Support NeoGAF

[Red Crayon Aristocrat]

Jordon Peterson is amazing and exactly the voice we need in these troubled times.

And this clip is a perfect encapsulation of it all, the interviewer can do nothing but sling ad hominem attacks and put words in his mouth, it's everything wrong with the left today and Peterson shuts her down again and again with a little thing called logic, it's amazing.

 

[prophetvx]

This isn't true either. Political ideology undermines logic, and people generally judge arguments as more logically sound when they personally support the argument’s conclusion. No one is immune from that. A lot of times we already operate at the center anyway, as the far wing ideas are too extreme for us to take seriously.

If far wing ideas were too extreme for anyone to take seriously, someone like Trump would never have been elected. He is far from what would be described as a moderate.

In terms of centrism being more logically sound, I'm merely saying people who sit in the middle are capable of weighing arguments from both sides, the further in each direction you head you stop listening to the other side of the argument. It's pretty difficult for a hard left person to consider the fiscal costs of social programs just like it's very difficult for the hard right to consider the social impact of economic policies. All viewpoints on the spectrum have a place, the issue is largely now people are no longer considered somewhere in the middle, you're either a commie or a capitalist, such is the level political discourse these days.

 

[GotrekNoFelix]

If far wing ideas were too extreme for anyone to take seriously, someone like Trump would never have been elected. He is far from what would be described as a moderate.

In terms of centrism being more logically sound, I'm merely saying people who sit in the middle are capable of weighing arguments from both sides, the further in each direction you head you stop listening to the other side of the argument. It's pretty difficult for a hard left person to consider the fiscal costs of social programs just like it's very difficult for the hard right to consider the social impact of economic policies. All viewpoints on the spectrum have a place, the issue is largely now people are no longer considered somewhere in the middle, you're either a commie or a capitalist, such is the level political discourse these days.

Trump's quite solidly right wing but he's far from far-right it's just that the overton window shifted heavily over the past 7 or so years.
I'm afraid if he's not demolishing all pavements and actively advocating for McDonald's right to own and operate PMC's on US soil then he's not really far right.

 

[prophetvx]

Trump's quite solidly right wing but he's far from far-right it's just that the overton window shifted heavily over the past 7 or so years.
I'm afraid if he's not demolishing all pavements and actively advocating for McDonald's right to own and operate PMC's on US soil then he's not really far right.

I wasn't suggesting Trump was far right wing. He's all over the place when it comes to policy, his protectionist policies would usually fall on the left side of the spectrum for example (although not strictly left or right). His stance on many things would be considered on the outer boundaries and he's pretty authoritarian. As I said, he is far from moderate by traditional political standards.

 

[GotrekNoFelix]

I wasn't suggesting Trump was far right wing. He's all over the place when it comes to policy, his protectionist policies would usually fall on the left side of the spectrum for example (although not strictly left or right). His stance on many things would be considered on the outer boundaries and he's pretty authoritarian. As I said, he is far from moderate by traditional political standards.

By traditional political standards he is moderate. By modern political standards you're right, he's further to the right than most other mainstream politicians.

 

[iamblades]

The far left denies science just as much as the far right will when science isn't ideologically convenient. The dismissal of evolutionary biology and psychology are great examples of the cognitive dissonance the left will display when given contradictory science to their beliefs. How about the fear of GMOs or anti-vaxxers?

The bigger relevant example on the left in terms of public policy impact is the complete rejection of consensus economics.

Things like wage and price controls and free trade (though the Trumpists are unfortunately shifting the Republicans in the wrong direction on that issue) are settled issues in the economic world. Even left wing economists admit that price controls do not work, but Democrats in cities continue to push rent controls and other policies and then wonder why the supply of housing shrinks and poor people are priced out of the market.

Economics is also the fundamental reason that marxism at it's root denies reality, which is what Peterson criticizes cultural marxism and postmodernism for. Marx and early marxists had to fundamentally reject economics as a bourgeois science and develop these ideas of class consciousness and oppression to paper over the fact that their ideas cannot work in reality. The postmodernists shifted the domain from class to other oppression hierarchies after empirical evidence made it obvious that marxist economics were a failure, but the ideology is still fundamentally the same intellectually bankrupt denial of objective reality. Only this time it's biology and psychology instead of economics.

 

[Cybrwzrd]

The bigger relevant example on the left in terms of public policy impact is the complete rejection of consensus economics.

Things like wage and price controls and free trade (though the Trumpists are unfortunately shifting the Republicans in the wrong direction on that issue) are settled issues in the economic world. Even left wing economists admit that price controls do not work, but Democrats in cities continue to push rent controls and other policies and then wonder why the supply of housing shrinks and poor people are priced out of the market.

I agree that price controls don't work, except in certain industries. Health Care is one of them. Real estate - specifically rental properties are also a difficult area of economics.

Both of these industries are full of rent seeking activities - and real estate is where rent seeking as a term came from. I understand the argument against rent controls, but seeing as the rest of our economy doesn't properly function (due to shareholder rent seeking), what do you do? They are a necessary evil. Cities can't function without people of all classes living in them, but if you let rent seekers buy of all of the properties in an area, they can control the market and drive housing values into the stratosphere. Again, this is all rent seeking behavior, which fundamentally go against free market principals. No economic value is ever produced by either bureaucracy or property speculation - because both activities are parasitic in nature.

Poor people are getting priced out of the market because of speculation and the pure fact that no one wants to build low cost housing in prime real estate areas, when they can get 3-4 times the money on the same parcel of land for building a luxury condo. So rent control becomes a necessity.

 

[Mahadev]

The bigger relevant example on the left in terms of public policy impact is the complete rejection of consensus economics.

Things like wage and price controls and free trade (though the Trumpists are unfortunately shifting the Republicans in the wrong direction on that issue) are settled issues in the economic world. Even left wing economists admit that price controls do not work, but Democrats in cities continue to push rent controls and other policies and then wonder why the supply of housing shrinks and poor people are priced out of the market.

Economics is also the fundamental reason that marxism at it's root denies reality, which is what Peterson criticizes cultural marxism and postmodernism for. Marx and early marxists had to fundamentally reject economics as a bourgeois science and develop these ideas of class consciousness and oppression to paper over the fact that their ideas cannot work in reality. The postmodernists shifted the domain from class to other oppression hierarchies after empirical evidence made it obvious that marxist economics were a failure, but the ideology is still fundamentally the same intellectually bankrupt denial of objective reality. Only this time it's biology and psychology instead of economics.

There are no consensus economics. The so called consensus economics resulted in an oblivious Greenspan and his spectacularly failed policies not expecting the housing crisis that ruined the middle class is the US, the consensus economics is what created free trade deals that have decimated the working class all over the planet. The so called consensus economics of the IMF is what the ruined dozens of countries for generations and spread misery and poverty all over the globe with Southern Europe being the latest victim.

The so called consensus economics is a bunch of neoliberals trained in economic schools sponsored by the ruling class that have become successful because the Western ruling class wants them to be successful playing good and bad cop depending on the severity of neoliberal policies they want to impose to the majority just like the DNC and Republicans. Some of you guys are so obsessed with Venezuela the corporate media keep touting about, a country whose whole economy was depended on oil and, what a surprise, whose economy crashed when oil prices crashed but somehow you ignore the dozens of countries that were completely ruined by consensus economics "solutions". Consensus economics is an illusion you're willingly accepting.

 

[iamblades]

There are no consensus economics. The so called consensus economics resulted in an oblivious Greenspan and his spectacularly failed policies not expecting the housing crisis that ruined the middle class is the US, the consensus economics is what created free trade deals that have decimated the working class all over the planet. The so called consensus economics of the IMF is what the ruined dozens of countries for generations and spread misery and poverty all over the globe with Southern Europe being the latest victim.

The so called consensus economics is a bunch of neoliberals trained in economic schools sponsored by the ruling class that have become successful because the Western ruling class wants them to be successful playing good and bad cop depending on the severity of neoliberal policies they want to impose to the majority just like the DNC and Republicans. Some of you guys are so obsessed with Venezuela the corporate media keep touting about, a country whose whole economy was depended on oil and, what a surprise, whose economy crashed when oil prices crashed but somehow you ignore the dozens of countries that were completely ruined by consensus economics "solutions". Consensus economics is an illusion you're willingly accepting.

There is consensus on certain things, price controls being the most obvious example. We have 2000 years of empirical evidence on the failures of price controls.

You aren't going to get me to defend Greenspan's monetary policies or the IMF, but they also never represented anything close to a consensus. There are very few genuine consensus issues in economics. Price controls and free trade are the two big ones, and the empirical evidence for those two things is pretty much unassailable.

I never brought up Venezuela, so I don't see the relevance, but you have the temporal relationship between the drop in oil prices and the decline of Venezuela's economy reversed. Venezuela's economy was failing well before oil prices started to drop(inflation was above 50% and rising in 2013), and would still be failing if oil was still $150 a barrel. Also no other oil producing nation has experienced anything remotely similar to what Venezuela has, even the ones with greater exposure to the oil market.

Venezuela is not an economic system anyone should be defending at this point, regardless of the failures of mainstream economic theories.

I agree that price controls don't work, except in certain industries. Health Care is one of them. Real estate - specifically rental properties are also a difficult area of economics.

Both of these industries are full of rent seeking activities - and real estate is where rent seeking as a term came from. I understand the argument against rent controls, but seeing as the rest of our economy doesn't properly function (due to shareholder rent seeking), what do you do? They are a necessary evil. Cities can't function without people of all classes living in them, but if you let rent seekers buy of all of the properties in an area, they can control the market and drive housing values into the stratosphere. Again, this is all rent seeking behavior, which fundamentally go against free market principals. No economic value is ever produced by either bureaucracy or property speculation - because both activities are parasitic in nature.

Poor people are getting priced out of the market because of speculation and the pure fact that no one wants to build low cost housing in prime real estate areas, when they can get 3-4 times the money on the same parcel of land for building a luxury condo. So rent control becomes a necessity.

Rent seeking as a economic behavior has nothing to do with actual rent. Now obviously real estate owners can be rent seekers, for example by lobbying for restrictive zoning ordinances that protect their property values, but is not at all etymologically related to the paying of rents in the traditional sense.

The solution to rent seeking land owners is to stop giving them what they want, not to try to make it up on the back end with rent control.

As for problems with speculation, real estate is quite possibly the worst asset possible for speculation. It is the one sector if the economy that has direct wealth taxation, it has large overhead expenses relative to other forms of investing(maintenance, insurance, etc), and over time real estate under performs the stock market by a significant margin.

Housing costs are not high because of speculation at all, they are high because there is a mismatch of supply and demand, and rent control does not substantially help keep prices low, it just delays the market from finding an equilibrium by disincentivizing real estate investment.. The cities with rent control are the most expensive real estate markets in the nation, so it obviously isn't working. The only real effect rent control can have is to act as an economic transfer from future tenants to current tenants, while reducing total housing stock and quality of housing.

If you are concerned about rising rents pricing people out of certain markets, the solution would be to insure renters against price increase as a social welfare program(which would not be something I would support, but at least it would do something), not to solve it by restricting the proper functioning of the market and distorting the price signals.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w24181?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntw

There is also an argument to be made that speculators do provide social and economic utility by increasing the speed at which the market reaches the correct price, but that's a whole other thread, and not really important when talking about the effectiveness of rent control.

 

[KevinKeene]

I really love Peterson. He's calm, rational, and doesn't make outlandish statements, just tells objective, scientific facts. That's why nobody can 'defeat' him in a debate.

A lot of people, especially from a certain forum, completely demonize Peterson, insult him,call him a nazi and close any thread that's about him. I'd love to see those people engage in a debate with Peterson, because every time Peterson destroys someone verbally, they excuse it with 'well, he/she wasn't prepared,that's why it went that way'. But ... they're ALWAYS 'unprepared'. So when will it count? Because so far, Peterson is doing a great job telling convincing facts. If he's wrong after all, why can't someone debate him - in a prepared way, so no excuses get flung around afterwards.

 

[Kadayi]

Joe Rogan interview talking with Peterson about that interview and his book

 

[Moneal]

I really love Peterson. He's calm, rational, and doesn't make outlandish statements, just tells objective, scientific facts. That's why nobody can 'defeat' him in a debate.

A lot of people, especially from a certain forum, completely demonize Peterson, insult him,call him a nazi and close any thread that's about him. I'd love to see those people engage in a debate with Peterson, because every time Peterson destroys someone verbally, they excuse it with 'well, he/she wasn't prepared,that's why it went that way'. But ... they're ALWAYS 'unprepared'. So when will it count? Because so far, Peterson is doing a great job telling convincing facts. If he's wrong after all, why can't someone debate him - in a prepared way, so no excuses get flung around afterwards.

They will never be prepared, because like the interview in the OP they will be trying to catch him saying something they can call him a nazi or misogynist for.

 

[Sàmban]

This was a frustrating video to watch. She is just not on his level. I think if you could get two people of the same caliber with opposing viewpoints, it would make for an absolutely amazing and insightful watch.

 

[Mahadev]

There is consensus on certain things, price controls being the most obvious example. We have 2000 years of empirical evidence on the failures of price controls.

You aren't going to get me to defend Greenspan's monetary policies or the IMF, but they also never represented anything close to a consensus. There are very few genuine consensus issues in economics. Price controls and free trade are the two big ones, and the empirical evidence for those two things is pretty much unassailable.

I never brought up Venezuela, so I don't see the relevance, but you have the temporal relationship between the drop in oil prices and the decline of Venezuela's economy reversed. Venezuela's economy was failing well before oil prices started to drop(inflation was above 50% and rising in 2013), and would still be failing if oil was still $150 a barrel. Also no other oil producing nation has experienced anything remotely similar to what Venezuela has, even the ones with greater exposure to the oil market.

Venezuela is not an economic system anyone should be defending at this point, regardless of the failures of mainstream economic theories.

There's a vast difference between an organic consensus and a manufactured one. The so called economic consensus is created and supported by the capitalist ruling class and it doesn't mean shit. It has been an unmitigated disaster for the working class for decades and the only people it is serving is the aforementioned ruling class.

I brought up Venezuela because of the stark contrast between it and counties the IMF and neoliberals have ruined. Coincidentally Venezuela is being covered almost daily by corporate media yet they ignore the counties that have been ruined by capitalism. Another manufactured result, this time in the media.

 

[Rocket Number 22]

Joe Rogan interview talking with Peterson about that interview and his book

watching now, thanks!

 

[lifa-cobex]

 

[LightofRohan]

It's interesting you can see how powerful a figure can be by certain groups that are foaming at the mouths to tear them down and label them as quickly as possible. You can look at OTHER forums about certain people and see it's just one after the other trying to outdo each other in order to discredit the individual. Because when someone is actually intelligent, reasonable and speaks clearly -- it's a frightening prospect to their agenda's.

When in reality, everyone has shit they say that is agreeable and disagreeable. I hate this trend of trying to completely discredit humans by forcing them into this preconceived notion that the internet society established early on...

Why are certain groups so afraid of just discussion and discourse?

 

[Fnord]

Trump's quite solidly right wing but he's far from far-right it's just that the overton window shifted heavily over the past 7 or so years.
I'm afraid if he's not demolishing all pavements and actively advocating for McDonald's right to own and operate PMC's on US soil then he's not really far right.

The only thing I'm certain of with Trump is that he's a narcissist. As far as whether he's right or left, I'm pretty sure that entirely depends on what's in it for him. Historically, he's identified as a Democrat. And he certainly holds some beliefs that put him out of step with the Republican party. I think he just saw an opportunity at self-aggrandizement and went for it.

 

[Kadayi]

I really recommend the interview I posted of Peterson on Joe Rogan. They talk about the interview a bit but also Joe gets him into explaining the problem with cultural Marxism and the inherent slippy slope of trying to legislate for equality of outcome that leads tyranny. It's kind of a take on the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You try to balance for this, but then some other factor needs to be equated for, and so you address that and then another rises up until you have manifold balances that become unworkable, so what's your recourse? Deceit, denial and the suppression of truth.

 

[Fnord]

I really recommend the interview I posted of Peterson on Joe Rogan. They talk about the interview a bit but also Joe gets him into explaining the problem with cultural Marxism and the inherent slippy slope of trying to legislate for equality of outcome that leads tyranny. It's kind of a take on the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You try to balance for this, but then some other factor needs to be equated for, and so you address that and then another rises up until you have manifold balances that become unworkable, so what's your recourse? Deceit, denial and the suppression of truth.

Just hit his podcast feed today. Listened to it while I was at work. Really, really good stuff.

 

[GotrekNoFelix]

The only thing I'm certain of with Trump is that he's a narcissist. As far as whether he's right or left, I'm pretty sure that entirely depends on what's in it for him. Historically, he's identified as a Democrat. And he certainly holds some beliefs that put him out of step with the Republican party. I think he just saw an opportunity at self-aggrandizement and went for it.

We were talking about the actual left/right divide not the Democrat/Republican party divide.

 

[Shouta]

That Joe Rogan episode with Jordan Peterson was really interesting. It's kind of mind-boggling this guy is getting hate.

 

[JimiNutz]

I know that we have a number of members here who don't like Peterson so I'd be interested to hear what they thought of this recent Joe Rogan podcast.

My exposure to Peterson comes almost entirely from his appearances on the Joe Rogan Experience, so I'm not sure if he is very different when not on the podcast, but I struggle to understand why he is hated so much.

 

[Typhares]

Jordan Peterson & Ben Shapiro were on the Rubin report recently. Here is the video for anyone interested:

 

[SatansReverence]

I know that we have a number of members here who don't like Peterson so I'd be interested to hear what they thought of this recent Joe Rogan podcast.

I'm more interested in their unfiltered thoughts on Peterson.

Didn't even know the guy until this interview and have since seen many hours of footage of him speaking on various subjects. He doesn't seem to hold any radical views, nothing so bad that should garner hatred but he is treated like the reincarnation of hitler.

 

[mid83]

I’ve always been suprised by the level of vitriol thrown at Peterson. I’ve watched a number of interviews of him, and I’m yet to hear him say anything worthy of that outrage.

It’s been mind blowing to see people like Peterson, Bret Weinstein, Rubin, and Rogan all get thrown into the evil racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe alt-right Hitler reincarnate Nazi category. I guess that’s the price to pay for not towing the line on the radical identify politics on the left these days.

 

[TheMikado]

There is consensus on certain things, price controls being the most obvious example. We have 2000 years of empirical evidence on the failures of price controls.

You aren't going to get me to defend Greenspan's monetary policies or the IMF, but they also never represented anything close to a consensus. There are very few genuine consensus issues in economics. Price controls and free trade are the two big ones, and the empirical evidence for those two things is pretty much unassailable.

I never brought up Venezuela, so I don't see the relevance, but you have the temporal relationship between the drop in oil prices and the decline of Venezuela's economy reversed. Venezuela's economy was failing well before oil prices started to drop(inflation was above 50% and rising in 2013), and would still be failing if oil was still $150 a barrel. Also no other oil producing nation has experienced anything remotely similar to what Venezuela has, even the ones with greater exposure to the oil market.

Venezuela is not an economic system anyone should be defending at this point, regardless of the failures of mainstream economic theories.



Rent seeking as a economic behavior has nothing to do with actual rent. Now obviously real estate owners can be rent seekers, for example by lobbying for restrictive zoning ordinances that protect their property values, but is not at all etymologically related to the paying of rents in the traditional sense.

The solution to rent seeking land owners is to stop giving them what they want, not to try to make it up on the back end with rent control.

As for problems with speculation, real estate is quite possibly the worst asset possible for speculation. It is the one sector if the economy that has direct wealth taxation, it has large overhead expenses relative to other forms of investing(maintenance, insurance, etc), and over time real estate under performs the stock market by a significant margin.

Housing costs are not high because of speculation at all, they are high because there is a mismatch of supply and demand, and rent control does not substantially help keep prices low, it just delays the market from finding an equilibrium by disincentivizing real estate investment.. The cities with rent control are the most expensive real estate markets in the nation, so it obviously isn't working. The only real effect rent control can have is to act as an economic transfer from future tenants to current tenants, while reducing total housing stock and quality of housing.

If you are concerned about rising rents pricing people out of certain markets, the solution would be to insure renters against price increase as a social welfare program(which would not be something I would support, but at least it would do something), not to solve it by restricting the proper functioning of the market and distorting the price signals.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w24181?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntw

There is also an argument to be made that speculators do provide social and economic utility by increasing the speed at which the market reaches the correct price, but that's a whole other thread, and not really important when talking about the effectiveness of rent control.

I disagree with the sentiment of housing subsidies to begin with as I feel the drive the price of the properties up and really only act as a form or welfare for the property owners. I really have no idea how to solve the housing issue except to change zoning laws and completely dismantle the subsidization of home loans in the US to only allow 3x the local median salary in a specific geographic location. This is really my only solution to this issue long-term and neither rent control nor housing subsidies seem to resolve this issue.

 

[iamblades]

I disagree with the sentiment of housing subsidies to begin with as I feel the drive the price of the properties up and really only act as a form or welfare for the property owners. I really have no idea how to solve the housing issue except to change zoning laws and completely dismantle the subsidization of home loans in the US to only allow 3x the local median salary in a specific geographic location. This is really my only solution to this issue long-term and neither rent control nor housing subsidies seem to resolve this issue.

Agree 100%, rent subsidization would do these things, my point was that such a program would have a better chance of creating the desired outcome than rent control does is all. Price insurance should have a less extreme effect than direct subsidization, but it's still not something I would advocate except for as an alternative to rent control.

I also agree with your diagnosis as to what the root causes of the housing crisis are. I'm optimistic on the first one, and completely pessimistic on the second one.

Lately I've seen plenty of articles in left leaning publications acknowledging that maybe zoning is not an effective way to combat gentrification and that it may be a contributing factor to the housing crisis, which is a good start. Problem is that it is largely a local issue which means there is a lot more work to be done to actually change things in a wide area and make sure the changes stick.

Maybe I am cynical, but IMO politicians(of either party) aren't going to take away free shit to the middle class until there is just no money left to pay for it. It's a problem straight out of public choice theory.

 

[TTOOLL]

JB back on H3 Podcast!

 

[TheShadowLord]

the more i think about it, he really does sound like kermit the frog rofl

 

[TheMikado]

Agree 100%, rent subsidization would do these things, my point was that such a program would have a better chance of creating the desired outcome than rent control does is all. Price insurance should have a less extreme effect than direct subsidization, but it's still not something I would advocate except for as an alternative to rent control.

I also agree with your diagnosis as to what the root causes of the housing crisis are. I'm optimistic on the first one, and completely pessimistic on the second one.

Lately I've seen plenty of articles in left leaning publications acknowledging that maybe zoning is not an effective way to combat gentrification and that it may be a contributing factor to the housing crisis, which is a good start. Problem is that it is largely a local issue which means there is a lot more work to be done to actually change things in a wide area and make sure the changes stick.

Maybe I am cynical, but IMO politicians(of either party) aren't going to take away free shit to the middle class until there is just no money left to pay for it. It's a problem straight out of public choice theory.

Re-evaluation of the the housing market is the only path which is most effective and least disruptive. It would temporarily tank all wealth tied into real estate, but the long term benefits of the adjustment are needed. The same applies both for education and healthcare. Reducing the subsidy amount to correct the market and having slow growing index relative to mean wages while keeping accessibility.

I’m convinced we will get a realignment because we’ve invested in social programs and America is used to making this type of sacrifice. For everything that we’ve gained in social safety nets we need to re-evaluate them to be sustainable as well which is the next phase. There aren’t any other real options.

 

[Typhares]

Here is a highlight of the h3 podcast about the interview specifically

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

I just wonder what Cathy Newman was trying to do. If she was trying to get five million views then she succeeded but if she was really trying to take him down she failed miserably. Looking at all the follow ups and exposure Peterson has had since that interview it did nothing but help him.

 

[lifa-cobex]

I just wonder what Cathy Newman was trying to do. If she was trying to get five million views then she succeeded but if she was really trying to take him down she failed miserably. Looking at all the follow ups and exposure Peterson has had since that interview it did nothing but help him.

Probably because she's trying to get her name out. I would guess that even a celebrity who is know for being daft, saying controversial things or just poking the bear is still a celebrity.

Katie Hobkins

Jade Goody

Brianna Wu


more money, more money, more money.
She will be asked to go on guest shows, sell books etc etc. As long as people learn her name, It's all adding to the portfolio.

 

[Harlock]

You know the best review until now? Pewdiepie. He likes, but with a couple of honest caveats. In general people are all in or all out. At 18min mark:

 

[llien]

Interesting fact: she thought it was a successful interview. (from JPs words, they exchanged messages after it)

And this clip is a perfect encapsulation of it all, the interviewer can do nothing but sling ad hominem attacks and put words in his mouth, it's everything wrong with the left today and Peterson shuts her down again and again with a little thing called logic, it's amazing.

To be honest, while I do see CN like behavior from "the left", she is just a single journalist who could hardly represent entire movements.

What this does show is that claims of JPs "alt-rightness" are dishonest.

 

[Red Crayon Aristocrat]

To be honest, while I do see CN like behavior from "the left", she is just a single journalist who could hardly represent entire movements.

What this does show is that claims of JPs "alt-rightness" are dishonest.

But her tactic of emotional blackmail and guilt tripping, calling someone "whatever"-phobic as a way to shut down any debate, is basically chapter 1 in the left wing rulebook in the 2010s, I've seen it time and time again.

 

[MilkyJoe]

LTTP on this one, that was the most embarrassing interview I have ever seen. Like Einstein debating with a footstool. She was like a child.

 

[Lupingosei]

But her tactic of emotional blackmail and guilt tripping, calling someone "whatever"-phobic as a way to shut down any debate, is basically chapter 1 in the left wing rulebook in the 2010s, I've seen it time and time again.

Please don't call this left wing. I am left wing but I never used this. This is from the playbook of the new authoritarian left like the whole sex negative approach to everything. Old school leftists were pro sexual liberation and actually had fun.

 

[Grinchy]

Please don't call this left wing. I am left wing but I never used this. This is from the playbook of the new authoritarian left like the whole sex negative approach to everything. Old school leftists were pro sexual liberation and actually had fun.

Apparently people like you have now been pushed to the middle, and not sliding more to the left is quite problematic. You don't want to be problematic, do you? Well, follow these twitter feminists, repeat the phrases they use, and parrot the ideals they share and you can come back to our club.

 

[Lupingosei]

Apparently people like you have now been pushed to the middle, and not sliding more to the left is quite problematic. You don't want to be problematic, do you? Well, follow these twitter feminists, repeat the phrases they use, and parrot the ideals they share and you can come back to our club.

I know but reading websites like Everyday Feminism gives me a headache, so I am afraid I will be staying problematic for a longer time. But maybe one day it will change and the left will not divide itself anymore.

 

[KevinKeene]

I find it Incredibly ridiculous how certain people are trying to paint Peterson as a right-wing conservative or even outright callung him a neonazi.

Facts that can't be done away with must really anger these people.

 

[Inuteu]

A lot of people, especially from a certain forum,

now I see that what happend in this forum was for the better

all those annoying SJW gone. its a relief

 

[Mohonky]

the more i think about it, he really does sound like kermit the frog rofl

Like? I'm almost convinced he is Kermit the frog.



Psychologist discussing her view on the interview.

 

[ilfait]

now I see that what happend in this forum was for the better

all those annoying SJW gone. its a relief

I'd rather that we weren't segregated; I think it's better, even if it's annoying, if we all discuss freely in one place.

They're afraid of people being influenced/persuaded by "the wrong opinions" for good reason; I don't have that same fear for equally good reason, I think--which is that usually the rational and the just ideas, when given equal opportunity to be heard, will garner more support than irrational and unjust ideas.

The real problem as I see it is that they were supported by SJW mods with the power and willingness to ban users and delete posts.

 

[Red Crayon Aristocrat]

Please don't call this left wing. I am left wing but I never used this. This is from the playbook of the new authoritarian left like the whole sex negative approach to everything. Old school leftists were pro sexual liberation and actually had fun.

I used to be a liberal but I cannot in good conscience call myself one anymore since the left wing has become so hijacked by extremism and as you say authoritarian elements that are frankly downright evil and those elements are cannibalizing it more and more to where that's just what the left wing is.

Now I'm not a diehard right winger either, I guess you could say I'm a centrist, but it's clear that conservatism has gotten a bad rap and it contains some good ideas and at the very least people should be more opened minded to listening to conservative voices and not calling them neo nazis or bigots at the drop of a damn hat.

I'd rather that we weren't segregated; I think it's better, even if it's annoying, if we all discuss freely in one place.

I actually agree with you completely, but the problem is SJWs do NOT debate with anyone anymore, they will NOT listen to any opposing views without throwing an absolute shitfit and demanding that whoever does not agree with them be run out of town, you can't have those people mixed in with others anymore without the community going down in flames.

But it's a shame that's how it is, I remember in the past when liberals and conservatives would hash it out on the net, discussions could get pretty heated but no one was saying the other side shouldn't have a voice, I miss those days but that's just how it is now.

 

[Blackie]

Not much to say about the rookie interviewer, unfortunately Jordan Peterson's ideas still don't seem well supported and he comes across poorly in an ideological/moral sense

 

[Kadayi]

I actually agree with you completely, but the problem is SJWs do NOT debate with anyone anymore, they will NOT listen to any opposing views without throwing an absolute shitfit and demanding that whoever does not agree with them be run out of town, you can't have those people mixed in with others anymore without the community going down in flames.

Because by on large most of their views don't really hold up all that well to any degree of scientific investigation or critical scrutiny.

I mean in the interview Peterson succinctly dismantles the idea of the patriarchy as a purely cultural construct towards the end. It is inherent in our nature as a species as with myriad others to organise ourselves into hierarchies. One can rally against the status quo (and one should to minimise inequality as much as possible), but to believe that such a thing can be eradicated entirely purely through cultural policing is a denial of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and a pretty myopic understanding of the reality of nature and order.

Hell, even within the SJW mindset hierarchy exists. The idea of privilege is a measure by which people can and are assessed and those who are viewed as the most oppressed are held in higher regard than those less so, regardless of the reason or validity of their actual beliefs. The absurdity of privilege is that unlike a traditional hierarchy movement is largely a no go. All that the various strata can do is collectively argue that they are the more oppressed, whilst denigrating everyone else.

Not much to say about the rookie interviewer, unfortunately Jordan Peterson's ideas still don't seem well supported and he comes across poorly in an ideological/moral sense

Care to elaborate?

 

[Moneal]

Not much to say about the rookie interviewer, unfortunately Jordan Peterson's ideas still don't seem well supported and he comes across poorly in an ideological/moral sense

The sad thing is she isn't even a rookie. Shes been with Channel 4 since 2006 and hosting since 2011.

 

[finowns]

Like? I'm almost convinced he is Kermit the frog.



Psychologist discussing her view on the interview.

I thought the psychologist was a bit too hokey and unclear.