Peterson, Harris, etc....

I give it 24 hours before they're trying to distance themselves from each other.
 
Or, if you’d rather not listen to two of the most excruciating middle brow blow hards trying to out ‘Parklife!’ each other to sell books, you could read this far more interesting interview with Peterson...

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

With such fascinating progressive takeaways as...

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
Click to expand...

And...

”I’ve talked to a few young women, and they have told me they do wish that they could be housewives,” Mr. Nestor says. “But what they’ve said to me is that they feel as though if they were to pursue that, other people would look down on them.”
“I’ve had lots of women tell me that,” Mr. Peterson says. “Women will never admit that publicly.” Women are likely to prioritize their children over their work, he says, especially “conscientious and agreeable women.”
Click to expand...

Or even...

But witches don’t exist, and they don’t live in swamps, I say.

“Yeah, they do. They do exist. They just don’t exist the way you think they exist. They certainly exist. You may say well dragons don’t exist. It’s, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. It’s a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious. You say, ‘Well, there’s no such thing as witches.’ Yeah, I know what you mean, but that isn’t what you think when you go see a movie about them. You can’t help but fall into these categories. There’s no escape from them.”
Click to expand...

Intellectual dark web, indeed. But hey, at least it’s helping people...

There are now regular Jordan Peterson discussion groups. The one in Toronto meets once a week at a restaurant called Hemingway’s and is run by Chris Shepherd, who used to be a professional pickup artist who coached men on how to get laid fast at a club but is now a dating coach.
Click to expand...

Hooray!
 
Last edited:
“Yeah, they do. They do exist. They just don’t exist the way you think they exist. They certainly exist. You may say well dragons don’t exist. It’s, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. It’s a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious. You say, ‘Well, there’s no such thing as witches.’ Yeah, I know what you mean, but that isn’t what you think when you go see a movie about them. You can’t help but fall into these categories. There’s no escape from them.”
Click to expand...

YSageE5.jpg
 
Sweet Square said:
Although it shouldn't be it is still slightly surprising just how easy ''new atheists reddit guys'' have turned into a extreme religious sec.
Click to expand...
A self reinforcing infinite loop, from the subreddit they follow to their FB news feed.

Most grew out of it and learn to live and let live though. Or, turn to the God Emperor cult eventually.
 
Wow. We’re at the “some animals do it” stage of excuse making for the faux pas of professional public speakers now are we? How long until eating our weakest young is on the table as a plausible idea for a stronger, stable, more responsibly masculine future?

However you slice it, it’s some regressive Middle Ages bullshit. How far have we regressed that the idea of rolling back the sexual revolution in favour of hypothetical Puritanism, based partly on the behaviour of fecking ants no less! is considered genuine intellectual discussion these days? feck me. I feel like I’m going mad. But like, all the fecking time now.

Is everyone drinking paint? Or is it just ‘cos the wimmins? It’s the winnins, right? The wimmins is to blames. WIMMINNNNS!!
 
Last edited:
The most incredible thing is that they promote this transparently misogynistic worldview while opining about western cultural superiority over places that actually implement their backward ideas.
 
Silva said:
The most incredible thing is that they promote this transparently misogynistic worldview while opining about western cultural superiority over places that actually implement their backward ideas.
Click to expand...

And that their ‘radical’ ideas are being censored by the status quo establishment ‘elites’, despite said ‘elites’ being merely “people in favour of keeping (and continuing) the social progress made in the late 20th century... and their ‘radical’ ideas being “the antiquated conservative Puritanism it spent centuries overcoming”

They’ve literally formed a movement dedicated to forcing the cork back into the bottle, under the auspices that nostalgic cork bottle forcing is so scorned and unfashionable, that it must be important and dangerous by default. If this were the 19th century, they’d be the ones arguing Jack the Ripper only did what he did because too many women were reading Jane Austen. And also since the Workhouses shut, and chimney sweeps went out of fashion, young men had no order and discipline in their lives*

*yes I know all those time lines are off, but I’m using artistic license dammit. Or have the wimmin taken that from us too?... WIMMIIIIN!! (shakes fist)
 
Last edited:
Watched this yesterday. Was just about to post it!

I thought Fry was excellent. And a really interesting take on political correctness, attacking it from the left. And he was charming and self depreciating and witty, as ever. But he felt less 'under attack' than Peterson which could explain the difference of their character-it's a bit of a chicken or egg question.

While I thought there was of course truth to Dyson's comments (I would have liked to have heard some more about his 'freed into oppression' view, I think that's how he described it), I wasn't impressed with his speaking style personally. He kept saying "what I'm telling you is.../what I'm saying to you is," that's nothing to do with the content of his speech, just oratory preferences . Fry's "huckstering snake oil" comment was hilarious.

Goldberg looked nervous but that's fair enough. I would be too! And she did a better job at answering questions that were put to her (even if Peterson wasn't 'satisfied,' she thought her answer adequate). Her and Dyson did contradict themselves/each other at times, I felt, (especially re the impact of online backlashes) which was funny because you'd expect more disagreement to appear between Peterson and Fry.

A few moments that stand out in my memory:

When Peterson was saying 'show me precisely how much my success is down to white privilege and what should I do about it' and he said PRECISELY,a few times, and then Dyson shouted PRECISELY out of nowhere. I thought that made him sound like a dick tbh.

Peterson asking "at what point do you think the left goes too far," which is not a new question of his. And Dyson asked "has the right ever gone too far?" Which is whataboutery but anyway. And JBP answered "well how about Auschwitz?" To which Dyson answered 'what about more recently?' Is Auschwitz really that long ago? And then Peterson said Charlottesville (well, Fry said it and Peterson repeated it) and Norway, and "identitarian Europe." "How many more examples should I give?" and Dyson decided this meant Peterson hadn't answered the question? Furthermore, Dyson never gave his answer as to 'when does the left go to far?' At least Goldberg answered it!

(On the precision argument, I get JBP's point but I'm not sure it's the argument I would make. I don't think it's about a set percentage, rather an acknowledgement that it would exist. Of course Peterson says white privilege doesn't exist, so I don't know where you'd go in that discussion. The 'how much' might be a worthwhile discussion when addressing his second point, what do we do about it? Especially since Dyson said he liked the tax idea. How much of a tax do you want?)


Ultimately I can't help but think there would have been someone better than Dyson to argue Dyson's point of view.


Sorry for punctuation/spelling formatting issues, Im writing this on an iPhone with a Spanish keyboard :lol:
 
Charlie Foley said:
Watched this yesterday. Was just about to post it!

I thought Fry was excellent. And a really interesting take on political correctness, attacking it from the left. And he was charming and self depreciating and witty, as ever. But he felt less 'under attack' than Peterson which could explain the difference of their character-it's a bit of a chicken or egg question.

While I thought there was of course truth to Dyson's comments (I would have liked to have heard some more about his 'freed into oppression' view, I think that's how he described it), I wasn't impressed with his speaking style personally. He kept saying "what I'm telling you is.../what I'm saying to you is," that's nothing to do with the content of his speech, just oratory preferences . Fry's "huckstering snake oil" comment was hilarious.

Goldberg looked nervous but that's fair enough. I would be too! And she did a better job at answering questions that were put to her (even if Peterson wasn't 'satisfied,' she thought her answer adequate). Her and Dyson did contradict themselves/each other at times, I felt, (especially re the impact of online backlashes) which was funny because you'd expect more disagreement to appear between Peterson and Fry.

A few moments that stand out in my memory:

When Peterson was saying 'show me precisely how much my success is down to white privilege and what should I do about it' and he said PRECISELY,a few times, and then Dyson shouted PRECISELY out of nowhere. I thought that made him sound like a dick tbh.

Peterson asking "at what point do you think the left goes too far," which is not a new question of his. And Dyson asked "has the right ever gone too far?" Which is whataboutery but anyway. And JBP answered "well how about Auschwitz?" To which Dyson answered 'what about more recently?' Is Auschwitz really that long ago? And then Peterson said Charlottesville (well, Fry said it and Peterson repeated it) and Norway, and "identitarian Europe." "How many more examples should I give?" and Dyson decided this meant Peterson hadn't answered the question? Furthermore, Dyson never gave his answer as to 'when does the left go to far?' At least Goldberg answered it!

(On the precision argument, I get JBP's point but I'm not sure it's the argument I would make. I don't think it's about a set percentage, rather an acknowledgement that it would exist. Of course Peterson says white privilege doesn't exist, so I don't know where you'd go in that discussion. The 'how much' might be a worthwhile discussion when addressing his second point, what do we do about it? Especially since Dyson said he liked the tax idea. How much of a tax do you want?)


Ultimately I can't help but think there would have been someone better than Dyson to argue Dyson's point of view.


Sorry for punctuation/spelling formatting issues, Im writing this on an iPhone with a Spanish keyboard :lol:
Click to expand...

More or less my view as well. I thought Fry came off the best in all of this - not so much for anything he said but more so because the other three struggled to make any cogent points to move the needle and Fry wound up being as you say, witty and self deprecating, and generally more enjoyably thought provoking. Dyson and Goldberg were predictably mired in their own group identity politics nonsense - the former couldn't seem to stop talking about race and the latter about gender. Peterson also seemed well in over his head in all of this. He seems to struggle when others are attacking him or his views since most of his other appearances allow him to ramble endlessly with little pushback. Here, came across as small, unrefined, and seemed to spend too much time sulking when confronted by Dyson's attack minded mumbo. All things said however, I'd have to say that Fry, with Peterson hanging by his coat tails were on the right side of the debate here.
 
Last edited:
When you go into a debate on an opposing side to Stephen Fry surely you have to already realise that you're at least a bit of a feckwit.
 
Raoul said:
More or less my view as well. I thought Fry came off the best in all of this - not so much for anything he said but more so because the other three struggled to make any cogent points to move the needle and Fry wound up being as you say, witty and self deprecating, and generally more enjoyably thought provoking. Dyson and Goldberg were predictably mired in their own group identity politics nonsense - the former couldn't seem to stop talking about race and the latter about gender. Peterson also seemed well in over his head in all of this. He seems to struggle when others are attacking him or his views since most of his other appearances allow him to ramble endlessly with little pushback. He came across as small, unrefined, and was clearly bothered by Dyson's attack minded mumbo. All things said however, I'd have to say that Fry, with Peterson hanging by his coat tails were on the right side of the debate here.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a bit re Peterson last night-let's assume his view of people and the world, I think he's utterly sick of what he views as ad hominem attaacks, misquotes and misrepresentations. So it doesn't take long for him to get thrown off. His patience appears to be at an all time low. Of course, it's up to him to deal with that, and I would not be surprised if debate opponents such as Dyson intentionally targeted that. I find Peterson comes across very charismatic in a 'friendly' environment but then don't we all. He's very suspicious/paranoid/irritable when it comes to debating-but then just because you're paranoid doesn't mean no one is out to get you!! And I myself got frustrated at Dyson just watching.

I do think Fry's position is the best on this though. On top of his style and charm. It's easy for conservative views on PC or 'attacks from the right' to blend into or be interpreted as attacks on what political correctness has as its goal. You don't get that when you attack it from the left. Fry shares the same objectives he is just critiquing the vehicle. Goldberg/Dyson didn't really have an answer to that. Put most simply:

"I don't want to use A to get to B."

raises questions as to 'are you against using A? Or do you not want to get to B.' (And this is of course said not in a vacuum, so it is paired with some of Peterson's other comments, rightly or wrongly, to now mean 'I don't want to get to B, which is why I don't like A.')

Whereas

"I want to get to B, but I do not think A is an effective way."

Those who want to use A for B now have fewer routes. What can you say? Argue A is the only route? The best route (a tough argument in this context)? Suggest "you're saying that, but your objection to A betrays your true views on B!"? How on earth do you try and make that argument against Stephen Fry!*


*Actually, this can relate back to Peterson. What we know about his other views colours what he says more generally. Likewise with Fry. What we know about Stephen Fry makes it awfully difficult to critique him in a debate like this. That could be, of course, because he is right (?)
 
I don't have 2 hours, but did anyone bring up the stats about college students' commitment to free speech, and specifically the liberal vs conservative numbers within that?

Edit - and if they did, what was the response.
 
berbatrick said:
I don't have 2 hours, but did anyone bring up the stats about college students' commitment to free speech, and specifically the liberal vs conservative numbers within that?

Edit - and if they did, what was the response.
Click to expand...
I had it on in the background so I might have missed some parts but overall the answer to your question is no. The closest we got was Michelle Goldberg pointing out to Peterson that it's actually the far right who are now rising up and gaining power in Europe and the USA that are actually a danger to free speech and anyone who thinks the problem is the far left is clearly spending too much time on college campuses. Peterson didn't respond.


As usual this ''debate'' took the typical turn and ended up being a 2 hour session of a women and a black man having to slowly explain sexism and racism to two old white dudes.
 
There are a few shorter clips of various interesting exchanges

 
interesting reading the comments on those videos. I Think fanboy is appropriate here. The cult of Peterson online, claiming he won the debate single handedly and Fry just watched on.

Goldberg's point about Peterson's views coming from living his life on university campuses was a great one in my opinion. Maybe her strongest one
 
Charlie Foley said:
interesting reading the comments on those videos. I Think fanboy is appropriate here. The cult of Peterson online, claiming he won the debate single handedly and Fry just watched on.

Goldberg's point about Peterson's views coming from living his life on university campuses was a great one in my opinion. Maybe her strongest one
Click to expand...

That's the fundamental problem with Peterson. He seems to have a battalion of tribal fanboys who feel he can do or say nothing wrong. He does make some good points at times, but much of them are undercut by his academic bubble persona that seems to be heavy on academic speak and light on practicality. That's not to say his critics are in any way absolved in their attacks on him, just that he himself is generally still unrefined in his own platform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.