Jordan Peterson on Chris Evans’ Breakfast Show

Viewing 40 posts - 521 through 560 (of 569 total)
  • Jordan Peterson on Chris Evans’ Breakfast Show
  • Premier Icon Rusty Spanner
    Subscriber

    Nice edit.

    So which opinions are those then?

    jimjam
    Member

    Do you think “shit stirrer” and “nazi sympathiser” carry equal weight? Would wearing a t shirt with each slogan be equally problematic? Would self applying the term on say, a Facebook biography be equally contentious?

    Happy to debate it with you.

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    If personal insults and vile personal abuse is okay, then it’s okay.

    Of course it’s not ok.  But you know as well as I do how the competitive debating goes on STW (and indeed on the Internet in general, this isn’t a unique phenomenon).  People will use whatever turns of phrase they choose in order to point score.  How do you suggest we police that?

    Say someone calls someone else a racist for making what could be construed as racist comments.  Do we moderate the “insult” or do we moderate the “racist”?  Essentially you’re asking the moderators to take sides and to provide censorship, and that’s no forum moderation I want any part in.

    If someone is blatantly OTT then of course we’ll stand on it, for other cases we rely on reported posts and if two or three factions are happily going at it hammer and nail then I can only assume that they’re happy to be doing so.

    I received a three week ban for calling someone an idiot,

    Liar.

    You received a three week ban (well over a year ago now) after cumulative warnings.  The last one before your ban said “You’ve been warned a few times now, next time will result in some time off.”  No-one in the history of the forum ever has received a three week ban for “calling someone an idiot” in isolation.

    I’d prefer consistency and impartiality. Too much to ask?

    One out of two.  I strive to be impartial (see above) and I believe that the rest of the team do likewise.  There will never be consistency because the moderators are a group of individuals who will make different decisions.  C’est la vie.  I’ve discussed this at length several times previously.

    So if you personally see pornographic or offensive material do you wait to until it’s reported? If you see direct personal attacks, bullying or abuse do you wait until it’s reported? Are you incapable of acting until someone reports the post?

    If something is clearly in breach of the rules then it will be removed.  But the vast majority of posts are subjective.  This is where a reliance on reported posts comes in.  I can’t speak on behalf of others but if I see something which could potentially require moderation but I’m not really sure then I’ll generally err on the side of caution and let it slide.  If a reader tells us it’s problematic though, then it will merit further scrutiny.

    Are you seriously arguing that you want stricter moderation?  I don’t think you’d like it if you got it.

    I think perhaps all you really wanted to do with that comment was have a cheap shot.  And as I said, I’m not having that.

    Premier Icon Rusty Spanner
    Subscriber

    Do you think “shit stirrer” and “nazi sympathiser” carry equal weight?

    I never said they did.

    However….

    If personal insults and vile personal abuse is okay, then it’s okay. Just let me know so I can do that too.

    Merely pointing out your hypocrisy.

    You can call me what you want, I don’t mind. 🙂

    But whining when someone does the same to you is a bit childish.

    jimjam
    Member

    If personal insults and vile personal abuse is okay, then it’s okay.

    Of course it’s not ok.  But you know as well as I do how the competitive debating goes on STW (and indeed on the Internet in general, this isn’t a unique phenomenon).  People will use whatever turns of phrase they choose in order to point score.  How do you suggest we police that?

    Competitive debating? You police it by (as a mod) interjecting that people using serious baseless ad homs without concrete proof will be banned/suspended.

    Say someone calls someone else a racist for making what could be construed as racist comments. Do we moderate the “insult” or do we moderate the “racist”? Essentially you’re asking the moderators to take sides and to provide censorship, and that’s no forum moderation I want any part in.

    Words have meanings, definitions. Racist would roughly be viewing people of other ethicities as inferior based on race/ethnicity. Nazi / Nazi sympathise – sympathetic to or supportive of the views and goals of nazis. It’s not “he voted to leave the eu”, therefore Nazi. You don’t have to take sides to identify slurs.

    I received a three week ban for calling someone an idiot,

    Liar.

    You received a three week ban (well over a year ago) now after cumulative warnings.  The last one before your ban said “You’ve been warned a few times now, next time will result in some time off.”  No-one in the history of the forum ever has received a three week ban for “calling someone an idiot” in isolation.

    Post the post that I was banned for then? I wasn’t checking my emails every 10 seconds just in case I’d crossed the line of what STW considers “competitive debating” so was completely oblivious to any warnings, also why not post a warning in the thread itself? So you have an excuse to ban someone who wasn’t obeying the “rules”. I was banned for three weeks for calling someone an idiot. I was also banned for being a “racist” following a post wherein I used stereotypical anti Irish rhetoric to make an ironic point. I’m Irish, I make no secret of that and my IP should make it pretty bloody clear. Again, heavy handed biased moderating against anything perceived as questioning the echo chamber.

    Are you seriously arguing that you want stricter moderation?

    Impartial moderation. Is that too much to ask for?

    jimjam
    Member

    RustySpanner

    But whining when someone does the same to you is a bit childish.

    It’s not “the same” though RustySpanner….that’s the point. If you think it is you have a serious problem.

    Premier Icon Rusty Spanner
    Subscriber

    Again, I never said it was.

    Does the fact that people insulted you give you impunity to insult me?

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    mpartial moderation. Is that too much to ask for?

    See you could make your point really well with some examples there….

    geetee1972
    Member

    This is a pithy observation and sums up the problem we have right now (which is that if you challenge received wisdom, you get called all manner of horrible things, like mysoginist, mentally derrainged etc)

    https://fee.org/articles/jordan-b-peterson-isnt-criticizing-women-when-he-discusses-agreeableness/

    jimjam
    Member

    RustySpanner

    Again, I never said it was.

    jimjam

    If personal insults and vile personal abuse is okay, then it’s okay. Just let me know so I can do that too.

    Rustyspanner

    Just let me know so I can do that too.

    No need.

    Wow an entire post of empty hyperbolic fear mongering, shit stirring, and reactionary crap

    Seems to me as though you’re making a pretty direct equivalence between shit stirrer and nazi sympathiser there. If I’ve misunderstood you, please clarify your intentions. Happy to debate it with you.

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    You police it by (as a mod) interjecting that people using serious baseless ad homs without concrete proof will be banned/suspended.

    Liar, again.

    You don’t have to take sides to identify slurs.

    In your opinion.

    Two sides are slurring each other, who’s right?  Either / both / neither?  Do we stymie discussion on both sides in favour of the notion that no-one can ever say something negative ever?

    Again, is that really what you want?  You wouldn’t like it if we did.

    Post the post that I was banned for then?

    You weren’t banned for “a” post. I’ve already explained this once, do keep up.

    I wasn’t checking my emails every 10 seconds

    Were you not checking it every few months?

    Impartial moderation. Is that too much to ask for?

    I answered this already too.

    jimjam
    Member

    Cougar

    You police it by (as a mod) interjecting that people using serious baseless ad homs without concrete proof will be banned/suspended.

    Liar, again.

    So now I’m a liar (again) for directly replying to your question as to how to moderate, with a suggestion as to how you should moderate? Hopefully anyone following will be able to see your use of the word liar is interesting at best. Should I check my emails now in case I’ve crossed some mod/ban/warning line in the sand I wans’t aware of?

    In your opinion.

    Two sides are slurring each other, who’s right? Either / both / neither? Do we stymie discussion on both sides in favour of the notion that no-one can ever say something negative ever?

    I dunno…if someone calls someone a rapist, you could consult the dictionairy and check what the word rapist means, then see if it applies in the context it was used. Radical ideas I know.

    You weren’t banned for “a” post. I’ve already explained this once, do keep up.

    Yes, I was banned for not checking my emails. Post the exchange I was banned for then. Or post the “racist” post I, as an Irish man made against the Irish.

    I answered this already too.

    Liar.

    Premier Icon Rusty Spanner
    Subscriber

    Seems to me as though you’re making a pretty direct equivalence between shit stirrer and nazi sympathiser there. If I’ve misunderstood you, please clarify your intentions. Happy to debate it with you.

    Despite the fact that I’ve said twice that I’ve done no such thing? 🙂

    You started whining because someone insulted you.

    I’m merely pointing out  your hypocricy.

    Btw, the ‘Happy to debate’ was a polite way of inviting those who seem reluctant to answer any questions to do so.

    You seem to have turned it into some kind of passive/aggressive insult.

    Not a very good one, is it? 🙂

    Premier Icon MSP
    Subscriber

    It is a play straight from the JP game plan, try and provoke a punishment so you can play the victim and martyr.

    Premier Icon kilo
    Subscriber

    Challenging received wisdom innit.

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    So now I’m a liar (again) for directly replying to your question as to how to moderate, with a suggestion as to how you should moderate?

    My sincere apologies, I misunderstood.  I thought that’s what you were saying we already do, rather than a suggestion as to what we should do.  Cheerfully withdrawn, sorry.

    Maybe we should follow your advice.  It’d be a very quiet (and easy to moderate) forum very quickly.

    I dunno…if someone calls someone a rapist, you could consult the dictionairy and check what the word rapist means, then see if it applies in the context it was used. Radical ideas I know.

    And if the target is actually a rapist (great example by the way, you must be very proud), do we protect the rapist and warn / delete post / ban the accuser?

    Yes, I was banned for not checking my emails. Post the exchange I was banned for then. Or post the “racist” post I, as an Irish man made against the Irish.

    Your ‘it’ll be a ban next time’ warning was in November 2016.  Your suspension was in April 2017.  Did you not check your emails for five months?

    In any case, you’re required to have a valid email address on file as part of the site T&Cs for just this reason.  If you choose not to read it then that’s your own lookout.

    Liar.

    Read my post and try again.

    jimjam
    Member

    cougar

    My apologies, I misunderstood. I thought that’s what you were saying we already do, rather than a suggestion as to what we should do. Cheerfully withdrawn, sorry.

    Apology accepted.

    And if the target is actually a rapist (great example by the way, you must be very proud),

    Not proud, chosing an insult or inference that carries a serious social stigma in the hope that you will understand the seriousness of accusing someone of racism or nazi sympathies.

    do we protect the rapist and warn / delete post / ban the accuser?

    Do I need to answer that? Did I make my point so badly?

    Your ‘it’ll be a ban next time’ warning was in November 2016. Your suspension was in April 2017. Did you not check your emails for five months?

    Regardless, the bar or level at which banning offense was set was deemed to be calling someone an idiot. No doubt if I had called someone an idiot for voting to leave the EU it would have gone completely unchallenged. Feel free to post “the straw which broke the camel’s back” the serious breach of the rules which meant a five month old warning was enforced with a three week ban then let people decide whether it was biased or not. An apology would be quicker, or you could post my “racist” anti Irish post which I was also banned for so that everyone can see what a horrible racist I am.

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    the bar or level at which banning offense was set was deemed to be calling someone an idiot.

    No, for the third time now, the bar was set at you ignoring previous warnings.

    If it’s of any consolation, personally I wouldn’t have banned you there, but it wasn’t me that issued the ban.  As I said, the moderation team are a group of individuals, consistency is challenging.

    Do I need to answer that? Did I make my point so badly?

    Well, you appear to be arguing in favour of moderating the accusation regardless of its truth.  If I’m wrong then either you’ve made your point badly or I’ve horribly misunderstood.

    you could post my “racist” anti Irish post which I was also banned for

    Were you actually banned for that?  I can see a warning but not a ban (though I concede the history might be inaccurate post-upgrade).

    poah
    Member

    I went out on my bike today

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    THREAD DERAILLEUR DERAILER!!

    *gets the hammer*

    jimjam
    Member

    No, for the third time now, the bar was set at you ignoring previous warnings.

    The bar was set at “abuse”  and “idiot” (in reply to “idiot”  still constituted a breach of a (5 month old) warning …. I find myself wondering how many warnings have been issued for much more serious behavior on this thread.

    Well, you appear to be arguing in favour of moderating the accusation regardless of its truth. If I’m wrong then either you’ve made your point badly or I’ve horribly misunderstood.

    I am arguing that there should be a burden of proof on someone leveling serious accusations and insults.

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    I find myself wondering how many warnings have been issued for much more serious behavior on this thread.

    You can wonder all you like, that’s not something we should be disclosing.

    I am arguing that there should be a burden of proof on someone leveling serious accusations and insults.

    And that’s so very very difficult to prove / police because it’s subjective.  We’re going round in circles now.  Unless you’re arguing in favour of moderatorial censorship ‘just in case’ and as I’ve already said, that’s not a forum I want any part in.

    Anyway.  We seem to be fizzling out now, so I’m done here.  I’m going to go and try and do something entertaining with my evening.

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    Jimjam just link to the posts that offended you then maybe we can work out what you are on about

    sbob
    Member

    THREAD DERAILLEUR DERAILER!!

    Sheldon would be proud.

    jimjam: With regards to making baseless accusations / attributing bad motivations to forum members please remember that in the context of this thread everyone defending Peterson’s opinions, (or just his right to speak his opinions in a way that he wants) have been labled as nazis, white supremacists, misogynists, wife beaters and more besides.

    me: Not by me they haven’t.

    jimjam: You made allusions to hyper-masculinity, marital rape, no equality for women, slut shaming etc etc

    What now? Oh my. Exhausting.  OK.  If you must. Though my legendary patience will probably turn around and fork me a third time. You have some rage in you james, but it doesn’t necessarily enhance your performance, I have to say.

    And I know that this is the second instance you’ve tried to stick this particular one on me, but I ignored it in the first instance as was momentarily (yet utterly) depleted by expending so much (hopefully not undeserved) chivalry upon Sir Jimster of Threadjam. No matter, ‘cos thanks now to a hot shower, vigorous towelling and liberal (oooh bad word) paffing of carefully-chosen non-gendered talcum powder – I’m feeling as fresh as Devon dew and ready for you! If I wasn’t as bald as a bed-knob I’d have combed. Just imagine that I combed.

    Good Goddess, it’s 3.25am. This groin injury keeps me insomnia-maniacal. And then there’s the merciless throb of these incurable bilateral digital neuromas, not to mention my poor restless old pooch sporting an aggressive eye-ulcer requiring 4-hourly drops applied with care, curses and a head-torch. It’s thundering outside in the Hills. Rain patters. The scene is set for the final judgement.

    And now to my defence* (Sends good woman to gather the evidence)

    *Note that I employ screenshots this time around so you couldn’t again accidentally somehow cut my last line out. Not saying you did. Consider it my security if you accidentally again are tempted to misuse my parodic piece as further ‘evidence’ of ‘slander’ against ill-used hypothetical (yet curiously historical) biological determinists and right-thinking vanguards of social propriety.

    the jimster at me:

    OK?  So what did I really say? Pin back yr eyelids like it matters.  Imagine you care if or not you impugned me wrongly and harshly.  Here it comes. Finger on the ‘report’ button? Good. Oh yeah, forgot to mention! For your safety I’m obliged to keep my gulag-counting chaos dragon nearby. She comes well-referenced. Be assured that she will judge a fair fight. OK? Here. In full context, as was posted by Mr Rider of these parts:

    BEGIN SCREENSHOT:

    END SCREENSHOT

    Of course the 1950s weren’t at all like that.  Silly billy.  I have it on good authority from The Ministry of Anti-PC.

    jimjam
    Member

    Cougar

    I am arguing that there should be a burden of proof on someone leveling serious accusations and insults.

    And that’s so very very difficult to prove / police because it’s subjective.  We’re going round in circles now.  Unless you’re arguing in favour of moderatorial censorship ‘just in case’ and as I’ve already said, that’s not a forum I want any part in.

    It’s not subjective in the slightest, you just see it as such because it has become the norm to either make allusions to, or simply flat out accuse people of the worst possible things in order to gain an unearned sense of moral superiority while trashing someone’s name/reputation/character. It seems that even questioning someone’s mental health or attributing their opinions to psychological problems is also fair game in the spirit of “competitive debating”.

    If it’s “subjective” then “aggression” is also subjective, and yet there was no deep pondering or thought given to banning me for using the word idiot in response to being called an idiot. You can argue semantics all you want but a decision was still made by anonymous individuals to issue a ban over something so innocuous. The culture the moderators and owners have created here is one where the benefit of the doubt will always be given to the posters who sling the worst insults and conflate organizations who perpetrated some of the worst crimes in human history with someone who merely disagrees with them politically. If you can’t see this you have a serious problem.

    You want no part in a forum with “moderatorial consorship” and yet you’re part of one that has no impartiality, no concept of fairness or good faith and one where anyone not in the clique is constantly treading on eggshells while slanderers and liars act with complete impunity all the while pretending to be honest interlocutors.

    tjagain
    Member

    Jimjam – there is only one side throwing insults around on this thread.

    You don’t like it because some of us challenge the prejudice and misogyny shown  on this thread.  So many factually incorrect statements made to support an abhorrent point of view.  So much clear evidence ignored.  so much unpleasantness shown.  I have been called a Nazi onthis thread.  Very nice.

    jimjam
    Member

    tjagain

    Jimjam – there is only one side throwing insults around on this thread.

    tjagain

    Geetee – why do you have this misogynistic crusade completely denying the well proven bias against anyone who is not white and male in our world?

    tjagain

    I have refrained from commenting on your threads recently because I feel you might be fragile mentally but really dude =- go and get some counselling to open your mind.

    Sorry, you were saying?

    tjagain
    Member

    geetee is misogynistic.  His posts over a long period of time prove it.  Fair comment.

    I really do believe Geetee to be mentally fragile and because of this I have not been commenting on his threads. a I don’t want to exacerbate this

    One is a fair / true comment.  One is an expression of concern for  what appears to me and others as a mentally fragile poster.  I have in the past been emailed off forum by another poster asking me to back of  from putting Geetee right on his prejudicial views for ( that persons) fear of the damage it does to his psyche.

    tjagain
    Member

    Lets just be absolutely clear.  The fact that there is huge bias against women in the world of work and outside that world and it is well proven.  Geetee denies this in the face of the mountains of evidence and quotes vile people like JP in his absurd arguments against the evidence.

    This makes him a misogynist.

    tjagain
    Member

    And with that I will back out of the thread again because of the reasons above.

    gobuchul
    Member

    I really do believe Geetee to be mentally fragile and because of this I have not been commenting on his threads. a I don’t want to exacerbate this

    Seriously? He repeatedly posts on here and IMO makes up/exaggerates situations to prove some “point” of his. The fact that this BS thread has got to 14 pages must really float his boat. Mentally fragile? He deliberately goads people with his BS.

    jimjam – I agree with a lot of your comments regards the mods on here. At times they totally overstep the mark. Not sure why they fell the need to throw their so called ” ban hammer” around so much? Junkyard is a case in point, an annoying shit but did he ever do anything that bad to warrant a ban?

    jimjam
    Member

    tjagain

    geetee is misogynistic. His posts over a long period of time prove it. Fair comment.

    I disagree. He’s made posts about mens issues this doesn’t = misogyny. Furthermore, you said “crusade completely denying the well proven bias against anyone who is not white and male”. There’s no such well proven bias, but you bring race into it to double down on just how vile he must be. He denies something which can’t be proven, defined or quantified in any way, therefore he’s a racist too. Believe in my god or you’re evil by default.

    I really do believe Geetee to be mentally fragile

    And yet you bring up to score points in a debate, that’s not the behaviour of someone who cares for another’s well being, that’s what you do when you’re resorting to the lowest possible tactics to undermine the credibility of your victim.

    There are at least three, maybe four forum members who I think are suffering from serious mental health issues, or perhaps substance issues. I’ve decided to completely refrain from replying to or debating with or addressing them in any way for fear of pushing them over the edge. Geetee isn’t one of them imo, but if you genuinely believe what you say you should adopt the same tact.

    I have in the past been emailed off forum by another poster asking me to back of from putting Geetee right on his prejudicial views for ( that persons) fear of the damage it does to his psyche.

    You’re doing it again.

    gobuchul

    Junkyard is a case in point, an annoying shit but did he ever do anything that bad to warrant a ban?

    That depends doesn’t it. From my perspective (ie that of someone who knows he’ll be banned for calling someone an idiot) he was guilty of ban worthy behaviour every post, every day. From the perspective of someone with the bullet proof moral authority to question people’s mental health, call them a racist, misogynist, nazi etc without fear of any rebuke ever, then no.

    He was encouraged by and thrived in the STW mob culture. I even saw posts where mods made inferences of “letting him at/ setting him on” posters who were on the wrong side of the political fence.

    I feel used and kinda sad today.  I know I said maybe hasty things about The 1950s, but you didn’t have to lie about me to get her.  You could have had her all along.  She was kind of a slutty decade in a ‘margarine wouldn’t melt in my pill-popping mouth’ kinda way anyways, if you looked real hard. *sniff*

    I hope you enjoy each other.  But at least I can hold my head high.  You have to look in the mirror every day, and know that you slandered me.  Me and geetee had something nice going too. I respected geetee as the OP, and put a lot of effort into our little talk.  I really thought for a hopeful moment that one tiny thread of debate was going ybe even to a place where we might sit and laugh at each other’s respectively silly presuppositions about The Great Prophessor.   But you took that away also.  And when I spent day after day showing you the truth, yet you still lied about me.   I wondered why.  But know I feel better knowing that you where white-knighting for HER, even as you treated me like dirt.  And yet still you kept on slandering me.  Just to get her attention?  Well I hope you’re happy together.  And we’ll always have last night.  But no.  This is goodbye.  You deserve each other I suppose.  Yet when she finds out who you really are don’t send your ironing back here again.   My door closed already.

    geetee1972
    Member

    Thanks Jimjam I appreciate what you wrote.

    Malvern sorry I’ve not been as engaged in the debate. In truth it’s nothing more Than a genuine limitation on time. I’m away with my two boys in the Lake District as my wife’s working, it’s half term and our nanny is on leave. So we’re havjng a boys week away. Currently sat in a pub after a good walk enjoying a pint of Theaktons and the boys are having an ice cream before we walk back to Ambleside YHA where we are staying (and that’s where I met my wife so this is a special trip for them).

    Life is hard but it’s also very rewarding and I mean no one any malice. I have my views but I respect almost everyone I meet in some way. I hope to meet you guys one day also.

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Subscriber

    Anyone want a chuckle?

    Watch JPs cod psychology 101 on YouTube

    (Its like a Chris Morris pisstake)

    Edukator
    Member

    Reminds me of an old flat mate genius mathematician who won the Space Invader tournament on a mix of stuff that meant he didn’t sleep for days, but failed the first year as by the end of the year he’d pretty much fried his brain. I soon decided to move out but the hall’s manager refused to refund my hall fees – for few minutes. I left with a cheque and found some sane people to live with.

    mefty
    Member

    Very good post, Jimjam

Viewing 40 posts - 521 through 560 (of 569 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.