|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 18, 2019 10:47:46 GMT
3 minutes in and he's rambling, I'm out. JP has some great ideas and some stupid ideas but the stupid ideas get him the most attention so I'm never sure if he's sincere or just attention whoring. I think he is sincere, his demeanor speaks as much. If he is after attention, it is to get people to put things into rational perspective with their thinking. He is a clinical psychologist, and he gets the human psyche. He doesn't come across as a typical narcissist to me of the likes of Shapiro or Yiannopoulos.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Dec 18, 2019 12:56:14 GMT
to me it seemed like she went in there with a plan to expose him as some kind of misogynist and when that fell apart it seemed like she was purposely misinterpreting everything he said and in some cases appeared to not even have listened to what he said. She caught so much flack for that interview and rightfully so I am not sure if you read the comments on you tube to the video, but many are hilariously on point about her approach to his facts and perceptions by her dismissive and non sequitur responses:
Peterson: Farts Newman: So you are saying women aren't worthy of breathing fresh air....  There must be a meme factory out there that just produces Cathy Newman Jordan Peterson material. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Dec 18, 2019 14:10:14 GMT
I think it has more to do with how people were raised as well as the whole group think mentality where everybody riles each other up on the internet into thinking everybody is pure evil and scum except for the people that agree with them. The big difference as opposed to the past was the mentality of "I don't agree with what you say but I will defend to the death his right to say it", has now morphed into "I don't agree with what you say and it is my god given right to never have to hear it and I am willing to die trying to have your speech shut down" Within our lifetime, but these things wax and wane. Sure when I was a kid people were more polite about disagreements but I was also a kid and had no concerns except fun. I was insulated and surrounded by people who thought like everyone else I knew until my mid 20s so of course there was little disagreement. I had few responsibilities until my 30s when I settled and started a family. With responsibilities came stress. As the decades roll by my mood doesn't improve, taxes go up, my knees crack, and our culture shifts further from my youth leaving me feeling mortal and alienated. So from my perspective, times are worse than when I was young but I've always been a contrarian even to myself and so I know it's me that changed not the world. Old men complain about young men, it goes back to the earliest days of writing. My dad complained about teenagers, they are lazy, immature, can't count change, coddled in school, blah, blah, blah; those teenagers are now old men complaining about teenagers, just like JP in the video. this isn’t an issue of people getting older and thinking “these kids today errrr. Or when I was a kid.. 10 miles barefoot in the snow to school”... .Yada yada... I think you’re missing the whole point. |
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Dec 18, 2019 17:53:03 GMT
this isn’t an issue of people getting older and thinking “these kids today errrr. That's exactly the issue. The world is complex, many ideas. There is an issue I see with the youth and that is Y and Z generations were defined by marketing teams so from birth they could tell them who they are to more easily sell them crap and it worked. For their whole lives those young people have been given a group identity and with that came power. They are the dominant generation and are going to get their way because their opposition is dying off. Don't worry, eventually they will get old, turn to other concerns and complain about these kids today who will be rebelling against them. |
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Dec 18, 2019 21:03:35 GMT
You’re missing the point. There is an alarming number of people who think people shouldn’t be allowed to speak because they dont like what the person has to say. These kids are enabled by the adults who agree with them
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Dec 18, 2019 21:20:33 GMT
If the day ever comes that men on average make less than women...and as the world progresses, that is a possibility, let's see how men react to the fallacy pay inequality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Dec 18, 2019 22:15:54 GMT
You’re missing the point. There is an alarming number of people who think people shouldn’t be allowed to speak because they dont like what the person has to say. These kids are enabled by the adults who agree with them I like to say that freedom means people get to do or say things with which you or I disagree and it always causes an argument because (surprisingly to me) most Americans I encounter do not agree. I think we both agree that people should be free to speak their mind and we both agree there are people who would censor those with whom they disagree but it seems we disagree is whether this is new or something old. I believe it's the same thing that's been around forever.
|
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Dec 18, 2019 23:04:29 GMT
the most telling part of the interview is when she asked why should his right to free speech trump a trans person's right to not be offended. That is the whole problem with what is happening on campuses and within our society. People really believe they have a right to never hear any point of view that they don't agree with. When you have a group of people that are looking for things to be offended by, that shuts down any conversation between two people that disagree. The Bill of No Rights: www.friesian.com/ross/ca40/noright.htmSee Article II.  Even if some of the things listed contradict the way it is here in Canada, I think this should be an official thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 18, 2019 23:45:26 GMT
If the day ever comes that men on average make less than women...and as the world progresses, that is a possibility, let's see how men react to the fallacy pay inequality. Interesting point Paul, however, it will still have to be measured by various components that would determine why this is. Would it then become about men being exploited by women, and have women being exploited by men to create what is seen as disparity in earnings, when both genders can be seen to be exploited regardless of gender in the working class realm. This is a systemic issue. It is also illegal today, and has been for sometime, to pay someone less based on gender.
Wages are also not earnings and choices, capabilities and more relevantly "interests" also come into play. While women may be in top end jobs using their intellect and minds, which men can do as well, men will still dominate the more physically challenging and demanding roles as gameboy has pointed out. Females aren't interested, nor will they be as capable in many of these roles. That is just nature and males need to be paid fairly in this instance and in accordance with what the role entails.
Wage disparity can't be accurately gauged, because it would depend on what region in the world the difference is occurring as well, what the role entails and what company one is working for. One company may pay more in the same city for a similar role and that is just pot luck. Until we have one world wide federal governing, no religiosity and one sole currency that is valued the same globally, we will all be running around in a frenzy trying to find more reasons to undermine each other and why one has this and the other one doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 19, 2019 0:34:58 GMT
Mass immigration has always been a contentious issue and that is one of the main reasons why the Brits voted for Brexit. Yes, fearful of losing jobs to migrants. The elephant in the room is getting pushed aside by those that have their own self-serving agendas and then we are promoted with all this distracting gender inequality conundrum s<>t. Peterson knows what he is talking about, but perhaps is playing it safe to be more concerned with debunking the crap we are getting peddled, to get people to think smarter about the rest of it without outright saying it.
I find it difficult to trust anyone who has a mainstream podium because it seems to me it is incredibly tightly controlled and no one who isn't in the club or obedient to it is going to be getting any mainstream attention. I think there have been a few (alt-right whatever) who built up a flock with some specific carefully outlined truths and then after a while went mental as if on cue (that Milo for example). Steve Bannon is a paid clown--he appears on 60 Minutes looking like a drunk--accident? He was also touring Europe with three Pakistani conservatives telling Europe about civic nationalism.
I'd watch to see if Peterson does an about face or has some convenient scandal or mental health crisis to de-legitimatize him or his views.
In general, I think Feminism was, as Yuri Bezmenov outlines here--a tool for weakening societies. I hear that in former Soviet bloc countries they rejected feminism because they could see it was being utilized for less than noble social ends. Western countries are slower to realize the deception.
That guy is talking some half truths. KGB recruited those that were sociopathic, narcissistic and even psychopathic in nature. He may talk some truth, but also corrupted by his own extremism and political ideal. He was not to be trusted.
The way I see the feminization of society at present and pandering to females to earn higher incomes, is purely economical. Women are big consumers and Peterson pointed out as such.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Dec 19, 2019 0:38:48 GMT
If the day ever comes that men on average make less than women...and as the world progresses, that is a possibility, let's see how men react to the fallacy pay inequality. Interesting point Paul, however, it will still have to be measured by various components that would determine why this is. Would it then become about men being exploited by women, and have women being exploited by men to create what is seen as disparity in earnings, when both genders can be seen to be exploited regardless of gender in the working class realm. This is a systemic issue. It is also illegal today, and has been for sometime, to pay someone less based on gender.
Wages are also not earnings and choices, capabilities and more relevantly "interests" also come into play. While women may be in top end jobs using their intellect and minds, which men can do as well, men will still dominate the more physically challenging and demanding roles as gameboy has pointed out. Females aren't interested, nor will they be as capable in many of these roles. That is just nature and males need to be paid fairly in this instance and in accordance with what the role entails.
Wage disparity can't be accurately gauged, because it would depend on what region in the world the difference is occurring as well, what the role entails and what company one is working for. One company may pay more in the same city for a similar role and that is just pot luck. Until we have one world wide federal governing, no religiosity and one sole currency that is valued the same globally, we will all be running around in a frenzy trying to find more reasons to undermine each other and why one has this and the other one doesn't.
I will agree that men on average make more than women because the men have had a longer, easier access to getting the higher paying jobs, but I’ve worked in an somewhat old school type industry, transportation, and I know a woman driver can do as good of a job as any man and that system is set up so drivers can earn per mile. All have access to earning top wages. That said, I’ve heard my own boss say he would not pay a woman more in any other position because he said, men are the head of the family and should make more. That is an attitude among a lot of people including women. They have an old fashion, or probably romantic, way of seeing the sexes and their function in our society. They believe they are justified in this, but it’s wrong and should not be allowed. And I dare say I’ve earn more than my female colleagues in operation/logistics positions. Equal pay for equal-level work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 19, 2019 0:54:48 GMT
Interesting point Paul, however, it will still have to be measured by various components that would determine why this is. Would it then become about men being exploited by women, and have women being exploited by men to create what is seen as disparity in earnings, when both genders can be seen to be exploited regardless of gender in the working class realm. This is a systemic issue. It is also illegal today, and has been for sometime, to pay someone less based on gender.
Wages are also not earnings and choices, capabilities and more relevantly "interests" also come into play. While women may be in top end jobs using their intellect and minds, which men can do as well, men will still dominate the more physically challenging and demanding roles as gameboy has pointed out. Females aren't interested, nor will they be as capable in many of these roles. That is just nature and males need to be paid fairly in this instance and in accordance with what the role entails.
Wage disparity can't be accurately gauged, because it would depend on what region in the world the difference is occurring as well, what the role entails and what company one is working for. One company may pay more in the same city for a similar role and that is just pot luck. Until we have one world wide federal governing, no religiosity and one sole currency that is valued the same globally, we will all be running around in a frenzy trying to find more reasons to undermine each other and why one has this and the other one doesn't.
I will agree that men on average make more than women because the men have had a longer, easier access to getting the higher paying jobs, but I’ve worked in an somewhat old school type industry, transportation, and I know a woman driver can do as good of a job as any man and that system is set up so drivers can earn per mile. All have access to earning top wages. That said, I’ve heard my own boss say he would not pay a woman more in any other position because he said, men are the head of the family and should make more. That is an attitude among a lot of people including women. They have an old fashion, or probably romantic, way of seeing the sexes and their function in our society. They believe they are justified in this, but it’s wrong and should not be allowed. And I dare say I’ve earn more than my female colleagues in operation/logistics positions. Equal pay for equal-level work. Where I work, which is only a component of a bigger whole, women are the dominating big pay earners and leaders, but this is due to where their interest lies and it also appears to me this is something they appear to actively endorse and manipulate. Their qualifications are of course more suited and of more interest to females in this sector.
There is a mindset conditioning that can be considered archaic, but males will also relate to other males in certain instances and will look out for them, just as females will do with their own. That is just human nature. Equal pay for equal work level though is not something that can be absolutely attained or gauged. Some people on lower levels may work harder, of both genders, than those in higher levels and get paid more. People are usually paid by company designed awards, each award will differ from one company to the next and will tier levels according to job description and not everyone gets to be on a salaried position. I myself get paid for each hour I work only and the hours fluctuate from week to week.
Earnings can be higher for one person over another regardless of gender, due to how much time gets put in and overtime paid. If you have earned more, its not because they were paid less for being female, it is because they haven't put in the same commitment, or have had more time away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Dec 19, 2019 0:59:57 GMT
That guy is talking some half truths. KGB recruited those that were sociopathic, narcissistic and even psychopathic in nature. He may talk some truth, but also corrupted by his own extremism and political ideal. He was not to be trusted.
The way I see the feminization of society at present and pandering to females to earn higher incomes, is purely economical. Women are big consumers and Peterson pointed out as such.
Bezmenov did not have a big podium like Peterson has. The goal of women working is also to reduce Western birth rates. This seems undeniable to me because those who advocated less European births in the 80s are now saying there aren't enough people and foreigners need to be imported (instead of increasing incentives to have children-cant have that-since it means more pressure for women to raise children instead of working which would mean--more men having job opportunities). It is certainly possible they are just beta stupid and don't know what they are doing (weak thinking, weakened society). And this despite the impact on environment--bringing people in means increased industry, so much for wanting to reduce western pollution. But I see it as conniving, not accidental. Too many malicious lies in the media for it to be accidental.
In Romania they stuck children in orphanages and institutions because their society was so equal women had to work. There weren't given a choice. Having children away from parents also allows for indoctrination. This is happening in the West, it is just being done more slowly. Antifa foot soldiers are useful idiots. And they are well-funded so I think the Bezmenov prediction isn't far-fetched at all. It's just that it does not get talked about seriously. As I have said, today's GOP would have been called card-carrying communists in 1960. That is how far they have veered left because the Democrats are even further left. Trump is the closest to the middle and even then he is called a raging rightwinger. If people really believe that then it will really hit the fan when society gets a more systemic crash and Balkanization.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Dec 19, 2019 6:06:34 GMT
3 minutes in and he's rambling, I'm out. JP has some great ideas and some stupid ideas but the stupid ideas get him the most attention so I'm never sure if he's sincere or just attention whoring. I think he is sincere, his demeanor speaks as much. If he is after attention, it is to get people to put things into rational perspective with their thinking. He is a clinical psychologist, and he gets the human psyche. He doesn't come across as a typical narcissist to me of the likes of Shapiro or Yiannopoulos. I was being unfair earlier by giving up so early. I went back and watched the video on my PC and now I understand he was just carefully weighing his words because the interviewer is out to trap him. There are times when I thought JP was just being silly or even stupid, but he is also careful and considered much of the time. edit, and I want to add that by the end of the video this chick really turned me on. I would have epic sex with her.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 19, 2019 7:36:22 GMT
I think he is sincere, his demeanor speaks as much. If he is after attention, it is to get people to put things into rational perspective with their thinking. He is a clinical psychologist, and he gets the human psyche. He doesn't come across as a typical narcissist to me of the likes of Shapiro or Yiannopoulos. I was being unfair earlier by giving up so early. I went back and watched the video on my PC and now I understand he was just carefully weighing his words because the interviewer is out to trap him. There are times when I thought JP was just being silly or even stupid, but he is also careful and considered much of the time. edit, and I want to add that by the end of the video this chick really turned me on. I would have epic sex with her. So you are saying that is all women are good for, sexual objectification? 
Out of curiosity, what parts did you find silly or stupid about Peterson? I found him very reasonable, if a little dry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Dec 19, 2019 8:53:08 GMT
I was being unfair earlier by giving up so early. I went back and watched the video on my PC and now I understand he was just carefully weighing his words because the interviewer is out to trap him. There are times when I thought JP was just being silly or even stupid, but he is also careful and considered much of the time. edit, and I want to add that by the end of the video this chick really turned me on. I would have epic sex with her. So you are saying that is all women are good for, sexual objectification?
Out of curiosity, what parts did you find silly or stupid about Peterson? I found him very reasonable, if a little dry.
Nothing in this video but I've seen other vids where I was just shaking my head. Here he masterfully played that woman. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 19, 2019 9:07:10 GMT
So you are saying that is all women are good for, sexual objectification?
Out of curiosity, what parts did you find silly or stupid about Peterson? I found him very reasonable, if a little dry.
Nothing in this video but I've seen other vids where I was just shaking my head. Here he masterfully played that woman. That is the longest clip I have seen of him and only really listened to a few other videos that were only a few to 5mins long. A few people had recommended him to me. I was more into Shapiro and Milo for a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Feb 1, 2020 20:36:48 GMT
to me it seemed like she went in there with a plan to expose him as some kind of misogynist and when that fell apart it seemed like she was purposely misinterpreting everything he said and in some cases appeared to not even have listened to what he said. She caught so much flack for that interview and rightfully so I am not sure if you read the comments on you tube to the video, but many are hilariously on point about her approach to his facts and perceptions by her dismissive and non sequitur responses:
Peterson: Farts Newman: So you are saying women aren't worthy of breathing fresh air.... Good one, Toasted Cheese! 
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Feb 1, 2020 21:19:57 GMT
Not a bad interview—is 30 mins—and I don't mind watching Cathy Newman, but she does tend to ask black and white questions when rattled, as though it can then be answered as an absolute when there are other factors at play that make up the entire equation. That is her way of trying to get one-upmanship on someone who is smarter than her. She also got rattled and lost for words when she was processing something Jordan said about causing offense when they were discussing transgender issues. The truth in this instance is what he said, the truth. You can't argue with an absolute and she was literally choking to respond.
Peterson knows his stuff and for the most part remains very conducted and calm. He speaks things for what they are, not for what they get painted out to be and are supposed to represent. The gender pay gap has always been a contentious issue, but is always easy to debunk, but some people, feminists mostly, just cling to it as though it is what they hang their entire movement onto to make their phony claims look credible.
Equality of opportunity, nice for those that wish to pursue certain careers that are highly driven, but equality of outcome is a fallacy. The opportunity is never going to determine the consequence of outcome which is and always has a capricious and unpredictable nature. It is about wanting to control the outcome, when it will become what it is. This is really about some feminists saying we want this as a given because of our gender, not because of cutting the mustard and willingness to play the game.
Expecting men to be more like women to even the playing field, is because they aren't prepared to be more like men, because of the differences in gender dynamic. It is absurd to think that men are going to change to become something women think they should be due to some sort of arrogant entitlement.
I have seen this interview at least 30 times and I never get tired of it. I am a huge fan of Jordan Peterson and I would say that I am blindly devoted except that I never catch or hear JP's saying anything dumb or offensive. He is extremely intelligent, even kind-hearted, I would say, and as a father figure to guys I would say he's the best there is (not that I don't love and appreciate my own father). It seems to me that the like/dislike ratio for Peterson is maybe 60/40, and I just don't get most of the comments his detractors make. Trying to pass of gobbledygook as rhetoric. First off, he is not even close to being a politically oriented person (my own take on him) and he is basically a compassionate and humane clinical psychologist who is also very eloquent. Second, his idol is Carl Jung, who was just about the smartest person ever. As these things go, the interview is pretty good. Yes, Cathy Newman does try to put words in Jordan's mouth (almost constantly) and JP is spot on when he says that she is not truly listening to what he is saying. But she is not entirely unlikable and their rapport is playful at times. I love it when JP says to CN - "I suspect you're not very agreeable" and dang it if Cathy does not light up like a beam over that one! It's a very, very fun moment. But the topper to this interview, of course, is the "Gotcha!" moment. I get happy goosebumps all over when he lays that one out. And it is to Cathy's credit that she was able to smile at that one. But Jordan Peterson is always respectful and never appears to intend anything to be taken personally. I've felt like writing to him myself, because he actually does have very encouraging words to offer. I love the man. I would love to get the "Gotcha!" as a ringtone!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2020 22:21:17 GMT
3 minutes in and he's rambling, I'm out. JP has some great ideas and some stupid ideas but the stupid ideas get him the most attention so I'm never sure if he's sincere or just attention whoring. It's been said that Donald Trump is popular because he embodies a poor person's idea of what a rich person is like. I always thought Peterson is popular because he embodies a dumb person's idea of what a smart person is like.
|
|
