And I was pretty clear I don’t bench for max, but I still have a number. I probably can do more, honestly
It’s right there. Nice, precise, and concise. Perhaps you should work on your literalism. Thanks for coming when I call, bae, but this just isn’t going to work out.
Like I said, I've only seen a bit of it, but Peterson's primary issue with political correctness almost certainly stems from the incident that made him famous in the first place; that piece of Canadian legislation that would have legally enforced pronouns for transgendered people. I would guess that's at least mentioned in the talk. I'm about to start from the beginning and will try to make note.
Yeah, I was expecting him to bring that up at some point, but I imagine it isn’t going to be a big talking point as the two “pro” people are American and the other “con” is British. Peterson is the only Canadian at the debate in Canada so he isn’t likely to meet much informed pushback from the others on stage.
Forgive me for this, but I'm just going to do a summary stream in this post as I go through this for the benefit of whoever still cares to dissect the points of Peterson's ideas rather than the bench numbers of the posters. I don't think we're going to get too many specific phrases or words because he, like Shapiro but not to the same dogmatic extreme, seems to generalize too much. -Peterson's opening comments focus on what he sees as the two general ("low-res") approaches to human interaction; those conducted on an individual level, and those conducted as part of a collective (identity politics). His primary beefs with political correctness in that regard is that it a.) emphasizes the collective approach excessively, to the detriment of the individual one and b.) turns the cultural/political/whatever stage into a battleground between those groups for power and control, and that through this lens, free speech is impossible because what you say no longer represents your own individual ideas, but is instead simply some reflection or part of the group's beliefs. - Peterson later goes on to make the argument that while it is very clear in modern discourse what sort of behavior and language demarcates too far on the right, namely speech about racial superiority and domination, the line is publicly less clear or even undefined on when things move from the "reasonable left" to the "radical left". This is problematic to him because he sees much of the latter present in the upper tiers of the academic world and an inability of the students to identify it as such because of their own inexperience. He defines his line of demarcation between the two as when there is a shift from pushing for equality of opportunity into equality of outcome. -Once it moves to the question portion, he starts by answering a question about the dangers of groupthink. Here, he makes the point that on both the left and right, the primary danger of devotion to group identity and the pervasiveness of identity politics is that it increases the presence of tribalistic behavior in society as a whole. He believes this balloons into the pressing for group rights, which he sees as fundamentally different and more problematic than individual rights for one key reason; individual rights can easily be kept in check by individual responsibility (aka you have the right to free speech, but if you call a black man a nigger, you may have the responsibility of dealing with an asskicking), whereas it's difficult or irresponsible to maintain group responsibilities for group rights, which then mushrooms into group guilt. - Dyson makes an argument that a problem in America for the dominant cultural groups is their inability to understand or even acknowledge the role their group identity has played in creating beneficial situations for them, to the point where even the challenging the necessity of these advantages from minirities is seen as a critique of the country as a whole. Peterson gets visibly frustrated and counters by asking for precision and stating that "if" he benefits from white privilege, then what percentage of his success is due to it, and what actions should he then take to rectify it? Should he have to pay a tax equivalent to that percentage? -Dyson makes the "mean, mad white man" comment, which Peterson sees as disingenuous because it ignores any attempt to understand his personal background in favor of the group identity he's previously criticized. - Peterson gets frustrated because he wants Goldberg and Dyson to explain in their minds what constitutes "too far" on the left, but Dyson keeps asking him to produce examples of the right going too far. He gives several (Nazi Germany, Identitarian Europe, Charlottesville, Norway), but doesn't like that he's again being painted as a right-wing shill through this line of questioning.
But then he says that people are collective or social animals and can’t be exclusively understood as individuals. And that the left has an important role to play in seeking justice for maligned groups. So the specifics of where he draws the line between justified criticism and dangerous “political correctness” is not something he clarifies (at least not at the beginning). He also complains that such a line on “the left” doesn’t seem to exist as it does for “the right” but he doesn’t seem to clarify where he draws it - or where he’d like to see others draw it. Again - at least as far as I got in that discussion.
Well it hasn't been clear exactly what your (or others) issue with the "lobster thing" actually is - because, in and of itself there is nothing wrong with the analog and it certainly isn't worthy of the scorn or derision that's been heaped upon it. Frankly, these topics aren't what I find compelling in Peterson's thinking by and large. But, with that said, I do agree that your interpretation of his words is the only reasonable one based upon the fact set I currently have in front of me. I'm not an anthropologist nor do I have any particular insight here but I do not agree with Peterson that hierarchies are purely the product of evolution. I would weight evolution more heavily than nurture, environment, etc. but it seems to me impossible to fully separate the two anyway. So no, I can't go fully in with Peterson here. But I do think it's an interesting debate and one that has real implications for our future. The postmodernist assertion that everything is a social construct is pernicious and leads to many unpleasant outcomes. Whether Peterson really believes this or is using hyperbole as a rhetorical device is another question altogether. One of his failings is his tendency to get loose with his language and sometimes make contradictory assertions. I don't see him as flawless or even right most of the time. But to call him a "grifter" or anything in that realm of labels is completely unfair and unwarranted.
This is simple truth easily observable in every day life. By anyone who isn't already so far left as to be gone to rational thought.
Best part is this article is what known thought leader Ben Shapiro said Peterson did not mean in his use of the term....you know, because genetic enforced monogamy is even worse.
Peterson's opening comment I think breaks it down, where he sees 2 narratives opposing eachother; a collectivist and a sovergn. The question he thinks needs to be addressed is which is paramount? They are both important and necessary for a free society, but one has to take priority. He sees the collectivist ideal taking hold, which has roots in post-modernism and neo-marxism, which rejects the idea of the individual and ascribes value based on the collective group to which you belong or identify. and secondly that the proper interpretation of how the world works, from the collectivist viewpoint, is as a battleground between groups in a constant struggle for power. and that's true today, where each identified group is struggling for their version of power as a collective, and it's also true of the past, where we can look back categorize people by groups and assign wins and losses, essentially. Within that construct, there is no individual, so things like free speech, as an example, are not relevant or attributable to the individual, they are only relevant to the group you represent. So, according to that position, Jordan Peterson isn't telling us his personal viewpoint, he's speaking from the perspective of the middle-aged, privileged, white male. That is what he is, and that is all he is. Everything he is, or has achieved, is a direct result of that, and that alone. His white-ness, his male-ness. Any struggles he's encountered are shrugged off and ignored, as they do not fit into that narrative, they are not relevant to the discussion, because they can in no way superseded the advantages inherent to his race, gender, and privilege. This is painted by the radical left as "political correctness" in the name of progress. In order to move past that, in order to assure the :losing" groups can win, we need to enforce political correctness, to even the outcomes. We need to embrace our groups, and punish the empowered groups, while rewarding the under-privileged groups. However, in practice, in his opinion, the results of that thus far have proven to be very un-progressive and have produced a strong sense of tribalism. What I find interesting is that the well spoken black guy's (ha!) opening statement essentially verifies what Peterson is saying. he says the right does not understand how "lesser classes"; people of color, women, trans-people, etc. have been treated by the groups in power (straight white men). Group identity was thrust upon those groups, not chosen by those groups. And the result (and he makes this sound like a bad thing) of that is the loss of individualism within those groups. So the answer, from the left, is not to recognize the vileness of that collectivism and destroy that, and instead embrace the power of the individual. No, it's to double down, embrace collectivism, and assign value, in a kind of point system, like a game of oppressed/oppressor Monopoly. if you are male, you lose a turn. if you are female collect $200. if you are white take 2 steps back. if you are a person of color advance to Go. he's saying: here is the problem: collectivism! And here is the solution: collectivism!
You and Peterson continue to ignore what the people for the pro side said - that they do not seek group fights, they seek individual rights for people that are members of oppressed groups. And again, in that entire rambling post you do not tell me what specifically the con complaint is. Peterson himself acknowledges that humans exist as social animals that define themselves both as individuals and members of groups. And in the context of speech that is permissible or not, examples aren’t given. There is merely the boogeyman of some bad outcome if a concept is taken too far. For a “debate” it seemed to do an awful job of actually defining the point of contention (at least in the first half of the debate that I watched). Maybe they finally hammered out where exactly they disagreed but it seemed to be too far into something calling itself a debate to be helpful
No, that was specifically what I was saying; they seek individual rights.....VIA the collective. So the way I help Bob, the oppressed black man, is by highlighting his membership to the GROUP that's being oppressed, by the GROUP that is oppressing him. When you do that, you've lost the power of the individual and resort solely to collectivism. It is no longer Bob the oppressed vs. Tim the oppressor, it's black Bob vs. white Tim. The complaint is, specifically, that tribalism is bad, and in so far that political correctness, as it's being practiced, breeds tribalism, is also bad. Tribalism in the name of political correctness is harmful and ultimately, ironically, a counterproductive means of trying to accomplish the stated goal of the left. There were numerous times that the English fellow complained that this was not a debate about political correctness. The boogyman is clearly defined, it's the Marxist utopia. It's where tribalism and collectivism ultimately and always lead.
Looks like the crowds JP draws actually aren’t full of young white incel males. Weird. Peterson and Dave Rubin joint event.
So this thread devolved into people comparing bench press numbers and typing out blocks of words. Cool.
One of these is sophomoric and pointless and the other is at least a component of nuanced discussion. Not sure why they're lumped together.
You posted those tweets to make the point that Peterson's audience wasn't strictly white incels. My substantive reply is, "That guy isn't an unbiased observer. Therefore, his estimation of the crowd demographics might not be all that accurate." I should have led with, "LOL, that guy tweets at Scott Adams multiple times a day." My mistake.
In contrast to the loony know-nothings in this thread, here is some rational perspective on JP from the left. http://quillette.com/2018/05/22/jordan-peterson-failure-left/
just a reminder that this thread was dead until shakedown, the same person who has suggested that he's of a superior intellect and is above posting on this board in general, replied to himself multiple times with some shit from alt-right twitter he is indeed the mature intellectual in this debate
An individual cannot claim his rights when fighting a group for them. He needs help. That's the entire point of societies. It's fine to say "tribalism is bad" but that doesn't change the reality of life in today's world. Black people are labeled black people by white people. Whether or not black people reject that label doesn't change how others view them. The benefit of social animals is that we can band together to fight for what we want and increase our chances of success by doing so. Additionally, there cannot be an end to racial injustice (or any problem really) until it is first recognized. Saying we must ignore the racial components of that injustice when it is undeniably the cause of it is absurd. And that isn't even tribalism. You don't have to be black to recognize racial injustice against blacks. Again, I only watched the first half but it seemed pretty clear that there was not an agreement from the con side about what the issue was. Peterson wanted to argue politics (and a slippery slopism towards Stakinism). Fry wanted to argue that no words should be considered absolutely taboo. Those are very different arguments and not something that lends itself towards a coherent debate. The fact that you think the boogeyman was clear from the beginning but neither the pro people or the other con seem to agree your assessment (from what I watched) is evidence that it wasn't. There as broad agreement on a number of topics from all participants but I don't think they agreed on what they didn't agree about.
An individual can certainly claim his rights if they are violated by an individual though. My example was Bob's rights being violated by Tim. What collectivism demands is that we identify the group involved, black Bob and white Tim, and fight for the rights on those grounds. What individualism would suggest is Bob fights for his rights against Tim. That is possible. Maybe not 100 years ago, but today, right now, it is. maybe not 100% of the time, but the default approach should be the power of the individual, and if that fails, then the power of the collective, not the other way around. That approach would promote individualism over collectivism/tribalism while not completely defanging the collective, when needed. That black people were labeled blacks by whites doesn't mean that has to remain forever. if we are progressing, then we leave those labels in the past and move on. keeping a death grip on them so you can fight for your group is precisely the issue, from whites, blacks, men, women, and everyone who identifies with a group. Ultimately if there is an issue with whites labeling blacks as blacks, wouldn't that be ideal for blacks then? Fuck what whitey wants to call me, I'm not black Bob, I'm just Bob. Does retreating into that label help the issue of being labeled in any way? Well if you see me as a monster, then fine, I'm going to call myself a monster too? Or is it maybe beneficial to reject that entirely? But again, it's a complicated issue. The idea, I think, is that yea, we are white and black and men and women, and that's fine to be that and to acknowledge that and have others also acknowledge that, but it's what we do with that that's important. If that is what we identify with, above being Bob and Tim, then that's when it becomes a problem. When it IS us, and not just an attribute of us, it's not a good thing, ultimately. If promoting the individual is a good thing, why don't we do a better job of promoting the individual, even if it's tough? Now of course that gets spun into: oh, you want me to disavow my past, ignore my history, you want to just forget all the evil that you (whitey) have done to my people. Well....no. We can still acknowledge that my great great great grandfather may have done awful things to your great great great grandfather (or not, because assuming that's the case just because of the color of my skin and your skin is also kind of the exact issue we saying is wrong and are attempting to fight here, right?), but we don't have to be those people forever. We can remember that, and leave it there, in the past, where it belongs. The suggestion, as far as I've seen, is not to ignore injustice, it's finding the optimal way to deal with any injustice. Where collectivism becomes skewed to the negative is when everything is viewed through that lens. When a white cop shoots a black man is it racism? Of course, right? How could it not be? A white cop, in power, with a gun, shoots an unarmed black man, kills him. it's pretty clearly racism. But we know that's not true. it might be racism. It sure could be, but do we need a little more evidence than the skin colors of the people involved to determine that? of course. But we don't grant that, because we've become so tribal that we know it before we even see it. We don't need evidence. A man got paid more than a woman? Sexism! Really? And the response is, well you whites, or you men, or whatever the group is, have created this, by shooting all the blacks or being so sexist. Again, it's not viewed as an individual, it's the group, all members are responsible for all actions of the group. So when a racist cop shoots a black man, you, Mr. Rules, become a little more racist yourself, because of your white skin, your membership to that group. And I think Peterson may later in the discussion define where that type of tribalism and collectivism leads, and that it's been demonstrated numerous times in history. Agreed, it was a poorly moderated debate, and I'm not sure it had a clear purpose or goal outside of the title, and the parties involved kind of took it and ran in whatever direction they pleased.
This is why I stopped watching it half way through. It was frustrating as a viewer that the debaters didn’t seem to agree what topic they were debating. There weee some interesting things said, but it lacked the focus I was hoping for. The rest of the stuff you posted starts with the assumption that there aren’t still broad acts of discrimination based on group identity and that’s the exact problem. As one example, when the president expresses a desire for an immigration policy that denies access to the country for Africans and Haitians and wants to encourage Europeans to come here, that is institutionalized racism. That isn’t a disagreement between Bob and Tim. It is saying Europeans are desirable members of society and Africans aren’t. To deny that the labeling is important merely empowers the discrimination. The label is important because it is the tool used to implement discriminatory practices. So, it has to also be used to rectify that problem - so that members of that group can exercise the same individual rights as the group that is the subject of discrimination.
This might make sense if anything you typed above actually happened. Thankfully it did not. The level of mendacity you people are capable of is simply astounding.
This post seems to be made under the belief that Peterson is arguing that only the Left engages in identity politics and tribalistic behavior. He's been fairly clear, in this debate included, that he sees it as a fault of both sides in American politics.
No, he was quite clear about that. I am not trying to say that in any way. The context was merely referencing the politics of oppression of people of color - which happened to be a big point for people on the left leaning side of today’s American politics and is frequently downplayed by people that are right leaning. White identitarians are recognized by all but white identitarians themselves as problematic.
Would love to come into this thread and see dissection of Peterson’s positions by both sides of the argument, but alas we have page after page of character attacks and shit-slinging back and forth directed at individuals. We’re incapable of discussing ideas, instead we have to discuss how shitty the person is with that idea. Happens both ways, happens with a number of posters that I think are otherwise fully capable of creating arguments to support their position for or against ideas. Lazy “point scoring” bullshit.
I don't agree that my post was based on that assumption at all. It was based on the assumption that not every interaction between a member of a group and member of another group is based in the struggle between those 2 groups. That does not mean there are ZERO acts that are based in that. There are, there very obviously are. There is still discrimination based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc. All of that still exists. It's just much less prevalent than it was 100 years ago and even 20 years ago. So we get back to what Peterson said in his opening statement, we know both of those things exist (a group dynamic and an individual dynamic). The question is which do we prefer to give more power to? And that's is his point, that we should first give power to the individual, and deal with Bob and Tim as individuals. If (and only if) that fails, then we also have the option of looking at Bob as a black man and Tim as a white man (or gay or muslim or whatever). It's not one or the other, it can be both, we have both options, it's just a matter of which takes priority. Very very very clearly, from the left, the group dynamic takes priority, right? So much so that the individual has been all but eliminated. They don't see Bob and Tim, they see a black man and a white man, first and foremost. And even if you try to talk about them as individuals, that gets shouted down as being insensitive, ignoring the group identity, failing to see the issues of the collective, etc. Which, like I said, is ironic, because it's exactly what was described in the opening statements as a bad thing.
And that’s why groups can’t ababdon their group identity. They have it used against the individual members of that group. Individuals that are powerless alone to fight that discrimination. The biggest impediment to eliminating the continued existence of discrimination isn’t members of oppressed groups using the same labels that have been used against them, it’s refusing to acknowledge the reality that that discrimination exists. It’s absurd to ask the oppressed to abandon the indenties that are thrust upon them by those seeking to oppress them.
so again...not sure how many times I can say this...it's not a matter of choosing group or individual, both can still exist. BOTH CAN STILL EXIST. NO ONE HAS TO ABANDON EITHER. And nothing I'm saying is exclusive to the discriminated class. When the left plays identity politics (i.e. a normal Tuesday afternoon), they do it across the board. So it's not black Bob and Tim. It's black Bob and WHITE Tim. highlighting the race, gender, etc. of the oppressor is just a big a part of this as highlighting the race, gender, etc. of the oppressed. It's called out, as THIS side is good and THIS side is bad. It's not any different when the right does it, when white supremacists do it, etc. etc. It's the same format. It's wrong, and bad, every time, and leads to bad places. I agree, individuals alone are powerless to fight discrimination. But individuals alone are not powerless to fight another individual, where no discrimination exists. Fabricating discrimination based on identity is the issue Peterson is talking about, right? That being the DEFAULT position, is a bad thing, right? You keep shaping the identity side of it, saying we need to fight racism with collectivism. Ok, but what do we do when it's not racist, and White Tim does something to Black Bob? Is it possible....is it ideal, to deal with that situation outside of skin color?