So Jordan Peterson's profile has spiked higher in recent days with his interview on Channel 4 in the UK going viral on Youtube.
If he wasn't the the most famous Canadian intellectual in the world before, he is now.
What's been surprising to me is how he's been accepted as a legitimate public figure in the UK. Even the stridently leftist Guardian has posted some thoughtful and respectful pieces on Peterson
So when will Canada's media stop treating him like a pariah? If his politics were more ideologically agreeable to their own, the CBC would have aired a half dozen profiles and interviews with him. Turned him into a homegrown CBC darling.
But nope. Even as his prominence and popularity have grown, the CBC pretends he doesn't exist. Since the interview they did with him 18 months ago when he first took his controversial stand at Laurier, they've ignored him. It's like they wish he would just go away. Which seems a pretty sorry stance for Canada's public broadcaster to take with such a prominent figure.
You don't have to think he's a guru or agree with his criticism of identity politics to recognize that he's an important figure on the cultural and political landscape today. What does it say about the public dialogue in this country that he's being recognized as such in the UK while the Canadian cultural establishment has rendered him persona non grata?
__________________
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; 07-09-2018 at 10:21 AM.
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
I personally don't think he should be censored, either, because he should be exposed for the highly misogynistic, out-of-touch, rampant Christian that he is. I agree with some of the things he says, but all the guy wants is to hear to himself talk. I could go on....
However, I do agree that he should get more airtime so that he actually gets questioned and challenged. Many of his "followers" seem to agree with every word out of his mouth without a second thought. I can't watch the above interview now, but I will later--I'm curious to see how he comes across in the UK. He's no Douglas Murray, that's for sure.
Truthfully, and it's a very alt-right thought so I'm not overly proud of it, I think the CBC and CTV ignore him after their first interview because he has a message they disagree with and he is so damn careful with his thoughts and so well spoken they he can't be trapped or pinned. He's not a good interview in the sense that they don't want an intelligent person.
I personally don't think he should be censored, either, because he should be exposed for the highly misogynistic, out-of-touch, rampant Christian that he is. I agree with some of the things he says, but all the guy wants is to hear to himself talk. I could go on....
However, I do agree that he should get more airtime so that he actually gets questioned and challenged. Many of his "followers" seem to agree with every word out of his mouth without a second thought. I can't watch the above interview now, but I will later--I'm curious to see how he comes across in the UK. He's no Douglas Murray, that's for sure.
Sorry, am I understanding you to be trying to use the term "Christian" as an insult?
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
The Following User Says Thank You to killer_carlson For This Useful Post:
Most Media is Canada is left leaning. He argues in a way that the traditional shut downs of "your a Bigot/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/islamaphobic/etc,etc) doesn't work and makes the interviewer look dumb.
He's not at all part of the alt right, hes just extremely liberal, which makes him right leaning nowadays.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to fulham For This Useful Post:
I really like Dr JP, I wouldn't put him on a pedestal or deem him beyond criticism, but his advice to young men who feel disenfranchised and disconnected in our modern cultural paradigm is spot on and any young man in that situation that takes on his advice would be very well served by it.
The Following User Says Thank You to Matata For This Useful Post:
I sat in on a guest lecture of his that my psych prof organized. It was kind of ridiculous how it had to essentially be arranged in secret. On this, I would agree with Peterson that our society needs to grow up a bit.
I thought the interview wasnt too bad aside from the usual emotionally charged tangents. Peterson may get a bit more flak than he deserves, but it does seem that he is an intentional #### disturber. He is just too rigid to accept that it is not moral/desirable to just accept or be content with hierarchical structures that we are supposedly biologically predisposed to (the lobster argument).
From what I have seen, he always seems to avoid considering that our society/culture might not place proper value on female dominated professions. Also, he may think that he is very careful with his words, but he always ends up revealing that he paints personality characteristics as strictly male/female, and thinks in absolutes in male/female roles. He also tries to say in this interview that there is no evidence of organizations finding success with encouraging more 'feminine' characteristics (agreeableness and whatever), but making room for such characteristics in more enlightened human societies are big factors in building our current era of historically unprecedented declines in violence. Without those 'female characteristics', maybe we would not have figured out that not everything is a zero sum game.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to starseed For This Useful Post:
Jordan Peterson could be replaced with a cardboard standee with a word balloon saying "The perfect level of social equity was achieved in 1972" and we could save ourselves a lot of argument.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
I hadn't even heard of him before, but enjoyed that interview if for no other reason than the dynamics between him and the interviewer. A lot of the assertions she put to him were baldly unfair or clearly misconstrued what he was saying - which was perhaps designed to provoke him - but in the end it worked to his advantage I thought, and probably produced a better interview in some ways.
Nothing earth-shattering in there though, so I'm not sure what the fuss is about. I suppose I'll have to look at some of his other interviews now to get a sense of what makes him such a big deal.
this is not surprising in Britain as they have many right-wing (or deemed right-wing) spokespeople like Douglas Murray, Katie Hopkins and of course Milo.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
this is not surprising in Britain as they have many right-wing (or deemed right-wing) spokespeople like Douglas Murray, Katie Hopkins and of course Milo.
Don't forget Prison Paul, who won't leave his flat because of scary Muslims.
I spent most of that interview wondering whether she was simply oblivious, or if she was being purposely obtuse in order to try and jar him. In the end, it was irrelevant.
He is not afraid to state what he believes, even when it is contrary to the politically correct. We need more people like that.
Some people seem to have a difficult time accepting that we are in fact biological creatures, and that that fact has an impact on who we are and how we interact.
I also agreed with his views on identity politics.
Never heard of this guy before. Whether agreeing with him or not, I enjoyed his candor and his conviction to stand by his views.
And I can totally see why the self-indulgent leftists running the CBC would be very much afraid of him and detested by him.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
There are parts of Peterson’s worldview that I don’t agree with, but he’s an interesting guy to hear speak and is an important figure in the public discourse. I’ve watched quite a lot of his content on youtube and have gone from being somewhat dismissive to now going out of my way occasionally to listen to what he has to say.
__________________ Is your cat doing singing?
The Following User Says Thank You to Max Cow Disease For This Useful Post:
Peterson's world view is utterly nuts. Like, batcrap insane. Characterizing him as "alt right" is silly. I have a pretty decent understanding of what the alt-right are about, and it ain't the stuff Peterson is spewing. The dude is basically anti-epistemology.
As for the interview, save yourself some time and irritation and just read James Lindsay's live-tweet of it.
In brief: the interviewer is an embarrassing moron, and basically should not be in this line of work. Peterson's alpha-male stuff is next-level bonkers. Close thread.
__________________ "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 User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Peterson's world view is utterly nuts. Like, batcrap insane. Characterizing him as "alt right" is silly. I have a pretty decent understanding of what the alt-right are about, and it ain't the stuff Peterson is spewing. The dude is basically anti-epistemology.
As for the interview, save yourself some time and irritation and just read James Lindsay's live-tweet of it.
In brief: the interviewer is an embarrassing moron, and basically should not be in this line of work. Peterson's alpha-male stuff is next-level bonkers. Close thread.
This post says much more about you than it does about him.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
This post says much more about you than it does about him.
Uh, okay. You're defending a loon who questions "verifiable truth" as a concept. So, assuming what it says about me is that I'm against that and in favour of the scientific method as a primary means of determining what's real, then fantastic, yes, I agree.
__________________ "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
...’’Tis true, the man’s perspective on truth does seem rather elastic, and based more on a grander view of moral utility to the species, than to actual truth.
...’’Tis true, the man’s perspective on truth does seem rather elastic, and based more on a grander view of moral utility to the species, than to actual truth.
And that's a prerequisite to having a coherent idea anywhere else. If we can't agree on what it means for a statement to be true, it doesn't matter at all whether we agree or disagree whether anything else is true or false.
So when he says things that seem to make sense about, for example, the pay gap, he's either not living by his own positions on the nature of reality, or he's making sense by the lights of most people (who have a fairly uniform view of how you find out what's real) purely by coincidence. I'm not sure that makes him not worth listening to on the topic, but it certainly doesn't make him any less of a kook.
__________________ "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 intellectual dark web
