The intellectual dark web

[PsYcNeT]

Counter-point, if you purposefully mis-gender a trans-person after they tell you their preferred pronoun, you are an edgelord piece of ####.

Happy to help.

[gottabekd]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

He is not afraid to state what he believes, even when it is contrary to the politically correct. We need more people like that.

To me, this is the most important thing Jordan B. Peterson brings to the table.

He has been a big catalyst in the sense that his views aren't really that far out there, but the amount of hate and vitriol he has stirred up says more about his detractors than himself. Ironically, I think a lot of centre or centre-left leaning individuals see the "militant SJW effect", and start thinking "wow, the left is so crazy and uncompromising, maybe I am actually more right-aligned in this environment".

[ynwa03]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Counter-point, if you purposefully mis-gender a trans-person after they tell you their preferred pronoun, you are an edgelord piece of ####.

Happy to help.

Grow up.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Counter-point, if you purposefully mis-gender a trans-person after they tell you their preferred pronoun, you are an edgelord piece of ####.

Happy to help.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but where has he done this? I recall Peterson saying if one of his students asked him to call them a certain pronoun, he would oblige. But he hasn't encountered such a circumstance yet.

[rubecube]

I wish Cliff would save us all a bunch of time and just flat out start linking to red pill instead of #####-footing around things and pretending he's interested in an honest debate.

[corporatejay]

Red Pill. MRA. Alt right. What else do you guys have? Since the 3 of you seem to just label an entire group of people who may not agree with your perspective as right wing lunatics instead of understanding that reasonable and intelligent people might actually agree with Jordan Peterson.

But hey, no one wants to be called a bigot so we’ll all just back off instead of being socially shamed.

[corporatejay]

Dp

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Red Pill. MRA. Alt right. What else do you guys have? Since the 3 of you seem to just label an entire group of people who may not agree with your perspective as right wing lunatics instead of understanding that reasonable and intelligent people might actually agree with Jordan Peterson.

But hey, no one wants to be called a bigot so we’ll all just back off instead of being socially shamed.

Corsi did a decent job of summing up some of the issues with Peterson. 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.

[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..." - Jordan Peterson

Sounds totally reasonable...

[corporatejay]

I think the problem most people have with him is his base. His vocal base are awful and are composed of MRAs, Red Pillers and racists, but that doesn’t mean reasonable people can’t agree with some of his points.

On the flip side, people are up in arms about this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...elp-women.html

The headline and conversation seemed to indicate that women were given more time than men. This is false, they just extended the amount of time everyone has. Since these times limits are basically arbitrary and have no correlation to the real world, who the hell cares.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I think the problem most people have with him is his base. His vocal base are awful and are composed of MRAs, Red Pillers and racists, but that doesn’t mean reasonable people can’t agree with some of his points.

On the flip side, people are up in arms about this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...elp-women.html

The headline and conversation seemed to indicate that women were given more time than men. This is false, they just extended the amount of time everyone has. Since these times limits are basically arbitrary and have no correlation to the real world, who the hell cares.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

[White Out 403]

My god that BBC interview was ridiculous. This woman was punching way out of her weight class and kept trying to nail Peterson on things he didn't say. Cringe worthy.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by ASP#26525

At the risk of offending a ton of people, yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyip. I sure am. With every fibre of my being. I cannot respect ideas that do not rely on evidence. Ideas lead to actions, and people taking actions that are not evidence-based scare the crap out of me on so very many levels.

Is it your position that rule 5 doesn't apply to you, or that Christianity isn't a religion?

Those seem to be the only ways these two posts could be permissible.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...22&postcount=6

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Then you completely misunderstood what he said. There is absolutely no reason at all to be concerned that it is a woman. The only thing to be concerned about is: are they competent , and are they good negotiators. He never said anything that suggested a woman wouldn't be as good at the position.

She may be the best negotiator in the world, but she will be a woman thrust into a sea of hard nosed American men, all fighting tooth and nail to win concessions. There is no doubt she has high qualifications, however I worry that her appointment had more to do with Trudeau's push for gender equality, than appointing the best person for the job. Trudeau has already demonstrated he is willing to go in this direction by insisting that his cabinet be 50% women.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The CBC has effectively abrogated its role as a forum for open public discourse when it comes to anything to do with race and gender, and yielded the bully pulpit to ideologues who champion a credo followed by a small fraction of Canadians. They've stopped being custodians of our public forum and become banner-waving, passionate combatants in the culture wars. This agenda will only marginalize them further, and shrink the CBC's audience to a sadly narrow segment of the population. Which is a shame, because much of what the CBC produces when they stick to hard news and subjects like science and technology is valuable.

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.

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. But his education and work history doesn’t preclude intelligent Canadians from recognising a man gone off the rails into the unacademic and illogical.

Intelligent people have idiotic ideas. We need not treat the latter any different because of the former.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

She may be the best negotiator in the world, but she will be a woman thrust into a sea of hard nosed American men, all fighting tooth and nail to win concessions. There is no doubt she has high qualifications, however I worry that her appointment had more to do with Trudeau's push for gender equality, than appointing the best person for the job. Trudeau has already demonstrated he is willing to go in this direction by insisting that his cabinet be 50% women.

This is a silly thing to worry about, and you have no basis for making this claim. If you have evidence to the contrary fine but the idea that "american men will push her over" is ridiculous. Angela Merkel has been doing a great job with Germany over the last number of years and she doesn't get bullied by anyone.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

This is a silly thing to worry about, and you have no basis for making this claim. If you have evidence to the contrary fine but the idea that "american men will push her over" is ridiculous. Angela Merkel has been doing a great job with Germany over the last number of years and she doesn't get bullied by anyone.

Agree with this. Only thing that matters is if she is qualified for the job.

[CliffFletcher]

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.

He's not entitled. But I've worked as a journalist, took a course dedicated to analyzing news values, worked as a media monitor, and followed the CBC for the entirety of my adult life. The CBC interviews dozens of people a week. Any Canadian author sells 500 books and they fall all over themselves promoting it. There's no doubt in my mind that any other Canadian figure with Peterson's profile would have been interviewed and profiled by the CBC at least once, and probably multiple times, in the last year as his prominence on the cultural landscape soared.

You're either wholly ignorant of how the media works, or you're just being disingenuous for ideological reasons. Why do you think a half-dozen British news organizations interviewed and ran profiles on Peterson in the last week? Are the BBC and the Guardian in thrall to the alt-right? Are they bad at recognizing news values?

[Thor]

It’s getting harder and harder to talk about anything controversial online without every single utterance of an opinion immediately being caricatured by opportunistic outrage-mongers, at which point everyone, afraid to be caught exposed in the skirmish that’s about to break out, rushes for the safety of their ideological battlements, where they can safely scream out their righteousness in unison. In this case: “Steven Pinker said the alt-right is good! But the alt-right is bad! We must defend this principle!”

This is making us dumber.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/o...en-pinker.html

[CliffFletcher]

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.

I'm wiling to bet Peterson's book makes it into the top 5 non-fiction books in Canada. And clearly the CBC finds issues of campus activism, gender, and free speech are worthy of addressing. They run stories on them all the time. They just won't interview the person who is more prominent on those subjects than anyone else in the country.

Want an example of CBC bias? Last week they broadcast this feature on the the Current: Is there a generational divide in the #MeToo movement?

Did they mention that Margaret Atwood criticized younger feminists for their neglect of due process and ideological fervour that does away with nuance? Or have Atwood on the show to present her point of view? Of course not. They couldn't pit their guests against a Canadian feminist icon like that. Instead, representing the old feminists they quoted Christina Hoff Summers on the Tucker Carlson show. And then they had three guests who all agreed with one another talk about toxic masculinity.

Clearly the producers had no interest in giving any validity to the issue or looking at it with nuance. They took a genuine issue and torqued the ever-lovin' beejeezus out of it to send the message they wanted to send. Which is what the CBC does with pretty much any social issue these days. No differing points of view. No nuance. Just the same narrow ideological point of view championed over and over again.