Anti-Weed and Veganism are definitely two of his sore spots. Otherwise he let's his guests ramble on to their heart's content. Rubin let's his guests say whatever they want all the while agreeably absorbing their views.
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.
Anti-Weed and Veganism are definitely two of his sore spots. Otherwise he let's his guests ramble on to their heart's content. Rubin let's his guests say whatever they want all the while agreeably absorbing their views.
Its an interview style and he does it well. They generally seem pretty at ease and willing to throw ideas out there. I cant imagine him ever really grilling a guest.
I've never given Rubin more than 5 minutes of my time tbh
@dumbo
All that is missing is Rubin agreeing with someone.
All that is missing is Rubin agreeing with someone.
Rubin isn't worth it unless you want to see what one of his guests has to say, which is generally not too often. He had a pretty good interview with Niall Ferguson about leftist control of academia that was worth a watch.
Last edited:
This is amazing.
I don't find this sort of selective cherry picking to be particularly helpful as it doesn't offer much fidelity. It also seems to be the preferred method of random twitter trolls. Want to discredit someone ? Just cherry pick a sentence or two and pretend it applies to an entire career of work.
His work of imperial glorification should discredit itself.
What I'm looking to attack is the hypocrisy, the cheek, of trying to organise professors and students against opposing viewpoints and then claiming to be fighting against opposition "control".
If there was any truth to leftist control, this asshole would be out of a job, first for his garbage opinions, and then for this stunt.
That's a pretty fatuous argument. He and his wife have had to hire professional security to deal with the authoritarian leftist loons following them around. Check out his talk with Rubin. Its getting pretty disgusting, especially with the enablers who want to fire people because they have a view they don't agree with.
How is it fatuous? Isn't what he's doing the very definition of hypocrisy, perhaps even projection? What standing does he have on free-speech if he was secretly organising aginst the free speech of people whom he dislikes?
He doesn't think me and my people are as capable as he and his ancestors were, since we can't deal with self-determination and sovereignty:
If you want to be poor, fight for independence
He and Grover Furr should be left to rot from hunger like the victims of the regimes they glorify.
The cool kids' philosopher:
say what you want about jordan peterson but hes obviously incredibly intelligent
He's a fascist.
I'm not sure hes an idiot or a fascist but hes definitely really, really weird. Was that tweet in reply to something or is he just throwing it out there? Every part of that tweet is just ... wtf?
Jordan Peterson was at Oxford Union.
He’s looking for attention with tweets like that but his point is fairly obvious. And it doesn’t make him a fascist or an idiot to make that point.
He’s got a bee in his bonnet about the mental health of young men. It’s what he spends most of his time working on. In his opinion (which people are free to disagree with) the cost of being more progressive about gender roles has been mainly born by young men, who are less and less certain of their place in society and, hence, their mental health is suffering and they’re more likely to get involved in crime or drugs.
Like I said, you can disagree with that opinion (I know I do, even though there is a hint of truth in there somewhere) but calling people fascist idiots for expressing this sort of opinion is counter-productive IMHO.
*Kermit voice* Daaaaaad, chaos is usurping me again
I still think its a pretty fecking bizarre tweet. The way he expresses his worry about males place in society is kind of weird to kick it off with whole 'usurp' thing. Throwing a prophesy and some scaremongering / paranoid delusion in there with the last 2 lines just puts the cherry on top. Its a 3 line tweet and every part of it is fairly mental.
He’s a supernazi.
Jaysus, that’s a tough watch. He’s so damn obtuse. One of the reasons why he’s got such a cult following might be because he’s such a waffler that people can take whatever the hell they want from what he says.
He just looks so damn pleased with himself.
When you get down to it, he's not much more than a very effective WUM. He has pinpointed the insecurities of a lot of young men and uses that to attract a following. It's very effective if not terribly helpful for our society. Though in the end it's quite clear Jordan isn't trying to help anyone, who's just an attention loving narcissist. An eloquent one, but one all the same.
When you get down to it, he's not much more than a very effective WUM. He has pinpointed the insecurities of a lot of young men and uses that to attract a following. It's very effective if not terribly helpful for our society. Though in the end it's quite clear Jordan isn't trying to help anyone, who's just an attention loving narcissist. An eloquent one, but one all the same.
My main problem with Peterson and his ilk is this constant defence of the idea that man's "place" in society is at the top and that women should not try to rock the boat in terms of equality of opportunity and pay lest the poor blokes egos suffer. Yet the same, predominantly white, males who follow his line of thinking will in their next paragraph decry Islam for wanting to keep women in the dark ages. It's all about maintaining your own unearned privilege because you can't be arsed to pull your finger out and sink or swim in a true meritocracy and whether it's coming from a radical imam or an alt-right mouthpiece it's the same bullshit that has no place in the society most of us want to live and raise our kids in.
There undoubtedly has been a shift in man's role in society but that is not down to feminists, gay rights or positive discrimination, it's solely down to a change in industry, automation and the "ludicrous" notion that an employer should not have the right to risk the lives and the health of their employees in dangerous situations when safe alternatives can be employed for a little more money. It was understandable that the first generation of miners and manual labourers would struggle to adapt to a change in role but we're 2 generations past that shift in the UK and US now so the men who can't see their role in society today have been let down by parents' unrealistic portrayal of the good old days when you got an honest days pay for your blood, sweat and tears, by education failing to prepare kids for the current workplace and by government for failing to ensure that workplace was there and that there was adequate support for those who did not transition over quickly enough.
Peterson may not be a fascist idiot but the drivel he spouts is lapped up by the ever increasing number of fascist idiots and providing them with a faux fur of intellectual justification for their cold hearted bigotry.
Yeah, I think I would more or less agree with all of that. Plus there's a strand within the conservative slant on how to be a man which feeds into the way that men are supposed to button up their emotions, bury trauma and stop being such a wimp. Which usually does more harm than good. Petersen himself preaches something very similar with his "stick your chest out" and "tidy your room" rhetoric, as though manning up and toughing things out is the solution to all life's ills.
I'm a little bit more charitable to him in general, though, having heard him talk about journalling and how helpful this can be for mental health of young men. He talks well on this issue and there does seem to be some good evidence behind the work he is doing.
@Bury Red
Peterson often specifies that you have to be a idiot or something like that if you don't welcome equality of opportunity. It's forced equality of outcome he speaks against.
Apart from that I don't have much to add.
Peterson often specifies that you have to be a idiot or something like that if you don't welcome equality of opportunity. It's forced equality of outcome he speaks against.
Apart from that I don't have much to add.
Except that isn't his position on the subject at all. Or pretty much anyone who would be lumped in with him either for that matter.
@Bury Red
Peterson often specifies that you have to be a idiot or something like that if you don't welcome equality of opportunity. It's forced equality of outcome he speaks against.
Apart from that I don't have much to add.
I'm sure he's eloquent enough to ensure he never confuses or conflates equality of opportunity and equality of outcome himself but the subtle semantic difference is far, far too fine for most of his current fanbase, as opposed to the PhD level sociology courses he should inhabit in relative obscurity and anonymity. You only have to listen to their rabid frustration with social justice warriors, liberals and lefties and the hilarious hypocrisy with which they label the left as snowflakes and ***** whilst crying into their cornflakes over how beastly society is to the poor downtrodden white male to know they are missing the subtlety of his point.
There's valid points in his work about the need for societal balance between conservatism and liberalism and he knows his background well enough but the bulk of his speech is pseudo intellectual waffle that would be marked down were his students to reproduce it whilst his audience largely believe liberalism needs to be eradicated demonstrating still further how little of his speech they understand.
Is my reading comprehension faltering here or are you saying that the difference between opportunity & outcome is semantics?
There is a clear & important difference between equality of outcome & equality of opportunity.
Being disabled myself means I'd be gaining loads on equality of outcome, but it would be nuts to demand the same pay and lifestyle as someone who works damn hard to build and keep a company healthy. Whoever does the best should have the best jobs & naturally the best pay to drive people to be the best.
This doesn't describe anyone who I know follows him at all. It might describe his online troll following though.
If mischaracterising his fans helps you sleep better than more power to you, but the reddest of rednecks aside I'm sure most people can grasp the very unsubtle difference between ensuring equal opportunity and enforcing equality of outcome.
Also not sure if you could quite call a sociology graduate better equipped to comprehend his message than your average person.
It is a semantic difference and I do think many of his audience don't see the difference or the videos posted online would not have titles such as Jordan Peterson destroys feminist etc
It's definitely the online alt-right following I am referring too. I've no problem with anyone who gets people to listen to intellectual debate that challenges their understanding but Peterson, Harris, Shapiro et al are being used in soundbites to justify much of what I perceive is wrong in society and given that his topic is sociology and neuro-science the misinterpretation or deliberate misrepresentation of his words are particularly dangerous.
Why does a public intellectual have 'fans'? As with many of our personal heroes, a discerning thinker acknowledges that those heroes have flaws, and that not all of their of their opinions will be objective. Peterson is a willing enabler of some of the most worrying elements of society, and a stooge of the established order.
I agree with this. I find Harris the most interesting of the 3 to listen to. Sound bites aside, I find Shapiro an argumentative arrogant hateful man when you dig deep, as well as on the surface. Peterson is at least introspective, even if he's wrong about many things.