The intellectual dark web

[GirlySports]

Dyson should debate Larry Elder and see where that goes.

Elder argues that blacks have no restrictions at all.

[GGG]

I was camping on the weekend and didn't have any books so read one of my wife's on productivity from a feminist prospective. Essentially it boiled down to don't do stuff you don't value. But it was also interwoven with the challenges women face. What came to be as I was reading this is that the author was from the second most privelidged group in history. The white daughter of a 1%er married household with parents with masters degrees or higher.

So when Peterson talks to the white children of the 20%-60% he is talking to a group that doesn't have the power that academics apply to their race and gender. So while they are more privileged than there female or minority person in the same class the members of the upper class regardless of race or gender will out perform them. That American class chart shows this quite well.

So my thought was are the critics of Pederson more priveledged than the clients of Peterson. And then are they using their position of priveldge to attempt to limit the opportunities of a group?

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by New Era

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.

Would you mind saying what your institution is, as you're publicly attacking another institution and suggesting it does not compare to yours?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

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?.

That’s being “triggered” to you? Quoting people loling at someone on the internet?

Holy hell.

I would suggest you sort yourself out, bucko. Or just read 12 Rules, because it can definitely help you sort that out.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That’s being “triggered” to you? Quoting people loling at someone on the internet?

Holy hell.

I would suggest you sort yourself out, bucko. Or just read 12 Rules, because it can definitely help you sort that out.

lol

I was responding to New Era who said I was triggered. I just used Psych here because I can't recall when I made 5 separate posts like that within 7 or 8 replies to discredit somebody or something.

So if I'm being triggered, a lot of people in the thread are bu that standard.

And I appreciate your concern to sort myself out.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

lol

I was responding to New Era who said I was triggered. I just used Psych here because I can't recall when I made 5 separate posts like that within 7 or 8 replies to discredit somebody or something.

So if I'm being triggered, a lot of people in the thread are bu that standard.

And I appreciate your concern to sort myself out.

1 post, 5 posts, who cares?

They were random funny tweets. Acting like it’s a sign this thread is really “getting to him” or something is silly is all. The tweets didn’t even have a lick of anger in them.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Would you mind saying what your institution is, as you're publicly attacking another institution and suggesting it does not compare to yours?

No, as that wouldn't be appropriate. I am not attacking another institution, but what I am suggesting is that ANY institution worth a #### would challenge any faculty member working outside the protections of academic freedom. I will question the faculty from another for not upholding the very academic standards held by almost every institution in academia. Peterson is working beyond the protections of his position, and as a result, leaves himself open to criticism. Or do you disagree with that?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

You're insane.

I'm not the one suggesting Jordan Peterson is presenting a position remotely in the realm or reality. You want to look up insane, look up most of the dogma Peterson espouses, and how that aligns with the reality most people are forced to live. Suggesting his perspective is anything but fringe is 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.

That's fine then. If we can agree that Peterson is fringe in most of his beliefs then we are likely in the same space.

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".

Michael Eric Dyson, even misquoted or misinterpreted, is light years ahead of Jordan Peterson. Peterson is pop psychology bull#### with a side order of hubris. That is what makes me take the most critical perspective on him. Maybe it is because I expect so much from someone in his position.

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.

I agree with what you're saying, but your support of a particular academic suggests you may have a conflict with your values, based on his ad what you say. And you're right, I may not be in the best position to judge your values, as my own values come into question when I try to balance support of certain positions, but I still feel it important to point out the contradiction. I hope you can appreciate that. I know I appreciate that when others do the same for me.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by SebC

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.

Good post. This is what strikes me all the time when it comes to the gender equality debate: you can't expect the world to change overnight. These corporate boards full of old dudes are products of the conditions prevailing in the past. Those same boards 30 years from now will be the products of the conditions prevailing today.



All indications are that women today are doing better than men in many respects and, therefore, will have better opportunities than men in many areas in the future (including some of the dominant professions, medicine and law for example, and academia generally). This is therefore a good time to consider issues that affect the males in our population, e.g., higher sedation levels in school, lower post-secondary enrollment, decreasing earnings, higher incarceration, higher suicide rates, etc.



None of that is to say that we should not continue to encourage the participation of women in all aspects of society, but it does not serve us to leave men - and really we're talking about boys here - behind.



This is where Peterson makes some good points, i.e., boys need to have pride, take responsibility for themselves, and stand on their own two feet, but society also needs to stop vilifying them and putting the focus largely on the success of girls while simultaneously denigrating the success of men (or broadly casting men as society's villains).



It's an important discussion to have, but one that seems often to be dismissed as ridiculous (i.e, men - despite all their struggles as a demographic - have all the privileges and power and, therefore, nothing to complain about, no one to blame but themselves, and are deserving of no sympathy).



I'm not convinced that's a societal attitude that's going to produce good people of any description.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by New Era

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.



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.

Is this a serious post? You are responding to a post that contends that men have some issues that may be overlooked by society as a whole, and turning around and saying that it is all mens fault? Who even really cares who is at fault, it is an alarming statistic to simply disregard so easily. I think you actually make Cliff's point for him.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by New Era

No, as that wouldn't be appropriate. I am not attacking another institution, but what I am suggesting is that ANY institution worth a #### would challenge any faculty member working outside the protections of academic freedom. I will question the faculty from another for not upholding the very academic standards held by almost every institution in academia. Peterson is working beyond the protections of his position, and as a result, leaves himself open to criticism. Or do you disagree with that?

It's probably best to leave your institution out of the discussion then. Your post does come across as suggesting that the UofT doesn't measure up to the standards of "a real college or university" and you directly state that the faculty there should be embarrassed while stating that at your institution Peterson would not only be "ripped to shreds" but that it would be as easy as "fish in a barrel."

That seems very much as though you are undermining the UofT partly as a means to detract from Peterson's credentials while hyping up your own credentials in comparison and trying to legitimize your view of him as "a light weight." Yet, you're not willing to share which institution it is that you represent that has such high standards you are associated with?

If your institution does have high standards, I would guess that not sharing its name is then a result of the fact that your engagement here would not be becoming of that institution and may itself be ripped to shreds by your peers.

I don't disagree at all that you should be able to attack Peterson's views and his arguments, but you should leave institutional comparisons out of it unless you are willing to stand behind them openly.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Cain

Is this a serious post? You are responding to a post that contends that men have some issues that may be overlooked by society as a whole, and turning around and saying that it is all mens fault? Who even really cares who is at fault, it is an alarming statistic to simply disregard so easily. I think you actually make Cliff's point for him.

Are you serious? If males are not applying to college/university, or making grades good enough to earn entry, it is their own fault! It is a result of their own action/inaction. The only thing being overlooked is men not taking control of their own destiny and working hard for something. To suggest men are getting the raw deal in society is a joke.

Less than 5% of fortune 500 companies have a female chief executive. Men control over 95% of those companies. Men control 83% of board seats for those same companies. Men account for only 40% of degrees earned, yet this disparity in leadership exists. But men are getting the raw deal?

Count the women in the picture below. Yeah, men are powerless in this society.

NSFW!

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

That seems very much as though you are undermining the UofT ...

On the contrary. I think the UofT is one of the finest institutions on the planet, which is why I am so surprised at them not making a statement on Peterson's crusade to "represent the unrepresented" in society. Universities live and die on their reputation and most don't like seeing theirs soiled by their own, which is what I am questioning of UofT. I'm wondering how happy they are to have Peterson on his book tour, given the subject matter he is pushing? The faculty must be thrilled with the association.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

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.

Dyson's worst comment was when he said to Fry "I noticed you checking me out." Cringeworthy.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by New Era

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.


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.

Wait, so when women are under-represented in STEM and other fields, we see a concerted effort by schools, the media, and parents to encourage girls to go into STEM at school and then pursue careers in the field. Public awareness campaigns, targets, special programs. But when boys are under-represented in higher education altogether, well they just need to try harder.

Seriously? Do you have to be a filthy MRA to recognize the hypocrisy and double-standard going on there?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

So when Peterson talks to the white children of the 20%-60% he is talking to a group that doesn't have the power that academics apply to their race and gender. So while they are more privileged than there female or minority person in the same class the members of the upper class regardless of race or gender will out perform them. That American class chart shows this quite well.

So my thought was are the critics of Pederson more priveledged than the clients of Peterson. And then are they using their position of priveldge to attempt to limit the opportunities of a group?

This is why the privilege stack is so fundamentally wrong-headed. It not only takes something so broad as 'while male' and stuffs it into a block, it more or less ignores class.

And I don't think that's an accident. The people who have been driving the bus of identity politics for the last 30 years are economically privileged. They're affluent and secure, and come from affluent and secure families. But the moral foundations of their ideology is that the more power people have the more oppressive (and immoral) they must have been to get that power, and the lower you are on the privilege scale the more virtuous and deserving of compassion you are.

So how can a person in the 10 or 20 per cent be virtuous? By saying men are higher than women on the privilege stack. Period. So if you ignore class and look only at gender, it turns out a highly-educated, affluent woman can be a member of the virtuous oppressed! That means a tenured professor making $100k, daughter of a teacher and an accountant, is more oppressed than a white guy earning $30k at Staples who was raised by a single mom who works at Petland.

It really is fascinating how modern identity politics essentially ignores class. In the early and mid-20th century, leftist politics was all about class. Recognizing false consciousness to shed your bourgeoisie values was a necessary first step to becoming a justice-seeking member of the left in 1965. Back then, it was the working class, a steelworker or stevedore, who was held to have inherent virtue, to be deferred to in authenticity and lived experience of oppression, the way women and people of colour are on today's college campuses.

No longer. Now, the social justice movement is driven by people who have virtually no social experience with the working class. That's why feminist opinion-makers go on about women working in STEM, or pushing into top management positions to close the gender pay gap, but never talk about hairdressers and check-out clerks becoming roofers and plumbers. The working-class, blue collar world is utterly alien to them. They don't know any hairdressers or check-out clerks, or their roofer and plumber boyfriends. They live in a world of publishing, media, tech, and academia.

The turning away of the ideological left in North America from the working class, it's attitude shifting from disappointment to indifference to contempt, is one of the great unacknowledged transformations of our politics.

[DiracSpike]

"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."

So telling of where universities are at these days. You guys know the leftist garbage coming out of your sociology and gender studies departments can't stand up to any scrutiny.

[JohnnyB]

In the case of politics in the U.S. I often think that issues of racial identity are used to divide the lower and lower-middle class, to prevent them from voting on what are actually common issues. It's a very emotionally charged and divisive issue. That's not to say that issues of racial and ethnic discrimination aren't true, cause they are, but the emphasis placed on them deflects from the common issues faced by classes that keep all members of various races from effectively exercising their political will.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by New Era

Less than 5% of fortune 500 companies have a female chief executive. Men control over 95% of those companies. Men control 83% of board seats for those same companies. Men account for only 40% of degrees earned, yet this disparity in leadership exists. But men are getting the raw deal?

It's likely we're at, or soon will be at, a state where the average woman has better life circumstances than the average man, but where the very top is still dominated by men. There's nothing at all incompatible about the two. Stop thinking of a block labelled 'male' stacked on top of a block labelled 'female'. Instead, think of an enormous jar of sand, some of the grains blue and some pink. The bottom stratta is bluish purple, the middle reddish purple, and the upper strata shading to blue. The fact the blue grains in the lower half of the jar share the same colour as the grains at the top is no meaningful benefit to them.

Originally Posted by New Era

On the contrary. I think the UofT is one of the finest institutions on the planet, which is why I am so surprised at them not making a statement on Peterson's crusade to "represent the unrepresented" in society. Universities live and die on their reputation and most don't like seeing theirs soiled by their own, which is what I am questioning of UofT. I'm wondering how happy they are to have Peterson on his book tour, given the subject matter he is pushing? The faculty must be thrilled with the association.

Isn't the whole point of tenure to protect professors from just that kind of pressure? How many statements do you think MIT would have released about Noam Chomsky if they took the approach you're advocating the U of T take with Peterson?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Wait, so when women are under-represented in STEM and other fields, we see a concerted effort by schools, the media, and parents to encourage girls to go into STEM at school and then pursue careers in the field. Public awareness campaigns, targets, special programs. But when boys are under-represented in higher education altogether, well they just need to try harder.

Seriously? Do you have to be a filthy MRA to recognize the hypocrisy and double-standard going on there?

Come on Cliff, they aren't the same thing. Not even close. One is a recruiting effort to attract more diversity in a program and industry while the other is a complete failure by a segment to even apply. I would agree with you if male students were being rejected in favor of female students, but that isn't happening. If demand for a class is such, extra sections will be added. I'm not sure what it is like in Canada, but in the States colleges/universities are not turning away business in any shape or form. What is happening is males are just not enrolling to attend school. Recruiting efforts are happening, and both genders are being offered opportunity, it's just the females are following through and males are not. No action is taken by the school to preclude a male student, the males are doing it themselves by not even enrolling.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by New Era

Come on Cliff, they aren't the same thing. Not even close. One is a recruiting effort to attract more diversity in a program and industry while the other is a complete failure by a segment to even apply. I would agree with you if male students were being rejected in favor of female students, but that isn't happening. If demand for a class is such, extra sections will be added. I'm not sure what it is like in Canada, but in the States colleges/universities are not turning away business in any shape or form. What is happening is males are just not enrolling to attend school. Recruiting efforts are happening, and both genders are being offered opportunity, it's just the females are following through and males are not. No action is taken by the school to preclude a male student, the males are doing it themselves by not even enrolling.

No action is taken to preclude female students from enrolling in STEM programs. And yet that disparity is considered a big problem that requires intervention.