So do I. The fanboy culture is incredibly annoying. On the other hand, in today's YouTube monetization world, a good number of content providers are doing very well financially by simply invoking the names of Peterson and Harris. In this case, making it look like there's some sort of rivalry between them.
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.
So do I. The fanboy culture is incredibly annoying. On the other hand, in today's YouTube monetization world, a good number of content providers are doing very well financially by simply invoking the names of Peterson and Harris. In this case, making it look like there's some sort of rivalry between them.
Have you ever seen the documentary they did with Chomsky (Requiem for the American Dream) that's on Netflix and a few other places? The one they have to blast dramatic music continually throughout so you don't fall asleep. Works well to be fair.
Yup, don't remember the music though. I've never finished Manufacturing Consent (though I've probably heard enough from other videos to know his argument) so maybe the music is important...
He's got much quieter as he grew older.
The last few ones I literally had to invert my ear into the speaker.Yeah, I'd say an intelligent man who's not anywhere near as intelligent as he thinks he is sums him up. Although maybe he's aware of his own limitations and it's other people who can be blamed for how he's seen.
Yup, don't remember the music though. I've never finished Manufacturing Consent (though I've probably heard enough from other videos to know his argument) so maybe the music is important...
He's got much quieter as he grew older.
About 20s into the trailer should remind you. Literally goes on the entire documentary.
I said before, the people who go against him often balls it up so much, and that strengthens his brand. He is now raking in serious cash by talking about how misrepresented he is, rather than down to what he IS saying.
I dont think your summary quite does justice to what I perceive to be his intentional over-complication of things to bamboozle people though - presumably, as I said, to make him look smarter.
On the other hand, Einstein said the definition of intelligence is the ability to take the complex and make it simple. By that measure, he isnt intelligent at all. He is not stupid, he is anti-intelligent.
In the credential department both Petetson and Harris have respect PhD and are clearly superior to Hitchens 'third class' undergraduate degree. Additionally Hitchens argued well outside his speciality (literary classics) in just as ignorant manner as any of the current thinkers.
Actually even in Hitchens specialty of literature he was a pretentious judgemental asshole (he would insult the entire genre of sci fi). Let alone on religion, a subject he clearly harbored bias and hate and was not an expert. He was a lowest common denominator malicious troll who added nothing to discussions.
His completely ignorant wanking over Bush's Iraq war was one of the most ignorant displays of public "intellectualism" i have ever seen. He continually made provably false arguments, nudged the discussion into the gutter with his constant barage of insults and prejudice. He did far more damage to public discussion the last 13 years of his life.
He wasnt half as informed as he pretended to be and he was probably the most insecure person I have heard speak.
He was also the worst kind of drunk. Some people get funny or more friendly when drunk. Hitchens just got more arrogant, malicious and mean.
I find that regarding Hitchens as a polemicist is the best way to remember him. He had an incredibly quick mind and a gift for speaking (more so than writing imo). His writing always came across as a stream of consciousness rendition of how he talked, often attempting to forge new linguistic territory.
1. How are Peterson and Harris more qualified to talk on their respective subjects (that they make money off) than Hitchens was? Why should Hitchens not have spoken of the war/terrorism? Pretty sure he spent more time in the middle east than Sam Harris ever did.
2. Hitchens was opinionated - no shit Sherlock. (I don't think anyone cares for his opinions on Lord Voldemort either but he still made some as I recall).
3. Hitchens was a master at his craft (writing and arguing/debating), brilliantly well-read and clinical making his points (unlike Peterson or Harris in my opinion). As many people said, he could have switched sides and convinced people just as easily to be religious. That's what people admire or give him credit for. We could talk all day about what he is right about and what he got wrong - that's not the point at all.
He was creative in crafting his personal insults and ad hominem I'll give him credit for that
I always enjoy watching / listening to really intelligent and articulate people I DONT agree with, even more, in some ways, that ones I do. The other Hitchens - Peter Hitchens - is a great case in point. I disagree with him about a lot, but I find him a fascinating person to listen to, and Im sure YouTube algorithms think I love the man because they are always throwing his stuff my way. I find it helps clarify my thoughts about something listening to someone with his talents making the counterargument.
1. I already answered that. They have PhD in their fields. Hitchens has a third class undergrad degree. In the credential department they are objectively more qualified.
2. Nothing to do with being opinionated it was his crass and low class way of expressing it as insults and acting superior. All he did was increase the misunderstanding and hate between athiests and religious people and westerners and Muslims. He was more interested in Trump stylr self publicity by doing things like calling Mother Theresa a whore constantly. He wasted his platform on his "anti-theism" instead of contributing in a positive fashion to society. Hitchens overly aggro style contributed to the evolution of the alt righy by legitimizing hate - like its ol
Kay to just call people you dont like whores.
And thats not even getting into the damage he did with his unequivocal support for the Iraq war.
3. All arbitrary and subjective opinion.
I doubt he convinced anyone of changing their mind on religion , he just attracted the angry atheist crowd
Sam Harris has a PhD in neuroscience. Peterson a PhD in clinical psychology.
Have a think about how objectively more qualified they are for how they make their money (currently I mean).
Has this been verified? I personally do not like using Twitter as a source of truth.
I'm sorry, you were talking of intelligent people but then mentioned Peter Hitchens. Did you mix two posts up?
the source is in the tweet
I disagree with him on 90% of things but I respect his intelligence.
In my experience Harris knows what he's talking about, and when he doesn't he admits it readily.
Christopher Hitchens only had an undergrad degree. Should his views on the topics about which he speaks be null and void because he isn't an 'expert' in anything?
Russel Brand is a comedian. Should he not be allowed to hold an opinion? Stephen Fry... same question.
A lot of the time, these people facilitate debate and exploration of interesting and relevant topics of our times.
Discourse is a good thing.
Russel Brand is a comedian. Should he not be allowed to hold an opinion? Stephen Fry... same question.
A lot of the time, these people facilitate debate and exploration of interesting and relevant topics of our times.
Discourse is a good thing.
Yes and Hitchens had a third class undergrad degree. However you slice it they are more qualified academically
I don't rate him particularly highly, but I do sort of find that he's amusing to listen to purely because of some of his bizarre opinions. And in expressing those opinions he does tend to be critical of all sides, to a certain extent. Which is at least refreshing insofar as plenty of supposed experts will really just be advocating for a certain political party relentlessly.
I certainly dont think you have to have a masters to qualify as having anything worthwhile to say.
The quality of an argument should be judged on the basis of the argument itself, not the qualification of the person making it.
A qualification implies a certain level of expertise in something. But it does not prove it, and not having it doesnt prove its absence either.
The quality of an argument should be judged on the basis of the argument itself, not the qualification of the person making it.
A qualification implies a certain level of expertise in something. But it does not prove it, and not having it doesnt prove its absence either.
They do, and they certainly shouldn't be discouraged, but I do think it points to a wider idea as to how we should consider such people, and as to whether or not they should be considered experts. Brand is a comedian who talks a lot about politics, but then most people know that's what he is, and I don't think Brand himself has really ever paraded himself as an out-and-out expert as opposed to a loud leftie who has a lot of opinions, some well thought-out and others perhaps not so much.
Hitchens, however, is much more commonly thought of as an 'expert' of sorts, and while there'd be no need to exclude him from discourse if you disagree, I do think @oneniltothearsenal highlights an important issue in how people like him should be considered. You could argue that however eloquent you may find Hitchens, he was essentially just a guy with a lot of opinions. Like anyone else. With the main difference being that he managed to become quite famous.
Fair enough. And Samatha was handled poorly, based on what I read in the Canada land article.
His professional conduct is being reviewed based on the complaint, there has been no action for him to face disciplinary hearings, and so I'm not sure that this 1 case out of 10,000+ is enough to tarnish one's expertise in a chosen field.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada...erson-agrees-to-plan-for-clinical-improvement
100%, and I say this as someone currently doing a PHD - academia is full of mediocrity.
Good points @Cheesy and agreed.
My problem with Hitchens is that in my experience, he didn't contribute positively to public discourse.
For example, this is a basic scenario I witnessed a few times during my time at Uni in the early 2000s. A diverse group of students (Buddhist, atheist, Christian, Muslim, Deist, Native American, Confucian, etc) would be having a nuanced discussion on religion and spirituality and then a Hitchens fan would join in and start parroting some favorite Hitchens lines like Mother Theresa is a whore and other aggressive non-sequiturs of militant anti-theism for which Hitchens was the pioneer and biggest proponent. This would usually completely derail the mutually beneficial nuanced discussion that was going on and drag it down into the gutter of insults, hyperbole and misunderstanding.
Usually I don't blame a public figure for their fan's behavior but in this case they were mimicking Hitchens' blind agressiveness a lot of time and it was just really off putting. Its why I really grew to dislike him as a public speaker because he seemed to relish the attention he got from pushing the boundaries on insults. It just wasn't good for discourse the way his fans would parrot his aggressive lines.
It's not the only complaint. He's spoken in one of his tour dates about having 3 sexual misconduct complaints. And it's extremely unlikely he's had 10,000 patients unless they all leave him after a few sessions which wouldn't be a great stat for him.
Fair enough.
Which one of you posted the Kermit voice video the other day. Can't get it out of my mind new when I'm watching Peterson videos.
it's perfect
Fair enough. I suppose that is an objective call. I haven't heard him for many years but I remember finding his talks interesting.
I find some people generally do not contribute positively to public discourse. For example, Ben Shapiro. Divisive, arrogant, and disingenuous. But that's my opinion based on only 1 hour of listening to him.
Others, even if I disagree, I learn something from insofar as it encourages me to explore certain topics more deeply.
What are people's thoughts on Joe Rogan?
Great UFC commentator and podcast host, somewhat decent jiujitsu practitioner and recreational hunter.
Good stand-up comedian, too.
Forgot about his primary profession. Yeah he's pretty decent at stand up as well.
I like the way my son put it. Rogan is basically the evolution of the late night talk show. But instead of only having on guests for 10 minutes to just promote their newest movie, music, book, Rogan can have guests on for 2 hours to talk about a wider range of topics or delve deeper into whatever personal issue interests them. It generally makes for more interesting discussions because there is no corporate network trying to sanitize content for sponsors, etc.
Personally my only critique is that he has on a few people I don't really see any discourse value in like Ben Shapiro. There are dozens of people I could recommend that would be better than Shapiro. I'd rather Rogan have on a selection of Redcafe posters than Shapiro.
But for the most part his guests are a fairly wide ranging and interesting group. For instance he had on Michael Pollan recently who has always inspired some interesting off-beat discussions.
Yeah his podcast is actually pretty good and I do actually learn quite a bit when I watch - especially when he has guests like Peter Attia on. The longer two hour type format definitely works well for this sort of thing.
Exactly. I haven't heard that episode myself, but that's the type of guest I mean. There are so many interesting researchers and others that simply don't get attention from the normal news networks that podcasts like this can bring out into the open.
I personally like listening to a selection of podcasts like Rogan, Radiolab, etc more than listening to the news or listening to talk radio as the topics are usually much more thought provoking
I sense a beef growing between Dawkins and Peterson
10:20
Last edited: