The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

[Hogey]

In my opinion if you support dr Peterson why give the channel 4 lady any shit. He wasn't bothered by it. He wants discussion to take place. Criticism on her part is good but attacking her is not, nor is that what he is trying to acheieve, just being the other side of the coin. She went after his beliefs and he countered every talking point she tried to make, and at the end was respectable.

 

[Hogey]

The lady (channel four interview) interviewing the professor.. is.. ehmm..well quite bad at understanding what he's saying. And was constantly attempting to misconstrue it.

I'm not a right wing person, or an alt righter, or even a mens right activist, but I do value rational thought, and reason, and the lady doing the interview projected none of this. If this channel 4, employee is the leading interviewer for persons of note, viewers are going to come out poor in terms of getting to the meat of the information the subject presents. The professor showed remarkable patience, I would've at least drummed the table with my fingers, to let out some form of aggression at the constant attempt of trying to misrepresent the information given.

Aggression would not suit his cause, he is smarter then that to let his emotions get in his way in a debate and would probably cause her to double down and have her put up defensive walls. Attacking people won't help change people's ideas.

The only times I have seen him seem somewhat pissed is when people ignore facts or try to manipulate data.

Edit: on a side not I am excited I am going to see dr Peterson in February in SF

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

In my opinion if you support dr Peterson why give the channel 4 lady any shit. He wasn't bothered by it. He wants discussion to take place. Criticism on her part is good but attacking her is not, nor is that what he is trying to acheieve, just being the other side of the coin. She went after his beliefs and he countered every talking point she tried to make, and at the end was respectable.

The reason most people wont agree with the perspective that it was respectable is because it is not really a discussion between two people but rather one person and a robot spewing the same buzz words over and over to push a narrative. She isn't really producing her own thoughts as much as she is sticking to a script and it's disingenuous.

Heres a perfect example from the exchange between them at 27:50 to about 28:42

He explains about the abundance of variance that is possible within our biological parameters and she immedietley responds by saying

Jordan Peterson: *explaining natural variance and the in a logical and rational manner*
Cathy Newman: Aren't you just whipping up the people into a state of anger and.....
Jordan Peterson: Not at all (clearly catching the play here)
Cathy Newman: ....Di-di-divsions between men and women! You're stirring people up!"

Like honestly that's not a conversation. He's talking to a fucking wall. If any good will come from this it will be when people with some common sense watch it and notice shill-bot 3000 having a malfunction debating someone way above her pay grade.

 

[Hogey]

The reason most people wont agree with the perspective that it was respectable is because it is not really a discussion between two people but rather one person and a robot spewing the same buzz words over and over to push a narrative. She isn't really producing her own thoughts as much as she is sticking to a script and it's disingenuous.

Heres a perfect example from the exchange between them at 27:50 to about 28:42

He explains about the abundance of variance that is possible within our biological parameters and she immedietley responds by saying

Jordan Peterson: *explaining natural variance and the in a logical and rational manner*
Cathy Newman: Aren't you just whipping up the people into a state of anger and.....
Jordan Peterson: Not at all (clearly catching the play here)
Cathy Newman: ....Di-di-divsions between men and woman! You're stirring people up!"

Like honestly that's not a conversation. He's talking to a fucking wall. If any good will come from this it will be when people with some common sense watching it and noticing shill-bot 3000 having a malfunction debating someone way above her pay grade.

I agree that she was shilling hard to a cause and probably agreed to the discussion with limited/skewed knowledge of dr Peterson. I just think attacking her or attacking anyone with her views does more damage to dr petersons message, for those that oppose his views it reinforces their beliefs. You beat these people by being better then them,by wanting to help them instead of wanting to vilify and destroy them.

 

[21 Savage]

I'm sometimes humbled to know that I post amongst intellectual giants here in the WR, where tenured professors at respected universities and published authors are looked at as dumbasses.

: )

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

I agree that she was shilling hard to a cause and probably agreed to the discussion with limited/skewed knowledge of dr Peterson. I just think attacking her or attacking anyone with her views does more damage to dr petersons message, for those that oppose his views it reinforces their beliefs. You beat these people by being better then them,by wanting to help them instead of wanting to vilify and destroy them.

I look at it differently. I don't really think people are attacking her for her views as much as her deception and shilling. There is already a distrust in the media and if anything this reinforces that more than it would fortify people with this argument.

She basically makes the movement look bad. It's probably a good thing she got knocked down a few pegs.

 

[sangreporsangre]

I look at it differently. I don't really think people are attacking her for her views as much as her deception and shilling. There is already a distrust in the media and if anything this reinforces that more than it would fortify people with this argument.

She basically makes the movement look bad. It's probably a good thing she got knocked down a few pegs.

There's no need to go on her twitter and call her a dumb bitch or whatever. But I don't buy that she got a bunch of threats or "misogynistic abuse" like all these British rags are trying to say now. Seems like they're just trying to play the victim card.

 

[Goonerview]

Jordan Peterson absolutely destroyed this feminist on channel 4. I don't know if it's been posted. His debating skills in the face of her sophist tactics was masterful. He remained calm and owned her.

Enjoy:

 

[Teppodama]

Thank you Gooner but this has already been addressed in at least two previous topics.

 

[Goonerview]

Thank you Gooner but this has already been addressed in at least two previous topics.

Ah, I see, I couldn't find the threads.

She was terrible, she was throwing strawman after strawman at him, even tried smearing him at the end. Just complete sophistry.

Peterson just stood in the face of the storm and broke through her bullshit. Beautiful

 

[Goonerview]

In my opinion if you support dr Peterson why give the channel 4 lady any shit. He wasn't bothered by it. He wants discussion to take place. Criticism on her part is good but attacking her is not, nor is that what he is trying to acheieve, just being the other side of the coin. She went after his beliefs and he countered every talking point she tried to make, and at the end was respectable.

She was throwing all kinds of sophist tactics at him. Strawman after strawman, even smearing him as a "ALT right troll" at the end ... With all due respect, she deserves some flack.

 

[Oeshon]

She was throwing all kinds of sophist tactics at him. Strawman after strawman, even smearing him as a "ALT right troll" at the end ... With all due respect, she deserves some flack.

"So what your saying is.."

 

[Teppodama]

No problems. Was just letting you know before someone came in and capped on ya for posting about it.

Yes, I thought it was a very good interview as well. Unfortunately the destruction was so intense and the snark comments about so profuse online that some feminists and talking bobble heads are pusing back saying it's and example of male hostility and patriarchy blah blah blah.

 

[Happiness]

Jordan Peterson, what trash.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Jordan Peterson, what trash.

Lol. Pray tell, why?

 

[Happiness]

Lol. Pray tell, why?

All he does is cry, dogwhistle, misrepresent facts and spew sophistic, intellectually fraudulent garbage that sounds clever to the stupid.

He's found his perfect audience in the alt-right and among other bigots.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

All he does is cry, dogwhistle, misrepresent facts and spew sophistic, intellectually fraudulent garbage that sounds clever to the stupid.

Examples?

 

[Happiness]

Examples?

I can't be fucked reseaching for you sorry, mainly because I find Peterson both repugnant and boring; his work is sloppy, and serves his agenda, not the facts.

Plus I can't stand his constant whining.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

I can't be fucked reseaching for you sorry, mainly because I find Peterson both repugnant and boring; his work is sloppy, and serves his agenda, not the facts.

Plus I can't stand his constant whining.

Ah.
In other words you have no examples, and you just came in here to sound off with meaningless invective because, while you can find no legitimate fault with Peterson, you dislike his right-leaning viewer/fan-base and your tribal insecurities leave you incapable of just keeping your prattle to yourself?

Points for tossing out "dogwhistle". AKA, "I'll just pretend everything is secretly racist, because that's the only way I can win arguments."

Understood.
Carry on.

 

[Goonerview]

"So what your saying is.."

Strawmanning is dirty sophist tactics ... Jordan Peterson didn't fall for it and stood firm. He was so ready.