But hey, no one wants to be called a bigot so we’ll all just back off instead of being socially shamed.
This is actually the goal. It's much easier to tar people as morally unclean heretics than actually engaging with them. For example, Peterson's whole narrative about heroic figures and evolutionary competence misses more than one point about human relationships, but caricaturing it like this is:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I’d also suggest that toxic masculinity covers the same field that Peterson often talks about, without the scent of Strauss’ “Game.”
If Petersen wants to read that book and develop an academic theory out of it, he’s free to.
... is simply a dishonest and lazy smear against the guy. I think he's nuts, but I also think Michel Foucault was nuts, and Foucault's brand of crazy is featured in many a university syllabus. This cartoon continues to sum up the discourse on social issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Corsi did a decent job of summing up some of the issues with Peterson.
I mean, great, I'm glad you agree with me that the foundations of his thinking have no substance to them. But that doesn't justify trying to tar people as closet MRA's simply for being Peterson fans. I appreciate that at least when you're called out on it you tend to back up with a "whoa, whoa, what I actually meant was", and then an actual point... to wit...
Quote:
An additional issue I have with him is he tends to fancy himself a constitutional law expert and whips his supporters into a frenzy despite demonstrating minimal knowledge in the subject.
I also agree with this. Both Peterson and Gaad Saad (another internet sensation Canadian professor popular with some of the same crowd, but somewhat less divisive) have really come across poorly on this subject. They'll rabble-rouse about the horrible impacts of Bill C-16 on a technical reading, but if you actually get someone who knows the law and how to interpret legislation to explain the nuances and point out where they're going off base, they'll simply say, "well, I'm not a lawyer," before going back to the same rhetoric as soon as said expert leaves the room. I understand and support the principles they're trying to push regarding compelled speech, but they're not honest brokers in this area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
"With all the accusations of sex assault emerging (eg Louis CK) we are going to soon remember why sex was traditionally enshrined in marriage..."
Sounds totally reasonable...
Again I disagree with his statement, obviously, but at the same time I'm actually sort of curious about why he said it. Given his bent for tying everything back into Darwinism, you'd think there's some theory beneath that statement about evolutionary pressure leading people into monogamous unions (which seems intuitively antithetical to the whole project of spreading one's genes). So I disagree with the statement on its face and suspect it's wrong on a deeper level, but at least there's probably something interesting to talk about, rather than dismissing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
I'm not saying reasonable people can't agree with him. I'm saying the basic premise of this thread, that somehow he's entitled to a specific amount and type of coverage/platform based on how popular he is, and that somehow the lack of coverage is indicative of some sort of bias is nonsense. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why Peterson doesn't receive acclaim, coverage, etc.
I'm not sure what they are, outside of "he seems to be wrong about a lot of things, albeit in a way many people seem to find interesting". If that disqualified you from coverage, no one would get on the radio. As has been pointed out, taking insane ideological positions is hardly rare among CBC guests.
Meanwhile, the guy has a large international following, and a reasonable topic for a Canadian public broadcaster, it seems to me, would be to explore that and ask "what's all the commotion about", and to do so without the obvious agenda that the interviewer in the first post in this thread held.
So what's your explanation for the - pardon the pun - radio silence? Because I suspect it's simply that they don't want to court controversy, as the inevitable result of an honest interview with the guy that explores what he thinks would result in what you attempted to do to Cliff, above - accusations of misogyny, giving a platform to a bigot, fostering rape culture, and similar hysteria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I disagree. It could be argued that if you find the CBC is no longer a custodian of of our public forum, that the issues you believe worthy of address are no longer of value to the public at large.
Intelligent people have idiotic ideas. We need not treat the latter any different because of the former.
You really need to figure out that people who see the world the way you do are not the arbiters of what is an idiotic or a good idea, or what the public at large is concerned with. The reaction to the Lindsay Shepherd thing ought to be proof enough of the latter. But in this case, you don't need to look anywhere beyond Peterson's own popularity to recognize that the issues he talks about are of interest to many people. It'd be nice to have him in a forum where the deficiencies in those positions would become clear (not by means of some inquisition, but by an honest discussion about them).
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
"With all the accusations of sex assault emerging (eg Louis CK) we are going to soon remember why sex was traditionally enshrined in marriage..." - Jordan Peterson
Sounds totally reasonable...
What was the context of this quote. The reason I ask (and CK is not the poster boy for this) is because of the recent Aziz story and Cat Woman.
There is a definitely a vocal minority of people (mostly post-millenials) who believe what Aziz Ansari did was sexual assault. If this is indeed the position that people are taking, because he didn't read her "non-verbal queues" then is it totally unreasonable to suggest that perhaps sexual relations should be reserved for people who know each other better than one date? For example, a married couple is more likely to be able to pick up on each other's "non verbal queues" than a random hook up.
You really need to figure out that people who see the world the way you do are not the arbiters of what is an idiotic or a good idea, or what the public at large is concerned with.
In just the same way that the people who see the world in the way you do are not the arbiters of what is a valuable or interesting view, or what the public at large is concerned with.
No individual set of ideas or ideology is the arbiter of all other ideas or ideology, good or bad. If i’m guilty of behaving in a way that rejects that, then so are you, certainly. So is Cliff.
I think we’re all intelligent enough to realise the scope and reach of our own ideas. Please don’t pretend like you stumbled upon it first.
In just the same way that the people who see the world in the way you do are not the arbiters of what is a valuable or interesting view, or what the public at large is concerned with.
I didn't take the position that I get to decide what's valuable or interesting enough to get on CBC. If I did, Jordan Peterson's views wouldn't be first on the list, obviously - I just finished calling him a total loon. My whole point was that he clearly has a large audience in Canada and elsewhere, and it's therefore reasonable to ask why there isn't any discussion of him on public broadcasting. Your response was that he's not worthy. Well, his myriad fans disagree, and your dismissal of what they want discussed as "idiotic" is far less important than you seem to think. If someone was going to be appointed to decide what ideas are "idiotic" and not worth the time to think about, it probably wouldn't be you.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I didn't take the position that I get to decide what's valuable or interesting enough to get on CBC. If I did, Jordan Peterson's views wouldn't be first on the list, obviously - I just finished calling him a total loon. My whole point was that he clearly has a large audience in Canada and elsewhere, and it's therefore reasonable to ask why there isn't any discussion of him on public broadcasting. Your response was that he's not worthy. Well, his myriad fans disagree, and your dismissal of what they want discussed as "idiotic" is far less important than you seem to think. If someone was going to be appointed to decide what ideas are "idiotic" and not worth the time to think about, it probably wouldn't be you.
The lack of self-awareness is astounding.
I’m aware I don’t get to decide who is an idiot and who is not, they’re simply my opinions, opinions that might be shared by others and might not. Who knows what the brain trust at CBC thinks. Not I, or you, but we can guess based on or own opinions.
It would benefit you greatly to turn your attention to your own posts. Your opinion of what IS worthy, and what IS important, has about as much relevance as mine, and (trust me) nobody is going to you first when they want to know what’s worth having a conversation about.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
The lack of self-awareness is astounding.
I’m aware I don’t get to decide who is an idiot and who is not, they’re simply my opinions, opinions that might be shared by others and might not. Who knows what the brain trust at CBC thinks. Not I, or you, but we can guess based on or own opinions.
It would benefit you greatly to turn your attention to your own posts. Your opinion of what IS worthy, and what IS important, has about as much relevance as mine, and (trust me) nobody is going to you first when they want to know what’s worth having a conversation about.
Or we can know what they are thinking by who they have on their programming and who they don't.
Pretty straight forward.
__________________
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
Sigh. You either aren't willing or aren't able to understand me here, so enough of that conversation.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I never heard of this guy until now and have only watched the interview posted, and then the one about his 10 rules for success (which I thought was pretty good).
I think his viewpoint that the pay gap is a lot more complicated than simply male vs. female and separating it as "masculine vs. feminine traits" is interesting, as well as the other social factors that play a role. I suspect that there is a lot of truth to it. All men and women are a combination of traits that we conveniently label as masculine and feminine.
I suspect there is also truth to the evolutionary social hierarchy where masculine traits were favoured within our species. It has been present throughout history and in practically all cultures and civilizations that sustained long term survival. But that is not to say that the masculine social hierarchy in Western Culture is required, desirable or favourable still. Evolution is about adapting as environments change and I think Western Civilization, more than any other civilization in history, is learning to adapt. Evolution takes time though.
Like an appendix or tail bone, masculine dominated hierarchies are likely vestigial in our society and possibly even detrimental in some circumstances (if they weren't then what is driving the will for adaptation?). Based on the interview, Peterson might even agree on that. I don't think he was saying; "This is evolutionary so it is the way it should be...", he is saying; "It formed out of evolution and that is why things are the way they are...". The problem seems to be more about his hardcore supporters interpreting his observations incorrectly and him not doing a lot to reel them in. He likely cares more about the book sales than reason, and that is his real downfall.
As for the CBC, they tend to steer clear of controversy. Granted, I haven't listen to them in a long time, but when I used to listen to them a lot, all I really recall are light entertainment shows like; "Canada Reads", interviews with weirdos like the lady who makes sweaters for cats in Newfoundland, occasional celebrity interviews with icons, and once in a while semi-controversial topics on things like health care or education.
I think the sensational and divisive journalism should stay on News Entertainment stations like Fox and CNN. The CBC doesn't need to go there IMO.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 01-22-2018 at 01:13 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
Or we can know what they are thinking by who they have on their programming and who they don't.
Pretty straight forward.
Unless the people who take great issue with the CBC are more dedicated followers than most of the population, that seems like confirmation bias.
I don’t think having Petersen on their programming (or not) is indicative of as much as people are saying, but that’s just me. Some criticism seems valid, but some of it just seems like leftover neo-con demonisation of the CBC.
As for the CBC, they tend to steer clear of controversy. Granted, I haven't listen to them in a long time, but when I used to listen to them a lot, all I really recall are light entertainment shows like; "Canada Reads", interviews with weirdos like the lady who makes sweaters for cats in Newfoundland, occasional celebrity interviews with icons, and once in a while semi-controversial topics on things like health care or education.
If that was ever true, it's not today. The CBC - especially radio programs like As it Happens and the Current - are neck deep in controversial social issues. Stories from the last couple weeks:
'He could have been stopped in 1997': Survivor of Larry Nassar's alleged sex abuse says victims were ignored
'Mommy Wildest': Female-led animal families smash the patriarchy
Halsey's raw, vulnerable poem about sexual assault becomes an empowering rallying cry
Why this Chilean abuse survivor refuses to accept Pope Francis' apology
Men and #MeToo: 'People shouldn't lose their livelihood over an unpleasant experience'
Crying hate crime: how hoaxes give bigots ammunition to undermine real victims
AI, algorithmic decision making, ethics and the under-representation of women in tech
Director defends documentary that claims Europeans could have been 1st humans in North America
Is there a generational divide in the #MeToo movement?
The abortion clause: Should groups that work against reproductive rights receive public funding?
Residential school survivor says he told Andrew Scheer about Lynn Beyak's letters months ago
Sen. Lynn Beyak under fire for 'racist, offensive, hurtful' letters posted to Senate website
'I was absolutely humiliated': Alabama reporter who was spanked by boss tells her story
'Twitter sided with the Nazis,' says writer after company shuts down his impostor-hunting bot
'Change is slow': Female superintendent of police in India tackles sexual violence and harassment
'Justice can wait': advocate says leniency for convicted sex offenders ignores victims' rights
Women still earn 25% less as Canada slips down global rankings
Civilization video game paints an 'inaccurate and dangerous' picture of Poundmaker Cree Nation chief
'Women need to take up more space': Feminist theatre calls on industry to hire female directors
Civil cases for sexual harassment — a new avenue for women seeking justice?
Hardly looks like a news organization that avoids controversy or tough topics.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
It's written by Dave Foley's ex-wife, and she then got attacked for taking too much alimony and child support by Peterson's internet fans.
Article calling "Jordan Peterson the stupid man’s smart person" yet, is nothing more that a slew of uninspired name calling and poor attempts to associate him the Alt-Right. What a pile of drivel.
Article calling "Jordan Peterson the stupid man’s smart person" yet, is nothing more that a slew of uninspired name calling and poor attempts to associate him the Alt-Right. What a pile of drivel.
Actually it’s significantly more than that, and highlights some of the issues surrounding his ideology and the way he presents it. It’s packaged quite crudely, but it’s got a lot of meat in it too.
“Stupid man’s smart person” is not inaccurate, either. He knows who he is best received by.
Edit: and I actually think it’s part of the problem with JP himself. People have pointed out that he makes some worthwhile points, but they’re so poorly packaged and sometimes thought out that it’s hard for those who don’t already agree with him to entertain him. He supposed to be an intellectual academic, but a lot of what he delivers reads the opposite. Not unlike the article I suppose. Valid points buried in stuff a lot of people find simply indigestible.
Though, one is an opinion piece, and the other is trying to be an authority.
Article calling "Jordan Peterson the stupid man’s smart person" yet, is nothing more that a slew of uninspired name calling and poor attempts to associate him the Alt-Right. What a pile of drivel.
I’m not a fan of the guy, but I have to completely agree with you. Author had some valid points but invalidates the argument with name calling. It becomes difficult to see the truth and separate it from biases. Hell, you’re seeing plenty of it in this thread.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sketchyt For This Useful Post:
Actually it’s significantly more than that, and highlights some of the issues surrounding his ideology and the way he presents it. It’s packaged quite crudely, but it’s got a lot of meat in it too.
“Stupid man’s smart person” is not inaccurate, either. He knows who he is best received by.
Wow and I thought my obnoxious football comment after the Jags lose was insufferable.
Actually it’s significantly more than that, and highlights some of the issues surrounding his ideology and the way he presents it. It’s packaged quite crudely, but it’s got a lot of meat in it too.
“Stupid man’s smart person” is not inaccurate, either. He knows who he is best received by.
It's a garbage hack piece that skips discussion of ideas and just tries to slander the subject. If that article is your definition of the embodiment of 'having a lot of meat' it speaks more about you than it does about Peterson. At no point is there an honest discussion of ideas or combative arguments proving his viewpoints wrong. Just various slanderous ways of saying 'If you were educated correctly, you would clearly see how this is all wrong'
ad hominum:
Quote:
To be clear, Jordan Peterson is not a neo-Nazi, but there’s a reason he’s as popular as he is on the alt-right. You’ll never hear him use the phrase “We must secure a future for our white children”; what you will hear him say is that, while there does appear to be a causal relationship between empowering women and economic growth, we have to consider whether this is good for society, “‘’cause the birth rate is plummeting.”
Quote:
He also gives book recommendations apparently drawn from a high-school English-class reading list. If somehow you missed them, Mistress Peterson is the portal to such obscure works as Animal Farm, Of Mice and Men, and that cornerstone of the Western canon, Flowers for Algernon.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Cowboy89 For This Useful Post:
It's a garbage hack piece that skips discussion of ideas and just tries to slander the subject. If that article is your definition of the embodiment of 'having a lot of meat' it speaks more about you than it does about Peterson. At no point is there an honest discussion of ideas or combative arguments proving his viewpoints wrong. Just various slanderous ways of saying 'If you were educated correctly, you would clearly see how this is all wrong'
ad hominum:
It’s an opinion piece, actually, and the meat I was talking about paints a picture of Peterson using his own words, mostly:
Quote:
...he does retweet Daily Caller articles with opening lines like: “Yet again an American city is being torn apart by black rioters.” He has dedicated two-and-a-half-hour-long YouTube videos to “identity politics and the Marxist lie of white privilege.”...
...Petersonites can get access to the Self Authoring Suite (a USD $119.92 value!). Those looking for further opportunities to give him money can pay USD $9.99 for “100 question phrases” which “can be found, along with similar question sets, elsewhere on the web” so that they might learn how your personality compares to 10,000 others...
...when explaining things like men are helpless before “crazy women” and “harpies” because it’s not socially acceptable for men to hit women and that this is “undermining the masculine power of the culture” in a way that will prove “fatal”...
...In July, he posted a video on his YouTube page laying out a plan to launch a website on which students and parents could have courses rated for them by artificial intelligence that could detect a “postmodern cult course.” His aim, he explained, was to cut off “the supply to the people that are running the indoctrination cults.” Ultimately, the champion of free speech said, he hoped the project would shut down whole departments that upset him....
...He’s already concluded that the entire fields of “women’s studies, and all the ethnic studies and racial studies groups” “have to go,”and that sociology, anthropology, English literature, and education are all “corrupt.”...
...”“I was going to put an end to your pomo-Marxist plotting once and for all but a third of respondents to a Twitter poll advised against it, so you’re safe… for now!” ...
For those unfamiliar with JP, yeah, there’s meat on that bone. Not sure what it says about me, but I’m sure someone is willing to tell me.
Are people upset that the article presented truths about JP? Or that it did it in a mocking way that also mocked his followers that ignore a lot of that stuff?
