Jordan B Peterson Channel 4 Interview

rick_chasey

drlodge wrote:

I'm a huge JBP fan by the way, what he says is anything but bull sh1t.

Any examples of things you're particularly fond of?

drlodge

Rick Chasey wrote:

drlodge wrote:

I'm a huge JBP fan by the way, what he says is anything but bull sh1t.

Any examples of things you're particularly fond of?

Umm, all of it. His arguments are very well thought through and backed up with evidence. Very compelling.

rick_chasey

Like what?

drlodge

Like all of it. Which part of "all" do you not understand?

rick_chasey

I'm asking for an example?

drlodge

Take any bit you like...which bit did you think was complete bull sh1t for example?

rick_chasey

drlodge wrote:

Take any bit you like...which bit did you think was complete bull sh1t for example?

Well I took a brief scan of his "Identity politics and the Marxist lie of white privilege."

I mean, I can take issue with just the title, let alone the content. I haven't managed to get through more than 3 mins for now, as y'know, this polenta won't eat itself.

I remember reading about his proclamations about the Bill C-16 in Canada, where I think he says it was going to make referring to people by the wrong chosen gender pronoun was going to be made illegal, when a bunch of lawyers, including the ones who helped draft the bill, said that it, bluntly, wouldn't.

I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, he's said because it's socially unacceptable to hit women men are undermined.

I think this is the quote

“Here’s the problem: I know how to stand up to a man who’s unfairly trespassing against me, and the reason I know that is because the parameters for my resistance are quite well-defined … We talk, we argue, we push and then it becomes physical. Right? If we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse, we know what the next step is, ok? That’s forbidden in discourse with women. And so I don’t think that men can control crazy women.”

That's a starter for 10.

shortfall

Can I ask Rick Chasey, is your opposition to Peterson based entirely on what he said in response to Cathy Newman's particular line of questioning in the Ch 4 interview, or is it based on what you've heard and read said about him in the media and on social media? Or are you quite familiar with his work having read some of his books and listened to his lectures and so on?

I was unaware of him before this now infamous exchange but I have now started watching some of his stuff on YouTube and I have ordered his latest book. What I liked about him was that he was very precise with his words and language which made Newman's strawmen and attempts to twist his arguments and misrepresent him so obvious. It's also refreshing to see a public figure say things which might be unpopular and controversial with such conviction. In both these traits he reminds me of another person I greatly admire who is Peter Hitchens (someone else who is often misrepresented and derided by the Intelligentsia). I think Peterson is an interesting and thoughtful commentator and I'm glad Channel 4 News gave him a platform. I'm sure I'm going to be fascinated by his book.

rick_chasey

I mean, curiously,that he reserves the right to pick whatever gender pronoun he wants in the context of his whining about post-modern gender constructs is, err, interesting to say the least.

rick_chasey

Shortfall wrote:

Can I ask Rick Chasey, is your opposition to Peterson based entirely on what he said in response to Cathy Newman's particular line of questioning in the Ch 4 interview, or is it based on what you've read said about him in the media and on social media? Or are you very familiar with his work having read some of his books and listened to his lectures and so on?

I was unaware of him before this now infamous exchange but I have now started watching some of his stuff on YouTube and I have ordered his latest book. What I liked about him was that he was very precise with his words and language which made Newman's strawmen and attempts to twist his arguments and misrepresent him so obvious. It's also refreshing to see a public figure say things which might be unpopular and controversial with such conviction. In both these traits he reminds me of another person I greatly admire who is Peter Hitchens (someone else who is often misrepresented and derided by the Intelligentsia). I think Peterson is an interesting and thoughtful commentator and I'm glad Channel 4 News gave him a platform and I'm sure I'm going to be fascinated by his book.

First I've heard of him was this thread.

I find Peter Hitchens one of the most contemptible people I have ever seen speak on TV.

shortfall

Rick Chasey wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Can I ask Rick Chasey, is your opposition to Peterson based entirely on what he said in response to Cathy Newman's particular line of questioning in the Ch 4 interview, or is it based on what you've read said about him in the media and on social media? Or are you very familiar with his work having read some of his books and listened to his lectures and so on?

I was unaware of him before this now infamous exchange but I have now started watching some of his stuff on YouTube and I have ordered his latest book. What I liked about him was that he was very precise with his words and language which made Newman's strawmen and attempts to twist his arguments and misrepresent him so obvious. It's also refreshing to see a public figure say things which might be unpopular and controversial with such conviction. In both these traits he reminds me of another person I greatly admire who is Peter Hitchens (someone else who is often misrepresented and derided by the Intelligentsia). I think Peterson is an interesting and thoughtful commentator and I'm glad Channel 4 News gave him a platform and I'm sure I'm going to be fascinated by his book.

First I've heard of him was this thread.

I find Peter Hitchens one of the most contemptible people I have ever seen speak on TV.

I suspected as much. He appears to have quite a large body of work stretching over many years. But you've picked out a few quotes of his you don't like and seem to want to dismiss his message based on that. It also doesn't surprise me that you dislike Peter Hitchens so intensely, it fits in with what you're saying about Jordan Peterson.

drlodge

Rick Chasey wrote:

Well I took a brief scan of his "Identity politics and the Marxist lie of white privilege."

So none of this is from the TV program that we're discussing

Rick Chasey wrote:

I mean, I can take issue with just the title, let alone the content. I haven't managed to get through more than 3 mins for now, as y'know, this polenta won't eat itself.

No reason given for your issues with this, so that's no argument.

Rick Chasey wrote:

I remember reading about his proclamations about the Bill C-16 in Canada, where I think he says it was going to make referring to people by the wrong chosen gender pronoun was going to be made illegal, when a bunch of lawyers, including the ones who helped draft the bill, said that it, bluntly, wouldn't.

So there's some level of disagreement as to the extent to which refusal to use someone else's preferred gender pronouns is against the law and if so, what sort of punishment might ensue. It's pretty clear to me, and many other including lawyers, that it will break the law and result in fines, "education/training" or imprisonment.

Rick Chasey wrote:

I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, he's said because it's socially unacceptable to hit women men are undermined.

I think this is the quote

“Here’s the problem: I know how to stand up to a man who’s unfairly trespassing against me, and the reason I know that is because the parameters for my resistance are quite well-defined … We talk, we argue, we push and then it becomes physical. Right? If we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse, we know what the next step is, ok? That’s forbidden in discourse with women. And so I don’t think that men can control crazy women.”

Not heard of that one...but sounds reasonable to consider men as equals to women, no? Don't really have an opinion on this as I really don't understand the point that is being made in this selective quote.

rick_chasey

Look, it's not hard to see from the language he uses what he thinks of women, by and large.

Are any of his supporters going to stand by him lamenting that men can't hit women anymore?

Or that men ought to be "controlling" women in the first place?

drlodge

Rick Chasey wrote:

Look, it's not hard to see from the language he uses what he thinks of women, by and large.

Are any of his supporters going to stand by him lamenting that men can't hit women anymore?

Or that men ought to be "controlling" women in the first place?

You're Cathy Newmansplaining there.

What language is he using? What do you think he thinks of women by what language? Be specific.

Of course men shouldn't hit women, but women shouldn't hit men either.

And of course men should not be controlling women.

Really, I have no idea what your point is let alone the reasons behind it.

shortfall

Rick Chasey wrote:

Look, it's not hard to see from the language he uses what he thinks of women, by and large.

Are any of his supporters going to stand by him lamenting that men can't hit women anymore?

Or that men ought to be "controlling" women in the first place?

https://youtu.be/KIk6KIjonk4

Here's the clip which gives some context. If you think he wants to return to a time when men beat women then maybe you went to the Cathy Newman school of arguing.

drlodge

So what you're saying is that JBP enjoys beating women?

mamba80

Shortfall wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Look, it's not hard to see from the language he uses what he thinks of women, by and large.

Are any of his supporters going to stand by him lamenting that men can't hit women anymore?

Or that men ought to be "controlling" women in the first place?

https://youtu.be/KIk6KIjonk4

Here's the clip which gives some context. If you think he wants to return to a time when men beat women then maybe you went to the Cathy Newman school of arguing.

Very surprising he thinks men in (face to face) conversation would have zero respect for someone who wouldnt hit them and that its this underlying threat that keeps it all civil...... but i guess if you believe that then yeah sure standing up to a so called crazy women will be problematic.

He seems to be suggesting that we are all base animals and have no higher emotion.

rick_chasey

Shortfall wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Look, it's not hard to see from the language he uses what he thinks of women, by and large.

Are any of his supporters going to stand by him lamenting that men can't hit women anymore?

Or that men ought to be "controlling" women in the first place?

https://youtu.be/KIk6KIjonk4

Here's the clip which gives some context. If you think he wants to return to a time when men beat women then maybe you went to the Cathy Newman school of arguing.

"“I am defenceless against that kind of female insanity because the techniques I would use against a man who employs those tactics are forbidden to me.”

What does he mean by 'female' insanity? I didn’t realise there were types of insanity exclusive to and defined by people’s gender. Doubley so when it’s referring to a woman who is accusing him of things he doesn’t agree with. That’s not ‘crazy’ that’s a difference of opinion. I’m assuming that’s not a psychological term.

Furthermore, he is saying here he feels the only way he can defend himself against her is by using violence. “I am defenceless against [her]….because the techniques I would use against a man [violence, in this context]”

I don’t think he’s saying that as a good thing, do you? Or are you reading it as mere commentary?

I think the assumption that anyone who will not resort to violence has ‘no respect’ is also wildly off. I mean, massively off. Do you guys disagree with that?

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Can I ask Rick Chasey, is your opposition to Peterson based entirely on what he said in response to Cathy Newman's particular line of questioning in the Ch 4 interview, or is it based on what you've read said about him in the media and on social media? Or are you very familiar with his work having read some of his books and listened to his lectures and so on?

I was unaware of him before this now infamous exchange but I have now started watching some of his stuff on YouTube and I have ordered his latest book. What I liked about him was that he was very precise with his words and language which made Newman's strawmen and attempts to twist his arguments and misrepresent him so obvious. It's also refreshing to see a public figure say things which might be unpopular and controversial with such conviction. In both these traits he reminds me of another person I greatly admire who is Peter Hitchens (someone else who is often misrepresented and derided by the Intelligentsia). I think Peterson is an interesting and thoughtful commentator and I'm glad Channel 4 News gave him a platform and I'm sure I'm going to be fascinated by his book.

First I've heard of him was this thread.

I find Peter Hitchens one of the most contemptible people I have ever seen speak on TV.

Are we talking about the right Hitchens here? Only one of them doesn't really speak on TV much these days.

Being contemptible doesn't mean everything you say is wrong. Paul Dacre played a big part in the Stephen Lawrence case not disappearing into obscurity as just another murdered kid.

Equally, I'd be very suspicious of agreeing with everything someone says - it suggests they are pandering to your prejudices.

I think there probably are some insights in what he's said, although it's difficult to pick them out of the encompassing noise. But there's some pretty suspect stuff as well. Defenseless against those tactics? You just walk away.

shortfall

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Can I ask Rick Chasey, is your opposition to Peterson based entirely on what he said in response to Cathy Newman's particular line of questioning in the Ch 4 interview, or is it based on what you've read said about him in the media and on social media? Or are you very familiar with his work having read some of his books and listened to his lectures and so on?

I was unaware of him before this now infamous exchange but I have now started watching some of his stuff on YouTube and I have ordered his latest book. What I liked about him was that he was very precise with his words and language which made Newman's strawmen and attempts to twist his arguments and misrepresent him so obvious. It's also refreshing to see a public figure say things which might be unpopular and controversial with such conviction. In both these traits he reminds me of another person I greatly admire who is Peter Hitchens (someone else who is often misrepresented and derided by the Intelligentsia). I think Peterson is an interesting and thoughtful commentator and I'm glad Channel 4 News gave him a platform and I'm sure I'm going to be fascinated by his book.

First I've heard of him was this thread.

I find Peter Hitchens one of the most contemptible people I have ever seen speak on TV.

Are we talking about the right Hitchens here? Only one of them doesn't really speak on TV much these days.

Being contemptible doesn't mean everything you say is wrong. Paul Dacre played a big part in the Stephen Lawrence case not disappearing into obscurity as just another murdered kid.

Equally, I'd be very suspicious of agreeing with everything someone says - it suggests they are pandering to your prejudices.

I think there probably are some insights in what he's said, although it's difficult to pick them out of the encompassing noise. But there's some pretty suspect stuff as well. Defenseless against those tactics? You just walk away.

Well I'm definitely talking about Peter and not Christopher. What I would say is that they are (were in the case of Christopher) both possessed with a brilliant minds and independence of thought and both are (were) brilliant orators. In the case of Christopher however despite his gifts and undoubted brilliance he often arrived at solutions to the big questions that I couldn't agree with. He backed the Iraq war for instance, even after no WMD's were discovered and the country was turned into a lawless cesspit following the slaughter of thousands of innocent people. That's not to say I agree with everything Peter has to say either but I admire his spirit and refusal to adhere to conventional wisdom.

rjsterry

C Hitchens definitely had some interesting things to say. From what I have seen of him, I am less convinced about his younger brother.

rick_chasey

Remember an excruciating P Htichens debate with (recovering drug addict) Matt Perry on drug addiction and whether it ought to be considered a disease or not.

I remember thinking he treated Matt particularly badly.

shortfall

Rick Chasey wrote:

Remember an excruciating P Htichens debate with (recovering drug addict) Matt Perry on drug addiction and whether it ought to be considered a disease or not.

I remember thinking he treated Matt particularly badly.

Yeah it was Newsnight. Did you want Hitchens to indulge the spoilt, multi millionaire actor who had stupefied himself on recreational and prescription drugs and alcohol for years? Hitchens was making the point that Perry cured the so called disease of drug addiction with free will and abstinence and his whole point was that addiction cannot then be categorised as a disease (or not as we know it) because you can't fix yourself of say cancer or pneumonia with will power.

shortfall

https://youtu.be/CDtIZZiySgA Matthew Perry vs Peter Hitchens
Please direct any complaints or criticisms to Peter Hitchens in person via his blog or Twitter account, I'm not here to answer for him.

rick_chasey

Shortfall wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Remember an excruciating P Htichens debate with (recovering drug addict) Matt Perry on drug addiction and whether it ought to be considered a disease or not.

I remember thinking he treated Matt particularly badly.

Yeah it was Newsnight. Did you want Hitchens to indulge the spoilt, multi millionaire actor who had stupefied himself on recreational and prescription drugs and alcohol for years? Hitchens was making the point that Perry cured the so called disease of drug addiction with free will and abstinence and his whole point was that addiction cannot then be categorised as a disease (or not as we know it) because you can't fix yourself of say cancer or pneumonia with will power.

He also called drug addiction a 'fantasy'.

rick_chasey

Shortfall wrote:

https://youtu.be/CDtIZZiySgA
Please direct any complaints or criticisms to Peter Hitchens in person via his blog or Twitter account, I'm not here to answer for him.

Haha, I literally did after that!

rjsterry

Shortfall wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Remember an excruciating P Htichens debate with (recovering drug addict) Matt Perry on drug addiction and whether it ought to be considered a disease or not.

I remember thinking he treated Matt particularly badly.

Yeah it was Newsnight. Did you want Hitchens to indulge the spoilt, multi millionaire actor who had stupefied himself on recreational and prescription drugs and alcohol for years? Hitchens was making the point that Perry cured the so called disease of drug addiction with free will and abstinence and his whole point was that addiction cannot then be categorised as a disease (or not as we know it) because you can't fix yourself of say cancer or pneumonia with will power.

So anything that does not require medication is not a a disease? You can naturally recover/survive all manner of diseases without any medical intervention are they not diseases either? I think that confirms my previous thoughts.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Remember an excruciating P Htichens debate with (recovering drug addict) Matt Perry on drug addiction and whether it ought to be considered a disease or not.

I remember thinking he treated Matt particularly badly.

Yeah it was Newsnight. Did you want Hitchens to indulge the spoilt, multi millionaire actor who had stupefied himself on recreational and prescription drugs and alcohol for years? Hitchens was making the point that Perry cured the so called disease of drug addiction with free will and abstinence and his whole point was that addiction cannot then be categorised as a disease (or not as we know it) because you can't fix yourself of say cancer or pneumonia with will power.

So anything that does not require medication is not a a disease? You can naturally recover/survive all manner of diseases without any medical intervention are they not diseases either? I think that confirms my previous thoughts.

If treating it as a disease helps improve the situation, does it even matter?

shortfall

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Remember an excruciating P Htichens debate with (recovering drug addict) Matt Perry on drug addiction and whether it ought to be considered a disease or not.

I remember thinking he treated Matt particularly badly.

Yeah it was Newsnight. Did you want Hitchens to indulge the spoilt, multi millionaire actor who had stupefied himself on recreational and prescription drugs and alcohol for years? Hitchens was making the point that Perry cured the so called disease of drug addiction with free will and abstinence and his whole point was that addiction cannot then be categorised as a disease (or not as we know it) because you can't fix yourself of say cancer or pneumonia with will power.

So anything that does not require medication is not a a disease? You can naturally recover/survive all manner of diseases without any medical intervention are they not diseases either? I think that confirms my previous thoughts.

Well as I say, please feel free to argume the point with PH himself on his Blog and Twitter where he will engage with you. What I would say however is that Matthew Perry must have actively and wilfully taken drugs and over indulged in alcohol against all good advice from his friends, family and the medical profession and he probably thoroughly enjoyed doing so at the beginning. He certainly wasn't a passive victim like a child who contracts leukemia through no fault of their own. He also then went on to "cure" his "addiction" with abstinence and force of will. Try doing that with cancer.

Ben6899

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Remember an excruciating P Htichens debate with (recovering drug addict) Matt Perry on drug addiction and whether it ought to be considered a disease or not.

I remember thinking he treated Matt particularly badly.

Yeah it was Newsnight. Did you want Hitchens to indulge the spoilt, multi millionaire actor who had stupefied himself on recreational and prescription drugs and alcohol for years? Hitchens was making the point that Perry cured the so called disease of drug addiction with free will and abstinence and his whole point was that addiction cannot then be categorised as a disease (or not as we know it) because you can't fix yourself of say cancer or pneumonia with will power.

So anything that does not require medication is not a a disease? You can naturally recover/survive all manner of diseases without any medical intervention are they not diseases either? I think that confirms my previous thoughts.

Well as I say, please feel free to argume the point with PH himself on his Blog and Twitter where he will engage with you. What I would say however is that Matthew Perry must have actively and wilfully taken drugs and over indulged in alcohol against all good advice from his friends, family and the medical profession and he probably thoroughly enjoyed doing so at the beginning. He certainly wasn't a passive victim like a child who contracts leukemia through no fault of their own. He also then went on to "cure" his "addiction" with abstinence and force of will. Try doing that with cancer.

You're dangerously close to showing a distinct lack of empathy, the way you talk about someone's drug and alcohol addiction.

Just saying.