Peterson, Harris, etc....

InfiniteBoredom said:
when it comes to good old left wing social commentary it's hard to look past Chomsky
Click to expand...

Kaos said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't share Chomsky's general worldview, but his books are great. A good, meticulously researched Chomsky book is a proper tour de force. He has a lot of imitators on the left these days, but they don't make them like that anymore.

He is truly awful to listen to though.
 
Sweet Square said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah. He spends fecking hours on youtube, looking for the meaning of life. Tbf he’s very well read too. Started off with an interest in self improvement and mental health but ended up mainlining Jordan Peterson and Stefan Molyneux (who is such a complete prick he makes Peterson seem like your cuddly uncle in comparison) and, as a result, his politics have shifted to the right.

What’s interesting to me is that I don’t see a similar route for someone to end up becoming more progressive. There just doesn’t seem to be the equivalent role models.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Out of interest, can anyone nominate any impressive thinkers who could counter the more erroneous crap put about by Shapiro, Hitchens, Peterson et al? There does seem to be a big gap in the market. Conservatives seem to be all over the interweb, moaning about free speech and influencing impressionable youth. I'm actually quite worried about the lack of any sort of coherent spokesman/woman for a more liberal, left-leaning view of the word. Right now, the whole thing seems very much like a one way street.
Click to expand...

I don't think any of Shapiro, Hitchens and Peterson should be group together as they are all very different IMO.

A lot of people are mentioning Chomsky and I want to push back a little. While I read Chomsky a lot in the 1990s, I don't think he really is a best representation of liberal intellectuals as he has his own issues. So here are a few more important stuff

George Lakoff - Moral Politics
Lakoff is a former Chomsky student who is the major linguistic theorist that opposes Chomsky. For the record I think Lakoff's cognitive linguistics is accurate and Chomsky's Universal Grammar is not supported by the current scientific evidence. For the record I also think Lakoff is an asshat as a person but his theories i still believe are the best in linguistics.


Stephen Pinker
Pinker in the mid 2000s was one of the biggest rock star academics I have ever seen. I've literally seen "hot girl groupies" outside a Pinker lecture talking about how hot he was (and those were Harvard students btw). He is not as relevant to the "sjw vs alt-right debates" but that is a positive IMO as that dichotomy has thrown public intellectualism into the garbage can, but Pinker is definitely worthwhile
https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate

Slavoj Zizek
He hasn't been mentioned specifically as a counterpoint but I think Zizek is important at the moment as the most prominent neo-Marxist (or post-neo) intellectual.

Richard Rorty
For anything on post-modern philosophy I'd recommend Rorty as the go-to although he passed away a decade ago so no modern media to listen to.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rorty/

Daniel Kahneman
Psychologist, Nobel Laurete in Economics and co-founder of the field of behavioral economics. Kahneman is a legend. Not sure if he qualifies as public intellectual but his ideas are worth listening to
 
Raoul said:
Its funny watching journo after journo twisting themselves into pretzels to try and "expose" Peterson's views on various topics.
Click to expand...
Why arent they wearing shoes? It looks so silly.

The point about women wearing high heels to sexualize themselves is a bit silly imho. Perhaps they want to feel sexy to feel good about themselves. It should have no connection at all to inappropriate behaviour. Ofcourse determining the exact line between feeling good about yourself and just being indecent is hard to define, but being able to judge that from the situation is what sets us apart from robots. And psychopaths. Though judging on his demeanor I always wonder whether Peterson is secretly a serial killer. He’s such a scary fella.

Peterson must be a fan of the niqaab though, is he?
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
Thought it was a nice touch to the interview.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I just always imagine a brainstorm session with one guy saying: “wait, let’s have em not wear shoes!” And the manager saying: “ah, good one Phil, make it happen!”

It does give it a special touch though I suppose.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
I don't think any of Shapiro, Hitchens and Peterson should be group together as they are all very different IMO.

A lot of people are mentioning Chomsky and I want to push back a little. While I read Chomsky a lot in the 1990s, I don't think he really is a best representation of liberal intellectuals as he has his own issues. So here are a few more important stuff

George Lakoff - Moral Politics
Lakoff is a former Chomsky student who is the major linguistic theorist that opposes Chomsky. For the record I think Lakoff's cognitive linguistics is accurate and Chomsky's Universal Grammar is not supported by the current scientific evidence. For the record I also think Lakoff is an asshat as a person but his theories i still believe are the best in linguistics.


Stephen Pinker
Pinker in the mid 2000s was one of the biggest rock star academics I have ever seen. I've literally seen "hot girl groupies" outside a Pinker lecture talking about how hot he was (and those were Harvard students btw). He is not as relevant to the "sjw vs alt-right debates" but that is a positive IMO as that dichotomy has thrown public intellectualism into the garbage can, but Pinker is definitely worthwhile
https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate

Slavoj Zizek
He hasn't been mentioned specifically as a counterpoint but I think Zizek is important at the moment as the most prominent neo-Marxist (or post-neo) intellectual.

Richard Rorty
For anything on post-modern philosophy I'd recommend Rorty as the go-to although he passed away a decade ago so no modern media to listen to.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rorty/

Daniel Kahneman
Psychologist, Nobel Laurete in Economics and co-founder of the field of behavioral economics. Kahneman is a legend. Not sure if he qualifies as public intellectual but his ideas are worth listening to
Click to expand...


Zizek supported Trump IIRC



 
Last edited:
Pogue Mahone said:
Yeah. He spends fecking hours on youtube, looking for the meaning of life. Tbf he’s very well read too. Started off with an interest in self improvement and mental health but ended up mainlining Jordan Peterson and Stefan Molyneux (who is such a complete prick he makes Peterson seem like your cuddly uncle in comparison) and, as a result, his politics have shifted to the right.

What’s interesting to me is that I don’t see a similar route for someone to end up becoming more progressive. There just doesn’t seem to be the equivalent role models.
Click to expand...

Pogue I honestly think the person who is spending hours on YouTube for ways to improve themselves is more predetermined to be right wing. The amount of lads that I went to school with who were very intelligent but didn’t apply themselves all drifted this way. Would I be right in saying that your nephew was academically gifted, but as he fails to apply himself is struggling to fulfil his potential? That describes my “Peterson” friends to a tee. Lads who had every opportunity but got stoned and intellectually wanker each other off instead of building a CV
 
Wumminator said:
You don’t need to go very far. The man comes across as genuinely idiotic when you look
Click to expand...

He may in some instances, but certainly not in this one. The interviewer just gave him the usual PC nonsense which Peterson easily dealt with since he's been fielding the same questions in most interviews.
 
Wumminator said:
Pogue I honestly think the person who is spending hours on YouTube for ways to improve themselves is more predetermined to be right wing. The amount of lads that I went to school with who were very intelligent but didn’t apply themselves all drifted this way. Would I be right in saying that your nephew was academically gifted, but as he fails to apply himself is struggling to fulfil his potential? That describes my “Peterson” friends to a tee. Lads who had every opportunity but got stoned and intellectually wanker each other off instead of building a CV
Click to expand...
Peterson's main "self-help" message is to take responsibility for yourself and do so by finding something meaningful in your life that will facilitate the adoption of that responsibility. So perhaps people who have wasted opportunity and are floundering in the world are more likely to need "advice" than someone who has their shit together, and are therefore more likely to respond positively to Peterson's self-help messages.

All of my Peterson-listening friends are highly successful. Not because of him, but what he says resonates for whatever reason.
 
Raoul said:
He may in some instances, but certainly not in this one. The interviewer just gave him the usual PC nonsense which Peterson easily dealt with since he's been fielding the same questions in most interviews.
Click to expand...
Vice was shockingly poor.

Someone from the BBC (former professor) interviewed Peterson recently and that was by far the best interview I've seen because the professor challenged him tangibly on his views and provided some excellent counter points and debate. Both came across well.
 
Kaos said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah Chomsky is stupidly good at making his arguments even if they aren’t ones you’d natural agree with. Probably superior to Hitchens in many ways.

Made a dick of Harris too in the email exchange.
 
Fridge chutney said:
Peterson's main "self-help" message is to take responsibility for yourself and do so by finding something meaningful in your life that will facilitate the adoption of that responsibility. So perhaps people who have wasted opportunity and are floundering in the world are more likely to need "advice" than someone who has their shit together, and are therefore more likely to respond positively to Peterson's self-help messages.

All of my Peterson-listening friends are highly successful. Not because of him, but what he says resonates for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

That's my general impression as well. Peterson was in my city a couple of nights ago and it seems that a vast majority of people who attend his talks are normal people interested in his critiques of identity politics, gender relations etc.
 
Fridge chutney said:
Vice was shockingly poor.

Someone from the BBC (former professor) interviewed Peterson recently and that was by far the best interview I've seen because the professor challenged him tangibly on his views and provided some excellent counter points and debate. Both came across well.
Click to expand...

Most of the interviews by news outlets are poor because the interviewers have to adhere to positions their news organization can defend - in this case, gender equality in the work place. They therefore don't have much debating latitude to properly engage Peterson on his data and ideas that are at some point going to leave the narrow PC realm and veer into the uncomfortable.
 
Fridge chutney said:
This is the first time I have seen Harris and he seems to be anti-Trump, which is not typical of an average conservative in the US.

He should not be grouped with Shapiro.
Click to expand...

Harris isn't remotely conservative. He just has strong views at the ideational level that transcend the usual left/right foodfight.

Shapiro on the other hand is basically a cookie cutter conservative masquerading as a wannabee intellectual.
 
Raoul said:
Harris isn't remotely conservative. He just has strong views at the ideational level that transcend the usual left/right foodfight.

Shapiro on the other hand is basically a cookie cutter conservative masquerading as a wannabee intellectual.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I will listen to Harris. The first 5 minutes are promising.

I enjoy hearing different views that aren't steeped in hyperbole and rigidity.

I find in general people need to listen more, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum.

And agree re: Shapiro. That's my exact impression of him.
 
I think the thread title should be changed to “Peterson, Hitchens, Harris 3 etc...”

No one’s really discussing Shapiro’s views and the guy doesnt deserve his own thread on the caf. Or if he really needs one make it: Shapiro, Barr, Limbaugh etc..”
 
Wumminator said:
Pogue I honestly think the person who is spending hours on YouTube for ways to improve themselves is more predetermined to be right wing. The amount of lads that I went to school with who were very intelligent but didn’t apply themselves all drifted this way. Would I be right in saying that your nephew was academically gifted, but as he fails to apply himself is struggling to fulfil his potential? That describes my “Peterson” friends to a tee. Lads who had every opportunity but got stoned and intellectually wanker each other off instead of building a CV
Click to expand...

Not my nephew but yeah, you’re not far wrong.
 
KirkDuyt said:
I think the thread title should be changed to “Peterson, Hitchens, Harris 3 etc...”

No one’s really discussing Shapiro’s views and the guy doesnt deserve his own thread on the caf. Or if he really needs one make it: Shapiro, Barr, Limbaugh etc..”
Click to expand...

Shapiro was in the title since most of this thread was about him.
 
Raoul said:
That's my general impression as well. Peterson was in my city a couple of nights ago and it seems that a vast majority of people who attend his talks are normal people interested in his critiques of identity politics, gender relations etc.
Click to expand...

Don't be absurd. They're the alt-right don't you know.
 
Silva said:
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/148662/jordan-peterson-psychology-anymore

Rule 8: Tell the truth – or, at least, don't lie
Click to expand...

That's a pretty weak argument by the author imo. Its implicit in all of his appearances that he doesn't practice or teach much if he's traveling to support his books and appearances. But that doesn't make him any less credible or qualified to talk about his subject matter. If online journos are scraping the bottom of the barrel to criticize his schedule then its a good sign they are starting to give up on challenging him on the merits of his ideas.
 
Raoul said:
That's a pretty weak argument by the author imo. Its implicit in all of his appearances that he doesn't practice or teach much if he's traveling to support his books and appearances. But that doesn't make him any less credible or qualified to talk about his subject matter. If online journos are scraping the bottom of the barrel to criticize his schedule then its a good sign they are starting to give up on challenging him on the merits of his ideas.
Click to expand...
here's the longer version: http://www.canadalandshow.com/how-jordan-petersons-fame-affected-his-private-practice/

he's a bad at his job and lied to his patients
 
McUnited said:
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.'
Click to expand...
He has a broad vocabulary (perhaps this is what you mean). He often uses this to mask the substance, or lack thereof, of what he's saying. Fry was right-a huckster snake oil salesman.

It is no coincidence that the best point he made was with a quote from someone else.
 
Raoul said:
Zizek supported Trump IIRC
Click to expand...

The impression I got was a bit complicated. I'll have to see if those videos are the same I watched later, but iirc his reasoning was more like:
The left failed to represent the issues of the left. Clinton is not a leftist. Trump represented some sort of chaotic shakeup that gives the Democrats a chance to clean their house and nominate an actual liberal next time.

Not saying I am an expert on Zizek's opinions, I could be interpreting him wrong myself but it sounded like a roundabout protest against the non-left Democrats more than actual support of Trump.
More of a this is how the left failed and why people will go with Trump.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
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.
Click to expand...
Russell Brand is, sadly, very light on content in my opinion. However, his heart is in the right place, I feel, and I feel he has worked hard to expand his understanding of issues. He's ferociously charismatic though, and very comfortable speaking in public, which is very important. But sometimes, much like Dyson, I feel he speaks as though he swallowed a thesaurus.
 
Charlie Foley said:
Russell Brand is, sadly, very light on content in my opinion. However, his heart is in the right place, I feel, and I feel he has worked hard to expand his understanding of issues. He's ferociously charismatic though, and very comfortable speaking in public, which is very important. But sometimes, much like Dyson, I feel he speaks as though he swallowed a thesaurus.
Click to expand...

Brand has a lot of potential as an advocate for something more than just humor and podcasts imo.
 
Charlie Foley said:
Russell Brand is, sadly, very light on content in my opinion. However, his heart is in the right place, I feel, and I feel he has worked hard to expand his understanding of issues. He's ferociously charismatic though, and very comfortable speaking in public, which is very important. But sometimes, much like Dyson, I feel he speaks as though he swallowed a thesaurus.
Click to expand...

He can also be a bit reactionary. I remember him advocating non-voting back in 2015...and then endorsing Labour after one chat with Ed Miliband. After the deadline for registering to vote had passed.

But, yeah, he generally means well. Seems to have largely disappeared in the last couple of years though.
 
Charlie Foley said:
Russell Brand is, sadly, very light on content in my opinion. However, his heart is in the right place, I feel, and I feel he has worked hard to expand his understanding of issues. He's ferociously charismatic though, and very comfortable speaking in public, which is very important. But sometimes, much like Dyson, I feel he speaks as though he swallowed a thesaurus.
Click to expand...

There's an interesting video of him debating drugs with Peter Hitchens. Depending on which side of the debate you fall on, either Brand is hilarious and Hitchens bigoted, or Brand is a child in a man's body and Hitchens is the voice of reason.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.