The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

[TheGreatA]

That's a bit of an over-simplification. People see inequality of outcomes and then dig into the source. If it's tied to inequality of opportunities then they start trying to regulate the opportunities.

The problem is when anything even loosely tied to the mere possibility of causing an inequality in opportunity, becomes reason enough to regulate other people's opportunities. And in many cases, these "causes" of inequality end up not having played any kind of a part at all, and no progress whatsoever is achieved outside of stripping other people away from having greater opportunities to better themselves and their lot in life.

All that is achieved, is the further escalation of the bureaucratic powers of the state, even to the point of regulating the citizen's speech, while sacrificing initiative and independency on the people's behalf, as they become more and more accustomed to the government as their care-taker, and grow less and less capable of seeing themselves as an individual actor within a society that might not always have their best interests in mind.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

I don't think that is necessarily the case anymore.

I've certainly met many, many people who argue for an equality of outcomes. Any inequality in outcome, between differing groups of people, is seen as evidence of on-going oppression, which ought to be addressed with heavy-handed regulation on the part of the state, down to the most minimal detail (including people's choices of words).

I'm sure someone is trying to argue for equality of outcomes somewhere, but that doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. On the other-hand, I've seen JP's fans say that he disproved the wage gap. They're clearly wrong because he has practiced assertiveness training to help female clients overcome some issues which led to their pay disparity. So some of his fans aren't much better. The answer is always "C". It exists, but it is a complex issue that can't be easily be solved by a bumper-sticker slogan.

To me, the whole hiring process of 99% of all companies are farcical anyway. Interviews have been proven to be shit predictors of job success, and so many companies are so shitty at sorting hires into tiers of quality, that they now require you to interview two, three, or even four times. As if they're some hidden gem of information they failed to get the first three times that they're suddenly going to find on time #4.

 

[panamaican]

The problem is when anything even loosely tied to the mere possibility of causing an inequality in opportunity, becomes reason enough to regulate other people's opportunities. And in many cases, these "causes" of inequality end up not having played any kind of a part at all, and no progress whatsoever is achieved outside of stripping other people away from having greater opportunities to better themselves and their lot in life.

All that is achieved, is the further escalation of the bureaucratic powers of the state, even to the point of regulating the citizen's speech, while sacrificing initiative and independency on the people's behalf, as they become more and more accustomed to the government as their care-taker, and grow less and less capable of seeing themselves as an individual actor within a society that might not always have their best interests in mind.

I don't disagree with your first paragraph but I also think it's painting with a broad brush. Lots of attempts to address unequal opportunities end up failing. Lots of attempts succeed too. There's no 100% success rate and good intentions doesn't guarantee good outcomes. But not trying has a slew of negative consequences.

all we can do is keep trying and recalibrating.

 

[Goonerview]

I don't disagree with your first paragraph but I also think it's painting with a broad brush. Lots of attempts to address unequal opportunities end up failing. Lots of attempts succeed too. There's no 100% success rate and good intentions doesn't guarantee good outcomes. But not trying has a slew of negative consequences.

all we can do is keep trying and recalibrating.

We should stop trying to "engineer" society.

Women are also underrepresented in sanitation and garbage collection. These jobs are dominated by men, but I don't see feminists trying to achieve equality in these industries. It seems that they are fighting for Priviledge, NOT equality.

Men also make up more work-related deaths and choose more dangerous jobs, why don't we push for equality here too?

See, feminists just want Privilege (all of the good, none of the bad) not equality. This interviewer was so entitled and ignorant that even the mere notion that a white man could be offended didn't even cross her mind and she was stumped.

 

[panamaican]

We should stop trying to "engineer" society.

Women are also underrepresented in sanitation and garbage collection. These jobs are dominated by men, but I don't see feminists trying to achieve equality in these industries. It seems that they are fighting for Priviledge, NOT equality.

Men also make up more work-related deaths and choose more dangerous jobs, why don't we push for equality here too?

See, feminists just want Privilege (all of the good, none of the bad) not equality. This interviewer was so entitled and ignorant that even the mere notion that a white man could be offended didn't even cross her mind and she was stumped.

I'm pretty sure that women already fought for access to the police, fire departments, infantry units, etc.

Is there a problem with women who are trying to get into those jobs still being denied access?

 

[Goonerview]

I'm pretty sure that women already fought for access to the police, fire departments, infantry units, etc.

Is there a problem with women who are trying to get into those jobs still being denied access?

So, you agree that equality of opportunity is fair? For both men and women?

Then, what's the problem? Unless you want equality of outcome.

 

[panamaican]

So, you agree that equality of opportunity is fair? For both men and women?

Then, what's the problem? Unless you want equality of outcome.

There was no problem...I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to someone else about equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome and you interjected some tangent about women in dangerous jobs.

Your post was that there weren't equal numbers of women in those fields, an equality of outcomes analysis. I pointed out that women already fought for equal access to those jobs, an equality of opportunity response. The person I was replying to, prior to your tangent, was discussing the role equality of outcome analysis plays in regulatory choice. I was addressing that.

As of right now, I truly have no idea what your anti-feminism rant truly had to do with any of it.

 

[TheGreatA]

I don't disagree with your first paragraph but I also think it's painting with a broad brush. Lots of attempts to address unequal opportunities end up failing. Lots of attempts succeed too. There's no 100% success rate and good intentions doesn't guarantee good outcomes. But not trying has a slew of negative consequences.

all we can do is keep trying and recalibrating.

Peterson's point is that negative intentions, deriving from personal failures, jealousy and ill will, guarantee a terrible outcome. He does not at all argue against, for example, women taking part in the work-force. His problem is with the attempts to impose an equal outcome between men and women, by limiting the possibilities of success for the men, while artificially increasing them for the women.

There are legitimately progressive ways to liberate people of all classes, genders, religions, and so forth, to partake in the society as they please, and then there are regressive attempts to shut down competition in order to guarantee success for certain groups that are deemed "oppressed" (sometimes with very, very intellectually light explanations as to why they are actually being oppressed). Peterson's problems lie solely with the latter, atleast based on what I've heard of the man. At that point, a society is no longer competitive, but rather, divisive, and prompted to fight against each other (in class, religion, gender, or whatever) for the scraps handed out by a tightly regulated society. Resulting in endless class, religious, gender warfare, and so forth. Not the liberated environment that a progressive ought to seek.

The attempts (by some) to paint him as some kind of a backwards person who wants women back in the kitchen, and transgenders locked up in mental wards, I'd say these are greatly exaggerated versions of the truth.

 

[Bullitt68]

Channel 4 post-mortem for those interested:



Quick teaser for the short attention spanned:



I think the most surprising thing out of all of this is how naive Peterson still is when it comes to his grasp of just how low people will stoop to avoid acknowledging problems in the ways they think/act. He talks about how skeptical and negative he is due to his long immersion in existential philosophy, but there's a pie-in-the-sky optimist living in there, too, and every once in a while, he pops his head up and gets smashed like a whac-a-mole

 

[Goonerview]

There was no problem...I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to someone else about equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome and you interjected some tangent about women in dangerous jobs.

Your post was that there weren't equal numbers of women in those fields, an equality of outcomes analysis. I pointed out that women already fought for equal access to those jobs, an equality of opportunity response. The person I was replying to, prior to your tangent, was discussing the role equality of outcome analysis plays in regulatory choice. I was addressing that.

As of right now, I truly have no idea what your anti-feminism rant truly had to do with any of it.

When you posted this:

I don't disagree with your first paragraph but I also think it's painting with a broad brush. Lots of attempts to address unequal opportunities end up failing. Lots of attempts succeed too. There's no 100% success rate and good intentions doesn't guarantee good outcomes. But not trying has a slew of negative consequences.

all we can do is keep trying and recalibrating.

I thought you were saying that we should keep trying to achieve equal outcomes for women and men. And that we should keep "trying" and "recalibrating" laws and initiaties to get equality of outcome.

It seems as though you were saying that equality of outcome was ideal. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I was merely posting saying that we shouldn't be "engineering society". We should all have equal opportunities and then let the chips fall were they may EVEN IF that means that 100% of CEOs are straight, white men, if the opportunities are fair, then so be it. I believe in true meritocracy.

 

[Gunny]

Here’s a very good write up on the Channel 4 interview from left-of-center publication The Atlantic

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/550859/

 

[Der Eisbär]

My little brother is a student at UCLA
my little brother is also suffering from alcoholism and recently diagnosed mental illness

I bought Dr. Peterson's self authoring suite while it was on sale 2 for 1 over the holidays.
I offered him the extra one because I know he's going through a lot and his program has actually had clinical results in bettering student's academic performance and increasing their overall sense of well-being in life.

Turns out my little brother has gone full-cuck SJW and responded with calling him a racist, sexist, bigot transphobe and wants nothing to do with him.

What a wacky fucking world we're living in.

 

[method115]

She was lost and not prepared if she wanted to dispute anything he said.

Seems like she came in with a preconceived notion of who he was and when they didn't turn out to be true she was lost.

 

[21 Savage]

My little brother is a student at UCLA
my little brother is also suffering from alcoholism and recently diagnosed mental illness

I bought Dr. Peterson's self authoring suite while it was on sale 2 for 1 over the holidays.
I offered him the extra one because I know he's going through a lot and his program has actually had clinical results in bettering student's academic performance and increasing their overall sense of well-being in life.

Turns out my little brother has gone full-cuck SJW and responded with calling him a racist, sexist, bigot transphobe and wants nothing to do with him.

What a wacky fucking world we're living in.

>professor
>80k patreon
>self-authoring
>books

ngl as much as i meme about peterson he does seem fairly well-intentioned despite his mad money

 

[Bullitt68]

This whole talk is great - it's basically an elaborate verbal rundown of the chapters in 12 Rules for Life - but I've timestamped the most surreal bit. Watch from where I've got it timestamped (at 1:09:29) until about 1:11:41. If only that Channel 4 reporter had been listening...



Seriously, the irony level:



There's also an important takeaway about the spectator sport aspect of enjoying watching Peterson "win" that argument when really the only winning is helping people to understand why and how that reporter was wrong and Peterson was right so that shit like that doesn't constitute the default mode of public discourse and personal conversations.

 

[Gunny]

My little brother is a student at UCLA
my little brother is also suffering from alcoholism and recently diagnosed mental illness

I bought Dr. Peterson's self authoring suite while it was on sale 2 for 1 over the holidays.
I offered him the extra one because I know he's going through a lot and his program has actually had clinical results in bettering student's academic performance and increasing their overall sense of well-being in life.

Turns out my little brother has gone full-cuck SJW and responded with calling him a racist, sexist, bigot transphobe and wants nothing to do with him.

What a wacky fucking world we're living in.

Trying to keep sherbros straight here - is your little brother the wanna be tranny or is that another poster?

 

[BearGrounds]

Channel 4 post-mortem for those interested:



Quick teaser for the short attention spanned:



I think the most surprising thing out of all of this is how naive Peterson still is when it comes to his grasp of just how low people will stoop to avoid acknowledging problems in the ways they think/act. He talks about how skeptical and negative he is due to his long immersion in existential philosophy, but there's a pie-in-the-sky optimist living in there, too, and every once in a while, he pops his head up and gets smashed like a whac-a-mole

Cathy was the attacker. Now, since she's failed miserably in her attack, she's the victim. The hypocrisy is astounding.

She was intentionally trying to create the exact same atmosphere online/in the public eye for Peterson, yet it backfired and fell all on her. Now those that wished she had embarrassed Peterson and provoked a vicious online attack on him, are doing damage control and attempting to put the focus instead on Peterson's supposed "internet troll army".

Incredible how pathetic that is.

Peterson should have seen it coming, and listened to his better judgement before tweeting what he did in response to those deflection articles. I think he genuinely felt bad for her, despite what she had attempted to pull off, so that's why he did it. Compassion fucked him.

 

[Hard To Tell]

Looking at the comments so far it seems that hardly anyone is buying the predictable 'victim' narrative now being pushed to try and turn the table. Everyone can see through it and is calling out this tactic for what it is.

 

[Der Eisbär]

Trying to keep sherbros straight here - is your little brother the wanna be tranny or is that another poster?

That's another poster

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

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:

This is absolutely brilliant...

It pissed me off because I wish I was half as patient and articulate as Jordan Peterson.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is how you destroy leftist scum..
Facts...and logical articulation