You should care because he was probably one of the very first people to sign up for twitter so he's obviously been doing this a long time. Do you know how hard it would have been to get the "@fart" handle?
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to icecube For This Useful Post:
* Relatively little of it really deals with political correctness. It was mostly about identity politics. Which I gather from a comment made by Goldberg may have been the original topic of the debate at an earlier date, but it got changed up.
* Peterson said his usual stuff about the perils of radical leftist ideology. Got overheated and prickly at times. He doesn't really seem to appreciate the spirit of these things. Came across as kind of a ######.
* Fry was fantastic. He eloquently and passionately expressed the liberal case for free speech and rejection of orthodoxy. He's also the only one who seemed interested in genuinely addressing political correctness, rather than identity politics. If you don't want to spend 2 hours watching the entirety, just watch Fry's opening and closing statements (28:20 and 1:38:30). He hit it out of the park.
* Goldberg has some good insights as a journalist on the front lines of this stuff. Drew a distinction between being silenced and feeling silenced, which was a good point. Also went out of her way several times to denounce justice by social media mob. Wasn't the most eloquent speaker - unsurprising, as she's a writer - but after Fry, was the only other one to genuinely address political correctness.
* Dyson mostly stuck to identity politics and the black experience in America. He has some good one-liners, but I got the feeling a lot of them were well-practiced. Frankly, he would have been better suited to a different debate.
* Overall, it was a decent debate. I think the organizers could have chosen some better participants to focus it on political correctness. I would have liked to have seen a CBC producer or personality like Carol Off on the pro side, or someone else who polices content and tone in the media.
__________________
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.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 05-19-2018 at 03:03 PM.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
* Peterson said his usual stuff about the perils of radical leftist ideology. Got overheated and prickly at times. He doesn't really seem to appreciate the spirit of these things. Came across as kind of a ######.
I'll second your comments that Fry was excellent.
I think both Goldberg and Dyson almost looked at this debate as part of their civic duty to attack Peterson. I agree, he wasn't the right person for this debate if only because he distracted the other participants.
However, I am not sure what exactly Dyson hoped to accomplish when he referred to Peterson as an "Angry white man", other than to agitate Peterson and attempt to de-legitimize his opinions. His entire facade seemed to rest on Peterson not being a member of a certain group or trying to pull a hierarchy of victimhood - Black slaves were worse off than Greek slaves. Telling Peterson he should go to a Black Church group or Aboriginal reserve.
The Following User Says Thank You to CaramonLS For This Useful Post:
First time hearing Dyson speak. Contradicted himself the whole time. Claims he's all for the primacy of the individual but his arguments are standard group identity and race based apologetics.
Haha Psych is going all out. Thread finally got to him.
Got to him, or finally admitted your hot button issues? Frankly I consider your perspective a minority view and nothing more than the vocal minority, ala dip####s like Peterson and Shapiro. You are the first to be "triggered" by anyone who has a different view, and then the first to cry when anyone challenges you. I wouldn't be calling anyone out if I were you, as you make yourself a target, and you leave yourself open to an epic crushing.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
I forgot one of the most ridiculous things in the debate - @ 1:02:00.
I hope for Dyson's sake when he responded to Peterson's question about a "Tax on his privilege" that he wasn't being serious when he agreed with the statement. It certainly seemed like he did. If he was serious, that is pretty much all you need to know about the guy.
I forgot one of the most ridiculous things in the debate - @ 1:02:00.
I hope for Dyson's sake when he responded to Peterson's question about a "Tax on his privilege" that he wasn't being serious when he agreed with the statement. It certainly seemed like he did. If he was serious, that is pretty much all you need to know about the guy.
I think a lesson to remember here, especially one that Peterson supporters/fans have been in agreement with throughout this thread, is one thing is never “all you need to know” about someone.
If you let one thing form the basis of everything, you end up narrow-minded and usually wrong.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
In public discourse in 2018? Absolutely. The issues that disproportionately affect young women get far, far more media and public attention today than the issues that affect young men. Not twice or three times as much, but five or 10 times as much.
That actually aligns with the male involvement in post-secondary education, at least in the United States. If men want to be measured as part of the mix, get into the mix. Women have a massive statistical advantage over men when it comes to attending and being successful in post-secondary education. I have no sympathy when men don't step up to the plate. That is the issue right now.
Quote:
Boys today are doing worse than girls is virtually every metric. In academic achievement in every age, in the number who are dosed with behavior-modifying drugs, in dropping out of school, in drug use, in becoming totally alienated from society. In suicide. And there is no public movement to address this, because too many people are trapped in foolish, binary thinking, and believe that pointing out boys have problems mean neglecting the problems girls have. Or they have even uglier impulses - "it's their turn to suffer now."
Whose fault is that? If women want to apply themselves and become better leaders within society, is that the boy's faulty, or the girl's fault? I think we know where the blame lay.
Quote:
That's why enormous media attention and government and corporate resources have been devoted to the under-representation of young women in STEM fields, while almost none has been devoted to the growing disparity in post-secondary education altogether.
You try and develop diversity by encouraging enrollment. If students enroll then you have a population to analyze. If they don't, and it remains consistent with past populations, then the statistics support the historical analysis. More women are being driven to STEM to flatten out the field, but it is still up to the men to enroll and perform. I've seen enrollment, but not performance. Isn't performance what we should be concerned with?
Quote:
A recent Mount Royal University alumni magazine featured an article about the steps MRU is taking to encourage more women to enter STEM programs to redress the gender imbalance. This at an institution that has something like 64 per cent female enrollment. No word of what they're doing to address that imbalance. It makes you really wonder if these people are deeply cynical, or just deeply stupid.
The only way to address this is by males enrolling. If they don't whose fault is it? We shot all over women for not enrolling in STEM, but when men don't, whose fault is it?
Quote:
You can't understand Western civilization and culture (or any culture for that matter) if you don't understand its religion. You don't have to be religious to get value from studying religion. Thinkers from Nietzsche to Jung to Joseph Campbell have looked to myth, archetype, and religion to understand human consciousness.
Really Cliff? Religion is a control mechanism. I can't explain the ridiculousness of Nietzsche and his ilk, except the did not have context to their advantage. This is important when discussing philosophical issues. Context matters, and Nietzsche's views are missing modern context.
Quote:
In fact, I don't think anyone in Canada can really be regarded as well-educated, in the cultural sense, without a grounding in Christianity.
That's your problem, not the problem of those who have a proper education. Religiosity is counter to an education and proper understanding of any issue.
Quote:
I know that's a big gap in my own education, and one of the reasons I don't get as much out of literature as I could. And I don't think those allegories are divisive. One of the striking things about myths and religion is how alike traditions from all over the world are.
Yes, this is a gap in your education. As someone who was raised and run through the Christian ideological perspective I think that religiosity is counter to developing a critical understanding of the world around us. Religion is a divider rather than a uniter, and as a result has seen our society fractured into the #### show it is.
Quote:
For the record, Peterson is not a church-goer, and equivocates about whether he believes in god.
Peterson is a contraction and to be honest. I'm not sure he would survive the faculty castigation that would follow from the bull#### he says. I think he would be pushed to the fringe quickly, because I don't see his dogma holding up to the scrutiny of his peers at a real college or university. To be honest, I have no ####ing idea what his peers at UofT are doing? They should be embarrassed to be honest. I know at my institution he would be ripped to shreds and he would learned to keep his mouth shut. Mind you, our institution has debated the Stanford Prison Experiment with Philip Zombardo on campus, so a light weight light Peterson would be fish in barrel. I actually can't wait to see him in person on the 1st of June. Hopefully he doesn't #### the bed and prove to be the light weight he appears to be.
BTW Cliff, I enjoy our engagements, and I think we find new meaning though our discussion of the various perspectives of our two nations. I think we would have a few laughs over beers, discussing #### like this, if opportunity even presented itself.
I think a lesson to remember here, especially one that Peterson supporters/fans have been in agreement with throughout this thread, is one thing is never “all you need to know” about someone.
If you let one thing form the basis of everything, you end up narrow-minded and usually wrong.
I probably could have worded that better, but I think the general point still stands.
Pepsi, if you said "a black person is worth 3/5s of a white person", I'd probably disregard almost everything you say from then on. If I took the least charitable interpretation of Dyson's statement, it is close to the rough equivalent.
That doesn't make you more or less wrong on certain subjects, but it does tell me that you're a person I shouldn't be investing my time listening to or taking very seriously. It's the same reason I don't get my news from Stormfront.
I probably could have worded that better, but I think the general point still stands.
Pepsi, if you said "a black person is worth 3/5s of a white person", I'd probably disregard almost everything you say from then on. If I took the least charitable interpretation of Dyson's statement, it is close to the rough equivalent.
That doesn't make you more or less wrong on certain subjects, but it does tell me that you're a person I shouldn't be investing my time listening to or taking very seriously. It's the same reason I don't get my news from Stormfront.
Yet you invest your time listening to Jordan Peterson??? Might want to do some introspection and ask yourself about your values and just how in tune with the 21st century they are? Like white men are so disenfranchised.l???
Boys today are doing worse than girls is virtually every metric. In academic achievement in every age, in the number who are dosed with behavior-modifying drugs, in dropping out of school, in drug use, in becoming totally alienated from society. In suicide. And there is no public movement to address this, because too many people are trapped in foolish, binary thinking, and believe that pointing out boys have problems mean neglecting the problems girls have. Or they have even uglier impulses - "it's their turn to suffer now."
This is where it's important to differentiate between lagging and leading indicators. In lagging indicators, like number of CEOs, women are still behind. The leading indicators are where (future) men are falling behind. If your focus on is equality of outcomes, you might be inclined to focus on lagging indicators, but the leading indicators are what allow us to act with foresight.
Got to him, or finally admitted your hot button issues? Frankly I consider your perspective a minority view and nothing more than the vocal minority, ala dip####s like Peterson and Shapiro. You are the first to be "triggered" by anyone who has a different view, and then the first to cry when anyone challenges you. I wouldn't be calling anyone out if I were you, as you make yourself a target, and you leave yourself open to an epic crushing.
Where have I been triggered? Where have I made 5 posts in less than a page quoting randos on the internet getting upset with somebody they disagree with?
I often starkly disagree with people, but I don't drop to his or your level and call people dip####s or Nazis or racists or bigots. I don't try to discredit people because they believe differently than me.
There are a few people on this forum that are always miserable. I truly feel bad for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Yet you invest your time listening to Jordan Peterson??? Might want to do some introspection and ask yourself about your values and just how in tune with the 21st century they are? Like white men are so disenfranchised.l???
Yet you invest your time listening to Jordan Peterson??? Might want to do some introspection and ask yourself about your values and just how in tune with the 21st century they are? Like white men are so disenfranchised.l???
You're insane.
If you consider me to be some sort of big fan of Peterson or someone who I've invested significant time in, you'd be wrong. He does make some good points and some others that are quite kooky. I've defended what I feel mischaracterizations of the man at points during this thread.
I don't recall Peterson saying anything remotely equivalent to the statement I pointed out from Dyson, especially with regards to restricting rights of a certain group based on race. Heck, in my post I even qualified it by saying that "if I took the least charitable view of his words".
I'm quite content with my values - hopefully you see a problem with restricting rights of groups based on race, otherwise I don't think you're in any position to question my values.
