Jordan B Peterson Channel 4 Interview

shortfall

Ben6899 wrote:

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.

I have seen first hand the misery drugs can cause in a close member of my own family so lacking in empathy I am not. However, I tend to agree with Hitchens point about addiction and I am not in the camp that thinks we can help drug abusers by indulging them or pretending they're just victims of a disease beyond their control. Hitchens discusses the interview in question here and also his thoughts on addiction.

https://www.firstthings.com/article/201 ... -addiction

Ben6899

Well you have my sympathy for that.

I'm just saying that it could easily come across in that manner.

rjsterry

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.

At the risk of going further off topic, there are plenty of diseases that have a degree of self-infliction and another set that can be controlled or cured through lifestyle changes. It's an absurd distinction.

shortfall

rjsterry wrote:

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.

At the risk of going further off topic, there are plenty of diseases that have a degree of self-infliction and another set that can be controlled or cured through lifestyle changes. It's an absurd distinction.

I'm not going to argue the point on addiction because it's off topic as you say but please visit his indexed archived blog where he devotes much discussion to the subject. On the wider point, both Hitchens and Jordan Peterson are people who challenge received wisdom and ask people to think deeply about where and how they form their ideas and opinions. They are also fierce defenders of free speech. It's no surprise that they both find themselves being regularly attacked by what I would describe as the new orthodoxy. Hell, you don't even have to agree with anything they say to recognise that they have important ideas that are worthy of discussion.

rjsterry

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

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.

At the risk of going further off topic, there are plenty of diseases that have a degree of self-infliction and another set that can be controlled or cured through lifestyle changes. It's an absurd distinction.

I'm not going to argue the point on addiction because it's off topic as you say but please visit his indexed archived blog where he devotes much discussion to the subject. On the wider point, both Hitchens and Jordan Peterson are people who challenge received wisdom and ask people to think deeply about where and how they form their ideas and opinions. They are also fierce defenders of free speech. It's no surprise that they both find themselves being regularly attacked by what I would describe as the new orthodoxy. Hell, you don't even have to agree with anything they say to recognise that they have important ideas that are worthy of discussion.

I wonder if his views are a reaction to his brother's diagnosis and death from oesophageal cancer after being being a heavy drinker and smoker.

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

To what end?

What do you mean, to what end? There is a vast body of evidence to suggest that men and women have innate similarities and innate differences. This body of evidence was collected by male and female neuroscientists, psychologists, etc., they probably didn't have an end in mind when they were doing the research.

Rick Chasey wrote:

I find it curious how people will accept “science”, but any “social science” or humanities is apparently boll*cks.

In the context of a social issue, it’s very odd.

Who has made that argument? If that's directed at me, I have already said several times that there is a place for both science and social science in explaining gender disparities. I didn't spend 3 years of my life at university studying Politics just to say that social sciences are bollocks.

Rick Chasey wrote:

"“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?

First of all, you're only partially quoting him here. He doesn't say that men should have the right to hit women, he is saying that the threat of violence when one man is speaking to another can help to keep the conversation civilised.

In the video in which he makes those comments, he gives the specific example of a woman who is trying to get him banned from speaking, and accusing him of being a Nazi. He is basically saying that because men are unable to keep that sort of woman under control, other women need to do that. If you had women screaming abuse at you, you'd probably feel the same way. Like I said before, try to see this in the context of what has happened in N. American academia in the past few years, where campus mobs have shouted down, intimidated or even physically injured those they don't agree with. If a woman is contributing to this atmosphere of hostility and violence without any fear of reprisals, then you need other women to deal with that, it's much harder if you are a man.

He also said that people who wouldn't resort to violence in any circumstances get no respect. I think that's true. I don't respect men who resort to violence to settle arguments, but if a man needs to defend his family, then he's got that duty to carry out. I really hope it never happens to me, as I don't like violence, but if it's necessary I'll

By the way, here's his research record. As you can see, about half of his collaborators are women, and many of them work with him on multiple occasions, so maybe women who know him personally and actually understand his views fully have a different opinion of him to you.

finchy

By the way, this is a crazy woman.

shortfall

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

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.

At the risk of going further off topic, there are plenty of diseases that have a degree of self-infliction and another set that can be controlled or cured through lifestyle changes. It's an absurd distinction.

I'm not going to argue the point on addiction because it's off topic as you say but please visit his indexed archived blog where he devotes much discussion to the subject. On the wider point, both Hitchens and Jordan Peterson are people who challenge received wisdom and ask people to think deeply about where and how they form their ideas and opinions. They are also fierce defenders of free speech. It's no surprise that they both find themselves being regularly attacked by what I would describe as the new orthodoxy. Hell, you don't even have to agree with anything they say to recognise that they have important ideas that are worthy of discussion.

I wonder if his views are a reaction to his brother's diagnosis and death from oesophageal cancer after being being a heavy drinker and smoker.

I suspect not. He wrote about what he describes as "The Addiction Fiction" as long ago as 2008 and probably before.

sgt.pepper

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

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.

At the risk of going further off topic, there are plenty of diseases that have a degree of self-infliction and another set that can be controlled or cured through lifestyle changes. It's an absurd distinction.

I'm not going to argue the point on addiction because it's off topic as you say but please visit his indexed archived blog where he devotes much discussion to the subject. On the wider point, both Hitchens and Jordan Peterson are people who challenge received wisdom and ask people to think deeply about where and how they form their ideas and opinions. They are also fierce defenders of free speech. It's no surprise that they both find themselves being regularly attacked by what I would describe as the new orthodoxy. Hell, you don't even have to agree with anything they say to recognise that they have important ideas that are worthy of discussion.

I wonder if his views are a reaction to his brother's diagnosis and death from oesophageal cancer after being being a heavy drinker and smoker.

I suspect not. He wrote about what he describes as "The Addiction Fiction" as long ago as 2008 and probably before.

Such a cringe inducing 'debate.' Perry is useless and Hitchens unpleasant. Personally I think it's silly to label addiction a disease, but doing so doesn't negate the terrible harm that such addictions can cause.

Still unsure about full decriminalisation, but don't think throwing anyone who smokes a joint in prison is particularly helpful either.

rjsterry

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

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.

At the risk of going further off topic, there are plenty of diseases that have a degree of self-infliction and another set that can be controlled or cured through lifestyle changes. It's an absurd distinction.

I'm not going to argue the point on addiction because it's off topic as you say but please visit his indexed archived blog where he devotes much discussion to the subject. On the wider point, both Hitchens and Jordan Peterson are people who challenge received wisdom and ask people to think deeply about where and how they form their ideas and opinions. They are also fierce defenders of free speech. It's no surprise that they both find themselves being regularly attacked by what I would describe as the new orthodoxy. Hell, you don't even have to agree with anything they say to recognise that they have important ideas that are worthy of discussion.

I wonder if his views are a reaction to his brother's diagnosis and death from oesophageal cancer after being being a heavy drinker and smoker.

I suspect not. He wrote about what he describes as "The Addiction Fiction" as long ago as 2008 and probably before.

He would have been aware of his brother's drinking and smoking long before the diagnosis. Neither of them are daft enough to think he was immune to that. Call them habits or cravings if you prefer, but I'm pretty sure nobody actually likes smoking, their brains just like the effect of the nicotine.

rjsterry

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

Personally I think it's silly to label addiction a disease, but doing so doesn't negate the terrible harm that such addictions can cause.

Still unsure about full decriminalisation, but don't think throwing anyone who smokes a joint in prison is particularly helpful either.

I'm not sure what you call it matters either. I suspect a lot of it starts to block out something worse, and then becomes a crutch.
Decriminalisation won't solve all the problems as alcohol and nicotine demonstrate, but it might solve some of the problems.

rjsterry

finchy wrote:

He also said that people who wouldn't resort to violence in any circumstances get no respect. I think that's true. I don't respect men who resort to violence to settle arguments, but if a man needs to defend his family, then he's got that duty to carry out. I really hope it never happens to me, as I don't like violence, but if it's necessary I'll

I don't follow the logic of this. How does one gain respect from the threat of violence if it is never demonstrated or tested? In any case, that's just fear of getting thumped, not respect. Why is it necessary to use violence to protect your family? Just walk (or run) away if there's a real threat. If the threat is just that then ignore it.

Going back to the woman who was trying to get him banned and calling him a Nazi and him as a man not being able to control her: why on earth would he want to or need to? I just don't follow the bit about needing another woman to intervene (on his behalf). For what purpose?

finchy

rjsterry wrote:

I don't follow the logic of this. How does one gain respect from the threat of violence if it is never demonstrated or tested? In any case, that's just fear of getting thumped, not respect. Why is it necessary to use violence to protect your family? Just walk (or run) away if there's a real threat. If the threat is just that then ignore it.

It's just a hypothetical case, highly unlikely to happen to the vast majority of us. If my family were to come under threat, I couldn't really run away. I've got 2 young children and a wife who can't run as fast as me, so I'd be forced to fight whoever the threat is. Surely there are cases in which you would resort to violence?

rjsterry wrote:

Going back to the woman who was trying to get him banned and calling him a Nazi and him as a man not being able to control her: why on earth would he want to or need to? I just don't follow the bit about needing another woman to intervene (on his behalf). For what purpose?

I've just told you. It's because people on campuses in N. America are being harassed and attacked. That's why you need other people to step in and try and calm the situation down. Have you ever seen an angry mob in action? They're not going to stop just because their target politely asks them to.

rjsterry

finchy wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I don't follow the logic of this. How does one gain respect from the threat of violence if it is never demonstrated or tested? In any case, that's just fear of getting thumped, not respect. Why is it necessary to use violence to protect your family? Just walk (or run) away if there's a real threat. If the threat is just that then ignore it.

It's just a hypothetical case, highly unlikely to happen to the vast majority of us. If my family were to come under threat, I couldn't really run away. I've got 2 young children and a wife who can't run as fast as me, so I'd be forced to fight whoever the threat is. Surely there are cases in which you would resort to violence?

I meant you collectively, not legging it and leaving them to face the music. What would I do? I don't think anyone knows until the situation arises. Are there cases? Probably, but I don't see what that has to do with respect.

rjsterry wrote:

Going back to the woman who was trying to get him banned and calling him a Nazi and him as a man not being able to control her: why on earth would he want to or need to? I just don't follow the bit about needing another woman to intervene (on his behalf). For what purpose?

I've just told you. It's because people on campuses in N. America are being harassed and attacked. That's why you need other people to step in and try and calm the situation down. Have you ever seen an angry mob in action? They're not going to stop just because their target politely asks them to.

Ah, lost that bit in all the quoting. From what I've seen, the genders of the protagonists make no difference whatsoever. If there's an angry mob go elsewhere. There will be other opportunities to say what you want to say.

Ben6899

finchy wrote:

By the way, this is a crazy woman.

Fuck1ng hell, the comments under that video!

veronese68

Ben6899 wrote:

finchy wrote:

By the way, this is a crazy woman.

Fuck1ng hell, the comments under that video!

Didn't look but at the beginning of this thread it did say You Tube is particularly bad for comments. RJS said even woodworking tips generate fire and brimstone.

finchy

rjsterry wrote:

I meant you collectively, not legging it and leaving them to face the music. What would I do? I don't think anyone knows until the situation arises. Are there cases? Probably, but I don't see what that has to do with respect.

I think JP's point is that people won't respect you for being unprepared to use violence in any situation. It's not how I would phrase it myself, tbh.

rjsterry wrote:

Ah, lost that bit in all the quoting. From what I've seen, the genders of the protagonists make no difference whatsoever.

It makes a difference in how you would react to them. If it's a man, then they might hold back in the way they confront you, because of fear of your physical reaction if they go too far and you feel threatened. If it's a woman, then they might become more "crazy woman" (JP's words, not mine), because they know that a man is unlikely to threaten violence (even most men who commit domestic violence would not do so in public).

I've had it happen to me before, some woman started screaming abuse at me, threatening to kick me, just because I stopped her dog from biting my football. It was ridiculous, I'm 6'3" and fairly well-built, she was about a foot shorter than me and had obviously spent her life avoiding fresh food, and she was telling me she'd beat me up. Obviously I didn't take her seriously, but it was a pretty nasty situation because it was in public, and I didn't want other men assuming that I'd done something to her and come and start getting violent with me. That's the sort of crazy woman that needs to be kept under control.

rjsterry wrote:

If there's an angry mob go elsewhere. There will be other opportunities to say what you want to say.

That's not how democracies should work. I'm on the left of the political spectrum (I don't actually share Jordan Peterson's viewpoint on many issues, but I think he's correct on free speech), but I support the right of conservatives to express their opinions without having to fear for their physical safety. And it's not even conservatives that this small, but deranged mob target. They'll even go for other leftists who don't support their self-appointed right to determine which views are allowed to be heard and which aren't. Like I say, this is what's happening on some American campuses. Because we don't really suffer the same problem in Britain, it's probably hard for many Brits to appreciate what people like Jordan Peterson are saying.

rick_chasey

There are plenty of people with more savoury, less white supremacist/misogynist views who make a much more convincing case for free speech. (And to be clear, that’s not anti free speech. That’s just me saying what I think it is).


Saying something deliberately provocative and whining that people don’t like it isn’t really the solution.

You wonder, if he and his supporters spend so much time defining themselves against “leftists” and violence and people wanting to “shut them down” that they keep on saying provocative things to elicit that response. They’re as bad as each other. Different sides of the same coin.

And, for the record, feeling that gender equality has a way to go and the current situation isn’t great isn’t an extreme position; it’s entirelg centrist.

rjsterry

finchy wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I meant you collectively, not legging it and leaving them to face the music. What would I do? I don't think anyone knows until the situation arises. Are there cases? Probably, but I don't see what that has to do with respect.

I think JP's point is that people won't respect you for being unprepared to use violence in any situation. It's not how I would phrase it myself, tbh.

rjsterry wrote:

Ah, lost that bit in all the quoting. From what I've seen, the genders of the protagonists make no difference whatsoever.

It makes a difference in how you would react to them. If it's a man, then they might hold back in the way they confront you, because of fear of your physical reaction if they go too far and you feel threatened. If it's a woman, then they might become more "crazy woman" (JP's words, not mine), because they know that a man is unlikely to threaten violence (even most men who commit domestic violence would not do so in public).

I've had it happen to me before, some woman started screaming abuse at me, threatening to kick me, just because I stopped her dog from biting my football. It was ridiculous, I'm 6'3" and fairly well-built, she was about a foot shorter than me and had obviously spent her life avoiding fresh food, and she was telling me she'd beat me up. Obviously I didn't take her seriously, but it was a pretty nasty situation because it was in public, and I didn't want other men assuming that I'd done something to her and come and start getting violent with me. That's the sort of crazy woman that needs to be kept under control.

rjsterry wrote:

If there's an angry mob go elsewhere. There will be other opportunities to say what you want to say.

That's not how democracies should work. I'm on the left of the political spectrum (I don't actually share Jordan Peterson's viewpoint on many issues, but I think he's correct on free speech), but I support the right of conservatives to express their opinions without having to fear for their physical safety. And it's not even conservatives that this small, but deranged mob target. They'll even go for other leftists who don't support their self-appointed right to determine which views are allowed to be heard and which aren't. Like I say, this is what's happening on some American campuses. Because we don't really suffer the same problem in Britain, it's probably hard for many Brits to appreciate what people like Jordan Peterson are saying.

I still think he confuses fear with respect. I don't think most people know what they would do until they are tested, so how someone else is supposed to judge you on that I don't know.

In your dog/football scenario, I'm unconvinced that a 'crazy man' might hold back based on a rational consideration of the risk of getting thumped if you scream in someone's face, but a 'crazy woman' would think, "ah, I can push it a bit further because he probably won't thump a woman". I don't think people of either gender who scream in other people's faces give even a flicker of thought to the risk that they might get their arse kicked. We've all witnessed drivers of either gender go apesh*t because of some perceived disrespect to them/their car - rationality is nowhere to be seen.

I agree that people shouldn't have to fear being shouted down or worse by a mob, but surely that is what policing is for. We have seen something like it with anti-abortion campaigners picketing clinics, and quite rightly they've been told they have to go and campaign somewhere else. They're not screaming in people's faces, but it's a thin end of a wedge.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

There are plenty of people with more savoury, less white supremacist/misogynist views who make a much more convincing case for free speech. (And to be clear, that’s not anti free speech. That’s just me saying what I think it is).


Saying something deliberately provocative and whining that people don’t like it isn’t really the solution.

You wonder, if he and his supporters spend so much time defining themselves against “leftists” and violence and people wanting to “shut them down” that they keep on saying provocative things to elicit that response. They’re as bad as each other. Different sides of the same coin.

And, for the record, feeling that gender equality has a way to go and the current situation isn’t great isn’t an extreme position; it’s entirelg centrist.

I do think you are confusing the views of some of his fans with his own ideas. As far as I can see they've just latched on to a couple of the sillier things he's said (the gender neutral pronoun thing for example), seen that it's got up the noses of some of the people they hate, and in their binary world view thought, "he must be one of us".

rick_chasey

It’s a standard trope you see during the rise of more extremist politics.

Two sides make extreme positions, essentially wind each other up, each helping define themselves as the other, and pose everyone in the middle who doesn’t agree with them as the other extreme.

Same old sh!t, different words.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

There are plenty of people with more savoury, less white supremacist/misogynist views who make a much more convincing case for free speech. (And to be clear, that’s not anti free speech. That’s just me saying what I think it is).


Saying something deliberately provocative and whining that people don’t like it isn’t really the solution.

You wonder, if he and his supporters spend so much time defining themselves against “leftists” and violence and people wanting to “shut them down” that they keep on saying provocative things to elicit that response. They’re as bad as each other. Different sides of the same coin.

And, for the record, feeling that gender equality has a way to go and the current situation isn’t great isn’t an extreme position; it’s entirelg centrist.

I do think you are confusing the views of some of his fans with his own ideas. As far as I can see they've just latched on to a couple of the sillier things he's said (the gender neutral pronoun thing), seen that it's got up the noses of some of the people they hate, and in their binary world view thought, "he must be one of us".

He has called white privilege a Marxist lie.

I mean, aside from the fact, to my knowledge anyway, Marxism isn’t really about race, you don’t think that’s either quite extreme or provocative?

And not just that, provocative to a certain type?

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

There are plenty of people with more savoury, less white supremacist/misogynist views who make a much more convincing case for free speech. (And to be clear, that’s not anti free speech. That’s just me saying what I think it is).

White supremacist?

Rick Chasey wrote:

Saying something deliberately provocative and whining that people don’t like it isn’t really the solution.

Saying something provocative? Read up on Bret Weinstein or Allison Stanger, who was left with concussion and wearing a neck brace for the "crime" of moderating a talk presented by a man with whose views she didn't even agree! You don't have to be a conservative on American campuses to become a target for these people, you just need to disagree with them.

Rick Chasey wrote:

You wonder, if he and his supporters spend so much time defining themselves against “leftists” and violence and people wanting to “shut them down” that they keep on saying provocative things to elicit that response. They’re as bad as each other. Different sides of the same coin.

No, people who use violence for political ends (especially in a democracy), and people who use words which might offend others are not as bad as each other. The first set is worse than the second set. Same goes for right-wing thugs.

Rick Chasey wrote:

And, for the record, feeling that gender equality has a way to go and the current situation isn’t great isn’t an extreme position; it’s entirelg centrist.

I would never say that it's an extreme position, and it's one that I share. It's just that you and I might have different opinions on the root causes (or rather the way in which root causes combine), how best to tackle it and possibly even how to define the term.

My view is that nobody should ever have their options in life limited, or their rights denied, because of their gender, and all artificial barriers and social pressures to conform to a given set of gender ideals should be removed. However, I also think that if you removed those barriers and pressures, there would still be some non-physical differences between men and women on average, even if these differences are reduced.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

It’s a standard trope you see during the rise of more extremist politics.

Two sides make extreme positions, essentially wind each other up, each helping define themselves as the other, and pose everyone in the middle who doesn’t agree with them as the other extreme.

Same old sh!t, different words.

We've barely evolved to digest alcohol and dairy. I think expecting us to stop bickering over pretty much everything is a bit ambitious.

finchy

rjsterry wrote:

I still think he confuses fear with respect. I don't think most people know what they would do until they are tested, so how someone else is supposed to judge you on that I don't know.

Like I say, it's not the phrasing I would have used.

rjsterry wrote:

In your dog/football scenario, I'm unconvinced that a 'crazy man' might hold back based on a rational consideration of the risk of getting thumped if you scream in someone's face, but a 'crazy woman' would think, "ah, I can push it a bit further because he probably won't thump a woman". I don't think people of either gender who scream in other people's faces give even a flicker of thought to the risk that they might get their ars* kicked. We've all witnessed drivers of either gender go apesh*t because of some perceived disrespect to them/their car - rationality is nowhere to be seen.

Yeah, but it's just about a certain type of woman, one who isn't actually crazy, but knows exactly how to manipulate a situation. Of course, the vast majority of women would never dream of doing anything like that, but there are some complete ars*holes out there, just as there are with men.

rjsterry wrote:

I agree that people shouldn't have to fear being shouted down or worse by a mob, but surely that is what policing is for. We have seen something like it with anti-abortion campaigners picketing clinics, and quite rightly they've been told they have to go and campaign somewhere else. They're not screaming in people's faces, but it's a thin end of a wedge.

And what if the police aren't expecting it? Or don't have the resources to deal with the situation?

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

There are plenty of people with more savoury, less white supremacist/misogynist views who make a much more convincing case for free speech. (And to be clear, that’s not anti free speech. That’s just me saying what I think it is).


Saying something deliberately provocative and whining that people don’t like it isn’t really the solution.

You wonder, if he and his supporters spend so much time defining themselves against “leftists” and violence and people wanting to “shut them down” that they keep on saying provocative things to elicit that response. They’re as bad as each other. Different sides of the same coin.

And, for the record, feeling that gender equality has a way to go and the current situation isn’t great isn’t an extreme position; it’s entirelg centrist.

I do think you are confusing the views of some of his fans with his own ideas. As far as I can see they've just latched on to a couple of the sillier things he's said (the gender neutral pronoun thing), seen that it's got up the noses of some of the people they hate, and in their binary world view thought, "he must be one of us".

He has called white privilege a Marxist lie.

I mean, aside from the fact, to my knowledge anyway, Marxism isn’t really about race, you don’t think that’s either quite extreme or provocative?

And not just that, provocative to a certain type?

I'm not entirely sure what he is getting at from that snippet, but from what I've seen of his criticism of collectivism I would guess it's a comment on the validity of the idea of white privilege if white people are no more of a homogeneous group than non-white people.

rjsterry

finchy wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I still think he confuses fear with respect. I don't think most people know what they would do until they are tested, so how someone else is supposed to judge you on that I don't know.

Like I say, it's not the phrasing I would have used.

rjsterry wrote:

In your dog/football scenario, I'm unconvinced that a 'crazy man' might hold back based on a rational consideration of the risk of getting thumped if you scream in someone's face, but a 'crazy woman' would think, "ah, I can push it a bit further because he probably won't thump a woman". I don't think people of either gender who scream in other people's faces give even a flicker of thought to the risk that they might get their ars* kicked. We've all witnessed drivers of either gender go apesh*t because of some perceived disrespect to them/their car - rationality is nowhere to be seen.

Yeah, but it's just about a certain type of woman, one who isn't actually crazy, but knows exactly how to manipulate a situation. Of course, the vast majority of women would never dream of doing anything like that, but there are some complete ars*holes out there, just as there are with men.

rjsterry wrote:

I agree that people shouldn't have to fear being shouted down or worse by a mob, but surely that is what policing is for. We have seen something like it with anti-abortion campaigners picketing clinics, and quite rightly they've been told they have to go and campaign somewhere else. They're not screaming in people's faces, but it's a thin end of a wedge.

And what if the police aren't expecting it? Or don't have the resources to deal with the situation?

This crazy woman who is actually just acting crazy to gain an advantage sounds like a pretty rare bird. And if it is just an act, you can ignore it and they'll pretty quickly realise that it's not working.

If the mob is not policed, move away and reconvene somewhere else. There are other places you can make your point. Or notify the police in advance.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

And, for the record, feeling that gender equality has a way to go and the current situation isn’t great isn’t an extreme position; it’s entirelg centrist.

Does it matter whether a view is centrist or not? The centrist position has included many undesirable things in the past. That said, the view that everything is a social construct is probably not centrist.

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that means your opinion is wrong before anyone jumps on that.

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

By the way, this is a crazy woman.

Good find finchy. You've just unearthed the US answer to 'Millie Tant'

shortfall

As an aside, has anyone else noticed that you never see Jordan Peterson and Peter Stringfellow in the same room together?