Peterson, Harris, etc....

[Mockney]

The fundamental problem with Peterson is that he hasn't got an awful lot to say. He's a flavour of the month polemicist, whose schtick is half glaringly self evident life coach bullshit (clean your room, wash your dick!) and half right leaning hand waving (pro-nouns are Stalinist!) and dull traditionalist agitpop. With added dragons.

His zeitgeist fame is the result of the first generation of well off western white males being actively called on their privilege, and occasionally made to feel a tiny fraction of the identity prejudice every non-white citizen in a Western country has had to deal with, accept, and normalise for centuries. And finding it such an inconvenient, uncomfortable imposition, that they'd rather buy into the idea that feminism, privilege, racial politics and anything that devalues their intrinsically entitled self worth is complete bollocks, and actually probably a blight on humanity too. And also probably Marxist somehow. 'Cos dragons....

The fact that the two hugely famous people, with large popular platforms, won a vote against two largely unknown people, in a widely published video about how said really famous people, in said widely published video, feel their POVs are being stifled and censored somehow, because Universities, or something? proves precisely feckity feck all. Though I'm a bit disappointed in Fry if he genuinely stooped to claiming the "values of the Enlightenment are being rolled back" because the same benign political correctness that stops actual Politicians from openly calling him an abomination against nature, has lead to the occasionally aggressive criticism of often horrible ideas. Especially when he's tag teaming with a man tentatively opposed to both gay marriage and adoption, because of its natural confliction with his regressively traditionalist view of the world.

 

[Raoul]

The fundamental problem with Peterson is that he hasn't got an awful lot to say. He's a flavour of the month polemicist, whose schtick is half glaringly self evident life coach bullshit, and half right leaning traditionalist agitpop. With added dragons. His zeitgeist fame is the result of the first generation of well off western white males being actively called on their privilege, and occasionally made to feel a tiny fraction of the identity prejudice every non-white citizen in a Western country has had to deal with, accept, and normalise for centuries. And finding it such an inconvenient, uncomfortable imposition, that they'd rather buy the idea that feminism, privilege, racial politics and anything that devalues their intrinsically entitled self worth is complete bollocks, and actually probably a blight on humanity too. And also probably Marxist somehow. 'Cos dragons....

The fact that the two hugely famous people, with large popular platforms, won a vote against two largely unknown people, in a widely published video about how said really famous people, in said widely published video, feel their POV are being stifled and censored somehow, because Universities, or something? proves precisely feckity feck all. Though I'm a bit disappointed in Fry if he genuinely stooped to claiming the "values of the Enlightenment are being rolled back" because the same benign political correctness that stops actual Politicians from openly calling him an abomination against nature, has lead to the occasionally aggressive criticism of often horrible ideas. Especially when he's tag teaming with a man tentatively opposed to both gay marriage and adoption, because of its natural confliction with his regressively traditionalist view of the world.

Dyson is very well known in the states. Goldberg is fairly anonymous here. The event was in Canada so its not particularly surprising that Peterson did well in his country and city of residence.

 

[Silva]

Though I'm a bit disappointed in Fry if he genuinely stooped to claiming the "values of the Enlightenment are being rolled back" because the same benign political correctness that stops actual Politicians from openly calling him an abomination against nature, has lead to the occasionally aggressive criticism of often horrible ideas. Especially when he's tag teaming with a man tentatively opposed to both gay marriage and adoption, because of its natural confliction with his regressively traditionalist view of the world.

Sodomy didn't get much of a defence from the enlightenment, it's a very recent phenomenon intellectually, so it kind of makes sense to kick the gays a bit if you're a strict enlightenment thinker*.

*a couple of centuries behind everyone else

 

[Mockney]

Dyson is very well known in the states. Goldberg is fairly anonymous here. The event was in Canada so its not particularly surprising that Peterson did well in his country and city of residence.

All it tells me is that the disenfranchised nostalgic middle aged men and frustrated 16 year old white boys who watch these things, are desperate to fill the vacuum left by Hitchens, but have no interest in the vast and complex myriad of differing political views he held throughout his life, and would rather settle for an easy facsimile of his latter years as an irascible Bush supporting misogynist. And, like, just super double down on that. 'Cos all this silly "examining how we treat women" stuff is not something wasps do.

Also stories are important. And they all tell us to conform to mainstream Christian normative roles. Trust me, I've watched all the Disney ones. Except for Frozen, which is evil and Marxist, 'cos wimmins.

 

[Charlie Foley]

Are dragons Stalinist?

 

[Mockney]

Are dragons Stalinist?

Very possibly. Considering everything Peterson dislikes is either post modern or Marxist in some way (sometimes even the dreaded “culturally Marxist” - a term genuinely hard to ridicule on account of it being literally invented by the Nazis!) and that the long, brutal totalitarian reign of Stalin, and that one book of socio-exonomic philosophy of Marxs, are essentially one and the same to Peterson...It’s very possible everything from Dragons to Orangina is potentially Stalinist to ol’ Jo-Peez. Especially if the womens are involved.

 

[Mockney]

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I feel like that thread would have more impact if he a) didn’t give the impression he hadn’t read Peterson’s book and b) discussed actual
lobster at least once.

 

[Mockney]

I think his point is that Peterson cherry picked lobsters because they fit his specific facile argument about natural order, and ignored the wealth of other similar shit that didn’t.

 

[Synco]

The fundamental problem with Peterson is that he hasn't got an awful lot to say. He's a flavour of the month polemicist, whose schtick is half glaringly self evident life coach bullshit (clean your room, wash your dick!) and half right leaning hand waving (pro-nouns are Stalinist!) and dull traditionalist agitpop. With added dragons.

His zeitgeist fame is the result of the first generation of well off western white males being actively called on their privilege, and occasionally made to feel a tiny fraction of the identity prejudice every non-white citizen in a Western country has had to deal with, accept, and normalise for centuries. And finding it such an inconvenient, uncomfortable imposition, that they'd rather buy into the idea that feminism, privilege, racial politics and anything that devalues their intrinsically entitled self worth is complete bollocks, and actually probably a blight on humanity too. And also probably Marxist somehow. 'Cos dragons....

Yup, basically.

I think his point is that Peterson cherry picked lobsters because they fit his specific facile argument about natural order, and ignored the wealth of other similar shit that didn’t.

Whenever I read some stuff from the likes of Damore, Peterson, proponents of evolutionary psychology (at least the strands connected to that kind of activism), the men's rights movement, this argumentative strategy was quite prominent. I also had the impression it was generally a result of belief, rather than just being tactical about it.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I think his point is that Peterson cherry picked lobsters because they fit his specific facile argument about natural order, and ignored the wealth of other similar shit that didn’t.

I’ve managed to avoid Peterson’s lobster analogy thus far (as I’m sure it’s a load of bollox) and am mainly being pedantic. What lobster behaviours does he think applies to people?

 

[Untied]

I’ve managed to avoid Peterson’s lobster analogy thus far (as I’m sure it’s a load of bollox) and am mainly being pedantic. What lobster behaviours does he think applies to people?

Lobsters get given girlfriends by the state

 

[JohnLocke]

I’ve managed to avoid Peterson’s lobster analogy thus far (as I’m sure it’s a load of bollox) and am mainly being pedantic. What lobster behaviours does he think applies to people?

Lobsters have been around longer than trees (300m years?). People are descended from lobsters. Lobsters have a central nervous system and operate within a hierarchy. If you give a lobster serotonin it will boost its status within the hierarchy.

Hierarchies are older than trees, people are hard-wired to operate within hierarchies.

I think that's it pretty much.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Lobsters have been around longer than trees (300m years?). People are descended from lobsters. Lobsters have a central nervous system and operate within a hierarchy. If you give a lobster serotonin it will boost its status within the hierarchy.

Hierarchies are older than trees, people are hard-wired to operate within hierarchies.

I think that's it pretty much.

Not a lot to disagree with there. We’re also hard-wired to do a bunch of other deplorable stuff. Evolutionary psychology is really just about acknowledging what may be behind certain impulses. There’s no obligation to act on them.

 

[JohnLocke]

Not a lot to disagree with there. We’re also hard-wired to do a bunch of other deplorable stuff. Evolutionary psychology is really just about acknowledging what may be behind certain impulses. There’s no obligation to act on them.

Bret Weinstein talks about this a lot if you've listened to anything he's said online.

 

[Raoul]

Lobsters get given girlfriends by the state

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I was told about this and that t was poor overall. The format itself is one I typically criticize - setting things up as if there are only two sides to the debate instead of having a more "round table discussion".
Three of them were mostly grand standing and talking past each other. Fry was the only one who seemed calm and trying to advance a discussion but even his points weren't the most compelling. All four missed the mark IMO.

I've never heard Michael Dyson prior but what I heard here was awful. Dyson was the worst of the bunch. He was grand standing, trying to mix some ghetto slang and Southern Baptist Preacher cadence which came off phony, made a lot of ad hominem and basically is the exact wrong type of person to be debating Peterson about post-modernism. The "journalist" just seemed to be trying to make a bigger name for herself on a platform rather than actually engaging any relevant topic. Peterson was at his angriest and worst form. Fry IMO was simply not compelling though he is easily the best public speaker of all of them.

The type person they need to debate Peterson is not Dyson who just feeds into the lowest common denominator but rather someone like the late Richard Rorty. A brilliant philosophy professor who can break down in normal language exactly what Peterson is getting wrong with his post-modern labels is whats needed to break through this silly "SJW vs anti-PC" debate. Dyson's repeated personal attacks just make things worse.
Rorty would have been insightful enough to know how to move the conversation forward. Dyson is not.

 

[Raoul]

I was told about this and that t was poor overall. The format itself is one I typically criticize - setting things up as if there are only two sides to the debate instead of having a more "round table discussion".
Three of them were mostly grand standing and talking past each other. Fry was the only one who seemed calm and trying to advance a discussion but even his points weren't the most compelling. All four missed the mark IMO.

I've never heard Michael Dyson prior but what I heard here was awful. Dyson was the worst of the bunch. He was grand standing, trying to mix some ghetto slang and Southern Baptist Preacher cadence which came off phony, made a lot of ad hominem and basically is the exact wrong type of person to be debating Peterson about post-modernism. The "journalist" just seemed to be trying to make a bigger name for herself on a platform rather than actually engaging any relevant topic. Peterson was at his angriest and worst form. Fry IMO was simply not compelling though he is easily the best public speaker of all of them.

The type person they need to debate Peterson is not Dyson who just feeds into the lowest common denominator but rather someone like the late Richard Rorty. A brilliant philosophy professor who can break down in normal language exactly what Peterson is getting wrong with his post-modern labels is whats needed to break through this silly "SJW vs anti-PC" debate. Dyson's repeated personal attacks just make things worse.
Rorty would have been insightful enough to know how to move the conversation forward. Dyson is not.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Dyson is known for his cheesy attempts to almost rap when he's debating people.

 

[DOTA]

Peterson is not a serious person. He consistently makes vague comments that are designed to wink to the alt-right and annoy the left and when questioned as to what they mean just waffles because he knows he can't admit to any actual views without limiting his appeal.

 

[PedroMendez]

http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/23/can-things-be-both-popular-and-silenced/

 

[Raoul]

I was told about this and that t was poor overall. The format itself is one I typically criticize - setting things up as if there are only two sides to the debate instead of having a more "round table discussion".
Three of them were mostly grand standing and talking past each other. Fry was the only one who seemed calm and trying to advance a discussion but even his points weren't the most compelling. All four missed the mark IMO.

I've never heard Michael Dyson prior but what I heard here was awful. Dyson was the worst of the bunch. He was grand standing, trying to mix some ghetto slang and Southern Baptist Preacher cadence which came off phony, made a lot of ad hominem and basically is the exact wrong type of person to be debating Peterson about post-modernism. The "journalist" just seemed to be trying to make a bigger name for herself on a platform rather than actually engaging any relevant topic. Peterson was at his angriest and worst form. Fry IMO was simply not compelling though he is easily the best public speaker of all of them.

The type person they need to debate Peterson is not Dyson who just feeds into the lowest common denominator but rather someone like the late Richard Rorty. A brilliant philosophy professor who can break down in normal language exactly what Peterson is getting wrong with his post-modern labels is whats needed to break through this silly "SJW vs anti-PC" debate. Dyson's repeated personal attacks just make things worse.
Rorty would have been insightful enough to know how to move the conversation forward. Dyson is not.

Delighted to see the reactions to Dyson's performance.

 

[MTF]

http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/23/can-things-be-both-popular-and-silenced/

Very good piece with lots of good points, particularly this point that partly explains why some of these thinkers have attained their success first in "alternative" mediums:

4. Orthodox ideologies tend to be well-represented within institutions, meaning that the ideologies’ leaders are more likely to be institutionally prestigious people. Taboo views are unrepresented within institutions, meaning their spokespeople kind of just arise naturally by being really good at getting attention and acclaim.

 

[Eboue]

 

[Fridge chutney]

Fry came across excellently. Peterson got flustered when attacked, and went on tangents that I didn't find helpful to his line of reasoning.

Dyson came across terribly. Appalling debate from him, made a farce of the evening. Goldberg was unconvincing and seemed nervous.

 

[Fridge chutney]

The fundamental problem with Peterson is that he hasn't got an awful lot to say. He's a flavour of the month polemicist, whose schtick is half glaringly self evident life coach bullshit (clean your room, wash your dick!) and half right leaning hand waving (pro-nouns are Stalinist!) and dull traditionalist agitpop. With added dragons.

His zeitgeist fame is the result of the first generation of well off western white males being actively called on their privilege, and occasionally made to feel a tiny fraction of the identity prejudice every non-white citizen in a Western country has had to deal with, accept, and normalise for centuries.

I will respectfully disagree with you.

Whether you agree with him or not, Peterson does have a lot to say. He's been "flavour of the month" for 1-2 years now. And it's not true that he appeals only to white males. His 'following' (for lack of a better descriptor) is diverse. The biggest proponents of his that I know personally are visible minorities. All my white, 'priveleged' friends hate him. For what it is worth (not that it matters in the context of my comment) I agree with him on some topics, disagree on others, and for some topics I have no context to form an opinion one way or another.

To universally dismiss all of Peterson's views, research and experience, and to reduce his 'followers' to a caricatured homogenous group, is ignorant. This type of thinking just further polarizes the 'left' and 'right', pollutes politics, and prevents bridging discourse. Peterson is right to question identity politics. I believe it partially explains why Trump got elected and remains popular amongst a loyal support base - he plays the identity politics game very well. I think the democrats failed because they dismissed (or failed to nurture sufficiently) concerns of disenfranchised white middle America. Trump didn't. I hope the dems can bridge that gap for 2020. But they won't do so by having a "feck them and their views" attitude.

 

[Raoul]

Fry came across excellently. Peterson got flustered when attacked, and went on tangents that I didn't find helpful to his line of reasoning.

Dyson came across terribly. Appalling debate from him, made a farce of the evening. Goldberg was unconvincing and seemed nervous.

Trouble with both Peterson and Dyson is they are not debaters. They usually bloviate endlessly in generally friendly formats when they aren't adequately challenged. Fry seems a much more competent debater

 

[Fridge chutney]

Trouble with both Peterson and Dyson is they are not debaters. They usually bloviate endlessly in generally friendly formats when they aren't adequately challenged. Fry seems a much more competent debater

Yes, good point. Dyson and Peterson are lecturers, which is probably why they take ages to deliver an argument and struggle with rebuttal.

 

[Eboue]

 

[Javi]

To universally dismiss all of Peterson's views, research and experience, and to reduce his 'followers' to a caricatured homogenous group, is ignorant. This type of thinking just further polarizes the 'left' and 'right', pollutes politics, and prevents bridging discourse. Peterson is right to question identity politics. I believe it partially explains why Trump got elected and remains popular amongst a loyal support base - he plays the identity politics game very well. I think the democrats failed because they dismissed (or failed to nurture sufficiently) concerns of disenfranchised white middle America. Trump didn't. I hope the dems can bridge that gap for 2020. But they won't do so by having a "feck them and their views" attitude.

I don't follow. So you're saying Trump won with being good at identity politics while the dems were bad - but it's identity politics that is wrong altogether (which seems to be Petersons message)? How does that make sense.

 

[Borden]

The fundamental problem with Peterson is that he hasn't got an awful lot to say. He's a flavour of the month polemicist, whose schtick is half glaringly self evident life coach bullshit (clean your room, wash your dick!) and half right leaning hand waving (pro-nouns are Stalinist!) and dull traditionalist agitpop. With added dragons.

His zeitgeist fame is the result of the first generation of well off western white males being actively called on their privilege, and occasionally made to feel a tiny fraction of the identity prejudice every non-white citizen in a Western country has had to deal with, accept, and normalise for centuries. And finding it such an inconvenient, uncomfortable imposition, that they'd rather buy into the idea that feminism, privilege, racial politics and anything that devalues their intrinsically entitled self worth is complete bollocks, and actually probably a blight on humanity too. And also probably Marxist somehow. 'Cos dragons....

The fact that the two hugely famous people, with large popular platforms, won a vote against two largely unknown people, in a widely published video about how said really famous people, in said widely published video, feel their POVs are being stifled and censored somehow, because Universities, or something? proves precisely feckity feck all. Though I'm a bit disappointed in Fry if he genuinely stooped to claiming the "values of the Enlightenment are being rolled back" because the same benign political correctness that stops actual Politicians from openly calling him an abomination against nature, has lead to the occasionally aggressive criticism of often horrible ideas. Especially when he's tag teaming with a man tentatively opposed to both gay marriage and adoption, because of its natural confliction with his regressively traditionalist view of the world.

Except well-off, left-wing Western white males (like yourself?) seem to hate him more than anybody else.

Peterson seems to have a fairly diverse following, and as far as I can tell the ‘white male’ part of his audience doesn’t seem like it can be described as particularly privileged, unless you think that being a white male by definition makes you privileged, as I suspect you do.

 

[hobbers]

I don't follow. So you're saying Trump won with being good at identity politics while the dems were bad - but it's identity politics that is wrong altogether (which seems to be Petersons message)? How does that make sense.

Identity politics paved the way for Trump.

Which is just one in a number of reasons as to why it's such a shit political philosophy.

 

[Raoul]

Identity politics paved the way for Trump.

Which is just one in a number of reasons as to why it's such a shit political philosophy.

It exists equally on both the left and right, which is why people are taking to Peterson and Harris' talk about criticizing on the merits of the ideas, not from identity. This obviously plays better in non-identity politics groups who aren't fixated on race, gender, sexual orientation etc and takes the debate to a more uniform macro level of evaluating ideas.

 

[Charlie Foley]

 

[Silva]

 

[Cheesy]

Even if Peterson is fairly qualified and an intelligent individual it's still also true that he's made a number of ridiculous/stupid comments that leave him open for ridicule. Don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[Fridge chutney]

I don't follow. So you're saying Trump won with being good at identity politics while the dems were bad - but it's identity politics that is wrong altogether (which seems to be Petersons message)? How does that make sense.

My point was that Trump capitalized on identity politics and that partially explains his victory. The democrats didn't address the individual concerns of the disaffected middle class in America (and doing so by pitting identifiable groups against one another is not the way that concerns should be addressed, imo). It could be argued that Brexit is also a result of an identity political campaign by "Leave", but it's something I would have to give more thought to. In my opinion, Trump winning was a bad thing because he is a polarizing character who often reduces topics to a zero sum game. The 'right' has historically used identity politics to drive agendas that have been suboptimal for humanity, to put it mildly.

 

[Fridge chutney]

Even if Peterson is fairly qualified and an intelligent individual it's still also true that he's made a number of ridiculous/stupid comments that leave him open for ridicule. Don't see anything wrong with that.

I agree. Sometimes he comes across as deliberately contentious, even if that's not necessarily his goal. Silly.

 

[Cheesy]

I agree. Sometimes he comes across as deliberately contentious, even if that's not necessarily his goal. Silly.

But I'm not just talking about the tone he adopts or the way he presents his arguments - I'm referring to his actual views. Someone who advocates for personal freedoms and then simultaneously talks about enforced marriages should rightfully be ridiculed for both being a hypocrite and presenting such a ridiculous notion. He's probably not an unintelligent person - clearly he does have academic credentials, but on a lot of views he's merely presenting his own opinion in stuff that's unrelated to his field, and in that regard it's perfectly fine to view him as a bit of a fraud.

 

[Fridge chutney]

But I'm not just talking about the tone he adopts or the way he presents his arguments - I'm referring to his actual views. Someone who advocates for personal freedoms and then simultaneously talks about enforced marriages should rightfully be ridiculed for both being a hypocrite and presenting such a ridiculous notion. He's probably not an unintelligent person - clearly he does have academic credentials, but on a lot of views he's merely presenting his own opinion in stuff that's unrelated to his field, and in that regard it's perfectly fine to view him as a bit of a fraud.

Fair. I haven't read or heard his views on enforced marriages. Sounds daft. But he usually presents a well reasoned argument, even if I disagree. There's always more to it than a sound bite.

 

[Eboue]

Fair. I haven't read or heard his views on enforced marriages. Sounds daft. But he usually presents a well reasoned argument, even if I disagree. There's always more to it than a sound bite.

What about when he said women who wear makeup are hypocrites for not wanting to be sexually harassed?