All of those I agree with apart from the last one really. The first 3 are classic examples of discrimination, but I don’t think mis-gendering is the same. I just don’t think you can make the laws based around someone being a dick. What crime have they committed other than being insensitive to someone’s feelings? There are some things that just don’t need laws. If someone mis-genders you don’t run to the police, just ignore them and move on. It’s sticks and stones, basically.
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.
All of those I agree with apart from the last one really. The first 3 are classic examples of discrimination, but I don’t think mis-gendering is the same. I just don’t think you can make the laws based around someone being a dick. What crime have they committed other than being insensitive to someone’s feelings? There are some things that just don’t need laws. If someone mis-genders you don’t run to the police, just ignore them and move on. It’s sticks and stones, basically.
Liking someone because they wind up certain people is pretty sad to be honest. The fact is that Shapiro and Peterson are lauded by idiots who think they are very smart. I'll never call either stupid, because they are not, but they are so inherently bigoted. It'd be acceptable 30-40 years ago but not today when we have the ability to access any amount of information we want on all topics. They are an embarrassment to the 'intellectual' tag. They choose their battles carefully and on the occasion that they are bettered they retreat like the guys they purport to hate. Anyone who can be beaten by one simple question from Jim Jeffries (I like his comedy at times but he ain't an 'intellectual') is someone whose views are quite clearly idiotic regardless of how much he sounds like his parents sent him to a private school.
Anyone who likes them because they 'trigger' people might as well go support the Westboro Baptist Church who do the same and who's views make as much sense, in that they make no sense at all.
Anyone who likes them because they 'trigger' people might as well go support the Westboro Baptist Church who do the same and who's views make as much sense, in that they make no sense at all.
Hostility? You sound a bit sensitive mate. Maybe you need a safe space.
I pointed out that despite claiming you are a liberal, your post suggests you gobble up right-wing drivel. Or at very least you take this shit way, way too seriously.
This is another personal attack.
As it happens I do take peoples rights incredibly seriously. I've come into the thread openly engaging in discussion and looking to have my views challenged or my perspective shifted. What have you done to facilitate that?
I posted that example as evidence of the point I'd made previously. I'm not sure how another event where police fired water cannons changes anything.
If you're saying that rightwing people are shutting down debate that doesn't mean that people on the left aren't. They're not mutually exclusive.
I watched the first clip and the person tweeting is completely misrepresenting what he actually says.
All he is doing is explaining what the circumstances at the time were in order for the Nazis to rise, which is what most historians would agree on. I don't ever see him justifying it as normal or logical, simply saying that the situation was chaotic and people turn to radical solutions in terms of chaos. Nothing he said would be at all controversial in a history seminar.
It's possible that elsewhere he's said something dodgy about the Nazis, but there is nothing wrong with the clip in question.
And generally a strong indicator that said person doesn't have anything to actually contribute to the debate themselves.
he literally says the nazis were order, the party which systematically murdered political allies before starting a genocidal war, it is modern nazi propaganda
it wasn't a point about the post ww1 set up making war inevitable, follow the rest of the thread and you'll see he was mimicking classic nazi apologetics
i.e
He said they represented order to people, because this is what they promised. He's right, people were living in a chaotic Germany which was extremely weak and divided, and were thus more attracted to the kind of rhetoric that the Nazis were offering. To me it just comes across as attempting to explain the context in which an evil like the Nazis could rise, rather than actually portraying the Nazis as orderly. I doubt someone as educated as Peterson (as much as I might disagree with him in many ways) would actually view them that way. They didn't even have order within their own party because Hitler let them fight among themselves in an ode to his stupid social darwinism.
I'll look through the rest of the thread, it's just the person has made a claim and then attached a clip which doesn't actually back up said claim.
Hitler was basically a crowd pleasing hack, just telling people what they wanted to hear. Germany was in a bad way at the time so people lapped it up. I definitely get the Trump parallels, since he did basically the same thing.
Oh god, don't get me started on that. People talk about Nazi efficiency, which is so laughably wrong that it's honestly absurd. Nazi Germany was chaos and inefficiency at all levels of the party and state and all the way down to design and production of war material. Can't believe they didn't win.
Come to think of it that does sort of remind me of the Trump administration...
yes what you typed is nazi apologetics, the nazis weren't viewed as order by germans at the time, they took over violently and with funding and approval from the german capitalist class, the idea that their rise was an organic consequence of the time is nazi apologetics
That's the mainstream view of the rise of the Nazi party. Most of the literature written on their rise to power will present it in that way and nearly all lecturers I've had on the subject have spoken in similar terms. Are you saying they are all Nazi apologists?
They weren't viewed as order by all Germans, certainly, especially since a huge number voted against them and many fled the country as they rose. But they were viewed as the party which could restore a sense of order to the country by a majority of those who voted for them. Obviously not everybody bought in to it, but I don't think anybody is implying that they had the total support of the German people?
Their rise was no more or less organic than the rise of communism in Russia. A result of the political, social and economic realities of the time which led to an extremist option becoming more attractive. You had an embarrassed, economically depressed and politically divided Germany, which the Nazis were able to take advantage of.
Indeed, even their economic 'success' was hugely exaggerated and mostly based on an unsustainable war economy. From top to bottom they were led by fear and scared people obviously exaggerate production figures etc, thus giving an inflated sense of how well they were actually doing.
Then you get the Wehraboos who are absolutely convinced that the German armed forces were some sort of unstoppable, efficient juggernaut at all levels, only stopped by being outnumbered 1000-1.
The capitalist class allowed the Nazis to take over violently because they feared the communists more than the fascists. A majority of Germans voted against them until the violent take over. They might have taken over violently without capital backing as the Communists in the east did, but that's not what happened in Germany. They were given backing from German capitalists and foreign capitalists. I don't know who your lecturer was, but I'd be surprised they left that out.
And the way peterson talks about it, mirroring Jung of all people, while he was working for the Nazi party and being one of their intellectual bedrocks, isn't the mainstream view.
I've very rarely seen capitalists given the majority of the credit for the rise of the Nazi party, that certainly is not the mainstream view on how it took place. There was investment from capitalists but it wasn't as significant as you're implying, the majority of their funding still came from their members and the events they held. Goebbels himself wrote about this in his diary, they weren't overly reliant on other forms of investment. I'm certainly aware the support was there (yes due to the fear of communism) but that doesn't change the fact that a great number of Germans did vote for the Nazis because they believed it could bring order to the country. Peterson isn't incorrect in that assertion. They were wrong of course, but it doesn't change how they felt. We have plenty of evidence in the form of letters, interviews etc from people who tell us exactly why they voted the way they did.
Taking that clip in isolation, Peterson isn't saying anything which isn't mainstream. It's not anything I haven't heard in a number of seminars or lectures. You'd struggle to find many respected academics who would watch that and be particularly opposed to what he's saying.
I don't want to get too caught up in the semantics of that though (or in to a bloated discussion about the rise of nazi germany, since this isn't the thread for that) since there's plenty of other stuff he says which is very weird.
What he says about the 'Jewish question' for example is far more worrying and not at all credible. Suggesting a certain group of people have higher IQs? Doesn't he understand how damaging that premise can be?
What he says about the 'Jewish question' for example is far more worrying and not at all credible. Suggesting a certain group of people have higher IQs? Doesn't he understand how damaging that premise can be?
Yeah I’ve heard him say that before and wondered what the feck he was on about.
yes, he provides an intellectual foundation for christian dominion, he isn't a good faith actor, he's a piece of shit
Every single word he says in the extended clip where he talks about the Jews is disgusting pseudo science, and absolutely the video I would most recommend if you're trying to discredit him. Utterly ludicrous claims based on totally unreliable studies, the kind that he would be saying was a 'grey area' if anybody confronted him on a transgender issue.
He actually has the nerve to call the science 'not settled, but reasonably solid', which is just a total fabrication and honestly makes me feel quite ill. The amount of controversy/discussion about the science of IQ itself makes it impossible to claim that.
Just look at the comments on the video .. disgusting. As a direct result of this video these people feel totally justified in their prejudices.
He actually has the nerve to call the science 'not settled, but reasonably solid', which is just a total fabrication and honestly makes me feel quite ill. The amount of controversy/discussion about the science of IQ itself makes it impossible to claim that.
Just look at the comments on the video .. disgusting. As a direct result of this video these people feel totally justified in their prejudices.
It is interesting to me that for someone who is so against identity politics, and categorising people solely by their membership of a certain club, be it race, gender etc, that a lot of his theories are actually based around things just like it. He often then references studies that place people into these groups. Saying that Jewish people on average tend to be 15% more intelligent etc. It seems very hypocritical saying that one minute, then the next saying how identity politics is evil.
shock horror as man who constantly talks about judeo-christian values might only hate identity politics that aren't about white men being amazing
If only we were all as clever as you Silva
if only
I actually found out I have ashkenazi Jewish heritage last year, so actually I'm the clever one because Peterson says I get 15 more IQ points.
ha
ha
He seems more outraged and triggered by that interview than powerful Kathy ever did.
He should be thanking her as it gained him an incredible amount of exposure.
He should be thanking her as it gained him an incredible amount of exposure.
did he leave specifically because of this guy or because of the banning of several far-right types? The latter seems more likely.
Afaik, it was Sargon and Milo y--- who were banned
That bunch are picking an odd hill to die on the way I see it. In the same way people have this perverse need to compare people to Nazi's and Hitler, I feel like they're having a perverse need to overstate their own persecution, aided by the brady bunch echo chamber they've created for themselves and online bubble that they live in.
Judgemental on my part for sure but I think anyone giving money to these people (including Chapo on the left) are sad, sad feckers.
Who the feck cares enough about hearing Sam Harris and Bucko Peterson so much they’ll pay the cnuts?! They’re rich you idiots.
Who the feck cares enough about hearing Sam Harris and Bucko Peterson so much they’ll pay the cnuts?! They’re rich you idiots.
"Who cares about watching Brad Pitt so much they'll pay for a movie ticket?! He's rich you idiots."
I haven't seen that much of Peterson but when he was on Question Time recently he came down on the liberal side of the argument regarding inner City gangs and Brexit.
He's so weird
Nah not really seeing the comparison there chief.
What’s the SAS?
Candace Owens 
laugh every time I see her moronic vapid face
laugh every time I see her moronic vapid face