Just to confirm? Does no mean…

a) no

b) yes

Do you even need to ask?

That’s the kind of thing Donald trump does. Posts false information taken from other people without checking and passing it off as fact.

Zero credibility.

I’m amused by Peterson, he’s very good at instantly highlighting the dim witted professionally offended who need to spend more time listening and less time with their gobs open.

All he does is the equivalent of walking into a room and making a statement like “black people commit more crime” and then rides the wave of carnage.

I’m amused by Peterson

I’m amused by those amused by Peterson.

I’m amused by those amused by Peterson.

Thank you, I’m here all night.

An Englishman, Irishman and a Scotsman walk into a bar…

All he does is the equivalent of walking into a room and making a statement like “black people commit more crime” and then rides the wave of carnage.

So he is nothing more than a cheap troll then?

 he’s very good at instantly highlighting the dim witted professionally offended

don’t forget the professional offenders and misogynists who love his work too, gives them a feeling of security that the clever man (not an expert we don’t like them) says it’s ok.

So he is nothing more than a cheap troll then?

I’m not sure if he’s aware of it or not. He’s definitely “on the spectrum”.

the clever man says it’s ok

Except he doesn’t, does he? I’ve not listened to everything he’s published but most of people’s problems with him seem to boil down to people’s inability to understand the difference between explanation and justification.

There is such a circle of knee-jerking that I believe a new form of the can-can has been invented.

Thing is its not an explanation that has any ring of truth.  Its a total distortion to suit his audience of hapless inadequate men who want to blame others for their own inadequacies.

Thing is its not an explanation that has any ring of truth.

What isn’t? Without specifics there is no discourse.

audience of hapless inadequate men

Oxford union?

I’ve not listened to everything he’s published but most of people’s problems with him seem to boil down to people’s inability to understand the difference between explanation and justification.

Yes, and the way he lets that happen over and over again, as if somebody so intelligent would have spotted that and thought about changing his approach a little to stop that happening…..

audience of hapless inadequate men

             Oxford union?

Well I don’t think you will find a higher concentration of entitled white men who’s grip on power is being reduced by equality and progress every day. Sounds like a perfect place for him

they do invite some interesting people there

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Union#Retractions_of_speaker_invitations

What isn’t? Without specifics there is no discourse.

We tried discussing it last time.

You just keep posting ambiguous toss, winky emoticons and refusing to tell us what you actually think – the Surrey Defence?

but most of people’s problems with him seem to boil down to people’s inability to understand the difference between explanation and justification.

Sadly not. He seems intent on dressing his justification up as explanation. Thereby allowing people to feel empowered to engage in morally objectional behaviour.

This explains everything:

<div class=”bbp-reply-author”>mikewsmith
<div class=”bbp-author-role”>
<div class=””>Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>

<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

So he is nothing more than a cheap troll then?

An expensive troll.

</div>

I dont know if Peterson said that but catcalling is clearly not assault. It might well be harassment but it’s the kind of low level harassment that a lot of people endure everyday. It’s called life. I don’t think it’s ok but it’s not remotely a problem unique to women.

“Catcalling” in this situation means unwanted sexual remarks directed at people in a public setting. Can you explain a bit more about what you mean by “it’s not remotely a problem unique to women”?

Can you explain a bit more about what you mean by “it’s not remotely a problem unique to women”?

He means it’s happened to a man at least once so you can’t call it an issue for women, it’s a technique to dilute an argument and to deflect the attention away from an issue.

It completely ignores the historic position where men hold the power in society and how men have historically got away with sexual assaults and inappropriate behaviour #LockerRoomTalk #Banter etc. Things like #MeToo are rattling the cages of a lot of powerful people at the moment. They are threatened and scared.

This explains everything:

I think there he’s just poking fun at a ridiculous non sensical t-shirt (check out the engrish.com logo) and probably poking fun at his own image as a misogynist.

but most of people’s problems with him seem to boil down to people’s inability to understand the difference between explanation and justification.

TBH my problem with the OP’s video was that it was crap. I admit I only managed to stomach 10 minutes of it, but god it was awful.

“All living creatures want to move forward”.  “Forward” is a lovely word, nice and positive. But meaningless. WTF is “forward” to an amoeba? What does it mean to a cat? As far as I can tell it just means they want to survive.

“In my scientific writings” – an appeal from authority, nicely dropped in there, but even JP has to admit it mostly comes from his book.

“People evaluate their options” means that “people value different choices” means that “there’s no human life without value”. That’s changing the meaning of value quite radically.

.. and that’s the first proposition. A meaningless waffle, he’s worse than Russell Brand.

Then we move on to hierarchies. No acknowledgement of starting points, just the idea that competence is the only reason we get people at the top and others at the bottom. A bit of waffle generalising conservatives and liberals. And at that point I gave up.

He means it’s happened to a man at least once so you can’t call it an issue for women

I really wanted to hear the original poster explain his comment.

There you go again Tj spouting some bollox that you’ve been fed by the guardian

I’ve never heard him say the stuff you say he’s said and I’ve never seen him give a lecture to an audience that fits that description there’s always women in attendance and the audience seems full of academics that are happy to be there and challenge him on some of his flaky nonsense

I really wanted to hear the original poster explain his comment.

Yeah, sorry for jumping in, but he probably won’t in any kind of meaningful way.

Nonk – can’t attack the message attack the messenger?

You only have to skim the surface of what he says to see the vile misogyny in his “thesis” and the total lack of validity and rigour.

Tj I agree to some degree but I’m saying that your evaluation of the man and is audience is a million miles from being accurate and I would expect that to matter to you to be honest

There you go again Tj spouting some bollox that you’ve been fed by the guardian

[Nonk – can’t attack the message attack the messenger?[/quote]

Tp be fair TJ you have played right into the hands of his disciples with cut and paste of stuff he didn’t even say to justify your dislike of him.

I can’t see a credibility recovery from that gaff tbh. 👍

TBH my problem with the OP’s video was that it was crap. I admit I only managed to stomach 10 minutes of it, but god it was awful.

Yep, think I made it just past 10 minutes with the same conclusions as you have made.  Why anyone thinks what he says is anything other than a mixture of stating the obvious but with a particular bias is lost on me.  Maybe I am too clever for him…

 Maybe I am too clever for him…

I think you need to pay for some private consults with him. I think he is using the Scientology approach there 😉

Yep, think I made it just past 10 minutes with the same conclusions as you have made.  Why anyone thinks what he says is anything other than a mixture of stating the obvious but with a particular bias is lost on me.

I only made the first 15 minutes, nothing he said made me think he had anything notably intellectual about his viewpoint. Although maybe that’s intentional. He seemed very much to be setting the scene to justify his position more than setting the scene for an honest debate.

Just seemed like a lot of old ****!

There are two audiences though, the ones in the room and the ones online. The people in the room may have been there to challenge his ideas not support them. Though it is unlikely that many people will have the stamina to listen to more than 15 mins. He knows who his target audience is.

He’s a clever bloke in that he knows exactly what his target market is and he’s making a packet out of telling them exactly what they want to hear. With the added bonus of getting to troll liberals, which obviously amuses him no end

Indeed neal.  Honest mistake from being lazy.  Other stuff I posted is direct quotes tho

The Oxford Union is not affiliated with Oxford University and uses the name “Oxford” to try to imply some connection and, by extension, respectability.  Lots of businesses do the same in Oxford, especially the language schools.

Membership is limited to students at Oxford University, Oxford Brookes and other academic institutions in the city.

The main point is, that no one at Oxford University takes the Oxford Union seriously.  It’s well known for having a certain type of Oxford student as its membership.

It seems apt that Peterson spoke here.  He’d never get a gig addressing one of the college’s common room, or a lecture at the University itself.

There is no Student Union at Oxford Uni.  All the services the Student Union offers at other Unis are organised by the colleges.

(Oxford DPhil., postdoc for 8 years, now doing something else.)

no one at Oxford University takes the Oxford Union seriously.  It’s well known for having a certain type of Oxford student as its membership.

What type ?

(Genuine question, I haven’t got a clue)

Jordan Peterson has an annoying habit of winning arguments with facts.  It inflames extremists left and right no end.  On having bubbles burst they resort to falsely labeling him, misquoting and calling for him to be censored.

Bought his book after stumbling on to the Cathy Newman interview based purely on how he handled himself.

TBO the book is a little hard going, none of the sensationalism he is apparently famous for.  Would rate Sapiens as a better read so far.

He winds me up but I think his description of the way the extremist left respond to him in a completely knee jerk way trashing his name and his audience is fairly spot on and it’s been displayed perfectly in this here thread

he may be way off the mark on many things but he’s right about that

if you want to trash someone’s name in public at least try and be accurate otherwise your opinion is worth nothing

if you want to trash someone’s name in public at least try and be accurate otherwise your opinion is worth nothing

Do you dispute he is very calculated with what he says and makes sure he can have a get out for most of his controversy.

Is he deliberately appealing to the alt right

Or is all of this just an accident and coincidence?

Jordan Peterson has an annoying habit of winning arguments with facts.

Dunno, it’s hard to tie him down to anything solid, if he waffled a bit less and actually said something interesting you might be right. So far all I can really say about him is that he’s happy to ignore poverty, lack of opportunity and birth when it comes to his wonderful “hierarchy” view of society.

Nope don’t dispute that at all it’s obvious but I’m not sure he’s trying to appeal to the alt right I think he’s trying very hard to keep people talking about him and I agree with Sam Harris in that he really needs to spill the beans on his god stance

All im saying is that in his various lectures and what have you his audience base just seems to be nothing more than a normal audience, men, women and different types of students from all over the world

I watched something he did with Steven fry where they appeared to me to be friends how does that fit?

I watched something he did with Steven fry where they appeared to me to be friends how does that fit

Acting? Sounds basically like being a consultant too.

Nope don’t dispute that at all it’s obvious but I’m not sure he’s trying to appeal to the alt right

It would be a little more moral to distance yourself a little more from that though.

For sure it would and you are right he should but it doesn’t justify the aggressive vilification he receives from the left especially if it’s not accurate

Jordan Peterson has an annoying habit of winning arguments with facts.

tinribs, just because I’m slightly curious, could you provide an example of this please?

If he has a habit of doing it, it should be fairly easy to find a crystal clear example.

The reason I ask, is because I’ve never really seen him as a person who deals in “facts” more that he makes a statement that he proffers to be true, and then waffles around it for a while until people forget that they may need to fact check his original statement.

Curious to see him being concise and factual that’s all.

Cheers.