So will we having stoning for adulterous women, or not? Just asking for Mrs Binners as, if so, she needs to order a beard
Northwind
You are having a laugh. His entire argument about enforced monogamy was relating to and inspired by that exact terrorist attack
Apologies I think I mis-read you. I assumed you were suggesting that Peterson was in some way complicit or responsible for inspiring the attacker.
Using obscure academic terms in an interview with a non-academic publication for mass consumption is either incredibly stupid, or a good way to cause confusion.
You say I’m choosing the least charitable way to look at it; not at all, I’m giving him credit where it’s due. I think it’s a low tactic but it’s effective.
Let me just see if I can get this straight.... (fake) Dr. Jordan Peterson is a pseudo intellectual charlatan and snake oil salesman who leads an army of alt-rights, incels, mgtows, racists, misogynists and neo-nazis by speaking in a deliberately confusing, rambling and incoherent manner and consciously chooses obscure academic terminology which he knows will gain controversy when they are accidentally misinterpreted by his critics on the left, while simultaneously criticizing and admonishing the groups which he apparently inspires.
Is that about right? If it is, it's an impressive accomplishment.
Let me just see if I can get this straight….
Probably not... plenty of questions still unanswered though if you want to take a look.
That's a pretty good sumary, Jimjam. You have spoken true words in jest.
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
Jimjam wrote,.
Let me just see if I can get this straight….
</div>
No, is the answer. Because (not for the first time) you're taking different people's opinions and squashing them all together and acting surprised that they're inconsistent.
I am both impressed and confused by big words
I know not what I sign, but sign I will
Take my money!!!
A reboot of The Inbetweeners with more incels would be epic.
Northwind
No, is the answer. Because (not for the first time) you’re taking different people’s opinions and squashing them all together and acting surprised that they’re inconsistent.
For effect. I'm not acting surprised, just illustrating the morass of opinions, sorry if you find that overly glib.
Ah well.
What can we take from this thread?
JP's supporters started with insults, yet don't seem able to cope with them.
Not one is prepared to engage in a rational debate. We have an open house, all welcome, spare room etc. If you'd prefer to discuss any of this, along with some decent trails, just drop us a line. Every one is welcome.
Such a shame, happy to discuss any or all of the relevant points with those capable of doing so.
I think that's probably my final contribution, except that at 50 I'm still pretty capable of distinguishiing shit from toothpaste.
You people will gain traction.
Your hateful ideals will become commonplace.
And you will be proved wrong, because love is far more powerful than hate.
Rusty Spanner.
JP’s supporters started with insults, yet don’t seem able to cope with them.
My memory must be a bit hazy, other than some light provocation from Geetee I'm struggling to remember any insults by "supporters". Meanwhile the naysayers have thrown around terms like Nazi, misogynist, racist and virtually every variation and insinuation imaginable.If myself or geetee et al dared respond in kind with similarly aggregious and baseless slurs we'd be banned, but STW village rewards it's acolytes when they throw around slurs like Nazi or wife beater.
You're using the most disgusting and inflammatory accusations imaginable and then constantly acting as though you're a totally impartial, rational actor.
Not one is prepared to engage in a rational debate
You've continually stated your willingness to debate but when I engaged with you about "white privilege", even though you conceded that the term was grossly simplistic, inadequate and inaccurate you still maintained that it retained validity as it might apply to some people, some of the time despite being a completely loaded and divisive term. Then you buggered off despite having bumped the thread demanding a response from me every five minutes until you got one. Your pretense of calm rational open debater is totally transparent.
jimjam wrote,
just illustrating the morass of opinions
Why? They've already been illustrated by the people stating them. But twice in this thread you've slung someone else's opinion at me as if it has anything to do with mine.
Nicely put Pete.
I think I’ll bow out on that note as well brother
Dear me Jimjam, this isn't even a petrolhead thread. A final fling in case the new terms and conditions aren't signable?
You’ve continually stated your willingness to debate but when I engaged with you about “white privilege”, even though you conceded that the term was grossly simplistic, inadequate and inaccurate you still maintained that it retained validity as it might apply to some people, some of the time despite being a completely loaded and divisive term. Then you buggered off despite having bumped the thread demanding a response from me every five minutes until you got one.
Yep, that's my point of view. But it's not innaccurate when used to describe a certain type of privilege.
So, do you agree?
Happy to debate any or all of JP's points btw.
I think I've been very fair btw - I actually listened to all of the Fry debate and have spent almost a week layed up with the lurgy attempting to find a way to find out what JP believes.
Am happy to debate any or all of his points. Please, post up another video that we can debate.
legomeorology
What do rabbits have to do with it?
even though you conceded that the term was grossly simplistic, inadequate and inaccurate you still maintained that it retained validity as it might apply to some people, some of the time despite being a completely loaded and divisive term.
Yeah, but do you think white folks have privilege in the UK, USA, Canada, Europe, Australasia? Or are you ore concerned about avoiding the issues?
How about correlation and causation are different things when trying to explain human behaviour? How about the under reporting of domestic abuse data may undermine the conclusions takes that being married makes men less violent?
My memory must be a bit hazy, other than some light provocation from Geetee I’m struggling to remember any insults by “supporters”.
Let's get this sorted out then.
The op referred to left wing 'biggots'.
My initial response, despite being benign, was met with insults, again from the OP.
SBob won't actually debate anything, because Binners has upset him. Obvious bollocks, he has done nothing but try to upset people and stifle debate - hypocritical troll.
GT and ninners have refused to debate any of the points I've raised.
What's a boy to do?
Seriously, I find the bloke fascinating, let's crack on.......
Yeah, but do you think white folks have privilege in the UK, USA, Canada, Europe, Australasia?
Some of them do yes, of course. Why wouldn't they? Just as some Asian folks have privilege in China, South Korea and Thailand. Just as humans have privilege on Earth.
Some of them do yes, of course. Why wouldn’t they?
Do you think your chances are better being born white in the UK? Is there a level of institutional racism in the UK?
Ninfan, do you have any kind of rational response to my points regarding the video you posted?
GT, please, let's debate this issue without the nasty insults.
Anyone?
Northwind
Why? They’ve already been illustrated by the people stating them.
If they are completely contradictory it's very difficult to engage with.
But twice in this thread you’ve slung someone else’s opinion at me as if it has anything to do with mine.
Sorry for doing that.
Rusty Spanner
Let’s get this sorted out then.
The op referred to left wing ‘biggots’.
My initial response, despite being benign, was met with insults, again from the OP.
I was under the impression that Geetee had said that was in jest? Even if he meant it do you think "left wing bigot" is equal to "nazi" or "wife beater"? Seriously?
Do you think your chances are better being born white in the UK?
No. I think your chances are better being born into the haves vs the have nots. Using the colour of people as a way of grouping them is a distraction from this.
Is there a level of institutional racism in the UK?
There is all sorts of racism in the UK at all levels. Not nearly as much as there is inequality.
Is inequality exasperated by race?
Think we can address both things?
I don't think it is, no. Not today. We can address anything we want to. My preference would be to address the thing that causes most problems for most people. That is inequality. The more resources, effort and focus that goes into that the quicker it will be addressed. Why take away from that by being distracted by other things? It's almost as if a certain group wants us to be distracted doesn't it? It's easily done as well which is sad.
It’s almost as if a certain group wants us to be distracted doesn’t it? It’s easily done as well which is sad.
It's almost as if a certain group want it ignored for some reason....
I was under the impression that Geetee had said that was in jest? Even if he meant it do you think “left wing bigot” is equal to “nazi” or “wife beater”? Seriously?
Where did he say that?
And yes, left wing bigot is a pathetic insult, equally as abhorrent as the left wing 'nazi' jibe.
No idea about the 'wife beater' thing. It didn't register. Although I do remember that the OP has been a victim of appalling and completely unjustified domestic abuse himself. Perhaps we should ask him how he feels about that term being bandied about in some sort of points scoring excercise?
Is inequality exasperated by race?
Think we can address both things?
Privilege and prejudice aren't exclusive to race, sex, gender, class or majority of population.
A bloody good point Mike.
I was under the impression that Geetee had said that was in jest? Even if he meant it do you think “left wing bigot” is equal to “nazi” or “wife beater”? Seriously?
RustySpanner
Where did he say that?
My apologies, I only scanned the first page while woring outside and it looks like I picked up the wrong end of the stick. I do suspect it was intended to be playfully provocative rather than confrontational and insulting right off the bat.
And yes, left wing bigot is a pathetic insult, equally as abhorrent as the left wing ‘nazi’ jibe.
Do you think they're equivalent though? Do you think there's an equal stigma around being a "left wing bigot" and a nazi?
I only scanned the first page while woring outside and it looks like I picked up the wrong end of the stick. I do suspect
Ah the magic prophet is back, providing insight into what people really said as opposed to what was written or said.
mikewsmith
Ah the magic prophet is back, providing insight into what people really said as opposed to what was written or said.
Yep, I was trained in the dark arts by high mage Peterson.
well I do wonder how you know what people are saying, what they really mean, what they were thinking and how they meant what they said???
mikewsmith
well I do wonder how you know what people are saying, what they really mean, what they were thinking and how they meant what they said???
Mike, you realise my speculation as to Peterson's meanings by his "enforced monogamy" comment were pretty much what he came out and said a few nights ago? That is of course unless you are asking about the secret meaning he infers by criticizing the people he is supposed to lead by using a deliberately rambling, incomprehensible nonsensical pseudo speak.
I'm confused as to why anyone would constantly ask "what he means" by this or that comment then lash out claiming that any respondents were pretending to be psychic.
Do you think they’re equivalent though? Do you think there’s an equal stigma around being a “left wing bigot” and a nazi?
Yeah, sadly it's getting that way.
As an anarcho--lefty I hate the lazy, stupid 'buy into an ideology, give up independent thought' attitude of both sides.
I like Corbyns policies, but utterly despise his links to failed ideology. Luckily, I've been to loads of Momentum meetings and can tell you categorically that his younger supporters view him in exactly the same way.
JP has some points that need addressing.
So let's address them, before they fester.
But let's be honest and treat him with the same scepticism that we apply to everybody else.
Once again, his points are valid - everyone is entitled to a voice.
But.... his arguments just don't stand up.
No insults, but the logic is pathetic. I've negotiated in boardrooms for pay settlements and defended my union members against some remakably intelligent people.
He's nowhere near that level of debate - he would be laughed out of the room.
Which is what rings the alarm bells. If we carry on like this, then we might as well just choose our weapons now.
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end
“Half the men fail,” he says, meaning that they don’t procreate. “And no one cares about the men who fail.”
I laugh, because it is absurd.
“You’re laughing about them,” he says, giving me a disappointed look. “That’s because you’re female.”</p>
Do you think they’re equivalent though? Do you think there’s an equal stigma around being a “left wing bigot” and a nazi?
Yeah, sadly it’s getting that way.
Sorry but that was a somewhat rhetorical question. Perhaps we'll need to revisit that question when being a "left wing bigot" actually carries the same social stigma as the second most murderous regime of the 20th century.
JP has some points that need addressing.
So let’s address them, before they fester.
But let’s be honest and treat him with the same scepticism that we apply to everybody else.
Once again, his points are valid – everyone is entitled to a voice.
But…. his arguments just don’t stand up.
No insults, but the logic is pathetic. I’ve negotiated in boardrooms for pay settlements and defended my union members against some remakably intelligent people.
Pre Trump, fake news and that godforsaken Brexit vote it was all quite reasonable.
He’s nowhere near this level. he would be laughed out of the room.
So in other words, using your high powered perception and superior intellect you can cut through Jordan Petrson's weak arguments like a knife. Well I have great news, he's doing an AMA on Reddit tomorrow. Someone with your experience could really make a name for himself and no doubt quite a bit of money by exposing the great deceiver for the charlatan he really is.
Of course given the incredible career you've just alluded to you probably have no need for things like wealth or material gain but surely in the interests of setting the world to rights you should get involved and expose him? Failing that you could start your own Youtube channel wherin you could layout your rebuttals and counter arguments to Peterson's fallacious and incoherent ramblings. Should be easily done. If money doesn't motivate you then do it for the good of humanity.
Sorry but that was a somewhat rhetorical question.
If you're reduced to "my insult is bigger than your insult" then it's time to stop and have a think.
I've been working a lot lately hence I've not been active on the thread.
Anyone can be a left wing bigot, just like they can be a right wing bigot or just a plain old bigot.
A bigot is someone who is intolerant of people who hold views different to their own.
Binners is a bigot for example as he has very clearly demonstrated in most of the things he's ever writen about me personally when engaging in debates about the subject of gender on here. He's resorted to all manner of horrific personal insults to the point where people have called him out on it.
But hey that's OK. It doesn't bother me.
In my original post I was simply pointing out that there are a lot of people who aren't willing or capable of listening to what JP has to say and would rather simply dismiss him as bad person motivated by misogyny, racism, hate etc, when nothing could be further from the truth.
<div>
GT, please, let’s debate this issue without the nasty insults.
Sure - wasn't aware I'd insulted anyone but apologies if I did. Toi make it simpler, these are the points JP makes that I think are important:
Equality of opportunity is morally and functionally important for society but equality of outcome is neither of these things.
Unequal outcomes are not evidence of a lack of equal opportunity
There is no gender pay gap in women under 40 but there is a massive one in women over 40; there are many factors that contribute to this, and for sure bia will be one of them, but it's only a about 10% (or thereabouts) of the variance and many other variables not associated with bias are at work here.
The vast majority of men are decent people and the vast majority of crimes of all natures, but specifically relevant to this debate, against women, are committed by a tiny percentage of men. Framing the debate around violence against women as being a problem with masculinity is a bigoted view and utterly wrong.
For the same reason, claiming there is anything like 'white priviledge' is also based on bias; it assumes to know something about a person based on nothing more than outward characteristics.
We are in danger of marginalising boys and masculinity to a dangerous degree in the right and just pursuit of fixing other problems that women experience. These other thigns need to be fixed, but movements like MeToo are in danger of blaming men and masculinity, when it is the fault of neither.
BTW Edukator - I saw what you wrote, and while a lot of bad stuff has happened to me, with respect, you don't know me and you've never met me so, respectfully, please refrain from offering your warped view as to what kind of person I am.
I'm a decent, well adjusted respected member of my community who does volunteer work with disadvantaged young adults, is a wonderful father and a loyal and loving husband who has supported his wife's career development at the expense of his own. I've been open about the challenges I've experiecned but I'm no different to most people in that respect.
</div>
A dissection of JP’s 12 Rules
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/jordan-peterson-12-rules-kate-manne-review/
your high powered perception and superior intellect you can cut through Jordan Petrson’s weak arguments like a knife. Well I have great news, he’s doing an AMA on Reddit tomorrow.
I''m just a bloke expressing his opinion.
Of course given the incredible career you’ve just alluded to you probably have no need for things like wealth or material gain but surely in the interests of setting the world to rights you should get involved and expose him?
I'm a care worker (and unpaid union rep) on minimum wage. I've never claimed privilege or a single penny in benefit.
My old fella told me that the only way you can influence people is by your own actions and your behaviour.
I've worked ****ing hard and am proud of what I have achieved.
I try to be a good man and live up to his ideals.
I might be poor, but I'm happy that I'll always treat other people like I'd like to be treated myself.
So stop it with the insults.
The vast majority of men are decent people and the vast majority of crimes of all natures, but specifically relevant to this debate, against women, are committed by a tiny percentage of men. Framing the debate around violence against women as being a problem with masculinity is a bigoted view and utterly wrong.
Who is doing that? However relying on stats is very shaky ground here given the amount if under-reporting here. Claims that monogamy makes things better, polygamy leads to civil war etc are dangerous to make.
For the same reason, claiming there is anything like ‘white priviledge’ is also based on bias; it assumes to know something about a person based on nothing more than outward characteristics.
Outcomes tell us a lot here. Denying that in the west or majority of the developed/rich world where Caucasians dominate politics and business is trying to ignore a real issue, using the technicality route of whataboutery Asia and Africa is a poor excuse for not addressing the issues facing us.
We are in danger of marginalising boys and masculinity to a dangerous degree in the right and just pursuit of fixing other problems that women experience. These other thigns need to be fixed, but movements like MeToo are in danger of blaming men and masculinity, when it is the fault of neither.
Firstly giving rights and empowerment to women is taking nothing away from men/boys. It's something people try and use to stop us making the world equal, elevating people to a position of equality does remove privilege from those who have it already, that is not a right or something you deserve, it's something that has been taken from others over the years, it's only fair we give it back.
Jimjam wrote,
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
Mike, you realise my speculation as to Peterson’s meanings by his “enforced monogamy” comment were pretty much what he came out and said a few nights ago?
</div>
Have you done any better than him at explaining how it is the cure for hate crimes? I mean, it wouldn't be hard, since he didn't make any attempt to do so, he just said it like it was obvious.