Support NeoGAF

[strange headache]

Two great minds who I'm sure need no further introduction, Jordan Peterson and Stephen Fry, join ranks in a recent Munk Debate in order to speak up for freedom of expression and thought. They faced off against Michael Eric Dyson (Ph.D. in religious studies and professor of sociology at Georgetown University) and Michelle Goldberg (Master of Science degree in journalism from the University of California Berkeley and columnist for the NYT) who made the case for political correctness. The whole debate is 2 hours long, but definitely worth a watch:



Here is a quick recap of their opening statements:

• Michelle Goldberg argues against deplatforming and trigger warnings and calls out social media outrage culture. Her reason to defend PC is to defend minorities and women against patriarchal discrimination. She rejects the notion that challenges to the current hierarchy are written of as PC and then goes on to immediately attack Peterson and Fry. She considers enlightenment values a privilege granted to white heterosexual men and argues that PC is challenging current power hierarchies in order to extend these rights and privileges to women and minorities.

• Jordan Peterson brings up the current situation on college campuses and considers PC an attack on western values and their deliberative processes of conflict resolution. He argues that PC puts the individual under a collectivist worldview that primarily defines the individual as part of a group. PC views that world as a battleground between groups of different power by eliminating the consideration of the individual. Free speech from a collectivist perspective is limited to the group that you represent. They view western society as an oppressive hierarchy that is the result of power struggles between groups, such as women against men.

• Michael Eric Dyson sounds like a gospel preacher and immediately jumps to race-baiting. He argues that the far-left is too small to have any collectivist influence and says that the invention of race was driven by white people in order to subordinate others. Patriarchy is the demand of men to have their exclusive vision represented and feminism just means that men don't get the last word. He argues that it is the right that imposes identity politics on others, by treating black people as part of a group. He believes that the classroom is a robust place for serious learning and thinks that some notions around the concept of 'safe spaces' are overblown. But at the same time some people aren't as equal as others and are being attacked by their own culture. According to Dyson, nobody is a bigger Snowflake than white men who complain. White people don't see their own privilege, because their are born into it.

• Stephen Fry sides with Peterson not because he agrees with him, but because he has been given grief for merely participating in this debate. He views the culture wars as a propagandist fissure between opposing sides that refuse to listen to each other, while the ordinary people in between who try to go on with their lives are baffled, betrayed and bored by the horrible screams of anger coming from each side. He considers himself a soft leftist that comes out in defense of enlightenment values that are under attack by political ideologues. He thinks that PC doesn't work because it is focused too much on what is right rather than what is effective. He distrusts conformity and orthodoxy, progress is not achieved by preachers and guardians of morality, but by madmen, hermits, heretics, dreamers, rebels and skeptics.

As is custom with Munk Debates, the audience votes on their position before and after each debate. Peterson and Fry won by a huge margin. They gained 6 percent points, which is an effective increase of 9,4% of their supporter base. By contrast, the opposing side lost 6 percent points, which is a 16,6% decrease of the audience in support of political correctness. This again shows that the intellectual movement against political correctness has the better arguments. I think that PC defenders are well aware of that fact, which is why they are prone to silencing tactics rather than favoring open debate. To be fair, going into this debate the odds were already heavily skewed against the side defending PC. Which is why I find Goldberg's and Dyson's efforts at engaging in an open exchange commendable even if I ultimately don't agree with their arguments and even if Dyson cannot refrain from his personal attacks.

 

[TTOOLL]

Will definitely watch, but I need to say that it's embarrassing to see women in western societies argue that they have fewer rights and privileges than men.

 

[Ke0]

I don't think Dyson pointing out that Peterson is a white guy and benefits from white privilege is a personal attack I mean...Peterson IS white. Besides, complaining about that seems pretty PC no?

Will definitely watch, but I need to say that it's embarrassing to see women in western societies argue that they have fewer rights and privileges than men.

Well I mean Peterson often argues that we white straight men have it worse in Western society which is equally nonsensical. Then again Peterson just recently argued that forced monogamy would prevent us from irrationally killing people so /shrug.

 

[Sàmban]

Not sure how much value I’d put into Peterson’s side “winning” given how biased the audience was against PC as you pointed out, but good watch nonetheless.

I’ve been going back on forth on Peterson. On one hand, I think his “grow the fuck up” approach at life coaching has good value. On the otherhand, he is a big fucking hypocrite. He is very anti equality of outcomes (which makes some sense) until it when comes to incel losers where he argues that “forced monogamy” should be a thing so that more women should be available to men (instead of being consistent and telling these incels to grow the fuck up).

I just can’t take him seriously on some of these issues.

 

[Deleted member 713885]

There's no such thing as White Privilege.

It's called Majority Privilege.

Every country, society, culture etc.. has it.

 

[cubicle47b]

Polygamy is illegal in the US and Canada so we accept enforced (not forced) monogamy.

 

[kunonabi]

Not sure how much value I’d put into Peterson’s side “winning” given how biased the audience was against PC as you pointed out, but good watch nonetheless.

I’ve been going back on forth on Peterson. On one hand, I think his “grow the fuck up” approach at life coaching has good value. On the otherhand, he is a big fucking hypocrite. He is very anti equality of outcomes (which makes some sense) until it when comes to incel losers where he argues that “forced monogamy” should be a thing so that more women should be available to men (instead of being consistent and telling these incels to grow the fuck up).

I just can’t take him seriously on some of these issues.

Do we actually have audio for the forced monogamy thing because that article had a huge axe to grind and people tend to cherry pick his statements when trying to tear him down.

 

[Vicetrailia]

From that debate it did seem like PC is the eye of the beholder type of thing, dual hypocrisy. Eveyone is voicing.

PC goes too far on the left when you have truly anti-social behavior. No I don't mean "abort white babies" one-offs on twitter, but stuff like inclusion via exclusion. But then again deplatformimg works against nazis, but they should be the exception.

 

[Sàmban]

Do we actually have audio for the forced monogamy thing because that article had a huge axe to grind and people tend to cherry pick his statements when trying to tear him down.

Not sure if we have audio, but they were direct quotes and he has not contested them. In fact, in the same article he does agree that he is being inconsistent. Instead of just bashing the article as "having an axe to grind," is it possible that maybe you are unwilling to believe that Peterson is actually at least a bit of a hypocrite because it goes against your preconceived notions? Think about it.

 

[xandaca]

If Dyson and Goldberg didn't immediately resort to ad hominems and misrepresentations, there are serious points to be made about the shortcomings in Peterson's hyper-individualist attitude. Peterson is correct that people should be treated as individuals first before the law and ultimately the only way to break out of hardship will be on your own initiative, but group identity has an important purpose in forming a united front against prejudices which affect people as a group (civil rights, getting votes for women, anti-discrimination legislation, etc). Of course, the causes under which a group comes together have to be carefully selected and scrutinised, as does the rhetoric of the group to avoid the adoption of us vs them attitudes (I actually think Black Lives Manner have been quite successful on this front), but just as we exist in society both as individuals and as part of communities, group identity movements can be very positive in moderation and with good leadership. Similarly, respect for individual rights and responsibilities is indeed the cornerstone of civilised, free society, but society cannot function on a completely atomised level and (as Peterson alludes to) leads to a 'survival of the fittest' scenario where a small number of hyper-powerful individuals (tyrants, in JP's parlance) can consolidate their position without serious challenge. In other words, anything in excess becomes toxic and society needs to balance respect for both its component groups and its individuals in order to function fairly and effectively. Unfortunately, instead of pursuing that sort of inquiry, Dyson and Goldberg go for the most dishonest 'he's a misogynist/racist!' nonsense.

Not sure how much value I’d put into Peterson’s side “winning” given how biased the audience was against PC as you pointed out, but good watch nonetheless.

I’ve been going back on forth on Peterson. On one hand, I think his “grow the fuck up” approach at life coaching has good value. On the otherhand, he is a big fucking hypocrite. He is very anti equality of outcomes (which makes some sense) until it when comes to incel losers where he argues that “forced monogamy” should be a thing so that more women should be available to men (instead of being consistent and telling these incels to grow the fuck up).

I just can’t take him seriously on some of these issues.

Regarding the 'enforced monogamy' line, going from similar topics he's tackled elsewhere, I'm 99% sure that what he's talking about is closer to a monogamy vs polygamy debate. For one thing, we technically live under 'enforced monogamy' right now, in that polygamy is illegal. When Peterson says 'enforced', precedent suggests he's talking in social terms, e.g. having more than one partner, or excessive promiscuity, is frowned upon. Phrasing this is difficult, because I think Peterson skirts around the question and doesn't address how the psychology behind (the, it must be said, extremely small) incel mindset is linked, but not identical, to that of the young men in polygamist communities who see a group of 'high status' men having (for lack of a better expression) easy access to women while they have none, and become frustrated and sometimes violent as a result. Even though he does come out with some mad shit at times, I find it extremely unlikely he'd be suggesting the law should be forcing people to partner for life. I think he's suggesting, as he has before, that people should be more selective with their partners and sexually cautious so those who currently see the world in terms of incels vs jocks would see fewer people having easy, free sex and therefore not feel so isolated. I might be wrong about this interpretation, and as mentioned I don't think it answers what I see as the real issues behind the 'incel' mindset, but that's at least how I understand it from the limited quote and context from the article. Also worth mentioning that the article in question grossly misrepresents one of Peterson's earlier points (direct article quote: 'The left, he believes, refuses to admit that men might be in charge because they are better at it. “The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence,” he said.'), I'd take it with considerable salt.

 

[kunonabi]

Not sure if we have audio, but they were direct quotes and he has not contested them. In fact, in the same article he does agree that he is being inconsistent. Instead of just bashing the article as "having an axe to grind," is it possible that maybe you are unwilling to believe that Peterson is actually at least a bit of a hypocrite because it goes against your preconceived notions? Think about it.

The article is incredibly aggressive from the jump and we all know how poorly his critics tend to behave. That said, it wouldn't be a total shock if this was his argument considering the little bit of his work ive seen. Whats more interesting is how personal you took my post though.

 

[The Scrivener]

About to watch this now... screw the h8ters.

 

[Dunki]

From that debate it did seem like PC is the eye of the beholder type of thing, dual hypocrisy. Eveyone is voicing.

PC goes too far on the left when you have truly anti-social behavior. No I don't mean "abort white babies" one-offs on twitter, but stuff like inclusion via exclusion. But then again deplatformimg works against nazis, but they should be the exception.

Like this?+

 

[Vicetrailia]

Like this?+

Nope. Gotta go much further than that.

 

[Dunki]

Nope. Gotta go much further than that.

Evergreen College students back at it with ‘no white people’ day

Is this enough or should I try to finde some news in which they want to kill white people next because I can 100% find this.

 

[Lupingosei]

What I don't get is this strange desire for some people to "expose" or label Jordan Peterson. Even during this debate.

Cathy Newman tried that and it backfired. There are now tons of articles about him and some of them fall apart pretty fast if you look at them closely. But people insist to attack Peterson in this style of Cathy Newman "so what you are saying" because you have to "expose" him.

Look at echo chambers like the other forum and how they handle Peterson, it is mind-blowing, but they still insist, we got him now, now he is done. And how high mighty they are, insisting that he is not a real intellectual and they have so many labels for him.

They really don't get it. What Peterson says or writes make sense for a lot of people. His students liked him very much, even before he was in the public eye. There are articles on how his courses always were full and people were very sad when they were over. This idea of personal responsibility and individualism is very strong and it is rooted in Christianity and Judaism.

He is neither teaching totalitarianism nor any form of hate. But because he shows an alternative and this clashes with the orthodoxy of some people, they have to attack him. But what they don't get, they attack him outside of their echo chamber and each time they try that, they just look like Cathy Newman again. "So what you are saying" and to regular people outside of the safe space of those gated communities, this looks very stupid.

 

[LegendOfKage]

Not sure if we have audio, but they were direct quotes and he has not contested them.

Yeah, I'm going to have to wait for that audio. Every time I hear something Peterson said that I strongly disagree with (which would kind of suggest that I don't just agree with everything he says), I find out later that he was taken wildly out of context by editing out what he said immediately beforehand.

The idea that "but they were direct quotes" isn't good enough anymore. It's like the boy who cried wolf at this point.

 

[Super Mario]

Well I mean Peterson often argues that we white straight men have it worse in Western society which is equally nonsensical.

Men are more likely to be convicted of a crime, and receive a harsher prison sentence, commit suicide, pay more for auto insurance, less likely to gain custody, more likely to lose the house/pay alimony, be homeless, to die at work, in war, or just be murdered. Boys are more likely to be put on psychotropic drugs at a young age. Men overall have a shorter life. Men are legally discriminated against with affirmative action. Women's cancers are better funded.

That is only scraping the surface. Imagine if women faced these types of problems. We would stop the world from turning until they were resolved. Just because many white men have succeeded in life, does not make it a "nonsensical" argument that men have it rough. Men are faced with way more responsibility, pressure, and blame. I would strongly argue that the average woman, especially one that is good-looking, does not have it worse than a man does.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Evergreen College students back at it with ‘no white people’ day

Is this enough or should I try to finde some news in which they want to kill white people next because I can 100% find this.

Yeah like that. I get the message, but it's stupid.

Nothing beats legislate-a-bride though, lmao. Way to bring slavery back.

 

[ickythingz]

Listening to the woman's opening remarks was incredibly painful.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

I find the hero-worship for Peterson kind of creepy, but I don't find him offensive. I place him in the same "SHAM" (self-help and actualization movement) category I do with other motivational speaker. He works the crowd, they feel like it helps them, he knows not to upset them; rinse & repeat.

On the subject of political correctness, it might as well be a discussion about some intricate card game I've never played. It just doesn't impact my life any - I generally just wager it's being used a proxy discussion for people to espouse their overall socio-political worldviews and I move on without subscribing to their newsletter. I ended up agreeing a bit with both Dyson (I'm not convinced "safe space" actually exist in a way that actually impacts society at all, as I've yet to actually see one - the amount of whining seems out of proportion to the actual "epidemic") and Fry (the benefits of a free and open society ultimately outweighs the negative aspects, though we should work to mitigate those negative aspects in reasonable ways).

 

[LordOfChaos]

#360p club

Uploaded yesterday too, so no HD source? Fine, I guess I'll watch like an animal for this one




Edit: nevermind, here's HD

 

[Sàmban]

The article is incredibly aggressive from the jump and we all know how poorly his critics tend to behave. That said, it wouldn't be a total shock if this was his argument considering the little bit of his work ive seen. Whats more interesting is how personal you took my post though.

Lol what? I didn’t take your post personally at all!

 

[LordOfChaos]

"Preaching, with great respect"
*gestures to opposing side*
*preachy lady looks cowed*

Lol. Is it safe to say Stephen Fry is one of the greatest orators of our time? The Pro side looked increasingly worried the more they realized they couldn't just appeal to sidedness, the more Fry spoke.

 

[njr]

This debate was alright, it could have been great if the pro side didn't constantly make ad hominem attacks against Peterson. They couldn't even answer his question for what the line is when the left goes too far. All of Dyson's credibility was lost when he made the "mean mad white man" statement. The best part about this debate is it having four people. Fry was able to get his point across very well.

 

[LordOfChaos]

"We've had classic huckster and snake oil talk"

Holy shit and ex-fucking-xactly, Stephen. The Pro side was all about ad hominem and deliberate scarecrowing, and never really talked about political correctness.

 

[TrainedRage]

strange headache
Another thoughtful, very well executed OP. Love your work SH! Great video.

 

[strange headache]

Edit: nevermind, here's HD

Thanks a lot, I updated the OP with your video.

Is it safe to say Stephen Fry is one of the greatest orators of our time?

Yeah I liked Fry the best in this particular debate. There's a certain charm and eloquent lightheartedness about him that makes it really easy to digest his arguments. While I really appreciate Peterson's gravitas, he didn't seem at the top of his game this time. The whole situation seems to weigh heavily on his mind these days.

They couldn't even answer his question for what the line is when the left goes too far.

That was actually one of Peterson's strongest points during the debate, it's a shame it didn't get more attention. The left is currently missing any criteria that allows it to moderate itself and to distance itself from its radical fringes. As with any political view, falling into the extremes is generally a very bad idea. The left seems to be cultivating the conviction that the further to the left you are, the more righteous you become, which can be a very dangerous attitude in my opinion. The virtues of an individual being are not determined by his political leanings.

strange headache
Another thoughtful, very well executed OP. Love your work SH! Great video.

Thank you, much appreciated

 

[docmindbender]

Pro side did themselves no favours with crap like "google it" and the insistence on attacking.

 

[Punchpudding]

wow the pro PC side didn't bring a single argument that could stand up. It was a lot of social media level, emotional, ambiguous tangents.

- white people invented race.
- self-victimization.
- the definition of progress is people with a common identity banding together to seek redress for historical injustice. not sure about that.
- trump jokes.
- dodging the question: when does the left go too far?
- personal attacks on jordan peterson

If the public keep seeing debates like this, either the political far left is going to have to come up with some better answers or that 6% flight is going to become much larger.

I don't know if it's the debators or if it's the underlying ideology, but I would really like to see some better answers.

 

[xandaca]

To expand on the enforced monogamy thing from earlier, it seems the term has a specific anthropological meaning. Unsurprisingly, it seems he wasn't saying the state should forcibly partner people up for life (or however else it's being presented).

 

[AlexUk]

While I don't agree with Peterson on a couple of things here and there, there is nothing more entertaining than seeing him go up against interviewers or other people that want to "debate" him. Every time Michelle and Dyson spoke or replied to Peterson's points or attacked him, it actually made him look rational and logical (which he is, at least most of the times), despite the fact that this time he got a bit too passionate and also made use of that little strawman @ privilege 'tax'

That being said, he did, indeed, 'rekt' them

 

[Ke0]

Men are more likely to be convicted of a crime, and receive a harsher prison sentence, commit suicide, pay more for auto insurance, less likely to gain custody, more likely to lose the house/pay alimony, be homeless, to die at work, in war, or just be murdered. Boys are more likely to be put on psychotropic drugs at a young age. Men overall have a shorter life. Men are legally discriminated against with affirmative action. Women's cancers are better funded.

That is only scraping the surface. Imagine if women faced these types of problems. We would stop the world from turning until they were resolved. Just because many white men have succeeded in life, does not make it a "nonsensical" argument that men have it rough. Men are faced with way more responsibility, pressure, and blame. I would strongly argue that the average woman, especially one that is good-looking, does not have it worse than a man does.

You should join feminists then because quite literally all of what you're complaining about are because of rules men created that stem from hilarious gender identities...men created.

-Less likely to gain custody? Because even in 2018 we as a society still spout out that women are for the kitchen and taking care of children and don't belong in the workplace, that women should be at home, and the man brings home the money...so as such...who do you think would get the kids in a court case? Not shockingly women, centuries of engrained mentality that's backed by religious dogma doesn't suddenly go away because it's starting to work against men.

-More likely to lose the house/pay alimony? Because once again even in 2018 men adhere to the idea that a "man's role" is to provide for everyone, and alimony quite literally stems from when women weren't allowed to own anything until the husband dies because women aren't providers. Once again we fucked ourselves trying to adhere to gender roles, guys it's almost as if gender roles are fucking us men over...

-Pay more for auto insurance? Ever check out statistics on whose is more willing to road rage, race, and wreck? Sadly we're still winning that category.

-Die at work? Once again we're the "breadwinners", "real men work hard to provide" <insert other bullshit machoisms that fuck us over>, so we overwork ourselves, we also fight keep wages stagnant which means you have to worker harder to "provide", which is more stress.

-More likely to be murdered...yes by other men (it literally kills the often repeated belief that women are emotional and men are logical...). Women are more likely to be murdered...by men. Testosterone fuelled machoisms kill, shocking development. Mix that in with the societal belief about real men don't show emotions, and just tough it out, you now have a gender whose only outlet acceptable outlet is anger/rage. This combined with the whole cancer thing really makes you want to invest in some kind of nation wide healthcare system that can pay for men to look into various treatments and therapies...

-Women's Cancers are better funded, because women are literally more likely to go to the doctor when something is wrong with them. Men are more reluctant statistically by a large margin; this is something that's also reinforced by our male driven society, you know "suck it up", "don't call in sick unless really necessary." Women are get comprehensive screening during pregnancy, women pushed for that.

Literally most of the things we "suffer" are due to our making. Instead of us realizing these gender roles we've created and enforce ultimately fuck us over, we quadruple down on them and then say those who can't rise above it aren't real men, they're betas, etc (which just perpetuates said gender roles_. And way too many people buy into it, or worse fight women as if they're the problems when our society is dominated by men and everything women and other groups have been given are literally concessions from us.

 

[Papa]

Yeah like that. I get the message, but it's stupid.

Nothing beats legislate-a-bride though, lmao. Way to bring slavery back.

That’s not what he said though. Direct quotes can be presented out of context and the context here was that he was in a discussion of monogamy versus polygamy at the societal level in reference to how the incel culture developed and what a potential solution could be. He was not advocating for enforced marriage at the individual level, despite what the Buzzfeed-style hot takes would have you believe. “Enforced” was probably too strong a word as it enabled said hot takes, but these things happen in a live conversation. He could have instead phrased it as “culturally encouraged monogamy”, and I’m sure he would if he had his time over.

The bigger picture is that the development of incel culture is a natural result of the sexual emancipation of women. In the past, low status males still had a good chance of finding a partner because monogamy was culturally encouraged. Especially so in war time when the gender balance temporarily dipped below parity. Today, women hold all sexual currency and because monogamy is no longer culturally encouraged, there is no incentive for women to partner with a low status male. Those low status males still exist and if left to their own devices, which they must be if you believe in individual freedom, will invariably develop anti-social behaviours. Throw testosterone into the mix and that’s a powerful combination. This is what I believe Peterson was trying to communicate, and the only sustainable solution is to culturally encourage monogamy.

It’s always interesting to have a look at the threads on these topics over at Resetera. There is never any discussion; it’s always dozens of pages of drive-by posts contributing to the daily Two Minutes Hate. It was the same thing with the thread about Trump calling MS-13 animals. The thread starts with a single article from an obviously biased source that omits all context, and they work themselves into a frenzy. Then when the clarification and retraction come the next day, Olympic-level mental gymnastics ensue to justify that they were totally not wrong and he’s still literally orange Hitler. It’s incredible to me how seemingly intelligent people will go out of their way to ignore context and nuance simply because they don’t like the person speaking. Groupthink is a hell of a drug.

 

[LordOfChaos]

While I don't agree with Peterson on a couple of things here and there, there is nothing more entertaining than seeing him go up against interviewers or other people that want to "debate" him. Every time Michelle and Dyson spoke or replied to Peterson's points or attacked him, it actually made him look rational and logical (which he is, at least most of the times), despite the fact that this time he got a bit too passionate and also made use of that little strawman @ privilege 'tax'

That being said, he did, indeed, 'rekt' them

That's my thing too, I don't agree with him on everything, but he's more rational than the average and it's befuddling to me that several media sources woke up and decided to write hit pieces on him, and a lot of social media started pooing on him as if they didn't just hear about him the night before.

It was strange to me and a little eye opening at how rapidly any "side" can decide someone is the enemy and close us off to them mentally, usually when it looks like he said something way out there, if you go and look at the original source there was much more nuance to it, if it wasn't outright misrepresented.

He's certainly an interesting guy to listen to.

 

[Vicetrailia]

That’s not what he said though. Direct quotes can be presented out of context and the context here was that he was in a discussion of monogamy versus polygamy at the societal level in reference to how the incel culture developed and what a potential solution could be. He was not advocating for enforced marriage at the individual level, despite what the Buzzfeed-style hot takes would have you believe. “Enforced” was probably too strong a word as it enabled said hot takes, but these things happen in a live conversation. He could have instead phrased it as “culturally encouraged monogamy”, and I’m sure he would if he had his time over.

The bigger picture is that the development of incel culture is a natural result of the sexual emancipation of women. In the past, low status males still had a good chance of finding a partner because monogamy was culturally encouraged. Especially so in war time when the gender balance temporarily dipped below parity. Today, women hold all sexual currency and because monogamy is no longer culturally encouraged, there is no incentive for women to partner with a low status male. Those low status males still exist and if left to their own devices, which they must be if you believe in individual freedom, will invariably develop anti-social behaviours. Throw testosterone into the mix and that’s a powerful combination. This is what I believe Peterson was trying to communicate, and the only sustainable solution is to culturally encourage monogamy.

That's Shapiro's rendition, with the addition that incels should higher their own value, but tbh Peterson sounded the opposite.

 

[take_it_easy]

Found some snippets that are in this video it's pretty clear why free speech matters.



It's best to let fools speak and expose themselves. Shutting them up is not the answer.

 

[Papa]

That's Shapiro's rendition, with the addition that incels should higher their own value, but tbh Peterson sounded the opposite.

No, that’s my rendition, but I suspect you want to equate me with Shapiro because it allows you to more easily disregard what I’m saying.

 

[Hotspurr]

I thought this debate was pretty terrible, save for Fry. He hit the nail on the head so many times in quite clearly defining political correctness and pointing out that everyone else seemed to veer off topic.

Peterson was off his game. I think he immediately realized debating the pro side would be a waste of time given how shallow their arguements were for the most part. Then to top it off he was personally attacked.

Goldberg - believes that PC is a tool to challenge the patriarchy to reverse the oppressive environment they created. Except that as Fry points out, it doesn't accomplish that. What it does do is create fear and resentment in people who do not want to be called racist and sexist for their views. So this idea that "progress" is shutting people up about things you find offensive is nonsense.

Fry - I think he was very fair in everything he said. PC is a tool that accomplishes nothing, and if anything pushes people to resent you. Trump being elected is certainly a reflection of that.

Peterson - I honestly feels sometimes he has these things he wants to talk about, and disregards the questions at hand. Maybe he is just too intelligent for his own good. I generally find the guy interesting, but he speaks a lot but says very little. Converting the PC discussion to a discussion about identity politics was a big jump in my opinion.

Dyson - he should have never been allowed to speak at this debate. Not because I dislike his ideas, but because he's a petty, disrespectful, and ugly human being. He attacked Peterson on a personal level. And then after being stumped by Peterson's question fired back with his own. Peterson gave him some great answers, at which point Dyson had to resort to a question that had nothing to do with the debate. After Peterson was just appalled and refused to answer Dyson came back with "oh I guess you can't answer that can you". This is pathetic. As for Dyson's ideas? Everything rested on his race, how slavery set back people so much that they had no hope of making it in a white society (ironic given his status), and that the only way to end the eternal victimhood was some form of reparation with an indefinite timeline or magnitude. Wouldn't telling an entire community that they are victims and if they fail it's the fault of the "white man". The damage he could do with such rhetoric in his communities would far far out weigh the ripples of slavery that are still potentially felt today in some communities.

It's a sad state of affairs where a debate intended to bring intelligent people together ends up being such a catastrophe. To me it means that all the adults have left this world, and what we have are grown petulant children. I definitely see Peterson and Fry as the adults in the room, but even they struggle to navigate this space.

 

[LegendOfKage]

Peterson gave him some great answers, at which point Dyson had to resort to a question that had nothing to do with the debate. After Peterson was just appalled and refused to answer Dyson came back with "oh I guess you can't answer that can you". This is pathetic.

I kind of don't want to devote the time needed to watch this whole thing. Would you mind explaining what the question was?

 

[Hotspurr]

I kind of don't want to devote the time needed to watch this whole thing. Would you mind explaining what the question was?

I would say try to find a video of Fry's talking points, everything else was kind of weak. The segment happens at 1h:39m or so, and the question pertained to genetic inheritance of intelligence, which Jordan exhaled at because it had nothing to do with anything and Dyson intended it to be a "gotcha!". Peterson asked about leftist ideas that led to a destructive pathology in the 20th century at the beginning of the segment.

I will just add that in one of Fry's segments he says that in all his 60 years in the show business he's never seen political correctness go this far. Quite disheartening coming from the narrator of Little Big Planet, which made things feel more personal to me. He is a fantastic man and Jordan Peterson says some really nice words about him at the end (behind the scene).

This is similarly echoed in Ricky Gervais' recent comedy special on Netflix. He does quite a large bit on political correctness and it is worth a watch. I think Jordan Peterson hit the nail on the head with regards to understanding when the left has gone too far. What I see happening is many left leaning personas are speaking up and realizing that the left has been hijacked by radicals who are taking things too far precisely by assigning some immutable identity to everyone on the left. If you're not part of the group think you're hounded, much like Fry was when he agreed to do the debate on the con side.

My one hope for neogaf is that it doesn't go back to being a leftist authoritarian bubble. I recently joined because I saw the quality and discussions improve vastly, and think the exodus of the radical PC and SJW crowd was one of the best things to happen to it. In all my time on the internet I've seen 2 basic behavior of how some approach confrontation. The hardcore PC and SJW crowd immediately starts calling for bans and resorts to personal shaming by throwing out "racist" "sexist" etc. The right wing crowd will generally throw out insults and call people idiots or make fun of them, but the right genuinely enjoys debate and to be challenge. I hardly see petty silencing. It is pretty clear to me that SJW and PC culture cannot survive without some higher authoritarian power that enforces censorship.

 

[Airola]

-Women's Cancers are better funded, because women are literally more likely to go to the doctor when something is wrong with them. Men are more reluctant statistically by a large margin; this is something that's also reinforced by our male driven society, you know "suck it up", "don't call in sick unless really necessary." Women are get comprehensive screening during pregnancy, women pushed for that.

Literally most of the things we "suffer" are due to our making. Instead of us realizing these gender roles we've created and enforce ultimately fuck us over, we quadruple down on them and then say those who can't rise above it aren't real men, they're betas, etc (which just perpetuates said gender roles_. And way too many people buy into it, or worse fight women as if they're the problems when our society is dominated by men and everything women and other groups have been given are literally concessions from us.

Personally I don't avoid going to doctor because I should "suck it up" or that it's the "man way" to deal with it. For me it has absolutely nothing to do with social gender roles. I fully admit that I am one of those stereotypical males who avoid going to hospital as long as possible - it was quite a job for my girlfriend to talk me into going to just check my blood and I was against it pretty much until the needle was in my arm. But it's not something I've learned from my surroundings. If anything, I think me being so hesitant to go to doctors is "unmanly" and definitely not a good thing. So I don't know if it's because we as men have something that makes us not want to participate on things like that, or if it's because of laziness, or if it's because of fear of social situations, or if it's because of fear of doctors (or needles - I tend to pass out quite easily), or if it's because of anticipating bad news and not wanting to have to deal with it, or if it's because of being afraid that I should change my lifestyle, or if it's because of all of them or a mix of a few of them. But one thing I can say is that for me personally it doesn't have anything to do with gender roles.

 

[nemiroff]

What I got from the video is that Dyson is an unhinged race baiter who's willing to do anything to avoid (and "successfully" so..) answering completely legitimate and relevant questions. I support his right to an opinion/free speech, but the aggressive and smirky attitude was vomit-inducing. And his comment about the audience being biased (paraphrased) was cute.

 

[Kenpachii]

What I got from the video is that Dyson is an unhinged race baiter who's willing to do anything to avoid (and "successfully" so..) answering completely legitimate and relevant questions. I support his right to an opinion/free speech, but the aggressive and smirky attitude was vomit-inducing. And his comment about the audience being biased (paraphrased) was cute.

Yea that Dyson guy was something else.

 

[EviLore]

Social Justice Worrier. <3 Stephen Fry.

Unusual debate. Everyone seemed uncomfortable with the format and the assertion debated. Everyone talked shit about Jordan Peterson unreasonably. Everyone wanted to be as cool as Stephen Fry and--good lord, kick that Dyson guy off the stage already.

 

[Super Mario]

You should join feminists then because quite literally all of what you're complaining about are because of rules men created that stem from hilarious gender identities...men created.

-Less likely to gain custody? Because even in 2018 we as a society still spout out that women are for the kitchen and taking care of children and don't belong in the workplace, that women should be at home, and the man brings home the money...so as such...who do you think would get the kids in a court case? Not shockingly women, centuries of engrained mentality that's backed by religious dogma doesn't suddenly go away because it's starting to work against men.

-More likely to lose the house/pay alimony? Because once again even in 2018 men adhere to the idea that a "man's role" is to provide for everyone, and alimony quite literally stems from when women weren't allowed to own anything until the husband dies because women aren't providers. Once again we fucked ourselves trying to adhere to gender roles, guys it's almost as if gender roles are fucking us men over...

-Pay more for auto insurance? Ever check out statistics on whose is more willing to road rage, race, and wreck? Sadly we're still winning that category.

-Die at work? Once again we're the "breadwinners", "real men work hard to provide" <insert other bullshit machoisms that fuck us over>, so we overwork ourselves, we also fight keep wages stagnant which means you have to worker harder to "provide", which is more stress.

-More likely to be murdered...yes by other men (it literally kills the often repeated belief that women are emotional and men are logical...). Women are more likely to be murdered...by men. Testosterone fuelled machoisms kill, shocking development. Mix that in with the societal belief about real men don't show emotions, and just tough it out, you now have a gender whose only outlet acceptable outlet is anger/rage. This combined with the whole cancer thing really makes you want to invest in some kind of nation wide healthcare system that can pay for men to look into various treatments and therapies...

-Women's Cancers are better funded, because women are literally more likely to go to the doctor when something is wrong with them. Men are more reluctant statistically by a large margin; this is something that's also reinforced by our male driven society, you know "suck it up", "don't call in sick unless really necessary." Women are get comprehensive screening during pregnancy, women pushed for that.

Literally most of the things we "suffer" are due to our making. Instead of us realizing these gender roles we've created and enforce ultimately fuck us over, we quadruple down on them and then say those who can't rise above it aren't real men, they're betas, etc (which just perpetuates said gender roles_. And way too many people buy into it, or worse fight women as if they're the problems when our society is dominated by men and everything women and other groups have been given are literally concessions from us.

Your justification for each point is weak. Some of these things could be a choice. Most aren't. Could you imagine if more women were dying at work. Would anyone say it's a choice, and oh well?

On your point about auto insurance, where else do we price things out for people based on "statistics?" Imagine women or minorities being charged more for something because of a statistic. Extremely laughable. It would never be allowed, even for one second. So even if all men don't create accidents, we are allowed to legally discriminate all of them because of a majority, right? Where else do we allow that?

The point of all of this is that men are the only class we blatantly discriminate against. Blatantly. Laws and policies clearly favor women is just about every aspect. No, that's not going to make to join the feminists. I'm not going to take to the streets to protest fake issues.

 

[Hotspurr]

You should join feminists then because quite literally all of what you're complaining about are because of rules men created that stem from hilarious gender identities...men created.

-Less likely to gain custody? Because even in 2018 we as a society still spout out that women are for the kitchen and taking care of children and don't belong in the workplace, that women should be at home, and the man brings home the money...so as such...who do you think would get the kids in a court case? Not shockingly women, centuries of engrained mentality that's backed by religious dogma doesn't suddenly go away because it's starting to work against men.

-More likely to lose the house/pay alimony? Because once again even in 2018 men adhere to the idea that a "man's role" is to provide for everyone, and alimony quite literally stems from when women weren't allowed to own anything until the husband dies because women aren't providers. Once again we fucked ourselves trying to adhere to gender roles, guys it's almost as if gender roles are fucking us men over...

-Pay more for auto insurance? Ever check out statistics on whose is more willing to road rage, race, and wreck? Sadly we're still winning that category.

-Die at work? Once again we're the "breadwinners", "real men work hard to provide" <insert other bullshit machoisms that fuck us over>, so we overwork ourselves, we also fight keep wages stagnant which means you have to worker harder to "provide", which is more stress.

-More likely to be murdered...yes by other men (it literally kills the often repeated belief that women are emotional and men are logical...). Women are more likely to be murdered...by men. Testosterone fuelled machoisms kill, shocking development. Mix that in with the societal belief about real men don't show emotions, and just tough it out, you now have a gender whose only outlet acceptable outlet is anger/rage. This combined with the whole cancer thing really makes you want to invest in some kind of nation wide healthcare system that can pay for men to look into various treatments and therapies...

-Women's Cancers are better funded, because women are literally more likely to go to the doctor when something is wrong with them. Men are more reluctant statistically by a large margin; this is something that's also reinforced by our male driven society, you know "suck it up", "don't call in sick unless really necessary." Women are get comprehensive screening during pregnancy, women pushed for that.

Literally most of the things we "suffer" are due to our making. Instead of us realizing these gender roles we've created and enforce ultimately fuck us over, we quadruple down on them and then say those who can't rise above it aren't real men, they're betas, etc (which just perpetuates said gender roles_. And way too many people buy into it, or worse fight women as if they're the problems when our society is dominated by men and everything women and other groups have been given are literally concessions from us.

You make it sound like all men got together and made these rules. I am sure 99.999 percent of men didn't have much say in the way the world looks today. The point is there is a double standard when it comes to gender. Women's issues are always at the forefront. They are seen as the victim class. Whenever men's issues come up, it's usually ignored. "Men" didn't do this to themselves, because it's not an organized group. It was a sparse number of individuals that set the status quo and everyone went along with it. So in 2018 when it has been established in western society that women and men are equal when it comes to nearly every opportunity (save for some implicit male bias, which no one seems to be able to measure but everyone loves to throw around), saying that men's issues stem from men doing it to themselves and therefore of little concern, while trying to protect other groups oppressed by these "men" is just intellectually dishonest and quite frankly ignorant. These ideas that you hold are literally everything that's wrong with identity politics today. In effect trivializing men's issues as being things they did to themselves as a collective would be like telling women they deserve to be in the kitchen and at home with the kids because they are the ones who actually give birth and are more emotionally suited to raise children

 

[Ke0]

Personally I don't avoid going to doctor because I should "suck it up" or that it's the "man way" to deal with it. For me it has absolutely nothing to do with social gender roles. I fully admit that I am one of those stereotypical males who avoid going to hospital as long as possible - it was quite a job for my girlfriend to talk me into going to just check my blood and I was against it pretty much until the needle was in my arm. But it's not something I've learned from my surroundings. If anything, I think me being so hesitant to go to doctors is "unmanly" and definitely not a good thing. So I don't know if it's because we as men have something that makes us not want to participate on things like that, or if it's because of laziness, or if it's because of fear of social situations, or if it's because of fear of doctors (or needles - I tend to pass out quite easily), or if it's because of anticipating bad news and not wanting to have to deal with it, or if it's because of being afraid that I should change my lifestyle, or if it's because of all of them or a mix of a few of them. But one thing I can say is that for me personally it doesn't have anything to do with gender roles.

Men stereotypically don't go to the doctor because we're always being told to not take days off, to don't go unless it's absolutely necessary, to just suck it up, you're seen as trying to get out of work by going to the doctor, combine that in with the societal idea that men are the breadwinners and it becomes clear why men are hesitant to go to the doctor. And in the case of your country, many can't even afford it...but you guys will still vote against NHS. Thus only making the situation worse for men, can't go because you can't afford it, gotta work to pay the bills, can't afford to take on medical debt even with insurance, so men hold off on going, women should go because they're frail creatures, cycle continues. Your girlfriend is willing to go to the doctor when she needs to because there is no stigma against women going, in fact in society women are encouraged to go anytime they feel something is wrong with them.

Your justification for each point is weak. Some of these things could be a choice. Most aren't. Could you imagine if more women were dying at work. Would anyone say it's a choice, and oh well?

More women probably would be dying at work if the gender roles were reversed and upheld by society. But once again, everyone is in the rat race. "Real men" provide for their families, and hard work pays off, women don't die at the same rate because women aren't seen as the "breadwinners" women are inherently seen as our "lesser", we constantly directly and indirectly tell women what their jobs are versus what a man's job is, women can't do X, Y, Z jobs because A, B, C. That informs our society and creates gender roles, and ultimately concludes in men having to work WAY harder than women because once again men are the providers, men are the ones who work the long hours, do the sacrificing, etc. Combined with many societies (US especially) worship of capitalism over their own well-being and this will always be the end result. Your country votes CONSTANTLY against their best interest collectively (this includes genders) because of a mix of this hyper individualistic mindset mixed with some racism and "othering". It just ends up fucking you over in the long run. Money accumulates to the top, and you're told that if you work super hard you too will be one of those winners so don't take money away from the winners right now or when you get there there will be none. Instead we're taught to punch down as much as possible. Putting a strain on those just like us.

Thus it's not shocking that as you look at statistics men with more income are less likely to die earlier, they lead longer healthier lives, they're more likely to go to the doctor. It's almost as if voting to make the lives of the already well off screws over those who aren't well off and just increases pressures placed upon men to adhere to that gender role and "tough it out". Quite literally the principle issue is patriarchy, it literally confers no benefits to men, but we as a society continue to uphold it because too many people think that it'll all work out for them.

On your point about auto insurance, where else do we price things out for people based on "statistics?" Imagine women or minorities being charged more for something because of a statistic. Extremely laughable. It would never be allowed, even for one second. So even if all men don't create accidents, we are allowed to legally discriminate all of them because of a majority, right? Where else do we allow that?

The racial dynamics of America? I mean your country just went through a lawsuit in a bunch of your states against companies discriminating via mortgage and car rates that had been going on for decades upon decades where black potential buyers were given higher rates than their white counterparts despite having higher credit scores. Drug sentencing?

The point of all of this is that men are the only class we blatantly discriminate against. Blatantly. Laws and policies clearly favor women is just about every aspect. No, that's not going to make to join the feminists. I'm not going to take to the streets to protest fake issues.

Who is doing this discrimination against men?...rich men. It's almost as if...we're our worst enemy because most of us fall short of the ridiculous capitalist driven patriarchal model that is upheld. But despite all of that we'll all keep voting to keep it upheld, and blame everyone else for our woes. It's the immigrants, the other men in the same position as us, the blacks, the Muslims, women. While the main culprits tell us they'll fix everything, and everyone believes it lol.

You probably should team up with them if only to dismantle patriarchy because literally everything you're complaining about are industries that were created and ruled by men. You're literally upset with patriarchy that favors the rich. That is literally what you're fighting against, so why wouldn't you join with women since you'd ultimately benefit lol. I mean granted you can have a patriarchal system that benefits the majority of men, but all of our countries could have had that ages ago if we didn't embrace unchecked capitalism with glee and a twinkle in our eyes like it was another gold rush and that everyone would benefit from it equally. Unless you think a system created by men for men that women literally couldn't even benefit or participate from until very recently via concessions made by men, favors women. Like it doesn't even make sense.
It "favors" women because society views women as lesser of the two genders, as weak, as needing protection. It's as if our centuries of treating women like property, as weak frail creatures, as incapable of doing anything on their own, ended up putting a ridiculous amount of pressures on us or something...

Or people can keep blaming everyone else and see how far that gets us

 

[Airola]

Men stereotypically don't go to the doctor because we're always being told to not take days off, to don't go unless it's absolutely necessary, to just suck it up, you're seen as trying to get out of work by going to the doctor, combine that in with the societal idea that men are the breadwinners and it becomes clear why men are hesitant to go to the doctor. And in the case of your country, many can't even afford it...but you guys will still vote against NHS. Thus only making the situation worse for men, can't go because you can't afford it, gotta work to pay the bills, can't afford to take on medical debt even with insurance, so men hold off on going, women should go because they're frail creatures, cycle continues. Your girlfriend is willing to go to the doctor when she needs to because there is no stigma against women going, in fact in society women are encouraged to go anytime they feel something is wrong with them.

First of all, I live in Finland so whatever you say about NHS doesn't apply to me or the country I live in. We don't have a problem with someone not affording health care. It's in fact so affordable that we have had a problem with people taking days of for no real reason - both men and women do that.

And actually my girlfriend is the one who doesn't want to take days off, but that's probably just because she grew in a farm where she learned to work very early and has a super tough work ethic. She can go to doctor but if it means taking days off, she won't. And even when it's on her free time she goes to the doctor very rarely. It's pretty much only when she wants to check out her vitamin and blood levels and stuff like that. Anything else and she just waits it goes away. So basically she is the opposite of that stereotype. Her mother is the same. If she can walk, she'll be working. She didn't even let her daughter to skip school for fever (unless the fever was so bad she couldn't walk).

So pretty much all you said about that doesn't apply to us, and maybe even most of Finnish people.

Personally I think though that it would be best if men were "real men", but I don't count myself as one of them because... well... I'm not and I have never been and it's really tough to become one anymore. I just understand that even though me and other men aren't stereotypical "real men", being a "real man" or the idea of a "real man" isn't a bad thing at all. I can't build a house. I can't fix a car. I avoid work as much as possible. I'm lazy as fuck. I'm not tough. I'm not strong. I cry more than what men usually do. But I think it would be better if I was handy, if I understood something about cars, if I wouldn't avoid work, if I wouldn't be lazy, if I would be tough, if I would be strong. And maybe I could cry a bit less too, maybe. But it's ok. I am who I am. I don't think we should put down the idea of a "real man" just because I and some other people aren't.

 

[EviLore]

strange headache made a great thread as usual, and H Hotspurr covered my sentiments regarding the debate itself in detail above already. Cheers to you both. I enjoyed observing everyone's body language and demeanor. ;b

-Goldberg:
Vocal fry (no pun intended) to present a strong posture. Still wears her emotions on her sleeve far more than the others, but comes across genuinely. (e.g. when she stops herself to reflect that she probably acts too us vs them still, just less so than well-meaning undergrads)
Dyson speaks: shifts uncomfortably in her seat, forced smile that looks a lot more like a pained frown.
Fry speaks: big warm smile.
Peterson speaks: THIS ASSHOLE.

-Dyson:
Bounces his leg up and down barely containing the desire to hear his own voice again no matter who is speaking.
Goldberg speaks: ... (feminist jew, technically on my team, ignore)
Fry speaks: ... (charisma stat too damned high, mostly ignore or stay softball)
Peterson speaks: THIS MOTHERFUCKER (is he going to tweet a link to this to his billion followers?)

-Peterson:
Deep in observation and analytical thought listening to everyone while focused on constructing his next segment. Eyes often closed. Brief visible frustration when someone shit talks him...again. Everyone shit talks him constantly when he's trying to be respectful. He wrote a damned book about being respectful! (Did Stephen Fry *have* to open with telling the audience he didn't want to be on my team? For fuck's sake...)

-Fry:
Comfortable, casual, patiently listening. Mostly interested in having a persuasive conversation with Goldberg. Restraining boredom and annoyance when Dyson speaks.