I thought Michael Dyson articulately put across his thoughts in his debate with Peterson.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I thought Michael Dyson articulately put across his thoughts in his debate with Peterson.
No, sorry.
I don't think you choose your tagline
You are a tit.
You are a twit.
This is a big problem, and it's why I found Stephen Fry's role and comments in that debate so is interesting. A big problem re Jordan Peterson is the people who keep going up against him. They make an ass of themselves and that's chalked up as a 'win' for JBP by his followers. As many in here have pointed out it's a pity Dyson was chosen to represent his point of view because he did it awfully. And that young lady was quite nervous though I think she reached some interesting ideas just didn't have the wherewithal to hammer home on them or discuss them more. I don't blame her for that as it was quite a big stage with some big names, and I still get nervous myself when I debate, which I've done academically and "competitively."
In response to your question, I actually think Stephen Fry is an answer, though not an expert in a particular field really he is as much of one as those one the right, and is a wonderful orator, debater and intellectual. Re Shapiro, another one whose career seems to a great extent built on "look at what someone on the left said that's stupid," the left equivalent (in terms of oneman YouTube talkshow host anyway) is Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk. Similar age, appearance, style of show, but very different views.
And someone compared Peterson with Zizek. That is an exchange I have long waited for, in large part due to their personalities, the fact that Zizek I think would ignore any ad hominems, and the respective fanboy explosion online.
Funnily enough, Peterson of all peoole has pointed out the need for such voices on the left and has mentioned how left needs right to stop it going too far, and vice versa.
I'm asking this as a genuine question, because people are laughing at you and that's not my intention for this...but, why?
Agree with this and would add Peterson to this. Many people don't really fit nicely into buckets.
I think the reason Peterson followers view him as having come out on top in Munk debates is because Dyson talks like a caricature of what Peterson rails about his other lectures - the identity politics SJW left. Dyson reinforced all of that with his primitive arguments and then proceeded to make a cartoon out of the debate with his bizarre hip hop cadence delivery, calling Peterson and angry white man, and saying "why da rage bruh" and other hilariously idiotic things.
Yeah. Though to be fair a lot of his fans would see him as the victor no matter what!
I hated Dyson's performance in that debate though, shot himself in the foot. And don't like his speaking style. Unnecessarily complicated words to pass himself off as hyper articulate and cover up the shallowness of his actual points (which I find inexcusable given how strong his arguments could be), punctuated by the god awful "What I'm saying to you is..."
A few interesting exchanges here..
This is a football forum, where the language used is frequently informal, and people tend to use hyperbole a lot. Add to that the fact that the people you correct are non-native English speakers, and you come across as a massive cnut when you focus your replies on minor mistakes. Both of the people you've so far smuglorded over wrote posts that make perfect sense to anyone who isn't a thundercnut.
No one expects doctoral dissertations here, half-formed thoughts and poorly articulated sentences are perfectly acceptable, as long as you're adding something to the discussion.
Tell me, how many languages are you fluent in?
You can see my picture in the “I want your pics thread”
Furthermore, I would like to point out that the part about the actual person and actual brain should not be taken literaly.
I have to admit, as far as burns go, yours is quite good. Consider my honour violated. As for the spellingand grammar stuff, I present to you the English-is-not my-first-language-card.
Lastly, is that you Ben? If so, can I get a picture you muppet voiced wumming cnut
On a serious note, I feel Ben Shapiro is not worth the effort of debating and refuting in a rational matter. The guy is a polarizing cretin, it’s obvious in a way it’s obvious that a sunset is more beautifull than a steaming dog turd. Whereas Hitchins, while not uncontroversial himself, has some very interesting theories and talking points. I loved God is not great personally.
I take offense with dumping these men in the same catagory. Shapiro is a hate monger who (or is it whom?!) should be ignored. Hitchens is an actual (har har) intellectual who should be debated.
By the way, droning on for several more paragraphs after starting one with lastly is probably frowned upon as well.
Last edited:
ben shapiro is in fact not a person
Because he is more articulate than anyone posting on this forum?
While I wasn’t impressed with Dyson’s contribution to the munk debates with Peterson, I’ll admit his hoovers are amazing.
Agreed. It’s ridiculous.
Wait. So your standard for being impressed by someone in a televised debate is "better than a redcafe poster"? I'm asking you why you were so impressed by him. It's a genuine question. I'm interested because I, and anyone whose opinion of debate and public speaking I hold in high regard I spoke to about the Munk debate, thought he was awful. I have given my reasons in this thread.
And your answer isn't an answer to that. It would be like asking "why were you impressed by Herrera against Spurs?" (random player and team) and getting the answer "because he's better at football than anyone on redcafe."
Well, we're all hairdressers and cabdrivers who lack the intelligence required to critcise them. Or something.
To be fair I’d like to see this dyson bloke debate Cal? and Peyroto in the Messi vs Ronaldo case. He’l be murdered.
He'll* also that's probably the wrong tense.
Am I doing this right?
I was thinking about this earlier, as the whole idea of public ‘intellectuals’ having seemingly dedicated followers is really weird to me. From my memory of getting interested in these types of discussions around 15 years ago, it used to be only leftist figures like Chomsky or Zinn who would inspire that level of devotion among young student types (and both were at least truly great thinkers in contrast to this apparent wave of mediocrity - I say this though have only watched an interview each of Shapiro and Peterson). But they operated mostly before the instant-internet age, which the right seem to have taken full advantage of - I think it may have to do with their message being a bit simpler and therefore more suitable for the medium of the internet. Someone like Greenwald I suppose has something of a cult following, but doesn’t seem to have the reach these guys have, has zero charisma, and finds it really hard not to come across as a complete arsehole, even when he’s right (as he often is). Sign of the times perhaps - liberals are naturally gong to have a tough time right now articulating a message that isn’t “everything’s actually ok, more of the same please!”
(Btw like others here I wouldn’t lump Hitchens in with the rest, or necessarily Harris).
That's a fair point. Academics are generally people to be engaged with, not worshiped - many of them are extremely intelligent and well-versed in their fields and so should be held in high regard, but they're still ultimately people and so their ideas and theories can always be advanced, criticised and examined closely. Indeed if you're engaging with academia (in any field) and not doing that then you're doing it wrongly, I'd say.
these people (*) are talking about some specific aspects and are hardly representative of conservatism in general. Many of those listed aren't even conservatives at all. I am also not entirely comfortable to label them as "thinker", because that only covers part of their work. I think a label like advocate/activist is a much better fit. What connects them (to some extend) is their criticism of certain left-wing phenomena. Especially "political correctness".
Additionally many people seem to also complain about "SJWs" being all over the internet and there is a huge blog-podcast-twitter-socialmedia (**) sphere where you find all their ideas in a billion different forms and shapes. What I agree with is, that left-leaning speaker (and their platforms), who match the likes of Shapiro, Harris or Hitchens (&Co) are slightly less prominent.
In my opinon that has many reasons for that, but here are two:
1) There are a long list of left-wing issues(***), that are discusses from a (center) left-wing point of view in the mainstream every day. All these topics have high profile spokes persons (****). They are all over academia, journalism and a gigantic network of NGOs, institutions and initiatives (supported by almost every celebrity on this planet). The "top-dogs" hold extremely prestigious positions and its hard to compete with that.
2) Slightly more specific: Most of those famous left-wing critics are to some extend engaging in criticism of "political correctness". You'll find an endless list of advocates of more social awareness/consciousness/correctness/respect and most of these causes are well represented in the liberal mainstream, while being too critical of this can come with social stigma in a liberal setting. Thats exactly the line, that the aforementioned dancing around (or just completely eradicate). My point is: There is a huge opening on this side of the debate for this specific issue.
-------------------
(*) I agree, that it is extremely problematic to put all these people in the same bracket. Many of them are clowns/trolls, while others are serious thinkers.
(**) there are platforms/podcasts/people like CHT, Nathan Robertson, democracy now!, TheIntercept, Jimmy Dore, Adam Simpson, The Nostalgia Trap and many many more that are to some extend similar
(***) e.g. anti-globalization, anti-capitalism, anti-war movement, against inequality, against gentrification, against corporations, against nationalism, environmental causes, feminism, LGBT, worker-rights/Unionism, human-rights and development politics)
(****) just out of the top of my head, e.g. Chomsky, Chossudovsky, Martha Nussbaum, David Graeber, Crenshaw, Jean Ziegler, Piketty, Stiglitz, Varoufakis, Naomi Klein, Amartya Sen, Greenwald, Judith Butler, Nouriel Roubini, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Zizek, Chris Hedges, Paul Krugman, Matthew Yglesias, Jon Stewart
Impressed by his verbal skills, yes. As a conservative, I disagree with most of what he says.
But I wish I could speak with his fluency.
Which is why I said 'I thought Michael Dyson articulately put across his thoughts in his debate with Peterson.'
So you value eloquence over substance? Do you rate a book on it’s cover as well? Dyson called him “a mad, mean white man”, that’s a kindergarten level insult, hardly worthy of the term debate.
Also, have you heard every caf poster speak? Some of us might be eloquent as feck. I see why you like Shapiro though. You say something offensive to rile people up only to come up with some bullshit nuance when people call you out.
Just own up to being a cnut or don’t be one at all. Who cares, it’s only the internet.
I value both.
No, I haven't heard any poster here speak. But the way in which people write at least reflects the sort of language they would most likely use in speech.
It's not 'bullshit nuance'. It's about saying precisely what one means.
Liberals are IMO more inclined to have a wider varied world view that can't be summed up by old white men pontificating on YouTube.
The idea of one person being so intelligent he can change your life is aimed at the classic Conservative youngster. Someone who is alienated by their position in society and is worried about losing 'power'.
Thanks everyone who answered. It’s a bit of a conundrum though. I know someone who devours everything produced by Harris and Peterson and it’s very clearly pushing his politics to the right. I’d love to encourage him to listen/watch to some content which offers a more left-leaning world view in a similarly convincing way but am struggling. Ended up telling him to read Pickety’s book. That’ll be a start, I suppose.
Through what medium does he access their stuff - mainly online? Still no substitute for reading a book IMO, although it’s obviously time-consuming.
Give them a link to -
Zero Books Youtube Channel -
and
Contrapoint Youtube Channel
Pickety won't do anything for them but show the economics system produces huge inequality and offer boring(Not to mention impossible)technocrat answers.
Hmmm. I gave both those videos a crack and couldn’t hack them at all. Either too mannered or too dull. Tbf I can’t sit through Jordan Peterson monologues either. My only exposure is via his podcasts with Sam Harris and Russel Brand (who is by far the most charismatic and engaging left wing voice I’ve come across - just a little light on content!) Thanks anyway. I’ll see what my friend makes of them.
That’s the thing with an internet forum; it’s anonymous. It might reflect someone’s real life personality, form of speech, beliefs and what not or it might not reflect these traits at all. For all you know Obama trolls the caf under the monniker Mike Schatner just for laughs.
You assume Dyson is more articulate than all caf members. I, on the otherhand, assume that I’m far more articulate in Dyson’s native language than he is in mine.
Cheers for trying. I'm sure it's not for everyone but I do think for someone like your friend(I'm guessing your friend watches a lot of this stuff on youtube)then it might be the best bet. Although in the end I image it's going to be difficult to change someone over something like this.
Recomand him to listen to the "chapo house trap" podcast, Varoufakis interviews and stuff from Ta-Nehisi Coates. Imo all three are quite entertaining and can inspire some enthusiasm about their topics.
Which specific content do you have in mind?
I don't pay much attention to the 'free speech', 'SJW', 'cultural Marxism' online catfight, but when it comes to good old left wing social commentary it's hard to look past Chomsky. Carlin is also great, cut through all the bs with comedy as a bonus.
I’d go as far as saying that reading Chomsky’s work has changed some of my more stubborn stances from the past. I’d actually been a more right leaning libertarian a decade ago until I started reading this work.