• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Peterson & Fry Team Up to Defend Free Speech Against Political Correctness

LordOfChaos

Member
-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...)


There was no love between them, eh? While I enjoyed both, there were a few times it looked like Peterson was trying to make eye contact for a compliment or a hand shake and Fry seemed to ignore he was there.

It may have been that he didn't want to seem *too* chummy lest he lose some of his fan base, which is unfortunate because the whole premise was that views should be protected even if you disagree with them.
 
Last edited:

Blood Borne

Member
Serious question.
Why are people against free speech? I find unfathomable that some people want the government to regulate what you can say. Why give someone such power over you.
 

Papa

Banned
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.



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.



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?



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

This is absolute nonsense. How narcissistic do you have to be to think that men being forced into being the breadwinner is about holding women down and reinforcing “the patriarchy”? It’s not always about you.

Next time a world war breaks out and they need to reactivate the draft, you’ll be encouraging women to be at the front of the line, yeah? For equality?
 

AgentP

Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
As a lifelong liberal the hyper PC environment the left has created is toxic and embarrassing. On social media everyone attacks everyone based on words used instead of content. It's nothing short of a bullying echo chamber.
 

Jon Neu

Banned
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?

When you use the color of the skin of other people as an insult, you are basically a racist.

If someone yelled at Dyson that he is a "mean black person", security would have taked him out while being booed.
 

Lupingosei

Banned
As a lifelong liberal the hyper PC environment the left has created is toxic and embarrassing. On social media everyone attacks everyone based on words used instead of content. It's nothing short of a bullying echo chamber.

On the other hand, it is quite fascinating to watch. Look at "ad hominem era" for example, how almost nothing is woke enough anymore, how people are getting dogpiled if they don't agree with the orthodoxy and how it is getting more and more extreme. And now people trying to stay neutral or sitting on the fence are also dragged into the whole thing and they are told, if you are not for us, you are against us.

Instead of building bridges to people who agree on 80% or even 95% of the topics, they rather throw them under the bus, than even find a compromise. And it is also like that on university campuses, which makes the movement less and less popular, because they lose people all the time so they are getting more extreme to still stay in power. That is also why they love violence so much and find excuses for the use of de-platforming, censorship, and violence. Also why all their tactics of bullying, blackmailing and fear tactics are justified, because they are the good guys.

It is like reading Animal Farm all over again.
 
If the other forum can be seen as a microcosm of the sorts of domains that the politically correct, the woke, want to occupy, and to proliferate, then that's telling enough. A lot of those people must feel so undervalued and are so inert in their day to day lives that they actually feel that signalling their noble intentions online is a worthy substitute to doing something that requires real effort. The easy outrage garbage is poisonous and they are scamming themselves.
 

TTOOLL

Member
Terrible debate, really. All over the place and a lot of personal attacks.

Dyson's victim mentality made me sick until the end of the damn thing.
 
Deserved kudos from Peterson to Fry during the exit interview. He really was the only one trying to steer the ship while the others bickered.
 

TrainedRage

Banned
There was no love between them, eh? While I enjoyed both, there were a few times it looked like Peterson was trying to make eye contact for a compliment or a hand shake and Fry seemed to ignore he was there.

It may have been that he didn't want to seem *too* chummy lest he lose some of his fan base, which is unfortunate because the whole premise was that views should be protected even if you disagree with them.
It makes sense because both Peterson and Fry are all about Individual responsibility, not some 'buddy group mentality' like the other side seemed to be showing off. Alright i'm off to learn more about Mr. Fry. Have been sleeping on him.
 
I went through Petersons lectures twice (Maps of Meaning and Personality and its Transformations), and what i've noticed is he sticks almost exclusively to the ideas he has outlined in his works. I've actually gotten kind of bored of watching his stuff now because of that, but that's okay. Either way, my main point is almost everyone i've seen debate him has not actually engaged with his work, because if they had they could attempt to actually dismantle the arguments he is going to present, because if you follow his work you should know exactly what is going to come up in the debate.

The only person i've actually seen successfully do this is Sam Harris, where he pointed out a logical inconsistency with Peterson's definition of truth, and although I personally think it was mostly a debate on semantics, I still think that Harris was technically correct, although I could understand where Peterson was coming from. Peterson's definition of truth was open to logical inconsistencies, whereas Sam's wasn't. Peterson's truth prioritized wellbeing (which makes sense to him considering his profession), Sam's prioritized accuracy.

Every other debate i've seen against Peterson has been a carbon copy of this one. No one attempts to address the points Peterson should be predictably about to lay out, and instead they go off topic towards "he said she said" arguments that have no actual reflection of both what Peterson said or what he intends.

It's frustrating, and even though the Sam Harris debate went on for over an hour on a single point regarding definition, I still found that infinitely more stimulating than the combination of every single other debate i've seen against Peterson.

His entire philosophy and ideas are right there for people to engage with, and not a single one of these people have actually taken the time to do the research.
 
Last edited:

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
There was no love between them, eh? While I enjoyed both, there were a few times it looked like Peterson was trying to make eye contact for a compliment or a hand shake and Fry seemed to ignore he was there.

It may have been that he didn't want to seem *too* chummy lest he lose some of his fan base, which is unfortunate because the whole premise was that views should be protected even if you disagree with them.

Something like that. Fry is a charismatic orator and professional entertainer. He could apply that effervescence to JP like he does with the audience or Goldberg -- he would if they talked in private, I expect -- but he would be less persuasive here, and it's not really the move per his goals (to bring Goldberg types away from PC culture) or the debate's format. I'm not suggesting he's full of shit or disingenuous or anything of the sort. I don't think he is. Just observations about his underlying personality traits and conscious or subconscious motivations. I like Fry quite a bit and I think he's brave and honest and highly intelligent.

JP isn't doing anything effortlessly, haha. He takes in all the vitriol directed at him, closes his eyes, and consciously suppresses his ego while still listening intently and attempting to understand where the other party's coming from. That way he can do something constructive with it for the benefit of the audience or perhaps the person attacking him, and demonstrate his intentions are positive, his head is clear, and he's not being ruled by ego or emotion but the person attacking him is. It's not plugging his ears and deflecting. When it's his turn to speak, he dials himself back up to a measured cadence and makes a strong point that's not all about himself and indifferent to generating personal sympathy. He does it a lot more confidently and firmly than someone like Brett Weinstein does, so he comes off as a lot more of a cocky asshole no matter how respectful he's being, but it's the same sort of idea.

If JP sounds like he had an off day on this one, it's mainly because Stephen Fry is *extremely* charismatic and put JP in a subordinate position from the start, and the "debate" may as well have been titled "Two hours of being a dick to Jordan Peterson while he sits there and takes it and respectfully defends on his turn."

JP, Fry, and Goldberg were all fine choices for the debate though. Terrible call with Dyson.
 

bloodydrake

Cool Smoke Luke
Fry was awesome, I feel like Peterson wasn't off his game per-say, he just seemed frustrated that even with such a focused topic the opposition insisted on personal attacks.
I think if Fry was treated the same way it would have been hard for him to stay so composed.
Dyson was just horrible, postmodernist madman personified. I'll stick with listenting to Glenn Loury and John McWhorter(whom i greately enjoy listening to)for a more objective rational take on Black America.(Canadian not American myself)
 

Lupingosei

Banned
His entire philosophy and ideas are right there for people to engage with, and not a single one of these people have actually taken the time to do the research.

That is the Cathy Newman problem. If you are surrounded by people only existing within the same bubble as you are, you will never be challenged to an argument, because having a different opinion is not welcome anymore. So you are entering the debate in a mindset of righteousness and you already know you will win and "expose" the other person. So why even bother with research. All your people have told you that the person you are debating is just a hoax.

Why do you think they use ad hominem arguments so fast and so often. They are not used to a real debate anymore, even debate clubs have changed and are not about presenting arguments anymore. It is only about personal experience and how you feel about a certain topic.
 

bloodydrake

Cool Smoke Luke
Interestingly I don't think JBP is a very good debater at all. He's a fantastic lecturer, the long form suits his way of analyzing things perfectly, but debates that must be succinct short answers just don't work for his style.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
Fry was awesome, I feel like Peterson wasn't off his game per-say, he just seemed frustrated that even with such a focused topic the opposition insisted on personal attacks.
I think if Fry was treated the same way it would have been hard for him to stay so composed.
Dyson was just horrible, postmodernist madman personified. I'll stick with listenting to Glenn Loury and John McWhorter(whom i greately enjoy listening to)for a more objective rational take on Black America.(Canadian not American myself)

No doubt. Here's a short example snippet from the debate:
(timecoded) https://youtu.be/rT_FnwVFuYw?t=4280

Lethal intensity and ferocity right here on stage! Just look at that intense, ferocious blowhard!
Dyson's projecting.

Interestingly I don't think JBP is a very good debater at all. He's a fantastic lecturer, the long form suits his way of analyzing things perfectly, but debates that must be succinct short answers just don't work for his style.

His lectures are far more interesting, yeah. For example:

 

Rookje

Member
Yea, Peterson is not the best debater for sure. Its just not his format, but that's okay.

I don't think the pro-PC side were even pro-PC at all. Dyson was embarrassing. Goldberg was okay, but I don't think she was pro-PC at all. Unfortunately Peterson has become such a giant that any debate like this is going to devolve in attempts to defame and debunk him (or, at least, their perceived image of him, i.e. "race and intelligence" that Dyson wanted to bring up).

I think debates and townhalls like this highlight the lack of leaders on the left (or I suppose left of Peterson, since he's technically a liberal).

Where is the Ben Shaprio and Jordan Peterson for the left?
 
Last edited:

LordOfChaos

Member
I think debates and townhalls like this highlight the lack of leaders on the left (or I suppose left of Peterson, since he's technically a liberal).

Where is the Ben Shaprio and Jordan Peterson for the left?

As brought up above Sam Harris did one of the best jobs talking to Peterson, I think he's pretty left-ish aside from areas like parts of the left not wanting to talk about issues with Islam and such.



Stephen Pinker is a phenomenal thinker (I...didn't do that on purpose), Dan Dennet, Noam Chomsky, Peter Singer...There's a lot. They just tend not to be found in new age media and prefer long form like Harris.

In contrast to your thought, I didn't think "where is the Peterson of the left", I thought more "Hey, the right grew a Sam Harris!" (and later learned he doesn't describe himself as such, more as a classical liberal), and the above is worth checking out if you have not.

Christopher Hitchens, I'm not sure where on the spectrum I'd put him, but I'd have loved for him to have been around for these new debates.
 
Last edited:

Rookje

Member
As brought up above Sam Harris did one of the best jobs talking to Peterson, I think he's pretty left-ish aside from areas like parts of the left not wanting to talk about issues with Islam and such.
In contrast to your thought, I didn't think "where is the Peterson of the left", I thought more "Hey, the right grew a Sam Harris!", and the above is worth checking out if you have not.
I susbcribe to Sam Harris' podcast and have read most of Pinker's books, but I wouldn't argue they are adverse to Peterson or Stephen Fry.

What I'm looking for is an intellectual to convince me that: there is a legitimate category of speech that is objectively deemed as "hate" and it should be suppressed and regulated, there are no differences between the genders (other than some biological physicality), the idea of masculinity is conjured up by culture and not biologically rooted, etc. Those things Sam Harris and Pinker (especially Pinker) both are aligned with Peterson.

I want to see Peterson debate someone like Judith Butler, or Zizek.
 

LordOfChaos

Member
I susbcribe to Sam Harris' podcast and have read most of Pinker's books, but I wouldn't argue they are adverse to Peterson or Stephen Fry.

What I'm looking for is an intellectual to convince me that: there is a legitimate category of speech that is objectively deemed as "hate" and it should be suppressed and regulated, there are no differences between the genders (other than some biological physicality), the idea of masculinity is conjured up by culture and not biologically rooted, etc. Those things Sam Harris and Pinker (especially Pinker) both are aligned with Peterson.

I want to see Peterson debate someone like Judith Butler, or Zizek.

Oh I see...Honestly I'm not sure any of the left leaners I listen to hold those views and they're not by necessity left leanings, as on either side I try to collect people who are predominately occupied with what is true, not to put too fine a point on it lol.

Peterson himself says the average difference between genders is quite small, but that small difference in the average produces big differences on the extremes, by the way.


Your observations were quite pertinent, especially Dyson rocking back and forth on his chair impatiently waiting for his next intervention..

It was even worse than that at times, doing the "mmhmm, uhhhuh" routine to frustrate and distract his opponent while he was talking.
 
Last edited:
I enjoyed observing everyone's body language and demeanor. ;b

Your observations were quite pertinent, especially Dyson rocking back and forth on his chair impatiently waiting for his next intervention. Peterson often looking down at the ground in some sort of pensive humility, carefully selecting his words lends importance to the argument rather than the person. Fry being a lifelong comedian who's used to being on stage is a very different beast.

Fry and Peterson may disagree politically, but I don't think they dislike each other personally. It's more of an agonistic, rather than an antagonistic relation. It's the same sort of sportsmanlike discipline that old school intellectuals used to display, when they engaged with each other.

Alright i'm off to learn more about Mr. Fry. Have been sleeping on him.

May I recommend "The Fry Chronicles"? It's sort of an autobiography but he does a fantastic job at exploring his individual philosophy through his lived experiences. I enjoyed reading it immensely.

Goldberg was okay...

I thought that her trying to explain away the 'metoo' list after Fry said that everybody is walking on eggshells, was quite in bad taste. Only because said list didn't have real life repercussions, doesn't mean that you can make unsubstantiated anonymous accusations like that. And merely because your attempt at an open-sourced witch-hunt is without consequence, doesn't mean that it's alright. It's that sort of utilitarian thinking that I find very frightening. Intention matters and when your views are that conformist and mainstream, you don't really see the rapidly shrinking window of socially acceptable opinions to which Fry was alluding to.
 
Last edited:

finowns

Member
Dyson was all ‘style’ but no substance I think he fell into stump speech more often than not and had nothing original to add. I’m not huge fan of Peterson’s discourse style either.

I think the debate hit absolute bottom when Dyson ‘invited’ Peterson to a Baptist church..
 
Last edited:

Relativ9

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

When has Peterson ever said that? And I don't mean he's highlighted specific challenges white straight men statistically face more than other demographics, I mean when has he ever said that white straight men have it worse overall?

See this is the problem, if you want to take part in the debate and be respected, you have to actually define the arguments of your opposition realistically, you can't just paint them with the worst possible opinions you can conceive of based on what they're against "he's against affirmative action so that must mean he thinks women and minorities have it easy"

And if this isn't the case, and you really mean that he just highlights specific challenges and not that they have it worse overall, then what exactly is wrong with that? Does the homeless man suffer less because the homeless woman suffers more?
 
Stephen Fry was really on point.

Loved the bullshit Dyson spewed about how people are really fighting for their individuality, with the way people fetishize their identities so much, be it racial, gender or sexuality, the LAST thing sjws want is to be seen as individuals, Peterson is right that there's a HUGE collectivist movement among the left wing, I mean that's literally what it's all about now.

So this guy is either not paying enough attention, I mean maybe that's what it was 20 years ago but that's not what it is now or he's purposely lying.
 

Dunki

Member
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?



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.
He used the white in an attempt to shut him down because normally it works when you call people like that. Luckily Peterson does not care and in a very intellectual environment it really has shown who the superior arguments had. Also Fry was just fantastic and I wish they would have been really talked about political correctness more
 
How is ok to use white as an insult or dirty word? How are we actually at that point? It's literally surreal.

I remember the days when Stormfront types would throw around the phrase "anti-racist is a code word for anti-white" which I used to scoff at until the left wing proved it to be true, I just can't believe I live in a world where that phrase is actually true.

Is this real life?
 

Cato

Banned
-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.

So different treatment based on statistics of the group is ok?

Are you sure about that?

If so I guess you are 100% fine with COPs doing targeted stop-and-search based on nothing else than skin colour?
 
Last edited:

joshcryer

it's ok, you're all right now
What's weird about Peterson is that what he says is not controversial in the least bit, it's really just basic stuff for the most part, but it's attracted so much vitriol from the left and an alarming level of support from the hard right, all because the left takes stuff out of context, and the right doesn't actually understand what he really means in his arguments (he's actually arguing for a very neo-liberal take on civilized society; very socially open, and very capitalist).

Peterson, though, as far as I know about his stuff (hear one lecture hear them all, so I don't know everything he's written or talked about), hasn't really talked about alternatives or solutions, which actually is useful for him, because if he could offer his own solutions, then the debate changes to what those solutions would look like, as opposed to being a continual repetition of the same thing we've had since, well, open debate.

edit: Peterson's rise to fame is similar to that of Chomsky's in my observation. Someone who is addressing a completely different field from their studies, articulate on the subject, but mainly a repetitive rehashing of the same basic principles. For Peterson it's basically reducing everything down to "hierarchies are natural and civilized society must adapt against those processes." For Chomsky it was reducing everything down to "capitalism is the worlds evil and therefore it's necessary for society to abolish it." (Mainly throughout his time arguing about American foreign policy and whataboutism in Chomsky's case, which is what makes Peterson at least less boring, he tries to stay away from whataboutism.)
 
Last edited:

Dunki

Member
So different treatment based on statistics of the group is ok?

Are you sure about that?

If so I guess you are 100% fine with COPs doing targeted stop-and-search based on nothing else than skin colour?
People are still human beings and they get "manipulated" by these statistics. When I for example know that black people are responsible for over 50% of homicides I as cop would act way more carefully and maybe a bit aggressive to black people. Call me racist but I rather want to survive another day. I do not think that it is fine but I also think that to bring in change we need to change these statistics.

This goes also with topics like housing when I as estate agent often have trouble with black people because they can not pay etc I would rather not sell them my property at all to avoid problems and complications. You can not ignore their experiences and the behavior resulting from these.

Is it unfair? Yeah I am sure it is. I am also male and will be more likely seen as a predator when I walk around with a little child in a park. And this is a stigma you do not even can justify through statistics.

Israel Saudi Arabia etc also use racial profiling against the Islamic terrorism and it works for the mot part. After the sexual mass assault in Cologne a year later the police also used more o a racial profiling and again it was a success so it is a very difficult topic and issue. You want to change the world do something to change the statistics like education, give black people through education a future, get rid of the crime in Ghettos etc.
 

Relativ9

Member
What's weird about Peterson is that what he says is not controversial in the least bit, it's really just basic stuff for the most part, but it's attracted so much vitriol from the left and an alarming level of support from the hard right, all because the left takes stuff out of context, and the right doesn't actually understand what he really means in his arguments (he's actually arguing for a very neo-liberal take on civilized society; very socially open, and very capitalist).

Well while I mostly agree with Peterson about most things, one thing is undeniable: these days he is controversial. He's chosen to confront every easy comfort people in the west have come to cherish in a relatively unapologetic way. Stop blaming others and society for your misfortune and do something about it. Constantly work to better yourself instead of complaining about others getting a bigger slice or wasting your life away with mindless entertainment. He believes that the presence of both traditional gender roles (even if they're not personified by the traditionally associated gender) provides the optimal basis for child rearing. He believes that calling someone by what in their own estimation is the wrong gender-pronoun doesn't constitute hate-speech, and he believes that hate-speech laws, in general, are morally wrong and ineffective at achieving their goal. Basically, all of these opinions go directly against what the majority of the young left-leaning public believes.

They only seem non-controversial to us, and to a lot of people who don't get what all the fuss is about, because people have been asleep at the wheel when it comes to just how twisted mainstream young/millennial culture has become. And since millennials are the golden goose for both mainstream media and social media, naturally it reflects this.
 
Last edited:

joshcryer

it's ok, you're all right now
They only seem non-controversial to us, and to a lot of people who don't get what all the fuss is about, because people have been asleep at the wheel when it comes to just how twisted mainstream young/millennial culture has become. And since millennials are the golden goose for both mainstream media and social media, naturally it reflects this.

The thing missing from the debate is how, quite literally, the labels are very much a corporate invention. See how there are campaigns by corporations to utilize these concepts in their own ad campaigns. It's all meant to create a homogenous culture by which the corporations can carefully control presentation and influence. Like Peterson regularly points out when breaking down the strawmen, no one is "for poverty" or "for discrimination" as those are ineffective for a capitalist economy anyway (he actually makes this argument during this "debate").

Is this good or bad? I think it can be actually quite bad because it boxes in a certain group as being "for poverty" or "for discrimination" even though no one actually is. The solutions, therefore, aren't discussed, because one sides affirmative action is for diversity and freedom and helping people, while another side argues it's racist. There's no room for a middle ground where sensible people can agree upon something. Even Peterson himself falls in that trap conflating groups with individuals. It's very much possible to be an individual affected by group dynamics as much as it's possible for a group dynamic to be hindered by individuals (especially in the hypersaturated dialog of the information generation; where quite literally tweets by individuals can harm a group and vice versa).
 

Dabaus

Banned
Is this the debate where Dyson calls Peterson an "angry, white man?" It popped up in my youtube feed and decided to watch to see how Peterson would Respond. Quite Frankly if this how the left plans on going about doing things get ready for 4 more years of Trump and if the GOP were not completely incompetent then id anticipate their majorities to expand further. Europe meanwhile will continue voting for anti EU Candidates if not full blown nationalist autocrats. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, attacking the majority of the county as "angry and white" in an incendiary manner isn't going to work out the way Dyson wants it to.
 

RubxQub

φίλω ἐξεχέγλουτον καί ψευδολόγον οὖκ εἰπόν
What's everyone's beef with Peterson in general? I'm largely removed from all this "Hitler lovers love Peterson" stuff that I see get thrown around, but the guy seems to make points grounded in research and study and observation and doesn't seem to mix words.

Like I'm not even seeing how he's viewed as a controversial figure. It looks to me like he's being given labels that don't actually apply to what he says, he's just really easy to create headlines off of.

Am I not doing enough research or are there some talks of his I haven't seen where he's just going off the deep end being a total prick with no factual basis for his perspectives?

Like, am I a closeted Nazi or not for liking the guy...? That's really what I'm after here. :oops:
 

LordOfChaos

Member
They only seem non-controversial to us, and to a lot of people who don't get what all the fuss is about, because people have been asleep at the wheel when it comes to just how twisted mainstream young/millennial culture has become. And since millennials are the golden goose for both mainstream media and social media, naturally it reflects this.


Exactly how I feel, and I'm a millennial lol. It's like the ground shifted under my feet overnight. I used to think some of the hyper-PC stuff was mostly relegated to memes, but more and more my peers are falling into that stuff, which I realized on getting a DM storm declaring the death of gender at replying to a 'did you just assume my job' joke with 'did you just assume my assumption?'.

Like, look, I'm pretty left leaning, open minded, and easy going, I'm defensive of trans rights, gay rights, and if you politely ask me to call you whatever, I'll probably do it. But at some point...Jokes is jokes, and I'm 0% convinced anyone would actually be hurt by a joke which only tangentially references it in a slim way regarding hyper outrage at assumptions. So if no one would have been hurt by it, at that point...I'd have to just think it's vapid virtue signaling.
 
Last edited:
What's everyone's beef with Peterson in general? I'm largely removed from all this "Hitler lovers love Peterson" stuff that I see get thrown around, but the guy seems to make points grounded in research and study and observation and doesn't seem to mix words.

Like I'm not even seeing how he's viewed as a controversial figure. It looks to me like he's being given labels that don't actually apply to what he says, he's just really easy to create headlines off of.

Am I not doing enough research or are there some talks of his I haven't seen where he's just going off the deep end being a total prick with no factual basis for his perspectives?

Like, am I a closeted Nazi or not for liking the guy...? That's really what I'm after here. :oops:
People hear what he says and don't like it. It's not that anyone is providing information on what is incorrect about his viewpoints. It's not liking what he says.

"White privilege doesn't exist. It's majority privilege. Communities that are majority white will extend to whites majority privilege." Response : Fuck you white privilege exists you racist fuck.
 
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.

Isn't this, by definition, victim blaming?
 

Mahadev

Member
One of the worst debates I've ever watched. Without Dyson the debate might have been decent, that dude doesn't know what a debate is and was constantly derailing it with his awful talking points and fallacies. It seems to me that he didn't follow the flow of the debate, he just had a number of talking points and insults written down he just had to mention. Peterson needs to stop equating authoritarian communism with all forms of socialism btw or at least clarify his position.
 

Super Mario

Banned
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.

What does this conversation have anything to do with frequency of doctor visits? That has nothing to do with the blatant discrimination and double-standards. Men are 60% more likely to die from cancer. Prostate cancer kills more than breast cancer does. However, we don't get corporate sponsorships, commercials, logos, events, etc for prostate cancer. Not that we want it. It's all about pandering to women. Breast cancer awareness month makes me cringe for that purpose. Don't get me wrong, it's great to hear about the survivors. Why is it just about one type of cancer? Why don't we have cancer awareness month? Again, think of it from both sides. What if we only had a men's health month? Wouldn't fly.

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.

Your first line alone is why we should bring this conversation full circle again, and you should listen to people like Peterson more. Relying on society for determining gender roles is a fake issue we've created. Biology and psychology are the only times our lust for "science" takes a back seat.

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.

Health care is ridiculously expensive. I'm younger and won't go either, unless something feels seriously wrong. The cost is certainly a top-issue, but not the same thing as patriarchy.

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?

Do you have data that proves denial in spite of a higher credit score? I don't remember that part. I do remember a housing crisis almost 10 years ago now. How do you feel the US did in properly qualifying people for mortgages?

Minorities are not being sent to prison for drug use. Not even close. If you are getting your news from Bernie Sanders, I would find a different source. Nearly all drug-related sentencing is related to distribution. The rare possession charges are often from pleading down from a higher charge.

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

I'll agree with one thing, it is men that created a lot of this. It's all about pandering. This is a country created by, and ran by white men. Think about it, how else would you REALLY energize the crowds to vote against the interests of the white men if there wasn't all of the victimization? Even though there are higher powers organizing this, it is just as equally of a shame by those who don't see through it.
 

joshcryer

it's ok, you're all right now
What does this conversation have anything to do with frequency of doctor visits? That has nothing to do with the blatant discrimination and double-standards. Men are 60% more likely to die from cancer. Prostate cancer kills more than breast cancer does.

This is misleading though. I think what's often missing from these arguments is the real world implications of why things are the way they are. Look at the graphs and try to figure it out:

deaths_crude_f_breast_M14.png


deaths_crude_prostate_M14.png




However, we don't get corporate sponsorships, commercials, logos, events, etc for prostate cancer. Not that we want it. It's all about pandering to women.

Now why do you think this is? I don't want to make my argument which to me seems self-evident, I'll just let you speculate. Could there be a real reason that this is happening and it is not "pandering"? (Note the graphs have different scales, and no it's not to pander or manipulate the data, there is a reason for it. Think about the impact the data implies on the human quality of life for the given families represented by the data.)

Nearly all drug-related sentencing is related to distribution. The rare possession charges are often from pleading down from a higher charge.

I don't want to serve a "whataboutist" response here but check this out. I can concede that non-whites disproportionately distribute drugs. But that demand has to come from somewhere. Which is why CA's new drug laws regarding possession allow effectively street distribution amounts. Sure you'll get busted for a brick of coke but a couple of baggies won't get you anything more than a ticket. That's how it should be.
 
...
He believes that calling someone by what in their own estimation is the wrong gender-pronoun doesn't constitute hate-speech, and he believes that hate-speech laws, in general, are morally wrong and ineffective at achieving their goal.
...
He is just against the government mandating what words you should use. But he has no problem with the government telling you what words you shouldn't use. For example, baning the n word or f word is ok for him, because it's basic education to not use those words to refer to anybody. If somebody doesn't want to be refered as "he" nor "she", he is also ok with it.

What Peterson is against, is the government creating words by law and mandating you to use them. Literally forcing you to use a new pronoun (zhe, for example). This is what he is opposing.
 

Dunki

Member
Boy, you love dropping this stat don't you? Care to link to the study? I've heard it dropped often enough, like to take a look at it.
I am not home but if people have not posted the stats I will post them later. But also he is correct it from this stat however I do not know where the 39 comes from. If you look at the offenders it’s 52.5 percent.
 
35.9% is still more than 50% of murders in which the offender's race is known.
So... IF 64% of the murders aren't committed by black people, black people are still the problem? Also, to use the school shooter defender logic, doesn't the fact that ONLY 17,000 people out of 324,000,000 people( 0.01%) get murdered mean that murder really isn't something Americans shouldn't be worried about? Or is murder only a problem when black people do it?
 
Last edited:
I am not home but if people have not posted the stats I will post them later. But also he is correct it from this stat however I do not know where the 39 comes from. If you look at the offenders it’s 52.5 percent.
If my math is right, it's actually 53.5 of the murders in which the offender's race is known (6,095/11,390).
 

Ke0

Member
This is absolute nonsense. How narcissistic do you have to be to think that men being forced into being the breadwinner is about holding women down and reinforcing “the patriarchy”? It’s not always about you.

Next time a world war breaks out and they need to reactivate the draft, you’ll be encouraging women to be at the front of the line, yeah? For equality?

Because it literally was? In many countries women weren't even allowed to work because their place was figuratively and in many cases literally "in the kitchen" when women were allowed to work many of them could only get positions as what?....nannies/housekeepers/secretaries/assistants to men. Women were deemed by society to be dainty and shouldn't get dirty working (one could argue the religious roots set this path in motion). That men did everything better. Women's entire role up until suffrage act and others was to be a wife and take care of kids. I don't know how anyone can argue that that doesn't reinforce patriarchy and hold women down. Hell women weren't even allowed to vote, and before that own land on their own. Vast majority of households in the early 1900s had one source of income, the husband's. Women frequently barred from owning businesses. Marriage was a way of women being conferred some semblance of power and wealth via their husband because it was nearly impossible for a single ladies to gain it themselves, they didn't have nearly the amount of avenues that men had.

This is why so many of your conservatives talk about women being lost, the morales being off, blaming it on women, sexual liberation and other nonsense. Men being upset at women's freedom in being able to choose partners because they have their own sources of income and no longer need to rely on me. You would think men would be excited about this because literally relieves the pressure from us to be the provider for a family, once again especially because wages have basically stagnanted, but the cost of living has increased ten fold, and in the case of America add healthcare on top of that.

Why in the hell do you think women fought so hard to have those same benefits and rights as men exactly? Or are you one of those people who think women asking for equality was oppression against men?

As for your second post, if women want to fight on the frontlines, then sure. Even your military is fine with women registering if your military is okay with it, then so am I not that I have a say anyway.

So different treatment based on statistics of the group is ok?

Are you sure about that?

If so I guess you are 100% fine with COPs doing targeted stop-and-search based on nothing else than skin colour?

Your country was pretty much fine with Stop and Frisk even as black people complained, which makes sense it's the "others" being targeted. And people were adamant stop and frisk stay in place even after statistics came out that actually showed....we (white people) were more likely to be holding...oops.

Likewise I imagine if women were being charged more for car insurance you and most men wouldn't care that such a thing was implemented. Most people don't care that insurance works like that in and of itself, they're simply upset it's being used against them (in this case men) specifically. If this was targeted specifically to black men, you wouldn't even flinch.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom