Jordan Peterson Thread.

[Steve0]

I could ask the same of you.

You could and I'd answer, 'unfortunately yes'.

Disagree. No one yet has posted anything which would make one fairly perceive JP as racist, transphobic and I assume you wanted to put also misogynist in there.

Well ok.

Didn't you read my replies? I haven't used any of those words.

You accuse people of being subjective and having this cloud their judgement. Not those words but your line of attack was similar.

You're misunderstanding or misrepresenting JP, which is often the problem. Did you read my reply where I quote what he actually said about white privilege? He doesn't deny it.

He denies its impact, he reduces it to irrelevancy. Which is actually worse.

Did you not read my reply to that earlier? I said that was a thought experiment. He does it all the time in his lectures. And again you're misrepresenting him. Nowhere has he said, even as thought experiment, that it's because women are desperate for sex.

Thought experiment eh? Basing that on anything or than embarrassed desperation?

People have no right in general to compel other people to use their preferred broken rules of the English language.

You'd think differently if everyone referred to you as 'she'.

You're entitled to your opinion, but your views are in the minority.

Ok.

Where did I argue these accusations have been plucked from the ether? I've argued these accusations are unfounded. And clearly they still are if your very own paraphrasing of some things JP has said is the best 'evidence' you have.

Well it actually takes some doing to not even recognise those quotes as indicators of misogyny, etc. I mean your counter argument to one of them was that, for some reason, you reckon it was a thought experiment. There's a confession in there tbh.

Accusing someone of being racist, transphobic and misogynist are really hefty accusations: they can ruin someone's career. People are throwing these terms around like they mean nothing anymore. It's cheapening language, so that the next time a genuine racist, transphobic and misogynist comes around, he will be labelled with cheapened language.

It's like the cries of "Nazi!" to someone who has different opinions on immigration. The insult has lost all meaning. Which is a shame as genuine Nazis are still out there, but their horrendous views have been cheapened by misuse of language. It becomes easier to brush off.

And I've said it a few times already...this is why Trump got elected.

Trump got elected due to America's weird electoral college.

 

[dholliday]

Well, yes, a lot of material. And you seem to ignore every example given, with at most, "I disagree with that," and then it's forgotten. It's like you refuse to see the forest for the trees, mate. lol

I disagreed with his godly word salad. How did those comments make JP a racist, transphobic or hater of women?

What else? I disagreed religion is vital to quit smoking. How does JP believing so make him a racist, transphobic or hater of women?

Who is refusing here to think clearly?

 

[Aqui1a]

That's because you're posting VICE's edited version, which has been criticised for attempting to show JP in a negative light. Editing interview answers without context is a proven method to paint things a certain way.

The context of what he was saying can be heard in the extended version:



Do you know what misogynist actually means? Language is important. If you do, and you continue to label JP that on the basis of this VICE interview, then you are seeing hatred of women where no sensible observers are seeing any.

Why do you think that is?

It changes nothing lol

 

[dholliday]

Damn, if only I'd posted my comment a few minutes earlier. Oh well, you get the picture.

You just did it when posting the edited VICE interview instead of the full one. That's misrepresenting.

 

[Aqui1a]

I disagreed with his godly word salad. How did those comments make JP a racist, transphobic or hater of women?

What else? I disagreed religion is vital to quit smoking. How does JP believing so make him a racist, transphobic or hater of women?

Who is refusing here to think clearly?

Wow, strawman much? Where did I say those specific comments made him racist, transphobic or misogynistic? Next time, you could ask me starting with, "So what you're saying is..." lol

 

[Aqui1a]

You just did it when posting the edited VICE interview instead of the full one. That's misrepresenting.

Excuse me? I posted that in my first proper response to you, shortly after you accused someone of not understanding Jordan Peterson.

 

[dholliday]

Well it actually takes some doing to not even recognise those quotes as indicators of misogyny, etc. I mean your counter argument to one of them was that, for some reason, you reckon it was a thought experiment. There's a confession in there tbh.
.

Misogyny is the hatred of women. To be accused of being that is hefty. As I already said in previous replies, let's for argument's sake say it wasn't a thought experiment, that these were JP's real views. It's still not misogyny. It's arguably sexist-stereotyping. People are cheapening language, and that's half the problem.

 

[Steve0]

Misogyny is the hatred of women. To be accused of being that is hefty. As I already said in previous replies, let's for argument's sake say it wasn't a thought experiment, that these were JP's real views. It's still not misogyny. It's arguably sexist-stereotyping. People are cheapening language, and that's half the problem.

The problem is people deifying a limited intellect and coming unstuck when they try to defend the indefensible.

 

[dholliday]

Wow, strawman much? Where did I say those specific comments made him racist, transphobic or misogynistic? Next time, you could ask me starting with, "So what you're saying is..." lol

You are posting words but you're not saying anything.

Here's your previous comment:

Well, yes, a lot of material. And you seem to ignore every example given, with at most, "I disagree with that," and then it's forgotten. It's like you refuse to see the forest for the trees, mate. lol

When you quoted my "I disagree with that,", it was concerning those things you're now calling a strawman (you brought them up yourself).

But you're referring "a lot of material" to mean the supposed many "horrific" things he's said which justifies Durham Council calling him a racist, transphobe & hater of women. See your post again:

As for the Durham thing, I'm not sure. He has said some horrific things in the past, like the women wearing high-heels and make-up at work. There's so much material, it's hard to pick other relevant examples heh... But yeah, I'd rather people were more careful about throwing those words about in general.

What you are doing is being intellectually dishonest. You continue to fail to provide any more examples, despite there apparently being "so much material" of "horrific things" he has said.

 

[dholliday]

The problem is people deifying a limited intellect and coming unstuck when they try to defend the indefensible.

You're missing the point. I'm not defending what he said. I'm saying what he said wasn't misogynistic. I'm not inflating what he said to be something worse than it was in order to destroy his reputation.


Ok, so you think it's indefensible to suggest some women wear high-heels & make-up at work to feel sexually attractive. Fine, if you want to police opinion in that way, that's your thing.

It's not misogynistic. And other people would argue there's a discussion there, that some women really do those things for those reasons.

It's not a discussion which interests me, personally I see no harm in women wearing those things for whatever reason they choose. If men are arseholes because of it, that's on them, not on the woman. JP may put out a view it's partly on the woman.

Is that part indefensible? You can say that, sure. Unfair? That's what I'd say. Misogynistic? No.

 

[Aqui1a]

You are posting words but you're not saying anything.

Here's your previous comment:



When you quoted my "I disagree with that,", it was concerning those things you're now calling a strawman (you brought them up yourself).

But you're referring "a lot of material" to mean the supposed many "horrific" things he's said which justifies Durham Council calling him a racist, transphobe & hater of women. See your post again:




What you are doing is being intellectually dishonest. You continue to fail to provide any more examples, despite there apparently being "so much material" of "horrific things" he has said.

Actually, no. I was referring to you disregarding the examples I'd provided of Peterson saying or doing ridiculous things, with you only stating that you disagree, but seemingly failing to acknowledge that Peterson has a habit of doing this. I'm afraid you've misinterpreted 'lots of material' as me saying that it's entirely racist/transphobic/misogynistic, when instead I was simply saying that, in general, there are a lot of examples - similar to the ones I'd already posted - that I might be able to pick from.

 

[dholliday]

Actually, no. I was referring to you disregarding the examples I'd provided of Peterson saying or doing ridiculous things, with you only stating that you disagree, but seemingly failing to acknowledge that Peterson has a habit of doing this. I'm afraid you've misinterpreted 'lots of material' as me saying that it's entirely racist/transphobic/misogynistic, when instead I was simply saying that, in general, there are a lot of examples - similar to the ones I'd already posted - that I might be able to pick from.

 

[Aqui1a]

I've already provided the video of the VICE interview with Peterson, to which you responded with a longer version which, in my opinion, makes him look even more clueless and dishonest (and how many times can he vaguely ask a question in an effort to make a point in such a way that he can't be pinned down on it - the coward).

So you want more examples from me now, about this Durham letter, which I didn't bring up in the first place? haha How many more examples do you want? And will you ever question why Peterson says so many unbelievably stupid things?

 

[dholliday]

So you want more examples from me now, about this Durham letter, which I didn't bring up in the first place? haha How many more examples do you want? And will you ever question why Peterson says so many unbelievably stupid things?

Ähm...more than one would be grand. We've done this high-heels one to death.

What else?

 

[Aqui1a]

Ähm...more than one would be grand. We've done this high-heels one to death.

What else?

The fact he refuses to accept a transgender person's preferred pronoun? Or how he dishonestly makes out that the C-16 bill will infringe on free speech, even though it won't?