The Jordan Peterson Thread

[DrB0b]

That is not a racist or intolerant comment. It’s a historical fact.

It is an utterly idiotic comment.

[DrB0b]

PM sent...

Cheers. I'll forward it to Anwar and he'll contact the brothers.

[Maanaam]

A western seat of learning has denied students the opportunity to examine, question and refute, or understand someone who holds forthright views on human development.

I take your point completely, and put like that, it sounds like the seat of learning is sadly erring on the side of PC.
But that venerable seat of learning has standards to maintain. Do you think they should offer a podium to a holocaust denier who has opinions and theories that offend some people? Let the students listen, examine, question, and refute? Or should some degreee of forgone conclusion be assumed and the holocaust denier not be offered a platform?

[Hugh Cow]

Not exactly, it's collegiate and that makes some difference. Being public makes no difference anyway, or are you suggesting that the iron fist of government be used to restrict academic freedom? Peterson, BTW, is perfectly free to sue them for no-platforming him.

Sorry to see that your earlier bleating about "defending to the death" doesn't extend so far as to allowing the moderator of Caravan of Jihad to give a talk in your living room. Your espousal of free speech is pretty selective.

Have to disagree DrB0b. A University to a large degree takes public funds. It cannot discriminate whether it should educate people on the left or the right of politics and therefore should represent all views and challenge them in an open and even handed way.
I have noticed a tendency now to call anyone who disagrees with the left to be ult right. Jordan Peters is certainly not "Ult Right" because he challenges the world view of the left.
I have noticed increasingly on this site posters on the left rather than engage or challenge opinions, increasingly attack the poster, usually by trying to belittle them. Snuby and others often attacks posters for their views or prejudices, using terms like "geriatric old fool", (snub) a prejudicial term that emplies older people cannot or are incapable of having a valid opinion therefore negating their own argument by introducing their own prejudice. Hardly a cogent argument and a lazy type of rebuttal that doesn't take any mental effort.... "People in glass houses", I think thats called. We seem to be going down a road that says "If I feel 1 and 1 equals three you have no right to say otherwise if I'm offended by it".

[Norton]

Never heard of JP so had a look at a couple vids. Clearly a Canuck with his clipped accent. Noticed like many politicians he avoids directly answering questions by repeating his narrative on a subject unrelated to the question.

The 2 vids I watched were media interviews rather than debates. In both he was doing the interview to promote his book.

My take away. Not impressed with his delivery or ability to definitively communicate his position on anything. Just another of many on both the so called "right" or "left" enriching themselves via book sales and donations to their cause.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

I take your point completely, and put like that, it sounds like the seat of learning is sadly erring on the side of PC.
But that venerable seat of learning has standards to maintain. Do you think they should offer a podium to a holocaust denier who has opinions and theories that offend some people? Let the students listen, examine, question, and refute? Or should some degreee of forgone conclusion be assumed and the holocaust denier not be offered a platform?

Well said.
The ideas have being vetted and have being found deficient with in the norms and mores of our society, no need to hear from every crockpot. Peterson is not the first to come up with such ctap.

[Switch]

I take your point completely, and put like that, it sounds like the seat of learning is sadly erring on the side of PC.
But that venerable seat of learning has standards to maintain. Do you think they should offer a podium to a holocaust denier who has opinions and theories that offend some people? Let the students listen, examine, question, and refute? Or should some degreee of forgone conclusion be assumed and the holocaust denier not be offered a platform?

Yes, because such views need to be refuted by no lesser authority than one which encourages freedom of expression, with the express purpose of understanding historical fact.
Lets keep such viewpoints in the public domain, if only to trash them.

[Switch]

It is an utterly idiotic comment.

It is a perfectly accurate representation of recent history. Your opinion counts just as much as mine, but perhaps you would consider the point that Huw makes below.

[DrB0b]

It is a perfectly accurate representation of recent history. Your opinion counts just as much as mine, but perhaps you would consider the point that Huw makes below.

Recent history? So are you saying a black person born in New York is fundamentally different from a white person born in New York? Are you saying non-white people are fundamentally different, mentally, biologically, and culturally to white people?

A University to a large degree takes public funds

Publicly funded does not under any circumstances mean an institution is obliged to provide a platform to anyone who wants one. Why on earth would anyone think that?

Lets keep such viewpoints in the public domain

Those viewpoints are already in the public domain and there is no danger of them disappearing no matter how many Universities exercise their rights to choose who they employ or choose to allow speak on their premises.

[Switch]

Recent history? So are you saying a black person born in New York is fundamentally different from a white person born in New York? Are you saying non-white people are fundamentally different, mentally, biologically, and culturally to white people?


Publicly funded does not under any circumstances mean an institution is obliged to provide a platform to anyone who wants one. Why on earth would anyone think that?

Those viewpoints are already in the public domain and there is no danger of them disappearing no matter how many Universities exercise their rights to choose who they employ or choose to allow speak on their premises.

Point #1. Recent history as in going back to Africans being traded as slaves from an under developed culture. Or are you suggesting that they would have developed towards equality without interference from the so called “ developed” world. They were taken in huge numbers from a cultural and social vacuum and enslaved. Historical fact.
Being placed in a socially developed culture, showed them to be no different genetically, to their captors.
Nature and nurture.

Point#2. Perhaps there is a moral obligation for publicly funded organizations to explain thinking and reasoning, along with critical analysis. Perhaps you are content for freedom expression to be replaced by political bias?

Point #3. There is a danger of those views, and the subject matter disappearing if they are not given the opportunity of frequent rebuttal? Holocaust denial? Buried under your scheme, instead of regular opportunities to debate it, lest people forget.

[DrB0b]

Point #1. Recent history as in going back to Africans being traded as slaves from an under developed culture. Or are you suggesting that they would have developed towards equality without interference from the so called “ developed” world. They were taken in huge numbers from a cultural and social vacuum and enslaved. Historical fact.
Being placed in a socially developed culture, showed them to be no different genetically, to their captors.
Nature and nurture.

Do you actually believe that gibberish? As I thought, you’re not only racist but you’re an ignorant racist.

[Maanaam]

Lets keep such viewpoints in the public domain, if only to trash them.

Again, I take your point completely. You're absolutely right...in an ideal world. I'm just not sure about in the real world.
History has shown us that some damaging views can quite easily be accepted, the masses being what they are, ie gullible and prone to accept things from snakeoil salesmen, good-looking blondes, TV celebs, etc. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it's very hard to put back. You only need to look at Trumpism in the US. Any refutations are "fake news", and lies piled upon lies rule the day.
Another good example is the anti-vaxxer mob and whoever started that very damaging crusade. It's now very difficult to persaude converts to ant-vax that they're following an idea that is harmful and based on fallacy and exaggeration.
If I was a Med school dean, I would not allow an anti-vaxxer a chance to lecture his or her ideas.... because I believe differently to the anti-vaxxer. Would I be suppressing free speech?

[Maanaam]

Africans being traded as slaves from an under developed culture.

They weren't blessed with beasts of burden. Genetically the same, but no animals to help them develop more efficient society.

[Texpat]

What are you afraid of Methy? The truth? If you have a belief then convince people of that. Don't silence them, shut them down and jail them. The troof will set you free.

Peterson, Shapiro, Yanappopopolis aren't fringe nutjobs. They just have ideas that don't sit well with hair-twirling millennial snowflakes and stodgy leftist university administrators who don't want to be challenged and are too lazy to defend their beliefs.

Genetically the same

Same chromosomes, but not the same phenotype. Spare yourself the embarrassment.

[Hugh Cow]

Publicly funded does not under any circumstances mean an institution is obliged to provide a platform to anyone who wants one. Why on earth would anyone think that?

In Australia Many Religious Schools are publicly funded. They in turn must agree to take students of any religion and non religious students if they wish to keep their public funding. In short they forfit the right to decide who they can take if they want to receive public funds.
Universities are a place to exchange ideas and assuming they are attended by adults they should be able to decide who they wish to hear and who they do not. It is not up to the faculty to decide when they are being paid out of the public purse. University students can attend or not attend these public lectures at their own discretion. They do not need and should never have public servants tell them who they can and can't listen to. I'm surprised you are so close minded B0b.
The students at my sons University are told to refer to everyone as he / she unless they have been specifically told that persons gender. Failure to do so could affect their results.

[Texpat]

Good post HC.
Absent the free flow of ideas and exchange of theories, its not so much education as indoctrination. I think B0b may be playing devil's advocate.

[DrB0b]

Publicly funded does not under any circumstances mean an institution is obliged to provide a platform to anyone who wants one. Why on earth would anyone think that?

In Australia Many Religious Schools are publicly funded. They in turn must agree to take students of any religion and non religious students if they wish to keep their public funding. In short they forfit the right to decide who they can take if they want to receive public funds.
Universities are a place to exchange ideas and assuming they are attended by adults they should be able to decide who they wish to hear and who they do not. It is not up to the faculty to decide when they are being paid out of the public purse. University students can attend or not attend these public lectures at their own discretion. They do not need and should never have public servants tell them who they can and can't listen to. I'm surprised you are so close minded B0b.
The students at my sons University are told to refer to everyone as he / she unless they have been specifically told that persons gender. Failure to do so could affect their results.

What does any of that have to do with Cambridge deciding they don’t want to employ this guy?

[raycarey]

Peterson, Shapiro, Yanappopopolis aren't fringe nutjobs

no, not at all....

[Texpat]

Yanni culturally appropriating from a woman of color. Hits all your button's don't it, Reach Around? But he's a homer -- surely he gets some points for that, right?

[AntRobertson]

^^To be fair though being a racist and trading on crass stereotypes is pretty much normal for Tex. Dressing as a woman also probably.

[raycarey]

Yanni culturally appropriating from a woman of color.

you don't know what the term 'cultural appropriation' means, do you?

[raycarey]

To be fair though being a racist and trading on crass stereotypes is pretty much normal for Tex.

good point.

of course a racist, white nationalist is going to think that peterson, shapiro and yiannapoulos are mainstream figures.

[Switch]

Do you actually believe that gibberish? As I thought, you’re not only racist but you’re an ignorant racist.

Ahh the old racist card. Nice one blob.

The diaspora of humanity began in Africa, with the smart and the curious. How else do think the aborigine managed to get to Australia?
Those who remained were subsistence farmers at best. Slavery took them to a more developed culture, where eventually, one of them became president.
While there are still disproportionate numbers in prison, on welfare and deprived of education, those who are smart enough have gone on to great things.
Explain please how that factual view of history is racist and ignorant?

You will remember of course that segregation in the US was outlawed, before apartheid was banished in South Africa.

[DrB0b]

Explain please how that factual view of history is racist and ignorant

It's racist because it assumes black africans were lazy and uncultured until civilized by being enslaved by the white man and it's ignorant because it is an unbelievably stupid, false, and crass interpretation of history.

[Texpat]

There are statistically significant differences between races. Those who wish to deny this always turn the discussion about groups of people -- to individuals. They try to use individual examples to disprove factual generalizations about groups.

Little fuss is made when someone posits that height, eye color, hair, or length of nose are all characteristics that vary between races. Bring intelligence into the conversation and many blow a gasket. Why wouldn't intelligence vary among such different groups if so many other (most other) characteristics do?

Sorry, we're not all the same. You can't wish it to be true. You can ban IQ tests of school children and squash any discussion at supposed places of higher learning, but that doesn't change the facts -- it just hides them. More bad news -- males and females aren't the same, either.