So glad Peterson is getting some serious exposure now...
Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism...
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
So glad Peterson is getting some serious exposure now...
Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism...
What an idiot.
The sad thing is that Cathy Newman has been the victim of abuse and harassment from far right groups as a result.
What is far right? Anybody who doesn't agree with todays manufactured agenda is branded as being either far left or far right. It seems like there is no room for discussion anymore. You either submit or be ostracized.Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee
I think that's probably a fair comment. If you support Corbyn you're a far left extremist, yet if you say you support a free NHS, good public services, good schools, some sort of narrowing of inequality that's fine.
I regard the far right as people who are racist, who don't accept anyone other than their own and don't think they should come into this country, who are happy for people to sleep in the gutter than allow them some scant amount in benefits, yet I can see something in looking after your own as a natural thing to do.
A decade ago there was a lot in the centre ground and not much on the labelled left or right. Now I reckon that's shifted and there's little in the centre, but more left or right. If the right ends up winning this battle (which it might as it controls most of the media), God help anyone less fortunate.
She accuses him of generalising women, before completely generalising his arguments, not the greatest interviewing technique
You obviously enjoyed it, then.
I did, I thought it was an interesting watch, both of them made good points and I'm glad it didn't turn into a mud slinging match
I consider that intelligent debate is more likely to take place if many labels are eschewed. Terms like 'Remoaners', 'political correctness' far right/far left, 'snowflake' and the like speak volumes of the person using them rather than the ability to discuss important matters with all the nuances they deserve.
The Independent newspaper ran a story about some threats and we can only speculate as to their true origin. My un-researched guess is that it was contrived by the broadcaster as damage limitation for what was a car crash of an interview from the perspective of their employee. Highly ironic given much of the topic of the interview is in regard to woman getting opportunities for the best jobs (and the pay gap). Don't get me wrong, women should definitely get the best jobs if they are worthy and all societies need to empower women in general. But Newman is far from worthy. The goal of an interviewer is to extract from the interviewee what exactly is that they are about and what thinking, not to try and railroad them into verbal mistakes which mis-represent how they feel.
Peterson classifies himself as a "classic British liberal". But because Marxist absurdities seem to be ingrained into so many in Western societies right now, they get triggered him and think he is a distance away from the centre ground. Though he is neither, he has been branded far right, or alt right and even both at the same time. This is truly ridiculous given "alt-right" (libertarianism) and the far right (authoritarian dictatorship) are philosophically opposite to one another. Those that use the terms in the same breath, or think they are related, are severely lacking in their understanding of politics. The fact that Newman tried to bat Peterson off as "alt right" only showed why she should not have been in the position to "interview" him.
If Peterson was alt right or far right I wouldn't be championing him. The man is a colossus. A needed voice for these times.
Sorry, this should be in the politics forum.
What a load of bollocks. Marxist theories are miles away from centre ground policies.
Typical far right tosh.
??
Your copy and paste job was from one angle, a strong right wing angle. It accuses Marxist theories of being engrained in centre ground policies, which they are most definitely not (unless you are very strongly right wing). There is nothing in your article that could be considered centre ground.
Damage limitation? Was it shown live? They could have just pulled it, no?
I have actually only watched 14 minutes so far as I need to go out but I think her analytical naivety and commitment to what she sees as a problem in society actually brings out the best in him. The danger for peripheral figures is that they spend all their time 'debating' with people that drool over their every utterance (we see this a lot these days) so good on channel four for inviting him in and trying to challenge him.
I'm not sure if it was shown live Eric. I'm assuming so. Yes, it is to be applauded that C4 have left it posted on youtube. Though I would assume that contentious content would help propagate their content around the world.
Interviewers certainly ought to prod and provoke, but not manipulate untruths. I thought Newman seemed clearly unprepared to challenge Peterson. Though in her defense, it would probably take 30 years of hard research and an I.Q. of 150 to do that properly.
But she wasn't there to interview, she was there to challenge and she had a good go. Sometimes when you disagree with somebody and you have already unloaded the clip and missed you need to fight dirty. I understand that as a fan of him you probably just want to hear him talk, he came across very well but I think a back and forth is fun.
Lots of his opposition and followers could learn from his manner during the piece. He didn't assume anything about her or get precious about about her disagreeing with anything he said. The amount of people who start a discussion assuming (and vocalising) everyone will call them a sexist/racist/nazi/etc. just because somebody once did is very high, you see it a lot on here, just state your point and don't get too attached.
I didn't see this when it was broadcast but why would Channel 4 have released the full interview online if they were trying to limit damage? They seem to have gone out of their way to give more attention and publicity to Jordan Peterson (and his book!) as has the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...v-misogyny-row
I am really struggling to understand your definitions of 'far right', 'alt right' and 'Marxist'. I can accept that the first two are mainly defined by libertarianism and authoritarianism - but in Trumps' America they clearly are not unrelated or philosophically incompatible. The middle-American, survivalist, gun carrying, bible bashing, often racist, red necked opponents of big government have cosied up to the Nazis, neo-Nazis, ultra-conservatives, and proponents of low tax, low regulation, free market capitalism like a hand in a glove. And your use of the 'Marxist' label (similar to some other much loved posters' use of the term 'cultural Marxist') seems to be 'Daily Mail lite' - a lazy term of abuse for those who are scared of or misunderstand Marxism, not a description of ideas or philosophy or values.
From what I can understand from his interview and subsequent statements, Peterson is not a fellow traveller of the alt right, and is embarrassed by their support for him.
Hi Jon. Agree that C4 seem to be promoting the interview.
Yes, you are totally right on Peterson's politics.
I wouldn't look to Trump's following or mandate to attempt to make a rational definition of the fractions/bridges between libertarianism and authoritarianism. One reason because I am no expert on the Trump administration and I'm intentionally not paying attention. I can completely understand why you are seeing that bridge and in part I agree, in part I don't. As philosophies, I will stick to the view that I have held for a long time in that that are totally unrelated and in conflict with one another. Fascism is top down authoritarianism - the merging of the state and corperatism, while libertarianism is the attempt to destroy those systems. (I actually see a lot of parallels between libertarianism and some elements of the hippie movement, but that's a whole other thread).... I do totally and completely agree that small government of libertarianism will inevitably lead to the same result - which is corporate takeover (as if that hasn't already happened).
I take a quite bit of issue with your labeling of middle America. Mainly because I feel your hypocritical to label them as "often racist". I think the definition of racism is something along the lines of making judgements of people because of pre-rational judgements of groups of people. I'm looking for reasons as to why you haven't swayed a little into the racist zone there. But please don't take that as me making some kind of definite judgement on you - I know you're a conscientious guy.
My late post last night was rushed and after just having read it back, I can see why it doesn't read clearly. My bringing up of Marxism was lazy for sure, but I've done my homework on his ideas. There are some elements to Marx that I like - for instance, his ideas for everyone working less and having more time to socialize/family are great ideals, though he takes those ideas to absurd extreme. I believe Marx's ideas were an evolutionary inevitability but so much of Marx's work has proven to categorically not work and economists on the left are quick to say so as well. For one thing he was working with data for ten year economic cycles. The Russian economist Kondratiev (mis-spell?), de-bunked them in the 20's (I think?) Showing that the rise and fall of capatilism had more of an 80 year cycle. I don't know what economists on the right have to say to that, but I know people like Paul Mason cling to Kondratiev and do not revere Marx's economic analasys.
"Cultural Marxism" is a vital term that this age. Marx's philosophical and sociological ideas are responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people in the 20th century. It is not ok to not learn from the horrors of the past and revere and propagate this nonsense. His philosophy is rooted in misanthropy, the absurd and self-defeating goal to make unequal things equal and most of all rooted in schools of thought which simply are not based in truth. The rational left need terms like "cultural Marxism" as much as anyone. The sooner they realise that the Trumps of this world are not their primary enemy, but the extremist, un-schooled hardcore left are, the sooner we can have an electable, rational, productive governments.
That was a good interview. When Peterson pointed out that Newman was successful because she was low on "agreeableness" she knew he was right. I can't stand the sight of her. She looks very bitter yet I imagine her life has been a bed of roses. Some people are never happy and they just want to make everyone as unhappy as they are.
I'm all for equality but women can't expect to be paid the same and do less, take tennis as an example the women expect the same prize money as men but don't want to play best of 5 sets so how is that equal
Well that was an interesting listen. On the one hand you have someone who has spent a long-time studying behaviour and is capable of constructing an intellectually watertight argument. On the other hand you have someone who does not even seem equipped to understand the answers, let along provide a credible rebuttal of the points being made.
I worry for a society that is incapable of understanding that there is more than one thing that can lead to a difference in pay between people. I also worry that we didn't hear an equally well argued rebuttal of Jordan's points as I am sure that alternative views are possible based on the same evidence. In particular, studies along the lines of what a workplace would be like if organised with feminine views being given greater weight in a hierarchy of importance would be immensely useful.
What is clear is that working some people to death whilst others have nothing to do means there is a huge structural problem in the workplace and society at present
BITF - I disagree completely with you about Marx, Marxism and this construct 'cultural Marxism', but will leave that for another day and the politics board (if I ever remember to go back on there).
Just to be clear, I was not trying to label middle America as 'often racist'. I was labelling the alt right (who seem to come more from middle America than the east or west coasts - and also have some or all of the other characteristics I listed) as 'often racist'. That is based purely on what I have watched and read over the years, not on personal experience - but I think it is true.
I would love to hear your thoughts on Marx one day when you have the time to get your thoughts down. Maybe I've skipped over ideas well worth looking into.
The Alt-right is a very contentious subject I feel as it's an open term that has no academic lineage from what I can gather. The ones I've come across on the internet have tended to be libertarians, but we both agree that that is a flawed political construct. I have read about neo-nazi shills being paid and shipped into infiltrating alt-right groups so as a to paint fascist picture. I don't know if these stories are true or not, though I wouldn't be too surprised if they were. But best stick to the empirical evidence with these topics and debate what we do know, rather than what we cannot know.
Have a good Sunday
The Marxists are in a spot of bother at the moment, and it's not theoretical.
Cathy Newman was as far out of her depth as a lobster on the moon. Peterson carefully explained how serotonin levels in individual lobsters determine each lobster’s place in a lobster hierarchy, and that similarly, in humans, serotonin levels indicate a human’s place in human hierarchical society. He did this to refute the claim that human hierarchies are purely a product of a “white patriarchy”.
The hapless, witless hack then actually asked him this question
No Cathy, for the umpteenth time in this car crash interview he wasn’t saying that. He was saying what he was saying. If you are going to put words in someone’s mouth, at least make sure that they are good words, phrases or sentences. Don’t put words into your guest’s mouth that make you look like a zealous cretin.So let me get this straight...you are saying that we should organise our societies along the lines of the lobsters?”
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote