Jordan Peterson on real time with Bill Maher

[Lead]

I liked the distinction he was trying to make in how the left is talking about trump supporters. Anytime a group is pushed to far to the edge of a discussion and has their point of view nullified there are strong backlashes.

The nullification of white mens opinions and concerns by leftist groups because of a perceived sense of privilege directly led to trump becoming an electable candidate, he gave that group a voice when the democrats were actively giving every other group a voice and denouncing “white privelege” Similarly the century after slavery where whites kept blacks from entwining with “white” society leads to negative social structures.

Once some of these structures are established they are difficult to reconcile because the out group is now the “other”. Maher’s point on that phenomenon in iraq leading to the creation of isis was pertinent despite it being quickly glossed over. I have no fear of offending for the sake of coming to an honest conclusion but alienation of one group within a society is never good for the overall society. The woman not being able to see that point is the type of mentality that I find dangerous.

Other than that it seemed like a circle jerk where I could get off.

The point that was missed is if a group manages to get a politician elected and that politician is removed outside of clear criminal evidence, you are going to alienate a lot of that group because voting is largely the biggest tool a person has with their speech in a democracy. I think that's the point Peterson wanted to make that impeachment is actually the censoring of the 2016 election and that should be seriously thought out by the democratic party. It's a similar view I have in that I see Trump as a pretty shitty person with a lot of shitty policies and poor demeanor for a president BUT I acknowledge he won the election for his term and I likely have to wait until 2020 to try to change that.

 

[hillelslovak87]

He articulates his thoughts extremely well. If your issue is that he isnt succinct and brief in his speech, then fine. But speaking at length isnt the same as not being articulate. Hes a great orator, no one takes that away from him; even his enemies on the left

I think he has some good, if rather obvious insights, but his not very well articulating. He goes on long tangents, uses terrible metaphors and analogies constantly, and says shit like "You know?" soooo much. Christopher Hitchens, he is not.

 

[Lead]

I think this segment and his previous appearances are very very telling of how he would do in that kind of setting.

Which is funny because Peterson reached fame by debating a TV host clearly in over her head. Not to compare their stances, but in that regard he's kind of similar to Milo in how tying a know around the brain of emotional college students made him out to be a skilled debater.

He's certainly very good at delivering speeches and crafting one way narratives, but he's terrible at addressing opposing arguments and seems to get lost in his own words when asked to clarify his positions (particularly because his positions are muddy and too centered around self-evidency to begin with).

The bold 100%. He will talk for 10 minutes and maybe 9 1/2 of it is something no one is actually arguing with him on. The Chewbacca argument.

 

[skaleton]

The point that was missed is if a group manages to get a politician elected and that politician is removed outside of clear criminal evidence, you are going to alienate a lot of that group because voting is largely the biggest tool a person has with their speech in a democracy. I think that's the point Peterson wanted to make that impeachment is actually the censoring of the 2016 election and that should be seriously thought out by the democratic party. It's a similar view I have in that I see Trump as a pretty shitty person with a lot of shitty policies and poor demeanor for a president BUT I acknowledge he won the election for his term and I likely have to wait until 2020 to try to change that.

I think he was taking his argument a step further. I think he WAS referencing the way in which people talk to and about each other. The attempt to paint trump voters as deplorable, malcontents or others is destructive. Likewise when the right paints blacks as lazy or Muslims as inherently dangerous it is equally divisive though I don’t think he was addressing that side of the spectrum in this discussion.

I think there is a big difference between painting the opposing view as opposition compared to saying something, preferably true, that makes those who hold an opposing view uncomfortable. That was the point that I though the female panelist was missing.

 

[Lead]

I think he was taking his argument a step further. I think he WAS referencing the way in which people talk to and about each other. The attempt to paint trump voters as deplorable, malcontents or others is destructive. Likewise when the right paints blacks as lazy or Muslims as inherently dangerous it is equally divisive though I don’t think he was addressing that side of the spectrum in this discussion.

I think there is a big difference between painting the opposing view as opposition compared to saying something, preferably true, that makes those who hold an opposing view uncomfortable. That was the point that I though the female panelist was missing.

Outside of that conversation, I might believe he was taking it a step further but the way he presented his question there was framed around the impeachment. It's possible he narrowed it in this specific instance or he was going to move further based on responses.

 

[GOATER]

He repeated himself because people started laughing. His whole point was the country is getting too polarized and a big reason for that is the rhetoric and the identity politics coming from the left and what the plan is to bring the Trump voters back in to the fold and how to make sure they aren't disenfranchised. Only one person actually somewhat answered the question. Others deflected.

Are you really that delusional?

Identity politics is played by both sides, and specially by The Right Wingers....They play up Christianity,Anti-immigration(Which is associated with anti latino, Anti-Muslim(They use terrorism as an excuse, to basically make White identify themselves with republicans.....and make non-whites not identify with them.


Fox News/Info wars/Alt-Right etc...Are pushing a narrative that Whites are gonna get genocided and all this fucking bullshit.



I agree the rhetoric and identity politics are destroying America...I called it before, each side is acting like the sky is falling and exaggerating everything...both sides are full of pussies.



This is why we need the Alt-Center.....Americans, most Americans aren't that divided, we need to unite them and destroy both the republicans/Democrats...There bullshit has gone far too long.

 

[skaleton]

Outside of that conversation, I might believe he was taking it a step further but the way he presented his question there was framed around the impeachment. It's possible he narrowed it in this specific instance or he was going to move further based on responses.

Just rewatched it. You’re right he was,at least here, referencing if trump is impeached through a “witch hunt”. It kinda changes my opinion, though I still think the back and forth between both sides is just destructive with no attempt to want to respect differing opinions.

 

[skaleton]

Are you really that delusional?

Identity politics is played by both sides, and specially by The Right Wingers....They play up Christianity,Anti-immigration(Which is associated with anti latino, Anti-Muslim(They use terrorism as an excuse, to basically make White identify themselves with republicans.....and make non-whites not identify with them.


Fox News/Info wars/Alt-Right etc...Are pushing a narrative that Whites are gonna get genocided and all this fucking bullshit.



I agree the rhetoric and identity politics are destroying America...I called it before, each side is acting like the sky is falling and exaggerating everything...both sides are full of pussies.



This is why we need the Alt-Center.....Americans, most Americans aren't that divided, we need to unite them and destroy both the republicans/Democrats...There bullshit has gone far too long.

I agree both sides do it, but I think many on the right would find me to be a radical leftist and it amazes me how many on the left see me as right wing . The number of times I’ve had, ugghh I hate the term, sjw types shoot down giving my opinion a chance because of my dick and skin color is frustrating and I see how those on “ the right” could not want to deal with that shit.

I guess my point is that I see the left do it to a point where it risks alienating allies and those on their “side”

 

[Deleted member 263856]

Are you really that delusional?

Identity politics is played by both sides, and specially by The Right Wingers....They play up Christianity,Anti-immigration(Which is associated with anti latino, Anti-Muslim(They use terrorism as an excuse, to basically make White identify themselves with republicans.....and make non-whites not identify with them.


Fox News/Info wars/Alt-Right etc...Are pushing a narrative that Whites are gonna get genocided and all this fucking bullshit.



I agree the rhetoric and identity politics are destroying America...I called it before, each side is acting like the sky is falling and exaggerating everything...both sides are full of pussies.



This is why we need the Alt-Center.....Americans, most Americans aren't that divided, we need to unite them and destroy both the republicans/Democrats...There bullshit has gone far too long.

No need to get angry. I dislike both political parties. I'm fiscally conservative but more liberal on many social issues. I agree that both sides play identity politics. I however think that liberal views are more dominant in today's culture and that there are very few adults in the room on either side. Jordan Peterson is one of those adults and has been labeled as an alt righter by the left and it's a shame. If people listened to his message they'd realize that he's trying to get people to not identify themselves according to whatever group or race they belong to and treat each other as individuals. I think that's the only cure to identity politics.

 

[Lead]

Are you really that delusional?

Identity politics is played by both sides, and specially by The Right Wingers....They play up Christianity,Anti-immigration(Which is associated with anti latino, Anti-Muslim(They use terrorism as an excuse, to basically make White identify themselves with republicans.....and make non-whites not identify with them.


Fox News/Info wars/Alt-Right etc...Are pushing a narrative that Whites are gonna get genocided and all this fucking bullshit.



I agree the rhetoric and identity politics are destroying America...I called it before, each side is acting like the sky is falling and exaggerating everything...both sides are full of pussies.



This is why we need the Alt-Center.....Americans, most Americans aren't that divided, we need to unite them and destroy both the republicans/Democrats...There bullshit has gone far too long.

I think your last proposal is less likely because that "center" still would likely disagree on a lot of issues. It likely would work better for those actors to work within whatever party they affiliate with to prevent the radicals from controlling the party. On the flip side, it also helps for those people to understand a difference between the opposing party's mainstream and radicals as well and avoid playing up the radicals if they aren't actually in an influential spot of control.

 

[Der Eisbär]

I agree both sides do it, but I think many on the right would find me to be a radical leftist and it amazes me how many on the left see me as right wing . The number of times I’ve had, ugghh I hate the term, sjw types shoot down giving my opinion a chance because of my dick and skin color is frustrating and I see how those on “ the right” could not want to deal with that shit.

I guess my point is that I see the left do it to a point where it risks alienating allies and those on their “side”

I'm right there with ya. I'm a fairly left wing guy but I couldn't tell you how many people I've triggered on facebook that proceeded to unfriend me. Anything not perfectly in line with the far left orthodoxy gets you automatically labeled as "right wing".

You're not okay with children undergoing hormone therapy to transition? BIGOT!
You're not okay with bringing in an infinite amount of refugees? RACIST!
You think the gender pay gap is exaggerated and due to inherent differences between the sexes? SEXIST!
You don't think Christians should be forced by the state to provide wedding services for gay people? HOMOPHOBE!

 

[grimballer]

He didn't come off that great, TBH.

When does he?

 

[SmilinDesperado]

I think Bill deliberately sought to reach a common ground with Peterson and their stance on political correctness makes that easy to accomplish. Notice how Peterson mentions "the radical left" and Maher doesn't address it in any way.

In reality the two of them could spar on a number of topics but like you said the show isn't terribly well fit for that and most importantly, Peterson was on to promote his book. Antagonizing him in any way would derail the show and piss off the publisher who bought his spot.

Why would he?
Bill doesn't disagree that there are problems with the left. He calls Democrats pussies often, and he bashes radical left wingers when they do or say crazy things all the time--especially when it comes to being overly sensitive
Bill is obviously super left himself, but he has his own opinions on a range of topics. Sometimes they're farther left than than the normal, and sometimes they're more moderate

Bill seemed to genuinely like Peterson--seemed like a fanboy, and he didn't have him on to argue with him. He had him on to basically repeat the clip he played, and back up some of the thoughts and opinions Bill usually expresses

 

[Judge]

articulation? I dont care if you like him, but articulation? He so often rambles on and on while addressing points or questions....

He articulates very complex things. But it depends on what he is talking about. Say the biblical lectures he is figuring that stuff out as he speaks about it.
But millions of people listen to JP while everyone gives zero fucks about you. I would be bitter and resentful as well if I were you.

When does he?

If it is at least once it is more than you.

I agree with Bill, everything he says is common sense to me.

LOL, the funny thing is you can see how crazy and rabid the ideologues are that hate Peterson.

But you did notice later on he brought up a left professor possibly getting fired over comments she made. It was subtle but he did a little jab back that this isn't always necessarily stuck to one party. I agree though he chose to keep things civil, especially because he likely agrees on that topic for the most part.

Not really. Peterson is not political and there is no reason to think it is a jab back. Maher honestly thinks that you should be able to say that without getting fired. I think JP would agree with Maher on that.

Peterson is according to his own words a liberal as is Maher but Maher does suffer from the crazy anti-trump shit.
Bill bitched about Trump praising dictators? Well, didn't Obama and Bernie do that with certain commies???

His reply in the Overtime clip definitely was a deflection and a very odd one of that cause I think the reply was clear to even those who might not share his opinion. Bill's counter argument actually was one as if Peterson actually made the point he should've made.
Pundit- But didn't you say being offended is okay and this is what the democrats are now doing
Peterson- (Should've said) They can offend but I'm critiquing the actions that they are going forward with in impeachment vs. future elections and the consequences that may have in polarizing the country
Bill- Yes, but Trump's term has been different from other GOP administrations and does call for an escalation in actions like impeachment

Bill already understood the whole conversation as soon as the pundit started making it and was just waiting Peterson's reply and then his already prepared answer (because Peterson pretty much fumbled on what he should've said and tried to change the topic).

Not really a deflection. The woman thinks that being able to be politically incorrect and offend people is the same thing the left is doing.

That is NOT what the left is doing and Peterson was trying to get to that in a very short time/ getting cut off. The point Peterson was trying to make is that what the Left is doing is setting up the other side as an enemy that you cannot have dialogue with and should be killed.

I'm sure he's a very intelligent guy, and I'm not going to judge him solely on this appearance, but he seemed to crumble at the least bit of resistance to his arguments. I've seen him in some other clips, where he's more than capable in a back and forth setting like this.

I don't know what happened, but he didn't seem all that confident in pushing back when he was met with a counter, and when he tried, he seemed to struggle to stay focused on the point that was presented to him and copped out a bit, like in that overtime clip.

He ain't no Christopher Hitchens, that's for sure.

Except he didn't crumble at all. His argument was being misrepresented and was trying to get through to someone with about 5 seconds to do so.
If you are talking about the two videos in the first page you have zero fucking clue what you are talking about.

 

[ultramanhyata]

articulation? I dont care if you like him, but articulation? He so often rambles on and on while addressing points or questions....

Cut the guy some slack... He's still dealing with some PTSD from that time the three year old stared him down from the monkey bars.

 

[hillelslovak87]

He articulates very complex things. But it depends on what he is talking about. Say the biblical lectures he is figuring that stuff out as he speaks about it.
But millions of people listen to JP while everyone gives zero fucks about you. I would be bitter and resentful as well if I were you.



If it is at least once it is more than you.

asinine, your ignorant appraisal.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Enjoy

Though it was not his intention, Maher citing the Fresno State condemnation of their professor's tweet criticizing conservative matriarch Bush completely contradicted JP's simplistic assertion that the "radical leftists" have taken over our universities and are the entire cause of the current politically correct cultural climate.

And, like the weasel he is, JP didn't engage on the story but just silently nodded and then quickly tried to pass it off by suggesting Fresno State was somehow forced to take umbrage only because of the "timing" of the critical tweet.

Then, of course, Peterson took the discussion right back to leftist college campus safe spaces - and how hard it is for comedians to gig at universities these days.

This was a great little snap shot of the Peterson MO.

 

[MiniCraque]

Why would he?
Bill doesn't disagree that there are problems with the left. He calls Democrats pussies often, and he bashes radical left wingers when they do or say crazy things all the time--especially when it comes to being overly sensitive
Bill is obviously super left himself, but he has his own opinions on a range of topics. Sometimes they're farther left than than the normal, and sometimes they're more moderate

Bill seemed to genuinely like Peterson--seemed like a fanboy, and he didn't have him on to argue with him. He had him on to basically repeat the clip he played, and back up some of the thoughts and opinions Bill usually expresses

Because Peterson blames "the radical left" for everything and is notably silent about the other side of the spectrum, which is why he has become the alt right's new darling.

Maher and Peterson's views converge on the fact that both can and do criticize low hanging fruit like SJWs. That's pretty much it.

Also, Maher will most frequently criticize radical leftwingers by calling them stupid and misguided. Peterson treats them as the evil, monolithic, postmodernist, "cultural Marxist" entity hellbent on destroying core values like free speech. So even where they agree, their approach is actually rather different.

btw the reason he had Peterson on was money.

 

[lifelessheap]

I think Bill deliberately sought to reach a common ground with Peterson and their stance on political correctness makes that easy to accomplish. Notice how Peterson mentions "the radical left" and Maher doesn't address it in any way.

In reality the two of them could spar on a number of topics but like you said the show isn't terribly well fit for that and most importantly, Peterson was on to promote his book. Antagonizing him in any way would derail the show and piss off the publisher who bought his spot.

Bill is a real liberal, so when Peterson mentions the radical left it is fine. The radical left has shifted so far away from Bill's position that Bill seems right of center on college campuses. Colleges try to silence and banish Bill because he doesn't take part in their insanity.

Bill calls out murderous Muslims and retarded 59 gender idiots and safe space babies. So yeah, there was plenty of ground to agree upon.

I lol'd when that hot chick was just giving Peterson devil eyes when he was speaking the truth about raising children properly. What a c-word.

 

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

Jordan wasn't great on Bill Maher. But he was a lot better in these videos.