Jordan Peterson thread
- Thread starter DAIR
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,345
I really don't see what all the fuss is about — sure he's articulate and well spoken, but he seems to talk a lot without really saying anything.
There's no doubt the interview was a car crash, but I don't think Cathy Newman is that good an interviewer anyway.
After watching it I went on his YouTube channel and watched a few random videos, there really isn't anything profound or groundbreaking about what he says.
What am I missing?
There's no doubt the interview was a car crash, but I don't think Cathy Newman is that good an interviewer anyway.
After watching it I went on his YouTube channel and watched a few random videos, there really isn't anything profound or groundbreaking about what he says.
What am I missing?
What you're missing is that people seem to think he's some early warning system for the next genocides of humankind.
There isn't anything ground-breaking or profound, just what appears to be sanity in a world of insaneness.
What will happen, will happen.
There isn't anything ground-breaking or profound, just what appears to be sanity in a world of insaneness.
What will happen, will happen.
tldr: Feminazi gets BTFO by a man with a brain
Based on what though? A minority of people campaigning based on identity politics?
Some of his assertions require massive leaps of logic which he wraps up in a few biblical or psychological tangents.
To suggest that the Black Lives Matter movement (for example) will result in death on the scale of Mao is a paranoid dillusion.
He’s playing on people’s fear to sell his book but by wrapping it all up in eloquent language he makes it sound more legitimate.
Im no fan of that movement. But Does he actually say that?
He doesn’t specify BLM (at least not in the videos I’ve watched) but he certainly alludes to organisations similar to them.
I can’t remember the exact passage but it was something along the lines of “lefties and liberals rely on identity politics, that’s what Mao did and it resulted in the death of millions.
I’m at work now but I’ll see if I can dig it out later.
No he doesn't, and Irish_Tom is doing exaclty what Newman did, suggesting something was said when it wasn't. Peterson compared the philosphy of the beliefs of Mao and the radical left, he categorically did not say that the outcome of the radical left would be the same as Mao's China - the deaths of millions.
He was comparing the philosophy... Can you understand and appreciate that?
Actually I think he said exactly that. It's just that the conditions in Mao's world allowed him to get away with it. You would have too much resistance in this world.
Like I say, I don't have time to dig out the exact quote right now but I'll try later on.
See this is what I was talking about earlier. He alludes to a lot of things, allowing the audience to draw their own conclusions but without categorically stating anything.
That way, when challenged, he (or his followers) can say "Ah, but he didn't actually state that", even if it was clearly implied.
For a second.... Forget about the "millions or thousands of deaths" part.
Can you appreciate and understand that we was ultimately comparing the philosophies?
Can you appreciate and understand that we was ultimately comparing the philosophies?
I had planned on saying something lol. I've just come back from a ban. So didn't want to rock the boat!
Seems to me it was thrown in here. To sink to the bottom.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,345
Why would OcUk not want a discussion involving Jordan P in it's own thread?
Yeah it is a bit odd... I mean surely there is a difference between just posting a video for the sake of it and posting something in order to start a discussion about the subject of the video, in the latter case surely it warrants its own thread rather than derailing a thread just intended for random videos with discussion about one particular one. Then again maybe the OP should have thrown in an article too just to make it clear that he intended a discussion and wasn't just sharing a clip.
Or not included the video at all.... Who knows.
I rewatched the video above and it mostly talks about the Soviet Union rather than Mao, and he refers to "Social Justice Warriors" and I picked out BLM as a proxy for all SJWs. So I apologise for any inaccuracies in my previous post.
However, I'd still like to explore exactly what he says in one section:
Firstly, I'm pretty sure categorising people by ethnicity, sexuality and race have been an issue long before SJWs were a thing. Segregation of blacks in the US and denying women the vote (among other things) caused the equal rights movement; they aren't a result of it. I also think it's disingenuous to suggest that this is only a trait of "Lefties" and Democrats.
Secondly, he jumps from decrying identity politics by "the Left" straight to the Soviet Purges. He's clearly implying (although I admit, not categorically stating) that it's inevitable that the former will lead to the latter (including the death of millions in one way or another). Not to mention that it's quite a leap to suggest an equivalence between "SJWs" and "Lefties" and the Russian Revolution.
Also, note that he's not actually comparing two philosophies. There is no real analysis of the similarities or differences between the two. He makes a sweeping generalisation that "the Left started categorising people based on their identity" and then segues into "that's what happened in the Soviet Union". There's no discussion or comparison there; he states it as though the connection is a well-known fact, which makes sense when you consider his primary target audience and their pre-existing biases.
Now, in the middle, there's a decent section about Marxism and the history of the USSR but it's nothing new. If it were just a history lesson video it would be great, but within the context of his rant against the "Lefties" it just promotes the false idea that anyone remotely left-leaning is a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist.
He says that his students have no idea what happened in the Soviet Union because they are taught so badly in schools. I don't know about the US education system but maybe they really don't teach that stuff in school and no one knows about it. That might explain why they all think the national health service is akin to Communism…
He clearly has an agenda and he's clearly pandering to his audience — wrap it up in a well spoken and articulate package and it sounds convincing but it doesn't really stand up to any level of scrutiny.