Post-modern feminist destroyed by facts, reason, and logic

[Darth Executor]

The right may not be as impressed by Peterson when they find out that he's teaching a course on the Bible from an evolutionary psychology POV and not as a practicing Christian.

Sorry, demanding lockstep thinking is purely a left wing thing these days.

[Starlight]

The right may not be as impressed by Peterson when they find out that he's teaching a course on the Bible from an evolutionary psychology POV and not as a practicing Christian.

He's a smart dude, in any event.

Um, is he? One of my favorite commentators was mocking Peterson because he apparently gets very post-modern about 'truth' and 'facts' - quite the opposite of the hard-nosed "facts, reason, and logic" description in the thread title.

In the OP video he's peddling some sort of delusional pseudo-science about how guys need to 'grow up' by being 'affirmed' and that women are 'miserable' if their partners aren't 'strong'. He seems pretty crazy.

I see towards the end of the OP video he argues that any emphasis on "group identity" is terrible (which he utterly bizarrely claims is the similarity between modern trans-activists and Mao's China and thus 'shows' that transgender activism is the 'same philosophy' as what 'killed millions of people')... I wonder if he identifies as having a "Christian" group identity? The guy is nutty.

[Starlight]

Listening to the OP vid, the guy reminds me of Sam Harris in his level of click-baity disingenuousness in the headline claims followed by back-peddling to a mainstream position when challenged on them combined with feigned outrage that the critics are saying he said something he never technically said (but totally meant to imply in order to click-bait / trigger people), also combined with a strange mix of ignorance and arrogance where he thinks his narrow field can explain everything and supersedes other fields .

Sam Harris, of course, during the heyday of the Bush regime torture program wrote an essay for a general audience titled "In defense of torture", and when critics complained he was giving cover to the war-crimes of the Bush administration Harris responded effectively "well of course I don't endorse torture in general and I think it's a terrible political policy and that Bush regime is totally terrible for doing it, and all I was really saying is there's theoretically one or two hypothetical situations where torture could be okay, and my critics are so awful terrible people for daring to criticize me for the click-baity claim I made that I totally don't stand by. P.S. Neuroscience explains everything, and it's what I did my PhD in, ergo, I know everything, and I will now proceed to make ridiculous claims about unrelated topics."

Peterson seems the same but with gender equality issues. He has the same click-baity "I totally object to the requirement that lecturers be respectful to students and so call them by the name and gender they prefer to be known as!", and then when challenged he backpeddles to "well I would always call students the way they wish to be called because that's just the respectful thing to do, and how dare critics suggest I ever said otherwise! All I was objecting to was being told to do it because it was respectful as opposed to choosing to do it myself because it was respectful. How dare people constantly misrepresent me! P.S Clinical Psychology explains everything, and it's what I study, ergo, I know everything, and I will now proceed to make ridiculous claims about unrelated topics. Also feminists/transgender activists = Chairman Mao, because groups and stuff."

[tabibito]

What was that loa?

Maybe he was saying you made him see red?? Or perhaps you just put him in the pink?

[Mountain Man]

Listening to the OP vid, the guy reminds me of Sam Harris in his level of click-baity disingenuousness in the headline claims followed by back-peddling to a mainstream position when challenged on them combined with feigned outrage that the critics are saying he said something he never technically said (but totally meant to imply in order to click-bait / trigger people), also combined with a strange mix of ignorance and arrogance where he thinks his narrow field can explain everything and supersedes other fields .

Sam Harris, of course, during the heyday of the Bush regime torture program wrote an essay for a general audience titled "In defense of torture", and when critics complained he was giving cover to the war-crimes of the Bush administration Harris responded effectively "well of course I don't endorse torture in general and I think it's a terrible political policy and that Bush regime is totally terrible for doing it, and all I was really saying is there's theoretically one or two hypothetical situations where torture could be okay, and my critics are so awful terrible people for daring to criticize me for the click-baity claim I made that I totally don't stand by. P.S. Neuroscience explains everything, and it's what I did my PhD in, ergo, I know everything, and I will now proceed to make ridiculous claims about unrelated topics."

Peterson seems the same but with gender equality issues. He has the same click-baity "I totally object to the requirement that lecturers be respectful to students and so call them by the name and gender they prefer to be known as!", and then when challenged he backpeddles to "well I would always call students the way they wish to be called because that's just the respectful thing to do, and how dare critics suggest I ever said otherwise! All I was objecting to was being told to do it because it was respectful as opposed to choosing to do it myself because it was respectful. How dare people constantly misrepresent me! P.S Clinical Psychology explains everything, and it's what I study, ergo, I know everything, and I will now proceed to make ridiculous claims about unrelated topics. Also feminists/transgender activists = Chairman Mao, because groups and stuff."

Dimbulb: "So what you're saying is..."

Peterson: "No!"

[MaxVel]

Listening to the OP vid, the guy reminds me of Sam Harris in his level of click-baity disingenuousness in the headline claims followed by back-peddling to a mainstream position when challenged on them combined with feigned outrage that the critics are saying he said something he never technically said (but totally meant to imply in order to click-bait / trigger people), also combined with a strange mix of ignorance and arrogance where he thinks his narrow field can explain everything and supersedes other fields .

You, of course, are the epitome of humility.

Sam Harris, of course, during the heyday of the Bush regime torture program wrote an essay for a general audience titled "In defense of torture", and when critics complained he was giving cover to the war-crimes of the Bush administration Harris responded effectively "well of course I don't endorse torture in general and I think it's a terrible political policy and that Bush regime is totally terrible for doing it, and all I was really saying is there's theoretically one or two hypothetical situations where torture could be okay, and my critics are so awful terrible people for daring to criticize me for the click-baity claim I made that I totally don't stand by. P.S. Neuroscience explains everything, and it's what I did my PhD in, ergo, I know everything, and I will now proceed to make ridiculous claims about unrelated topics."

Peterson seems the same but with gender equality issues. He has the same click-baity "I totally object to the requirement that lecturers be respectful to students and so call them by the name and gender they prefer to be known as!",

Didn't actually listen to what Dr. Peterson said, huh?

and then when challenged he backpeddles to "well I would always call students the way they wish to be called because that's just the respectful thing to do, and how dare critics suggest I ever said otherwise! All I was objecting to was being told to do it because it was respectful as opposed to choosing to do it myself because it was respectful. How dare people constantly misrepresent me! P.S Clinical Psychology explains everything, and it's what I study, ergo, I know everything, and I will now proceed to make ridiculous claims about unrelated topics. Also feminists/transgender activists = Chairman Mao, because groups and stuff."

Perhaps you should apply for a job with Channel 4?

[Sparko]

Well if Starlight is agin' him then I am fer him.

[One Bad Pig]

Have you considered that "impressing" you is not a high priority for me?

That makes two of us, then.

Now maybe if you responded to the substance of the OP instead of taking issue with a single word in the thread title -- a single word in the thread title! -- then I might be impressed with you.

I don't get my jollies from watching someone get humiliated, regardless how deserving one is of said humiliation.

[Psychic Missile]

I just watched the whole video. First, it's incorrect to say that Newman represented feminist thought or that this "interview"/"debate" was point scoring for or against any ideology. She's an idiot and incapable of representing any particular philosophy. Second, I did find a few of Peterson's arguments flawed, like saying common female personality traits are a non-sex related reason for the pay gap or that pronoun-related hate speech laws are a major affront to free speech or have the same driving force as Mao's communism. Otherwise I found him perfectly reasonable.

[Mountain Man]

[Newman is] an idiot and incapable of representing any particular philosophy.

You just described, like, every liberal ever.

[Darth Executor]

pronoun-related hate speech laws are a major affront to free speech

Criminalizing the expression of a popular political opinion is not a major affront to free speech?

[Starlight]

First, it's incorrect to say that Newman represented feminist thought or that this "interview"/"debate" was point scoring for or against any ideology. She's an idiot and incapable of representing any particular philosophy.

It's just an interview. People are generally able to make themselves look fairly good in interviews because it is essentially a platform for them to say whatever they wish. Newman at least refrains from fawning like some interviewers are want to do, and has at least gone to the effort of asking a few hard questions and pushing back a tiny bit. Peterson simply backpeddled from the questions and then put forth bizarre statements about Mao's communism etc.

I agree that it's not meaningful or useful to represent this as the OP did as any sort of 'debate' between two ideologies that demonstrates or proves anything. Peterson got through an interview without drooling too much... that's all it was.

[Mountain Man]

Peterson got through an interview without drooling too much... that's all it was.

And yet you couldn't confront his arguments without pulling a Newman and grossly distorting what he actually said.

[RumTumTugger]

And yet you couldn't confront his arguments without pulling a Newman and grossly distorting what he actually said.

not only Jordan Peterson but everyone who disagrees with him(Starlight) on this forum.

[Jedidiah]

. . . or that pronoun-related hate speech laws are a major affront to free speech or have the same driving force as Mao's communism. . . .

I absolutely believe that hate speech laws are a major affront to free speech. It is true that they are a bit short of Mao's communism.