as a public intellectual.

1. He insults people on purpose
2. He aligns himself with The Rebel, an anti-intellectual and anti-human endeavour that exists to disunify people and spread falsehoods
3. He's sloppy with his language and his thinking

I'm not saying he should be killed, or that I dislike him personally.  I'm saying he's unfit to lead public discussions, except to continue to sow disunity and extend the culture war.  At the beginning of his career as a public intellectual, it wasn't so.  And as time goes on, he shows himself to be a poor thinker, a hypocrite in terms of his moral stance and his didactic advice to others.. and kind of a sad individual to boot.

Quote
This is a leftwing "alternative" student newspaper in the most leftwing province in Canada that doesn't provide any evidence he "misgendered' anyone.  Let's see the footage.

I gave you a source.  Do you want another one ?  Does this mean that if there is evidence of what I claim, you will change your opinion on him somewhat ?  I would like to know if I'm just on a wild goose chase, given that I gave you a cite already.

Quote
If people disagree with his opinions that's great, that's called civil discourse.  If they just "don't like him", well that's their opinion, but it means nothing.

You keep missing the other option - that his reasoning and his thinking is flawed.  Whether or not people like him, or his opinions is beside the point really.  I respect people with whom I disagree, if their opinions have enough basis to be reasonably close to valid.

Quote
You can "reject him" all you like, that's your right..  He isn't a marginal voice "in the discussion" (whatever that is) though, because a lot of people are listening to his arguments. 

He's marginal because he isn't generally acceptable.  It's like saying Rush Limbaugh is an important voice in the trans rights debate because he has millions of listeners.

 
Quote
Goldy was fired for things that happened after Jordan appeared on the Rebel.  McGinnis was on the Joe Rogan podcast, is Joe guilty by association?  Is Peterson on the far-right?

The Rebel didn't have Gavin McInnes and Faith Goldy as guests - they worked there.  It's a shit-slinging organization and doesn't deserve to be considered legitimate.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 18, 2020, 06:58:15 pm
The Rebel didn't have Gavin McInnes and Faith Goldy as guests - they worked there.  It's a shit-slinging organization and doesn't deserve to be considered legitimate.

We can say anything we like about anyone.  We can say Peterson hangs out with Nazis every weekend and throws up the salute, but that has nothing to do with the merit of his individual arguments.  Attacking the character, tone, motives, and who he may have associated with on one occasion, these are ad hominem arguments.  This fallacy is designed to discredit the person making the argument, and not the argument itself.  And it's fine to not like him personally, it's just not as interesting.

I find it a lot more interesting talking about his arguments about post-modernists dominating academia, and the causes of the gender wage gap., and how people have to grow up and take more responsibility in order to better their lives.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 18, 2020, 07:15:41 pm
We can say anything we like about anyone.  We can say Peterson hangs out with Nazis every weekend and throws up the salute, but that has nothing to do with the merit of his individual arguments.

Ok, but we haven't spoken about any of his individual arguments here, either.

Quote
  Attacking the character, tone, motives, and who he may have associated with on one occasion, these are ad hominem arguments.

Again, we're not talking about his arguments we are talking about the man and where he fits in, as some kind of public figure.

Quote
  This fallacy is designed to discredit the person making the argument, and not the argument itself.  And it's fine to not like him personally, it's just not as interesting.

See above.

Quote
I find it a lot more interesting talking about his arguments about post-modernists dominating academia, and the causes of the gender wage gap., and how people have to grow up and take more responsibility in order to better their lives.

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.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham 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.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH 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. 

 
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery 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.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham 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.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery 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.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham 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.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery 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?

Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH 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...
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery 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.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH 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 ?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery 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.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid 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 don’t think career preferences are different between women and men?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham 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.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham 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.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery 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.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 20, 2020, 05:27:17 pm
I truly believe Jordan's real issue is in defending unequal pay for women for equal work.

He doesn't do that.  He says there's more than one variable in a multi-variable analysis.  But even saying that makes someone a sexist these days.

Here he talks about the wage gap and other gender issues:

https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=316
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 20, 2020, 05:32:47 pm
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.


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.

Yes you think he has an evil agenda based on things you think he wants to say but never does.  So he brings actual research and data to many of his claims, and you bring "hidden agendas" and totally unproven claims based on things created in your own mind.

This is what people said about Harper before he was elected and it never happened.  I'm not saying i'm a fan of Harper btw, but I'm saying people project a lot of BS based on zero evidence.  To you, all conservatives are just nefarious fools.  No point in having a discussion with those prejudicial assumptions.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 20, 2020, 05:43:04 pm
He doesn't do that.  He says there's more than one variable in a multi-variable analysis.  But even saying that makes someone a sexist these days.

Here he talks about the wage gap and other gender issues:

https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=316

It's the agenda of employers whose interest is making more profit. Some are inscrutable enough to stoop pretty low.

In my final analysis, Jordan lost me when he attempted to say he's not a Christian but he believes in the Christian god. Or however he tries to frame it. Sam Harris got him on that one too. And that's the reason he, a very intelligent person, would be more interested in being the darling of the right for the money in it.

You see Gorgeous, a darling of the right can't possibly be an atheist. He loses half his support if he tries that.
But a very intelligent person such as Jordan can't possibly be a Christian believer when he presumes to be able to debate very intelligent opponents like Sam.

Big problem for rightists of all schticks! They're disqualified before they even start!

And please! Don't even try to tell me that Christianity isn't the property of the right for the most part.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 20, 2020, 05:51:18 pm
Yes you think he has an evil agenda based on things you think he wants to say but never does.  So he brings actual research and data to many of his claims, and you bring "hidden agendas" and totally unproven claims based on things created in your own mind.

This is what people said about Harper before he was elected and it never happened.  I'm not saying i'm a fan of Harper btw, but I'm saying people project a lot of BS based on zero evidence.  To you, all conservatives are just nefarious fools.  No point in having a discussion with those prejudicial assumptions.

Conservatism is nefariously foolish until they can present an alternative agenda to socially responsible capitalism, as is practiced in Canada. The challenge to you will always remain the same.

See my other post on the right owning religion and how that doesn't work for anybody trying to carry on a decent conversation that doesn't involve the supernatural.

The modern world has outgrown religious nonsense but the US still hangs on. That, sadly, means we've outgrown conservatism too.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 20, 2020, 06:58:39 pm
No it doesn't explain everything, but it might explain why more men go into engineering and more women go into medicine etc.

It might, but a professor should know about things like cause, correlation, and such.  This kind of speculation doesn't help the argument at all.  If there are differences in physiology that could explain inclinations to areas of knowledge, the assessment and analysis must be fathoms deeper than what he offers here.

If you agree with his thesis, even, he's doing it a disservice by presenting it with only surface level evidence.

 
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 22, 2020, 03:16:13 pm
Conservatism is nefariously foolish until they can present an alternative agenda to socially responsible capitalism, as is practiced in Canada. The challenge to you will always remain the same.

See my other post on the right owning religion and how that doesn't work for anybody trying to carry on a decent conversation that doesn't involve the supernatural.

The modern world has outgrown religious nonsense but the US still hangs on. That, sadly, means we've outgrown conservatism too.

I have no problem with people who believe in God or are religious in their personal lives, I have a problem when they try to ram it down everyone's throats and it makes for bad policy that most people don't want, like say Andrew Scheer.  I would suspect you feel the same i hope.

I am also for "socially responsible capitalism".  Meaning capitalism where there is robust regulations to protect people and the environment from greed & exploitation and an adequate social safety net for those in need.

I am also for responsible government budgets & spending, people taking personal responsibility for their own actions, general law and order, standing up to foreign actors with bad intentions against Canada or otherwise take advantage of our kindness etc.  Which is to say, i'm a moderate.

Saying "progressivism is bad" or "conservatism is bad" is too vague for me.  There's a thousand political stances under those umbrellas, I'd rather deal with those on a case-by-case basis than start over-generalizing.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 22, 2020, 03:23:18 pm
It might, but a professor should know about things like cause, correlation, and such.  This kind of speculation doesn't help the argument at all.  If there are differences in physiology that could explain inclinations to areas of knowledge, the assessment and analysis must be fathoms deeper than what he offers here.

If you agree with his thesis, even, he's doing it a disservice by presenting it with only surface level evidence.

He references studies in the research literature.  He has a PhD in clinical psychology, he's not making stuff up.  I'm not sure he references physiology, but he does talk about the nature vs nuture debate a bit if I recall.  His focus is on career preference.

You're asking him for evidence but you keep making up things he supposedly says without evidence.  If your opinions of him are based on what twitter says about him rather than what he actually says then i'm not interested in that convo.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 22, 2020, 03:37:44 pm
He references studies in the research literature.  He has a PhD in clinical psychology, he's not making stuff up.  I'm not sure he references physiology, but he does talk about the nature vs nuture debate a bit if I recall.  His focus is on career preference.

Yeah, but so what ?  He cites a study and then uses it to explain a complex cultural phenomenon... the 2nd part - the part he added - is loose and unsubstantiated.

Quote
You're asking him for evidence but you keep making up things he supposedly says without evidence. 

Like what ?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 22, 2020, 05:12:50 pm
I have no problem with people who believe in God or are religious in their personal lives, I have a problem when they try to ram it down everyone's throats and it makes for bad policy that most people don't want, like say Andrew Scheer.  I would suspect you feel the same i hope.

I feel much the same but that which you consider 'ramming it down everybody's throats could mean something quite different from what it means to me. I have some problems with even religions still existing for a few reasons, even though I'm not actively working to eliminate it. I think we're probably pretty close to agreement on that.

Quote
I am also for "socially responsible capitalism".  Meaning capitalism where there is robust regulations to protect people and the environment from greed & exploitation and an adequate social safety net for those in need.

I could say the same thing on that.

Quote
I am also for responsible government budgets & spending, people taking personal responsibility for their own actions, general law and order, standing up to foreign actors with bad intentions against Canada or otherwise take advantage of our kindness etc.  Which is to say, i'm a moderate.

Agreed, as long as the devils aren't in the details.

Quote
Saying "progressivism is bad" or "conservatism is bad" is too vague for me.  There's a thousand political stances under those umbrellas, I'd rather deal with those on a case-by-case basis than start over-generalizing.

Yes, I basically agree but! I have a lot of difficulty with trying to determine what 'conservatism' actually means now in this 21st. century. Can conservatives actually lay claim to some political philosophy as theirs? What could it be for you, supposing you consider it to be something?

'Progressivism' is an erroneous term that seems to me to be used in a wrong context by mostly Americans. In my opinion 'progress' can't become a derogatory term.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 22, 2020, 05:41:03 pm
Yes, I basically agree but! I have a lot of difficulty with trying to determine what 'conservatism' actually means now in this 21st. century. Can conservatives actually lay claim to some political philosophy as theirs? What could it be for you, supposing you consider it to be something?

"Conservatism" is too broad a term for it to mean much of anything to judge good vs bad.  It could mean social conservatism, economic conservatism, libertarianism, rightwing populism, evangelicalism etc.

I share some conservative views, even some social conservative views, and yet i'm an atheist and don't like the GOP at all.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 22, 2020, 05:58:52 pm
"Conservatism" is too broad a term for it to mean much of anything to judge good vs bad.  It could mean social conservatism, economic conservatism, libertarianism, rightwing populism, evangelicalism etc.

I share some conservative views, even some social conservative views, and yet i'm an atheist and don't like the GOP at all.

I'm not asking what it could mean, I'm specifically asking for some particular political platform that can be considered their property.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 23, 2020, 01:30:32 pm
Last night I watched the utube video on Peterson and Dillahunty's conversation. (debate)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgAoQBgM558

It's a little long at 1hr. and 45 but I don't regret spending the time on it. I was quite surprised to see how poorly Jordan performed against Dillahunty, who probably can't be said to be Jordan's intellectual equal. So I had to wonder if Jordan was ill or becoming ill, or there was some other reason for his poor performance?

Frankly, Jordan appeared to be sarcastic and mocking of Dillahunty at times and was quite remarkably put down on one occasion by Dillahunty.

For those fans of Jordan Peterson who care to watch this, maybe they can come up for an opinion on why Jordan performed so badly. And of course that is, if they perceive that he did perform badly.

It was almost  as if Peterson was trying to demonstrate that he was lowering himself in some way by even recognizing Dillahunty as a debating opponent.

However, considering the topic being discussed, there's little doubt that Dillahunty knows his stuff as well as anyone and that begs the question on whether or not Peterson was just completely outclassed?

If anybody can afford the time to watch this one, I would find your comments very interesting. What could possibly be the reason why Peterson allowed himself to be so completely outclassed by Dillahunty?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 23, 2020, 04:00:46 pm
If it turns out that nobody has the time to do the whole hour and three-quarters, here's a six and a half minute vid on some of the highlights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryHEBDnAnjw

What the hell had gone wrong with Jordan? Or is that the best he has to offer on religion/God debates?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 25, 2020, 02:33:03 pm
Too bad nobody has enough confidence in Jordan Peterson to defend him now.

He would be finished if it wasn't for the value he is to debaters who are in it for the money. His religious convictions and the fact that he couldn't reconcile that with reality has been his downfall. Possibly also his mental breakdown too.

Will he try to make a comeback? Right now he looks like death warned over.

It that's it for this thread, thanks to those who contributed. I've learned something from it on Peterson.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 27, 2020, 06:22:44 pm
How delightful that none of his supporters want to defend the asshole anymore! He's literally fallen off the rails and it wont be a surprise if we hear about his accidental ............................ whatever?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 27, 2020, 06:34:11 pm
How delightful that none of his supporters want to defend the asshole anymore! He's literally fallen off the rails and it wont be a surprise if we hear about his accidental ............................ whatever?

He can be an asshole, i'll agree with that.  I think his chief value in the public realm is as it long has been:  a clinical psychologist.  He's helped thousands upon thousands of people with his book and lectures, they thank him all the time for helping turn their lives around.  A lot of young men too.  Our boys and men are in crisis.  Killing each other, killing other innocent people, filling up our jails, committing suicide and other "deaths of despair" through substance abuse.  For many, he's the no-nonsense father figure they needed but never had.

Weird to have a discussion about somebody if all you feel is hatred for them.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 27, 2020, 06:45:50 pm
He can be an asshole, i'll agree with that.  I think his chief value in the public realm is as it long has been:  a clinical psychologist.  He's helped thousands upon thousands of people with his book and lectures, they thank him all the time for helping turn their lives around.  A lot of young men too.  Our boys and men are in crisis.  Killing each other, killing other innocent people, filling up our jails, committing suicide and other "deaths of despair" through substance abuse.  For many, he's the no-nonsense father figure they needed but never had.

Weird to have a discussion about somebody if all you feel is hatred for them.
I welcome your balls back! He should have stuck with being a clinical psychologist. He's made a mess of his position of being the debater who was to be the darling of the right.

And all the other positive you attribute to him are debatable at best. He after all owned none of it what wasn't already owned by sincere and socially responsible people.

I very much doubt that he'll be back.

As to me discussing somebody I feel hatred and disgust toward? It's the norm of course and it is applied to Trump, Biden, Trudeau, Horgan, and others by you as much as anyone else.

And now if you want to get a true picture of Peterson, take a chance on watching the full video in which Dillahunty destroyed him completely.

And fwiw, it was in a time in which Peterson couldn't be claiming mental issues!
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on November 05, 2020, 12:33:10 pm
Hey Monty

I happened to come across this in my YouTubular travels:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnIAAkSNtqo

It's JP testifying as to why he hates girly-men (I am paraphrasing ;) )

Anyway, good news is that I thought his initial and main point was not as crazy as I had suspected.  He indicated that his concerns about forced pronouncement laws were based on a post on the Ontario HRC site ... uh ... that was taken down.  Ok, benefit of the doubt and all that so 1/2 a point for him.

And after that his argument goes to shit pretty quickly.   Something about social constructs not being a good basis for legislating against descrimination.   ???  So ... religion, race, creed, heritage shouldn't be protected against discrimination... I ... guess ... ?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on November 05, 2020, 02:15:00 pm
Hey Monty

I happened to come across this in my YouTubular travels:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnIAAkSNtqo

It's JP testifying as to why he hates girly-men (I am paraphrasing ;) )

Anyway, good news is that I thought his initial and main point was not as crazy as I had suspected.  He indicated that his concerns about forced pronouncement laws were based on a post on the Ontario HRC site ... uh ... that was taken down.  Ok, benefit of the doubt and all that so 1/2 a point for him.

And after that his argument goes to shit pretty quickly.   Something about social constructs not being a good basis for legislating against descrimination.   ???  So ... religion, race, creed, heritage shouldn't be protected against discrimination... I ... guess ... ?

Awwww gee MH, I hate the sound of his voice and I've already found it easy to come to the conclusion that he's phony, albeit an educated one. So please, please can you direct me to the times for the important parts that you feel we should all be aware of?

And also, there isn't anybody who is going to stand with Jordan anymore. You just strengthen the negative opinions against him.

The Peterson agenda is impossible in my opinion because intelligent people need to distance themselves from the god delusions, while still having to hold up the bible part of Christianity. If he was to take his beliess outside of mainstream Xtian bullshit, he would at least get himself on a few more debate stages.

Anyway, a bit of help with the important parts? I just cannot stomach a full hour plus of that miserable psychotic loser.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on November 05, 2020, 02:36:52 pm
I bailed out after the first four minutes...
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on November 05, 2020, 10:10:00 pm
I bailed out after the first four minutes...

Soooooooo!
You tried to get me to watch it for you.

If you bailed in the first 4 minutes, I would bail even faster now that I know how big a dink that guy is.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on November 06, 2020, 06:18:26 am
Soooooooo!
You tried to get me to watch it for you.

If you bailed in the first 4 minutes, I would bail even faster now that I know how big a dink that guy is.

I put it out there for you, like a tray of crackers with bird shit on them.  Try or do not try... there is no dooo... Only creamy cracker curiosity, there is.

In other words, don't complain about the shit I offer you...
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on November 06, 2020, 11:24:02 am
I put it out there for you, like a tray of crackers with bird shit on them.  Try or do not try... there is no dooo... Only creamy cracker curiosity, there is.

In other words, don't complain about the shit I offer you...

O.k. you win this time. I heard out Brown up to about 12 minutes.
People like Peterson are probably more interested in replaying videos like this one and jerking off over it for the vainglorious pleasure he gets from seeing and hearing his image. Not because he has any moral priorities he needs to uphold.

Him and his little men lined up behind him have gained courage from the Trump regime the other side of the border and are only intent in promoting the same extremist right agenda in Canada. Hopefully Jordan will soon go extinct.

On the brighter note, you may have stirred some Peterson supporter to feeling like he/she needs to support his views here.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on November 06, 2020, 11:36:47 am
On the brighter note, you may have stirred some Peterson supporter to feeling like he/she needs to support his views here.

Instead of trying to cajole “Petersen supporters” out of the woodwork, why don’t you take a topic you disagree with him about and make a post about it?

You seem to have a cult-of-personality obsession with the guy in the opposite way his followers do....   just because Petersen said something doesn’t make it wrong...   the ideas stand up, or not, on their own merit.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on November 06, 2020, 12:36:37 pm
Instead of trying to cajole “Petersen supporters” out of the woodwork, why don’t you take a topic you disagree with him about and make a post about it?

You seem to have a cult-of-personality obsession with the guy in the opposite way his followers do....   just because Petersen said something doesn’t make it wrong...   the ideas stand up, or not, on their own merit.

And so what do you think we should talk about here on this thread? Shirley we can agree on that at least! You could start by suggesting there's something good about Peterson!
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on November 06, 2020, 12:38:27 pm
And so what do you think we should talk about here on this thread? Shirley we can agree on that at least! You could start by suggesting there's something good about Peterson!

It’s not my thread.  Why should I have to come up with a topic of discussion?  I made a suggestion that might get you some more responses.  Do it, or not.  I don’t really care. 

And don’t call me Shirley.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on November 06, 2020, 12:45:11 pm
It’s not my thread.  Why should I have to come up with a topic of discussion?  I made a suggestion that might get you some more responses.  Do it, or not.  I don’t really care. 

And don’t call me Shirley.

I'm just going to have to ignore you completely if you have nothing to contribute. Actually I've already said too much that encourages your bad behaviour here on this thread.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on November 06, 2020, 12:55:37 pm
I'm just going to have to ignore you completely if you have nothing to contribute. Actually I've already said too much that encourages your bad behaviour here on this thread.

Sounds good to me.

I will continue to point out your issues with facts and logic in your posts.  Feel free to ignore my truth-bombs.