Actually, he was confronted with an analogy by Jim Jeffries, the comedian, who compared it to someone refusing to bake a cake for an interracial marriage or for a black person back in the day, which prompted Peterson to reconsider and say that he might be wrong
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.
hella stupid wordsalad from everyone's favourite carnivore, with a heavy dose of barely hidden racism
Silva. Don't be silly. We all know that everyone's favourite carnivore is Salt Bae.
hella stupid wordsalad from everyone's favourite carnivore, with a heavy dose of barely hidden racism
tl:dr: King Bucko talks shite.
I find this a weird thing to criticise him for. He heard a counter point, considered it and decided that perhaps his position was incorrect. Surely this should be lauded?
Being an 'intellectual' doesn't mean never adapting your position or learning from discussion, quite the opposite. I actually find it quite impressive that he was able to put his ego second and simply accept that the guy had put forward a convincing argument, that's very rare even when people are very clearly being proven wrong.
Peterson has done hundreds upon hundreds of interviews, podcasts etc, so inevitably he's going to get stumped a few times. Mostly he comes off as a very strong, quick witted debater though. Being an intellectual doesn't make you a cyborg who can't ever be caught out, if it did then an extremely small number (if any?) amount of people would could be considered part of that group.
It's really something how so many people get fooled by this guy.
I would agree with you if the comedian had made a complex point. It was elementary school stuff and Peterson had never considered it?
But to be fair, I haven't listened to Peterson much, he has always sounded a bit empty to me. Maybe he just had a bad day.
I'm liking this Peterson chap more and more purely because of how much he winds up people like Eboue and Silva.
It wasn't that complex, but sometimes people just get caught out by even a simple point. Perhaps that day he was guilty of not preparing well, I don't know. Seems harsh to totally discredit him based on being caught out once though, especially considering the huge volume of interviews, debates etc he's been involved in. Overall I think he handles himself very well in those situations, certainly better than most who are out there. That doesn't necessarily make him right or an intellectual though.
I'm not sure where I stand on Peterson, on some issues I think he absolutely knows what he's talking about, but on others he just make huge stretches in logic, the whole lobster debacle being a good example of that. It doesn't help that sometimes he sounds like he is regurgitating a self help book that is on the back of the shelf at poundland.
who are you
Fair enough, I guess if the only clip I saw of the man was that I'd have a hard time believing he has such a following.
I think he dominates subjects well in terms of wording and theoretical knowledge, but when he talks about his own original ideas he always strikes me as someone who talks a lot with many expensive words but you can't really take anything from it. And when you do, it's normally about something very polemic with which I almost always disagree with.
I don't know what to think of people like him.
I don't agree with the late William Buckley's political and social worldview, but I occasionally listen to his old show in audio format where he'd invite prominent figures of the day (whatever their views) and hash it out. These guys like Peterson and Shapiro just seem to want to be in their own think-tank and act the smartest man in the room (despite time and time again proving they are not).
I don't agree with the late William Buckley's political and social worldview, but I occasionally listen to his old show in audio format where he'd invite prominent figures of the day (whatever their views) and hash it out. These guys like Peterson and Shapiro just seem to want to be in their own think-tank and act the smartest man in the room (despite time and time again proving they are not).
doubling down on the holocaust thing like a normal person
Yeah, there's an interview where he reacts very angrily because it gets called 'bollocks', and he ends up going on about how we have similar patterns to nearly all animals, even some kind of worm.
It doesn't even make sense because even if we were built the same way as lobby the lobster, that still wouldn't mean that in 2018 we would have to follow a primitive hierarchical system. It's generally not acceptable to murder your rivals offspring either, but I guess we should be bringing that back if it's natural to us.
It's always good to base your politics on making other people mad. Shows that you are a smart person.
This is something that most of these debaters who have developed e-fame do in order to 'win', basically if you're in a tight spot bamboozle your opponent with lots of nice words whilst appearing very calm and measured yourself. People mistake that for intelligence.
He's also hugely guilty of citing his own credentials whenever somebody questions him on psychology, rather than actually using his knowledge. I've seen him in plenty of interviews where they have called him out on a claim and he's basically gone 'don't you know I have <insert qualification here> ? Don't you dare challenge me on that'.
True but just to take the two man in the title of that thread, I don't get the same impression from Harris for example. Even when I disagree with him I can get where he's coming from.
Also what the feck why is Peterson on an only beef diet.
I don't even want to imagine what going to the toilet is like for the poor man.
I don't even want to imagine what going to the toilet is like for the poor man.
his daughter is an Instagram salesperson and talked him into it after a pint of cider sent jp into a month long "doom"
true story
The lobster thing had nothing to do with validating hierarchies that might exist now or assigning any kind of value system to them.
His only goal with that was to point out that hierarchies pre date capitalism, and white men, and even humanity, by a few hundred million years.
Of course plenty of dummies on twitter (wilfully?) misinterpret it as "well hierarchies must be fecking great because even the lobsters do them".
Who is saying otherwise?
I can safely say I have never seen or heard of anybody claiming that capitalists invented hierarchies.
the person who constantly talks about the superiority of the judeo-christian west definitely doesn't make any value judgements about hierarchies and what he says has nothing to do with anything else he says
This charlatan is apparently one of the most influential thinkers of today. fecking idiot
Why even use lobsters when chimps exists and are massive cnuts.
the most famous use of the lobster analogy was when he was asked about the gender pay gap on channel 4, so even his specific uses of that dumb ass analogy contain value judgements
“Look for your inspiration to the victorious lobster, with its 350 million years of practical wisdom. Stand up straight, with your shoulders back.”
Nope, no validation of primitive hierarchies to see here folks.
Nope, no validation of primitive hierarchies to see here folks.
I'm just gonna go ahead an label the idea that you have to be in the "Judeo-Christian/Enlightenment tradition" to believe in free speech or the autonomous individual pure-strain racism.
hella stupid wordsalad from everyone's favourite carnivore, with a heavy dose of barely hidden racism
you must be all be unmarried since you keep besmirching jordans good namejpb said:
I'm keen to have a rational discussion about Peterson on here because I don't feel like I know as much about him as many of you.
I see myself as a fairly liberal socialist - people with more political nouse than me can probably label me more accurately - certainly I have more alignment with labour and the green party than the conservative party in the UK. I very strongly believe that everybody should have the same rights afforded to them and I believe people should be able to live lives free of harm (physical or psychological) or suffering - though I recognise that pain/loss/etc. is a part of life. I also see that there is a disparity between our ideals and our reality.
I feel, strongly, that some of Peterson's views are well represented and important. It seems as though his opposition frequently engage in ad hominem attacks (e.g. he's obviously crazy - he only eats beef) to discredit his assertions rather than addressing the things he actually says. On the legislation in Canada, with regard to trans pronouns, I think there is validity in what I understood to be his position. I was of the impression that his stance is that one should be able to choose to respect a person's choice of how they wish to be addressed, but that it should not be a legal requirement. I find it hard to disagree with this position.
I doubt there is any person in existence that my views align exactly with - I am confident there are examples of things Peterson has said or is known to believe that I disagree with - I don't see him as a champion of every political issue that lies at my core; but I do believe that he has a position which has validity on some issues and his voice is an important one which should be heard. Even if there are people who think his motives are nefarious those persons should be prepared to challenge his logic, rather than his character.
I think I feel as though there is a liberal movement that would prefer to shout down and ignore ideas that challenge their world view rather than address them with reason and on a level playing field and I find that hard to support. Peterson is prepared to swim against the tide, express himself openly, expose himself to criticism and attempt to explain his ideas to anybody who is willing to listen. I find that more admirable than standing in a crowd with a foghorn.
I hope this post can be treated with respect and without emotion. I am definitely open to considering other points of view and having mine changed.
I see myself as a fairly liberal socialist - people with more political nouse than me can probably label me more accurately - certainly I have more alignment with labour and the green party than the conservative party in the UK. I very strongly believe that everybody should have the same rights afforded to them and I believe people should be able to live lives free of harm (physical or psychological) or suffering - though I recognise that pain/loss/etc. is a part of life. I also see that there is a disparity between our ideals and our reality.
I feel, strongly, that some of Peterson's views are well represented and important. It seems as though his opposition frequently engage in ad hominem attacks (e.g. he's obviously crazy - he only eats beef) to discredit his assertions rather than addressing the things he actually says. On the legislation in Canada, with regard to trans pronouns, I think there is validity in what I understood to be his position. I was of the impression that his stance is that one should be able to choose to respect a person's choice of how they wish to be addressed, but that it should not be a legal requirement. I find it hard to disagree with this position.
I doubt there is any person in existence that my views align exactly with - I am confident there are examples of things Peterson has said or is known to believe that I disagree with - I don't see him as a champion of every political issue that lies at my core; but I do believe that he has a position which has validity on some issues and his voice is an important one which should be heard. Even if there are people who think his motives are nefarious those persons should be prepared to challenge his logic, rather than his character.
I think I feel as though there is a liberal movement that would prefer to shout down and ignore ideas that challenge their world view rather than address them with reason and on a level playing field and I find that hard to support. Peterson is prepared to swim against the tide, express himself openly, expose himself to criticism and attempt to explain his ideas to anybody who is willing to listen. I find that more admirable than standing in a crowd with a foghorn.
I hope this post can be treated with respect and without emotion. I am definitely open to considering other points of view and having mine changed.
that's not what the law does, it gave trans people the same rights as ethnic minorities and gay people, i.e if they get denied jobs on grounds of gender it's not a law that says you have to use these pronouns
all the law did was add trans people to a to a list in a law that already protected other minorities in canada
he either lied or was too stupid to understand what the law was and ran with it, probably too stupid given everything else he says
he's a normal conservative and is exactly in line with other conservatives he has not put forward anything that isn't already part of every conservatives book, he's not swimming against any tide, this is just marketing nonsense
he also does not take criticism very well, using threats of violence against critics and just these last few days crying because being called a climate change denier sounds too much like holocaust denier, boys a typical snowflake
Last edited:
What an interesting choice of right-wing drivel Mr. Liberal.
Silva explained why Peterson was a dummy in regards to that law, but let's pretend that the law did in fact force you to use people's preferred pronouns under threat of prosecution. If you choose to address a trans-woman you run into on a daily basis as a man, how do you think that affects them? Does your right to freedom of speech (honestly, I don't think pronouns have anything to do with freedom of speech, but whatever) trump their rights? Why should they have to acquiesce bigots, while bigots are free to be shitty to them? If you consciously and consistently misgender trans people, you are discriminating against them, and there should definitely be laws in place to deal with that.
people who want to misgender others on purpose don't like being called cnuts, it's PC gone mad stu
I think you’re confusing it with health and safety
Where's the part that isn't true?
Are you? What if you just don't buy the idea that someone can decide their gender? It isn't an objective truth, in fact it's a massive grey area and a point of huge controversy. Can you really make laws based on that? Not saying I'm one of them, but there are people who genuinely do not agree that just because you feel like a woman you can become one. So why would they address them as one, and basically in their eyes go against biology and what they believe in?
Which part is true?
A lot people don't believe trans people. A lot people also don't buy the idea that races are equal. Or that sodomy should be allowed. Or that women should be allowed to vote. Or that Jews should be allowed to live. These people should have no place in a decent society.