I've liked Newman's work previously, but she didn't appear to be listening to him properly or asking him worthwhile questions. I think she did herself - and the guest - a disservice. I suspect if anyone looked a transcript of this interview, Peterson would (rightly) come off better.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
[Channel4] Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism
- Thread starter PSlayer
- Start date
AcademicSaucer
Member
Its amazing how both the far right and the far left misunderstand what Jordan says
Xdrive05
Member
The culture of increasing hysteria on the left about tiki torch wielding Nazis in every sock drawer marries nicely to the reactionary right that flirts openly with ethno nationalists, so long as they shit on SJWs as well; both extremes in the culture playing off of one another where this friction manifests. (The internet and the street demonstration)
And Perterson gets lumped in with the second lot after famously pushing back against the first lot, despite articulating his views about the extreme consequences of either side’s ideology played out. He’s very clear on the problem being the identitarianism. The alt right and ethno nationalists have no friend or hero in Peterson. You would think the ones smartest enough to follow the plot would understand as much.
Last edited:
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
This is actually why I'm not sure whether the criticisms of Newman are fair. Unfortunately, many people will misinterpret Peterson's arguments in the same way she did. By doing so while interviewing him, she gave him the opportunity to clarify his position in light of those popular misinterpretations. Was that her intention all along? In other words, were her uncharitable hot takes just playing devil's advocate? Beats me, but I still see some value in it.
Sapiens
Member
She fought very hard for her ability to be myopic on television, my friend. Very hard.
I don't always agree with Peterson, but he completely made me proud to be from the same country as him.
Lupingosei
Banned
Because she can not debate anymore. She lives inside this media bubble where pretty much everybody agrees with her. People are not used to debating anymore any different view is a personal attack now. And this is true for both sides. People want likes or fake internet points and they will only get this if they surround themselves with like-minded people. It is the facebook, redditifiaction of the world. So both sides create this gated communities and only read their media and their books.
Lionel Richie
Member
Censorship is always the first sign of fanaticism. It's so frequent people eventually came up with a bullshit excuse of "not giving a platform" to any dangerous content.
also always great to see such threads called "when censorship is good in video games."
TTOOLL
Member
"Locking thread.
This seems like a thread that won't end very well. Threads involving Jordan Peterson seem to break down into hostilities very quickly, which we'll try to avoid here."
LMAO
Lionel Richie
Member
LOL yeah that's terrible. We'd legit be extinct by now if people like that were the majority in the world which luckily will never be the case.
HagglesworthMD
Member
They're not even adult enough to have a mature conversation about it, that site is full of 18-24 year old idealists that think they have life figured out and look down upon anyone with a differing opinion other than their own.
ipukespiders
Member
Mental illness runs rampant through their ranks.
Fnord
Member
That was one small part of what he was saying and he mentioned that there were several other factors that he didn't have the opportunity to elaborate on. She was the one that kept going back to the agreeable thing. I believe, because she didn't understand it.
I didn't know either of these people* before watching this, but she was an absolutely horrendous interviewer. It's a good idea, when interviewing someone, to have a reasonably good idea of what they are going to counter with when you confront them with something. She didn't appear to have done any but the most cursory of research. She set herself up to look foolish. It hit a crescendo with the "what makes your right to free speech trump their right to not be offended" thing. I honestly never thought I'd head that kind of language from someone on the left (I'm assuming she's a left-winger and wasn't just playing devil's advocate), much less someone in journalism. Just wow.
*I recognized him when they started talking about the trans stuff, as I've seen a video of him talking to some trans protesters outside of his university building.
Mohonky
Member
In the past you used to be able to have a discussion but much of todays discussion seems to center around people looking for heroes to validate their position; that's where all this 'fake news' horseshit comes from.
You either agree or you're on the other (re: wrong) team meaning any clarifying your statement or point is just met with ignorance and hostility because the other party has already lumped you in with one group or another.
This certainly works both ways and its equally frustrating particularly when people are purposefully being disingenuous as a means of shutting down discussion.
highrider
Banned
They should have just had a big migration to a site that wouldn’t promote radical thoughts of others that aren’t you.
I actually enjoyed it. Never heard of him much before but he's very well articulated and handled the bait-style interview masterfully. And just the fact that he volunteered to be on that show and actually try and explain his point of view shows he knows what he's talking about while being extremely careful about what he is saying.
Agent_Carnage
Member
They could of found someone that would of have been more prepared to debate him.
llien
Member
Relativ9
Member
He received his PHD in clinical psychology in 1991, he has 27 years of experience dealing with unreasonable people. I imagine she's a walk in the park for him, even if you just compare it to some of the people he's debated before (activists and protestors).
Last edited:
Dee Dah Dave
Member
I think the 'backlash' this has caused shows just how stiffled we are these days for some rational debate and discourse on TV.
Musky_Cheese
Banned
She was unprepared and uneducated (compared to him) on the topics.
But we see this more and more, from the left and the right. Attempts to get one stumble and somehow that one stumble invalidates all a persons knowledge and experience.
At some point people decided that they rather hear what they want or not hear what they don’t want, and not what’s true.
But we see this more and more, from the left and the right. Attempts to get one stumble and somehow that one stumble invalidates all a persons knowledge and experience.
At some point people decided that they rather hear what they want or not hear what they don’t want, and not what’s true.
Last edited:
Mohonky
Member
This but I'll also say the message / content has become less important than the author / source. It's one thing to be sceptical of bias, it's another to outright ignore the content because it's from someone / an outlet you consider 'the other side'
That is not how you perform studies.
Yeah, look at how civil this thread is processing, right?
We would be extinct if companies listened to feedback & changed their products to their hearts' content?
Cybrwzrd
Banned
Judging by the tone in this thread, this isn't the same website that it was 2 years ago when you made that post. The miasma has lifted and we can have actual conversations now.
llien
Member
Could we please stop talking about "other places", as this thread isn't about them.
Nobody has authority to claim what is and what isn't true, but I agree that there are many dismissing reasonable arguments just because it doesn't align well with their POV.
Mahadev
Member
How civil is this thread? It certainly seems 10 times more civil than similar threads used to be when certain toxic groups had taken over this place. I've seen some conservatives make a couple of ignorant generalizations but that's what debate is about, expressing your opinion and someone else correcting or adjusting it with better arguments.
Last edited:
Why hasn't anyone done that then? Why haven't you? Maybe having a debate isn't about entertaining every shit that gets thrown on the floor after all?
Mahadev
Member
I've done that in the Matt Damon thread and repeatedly in the Trump thread. ITT there were a couple of people who went just a little overboard imo, but not anything uncivil or egregious. Most are making fun of the other forum which is even worse than they describe but honestly I don't want to get into that subject too much since the toxicity of those people affects you even if you just talk about them.
Last edited:
I think my first exposure to Jordan Peterson was when I was doing some independent research on gender pay gap to get a better understanding of all of the relevant factors, because "cuz the patriarchy" is a facile answer, even if that is a valid component of it. I listened to some of his lectures and he raised some points about how some women have their careers on fundamentally different tracks than men, i.e. at some point they want to shift priorities to having and raising children and will not be down for 120 hour work weeks aiming for the top of the ladder necessarily afterwards, and other factors like not being as assertive about pay raises as men as a whole (or jumping ship to a higher paying job if they're not being paid what they're worth), etc. I found supporting studies for these individual elements and everything seemed pretty reasonable overall: we need to have a multi-faceted understanding about the pay gap, and that understanding will better allow us to correct it. That is, for the components like assertiveness that bear correcting; if a women eschews the shift toward maternity in order to pursue her career fully and that element of the wage gap is corrected for her, one could argue that that component is not an actual problem, just a function of a personal life choice, though of course we can and arguably should have provisions in place for maternity/paternity leave so that everyone can partake in the human experience if they so desire without undue sacrifices. There's probably a healthy balance in there somewhere.
At any rate, after I watched a couple of his lectures my youtube recommendation feed was full of MRA Red Pill stuff and I went "oh god, so he's being co-opted by the us vs them internet gender wars by ridiculous internet people" and bailed out without ever commenting on it on GAF or whatever because of how hostile and polarized and reductive everything had become and how many people would account suicide at me any time I made an appeal to civility and reason and moderation. Seems like maybe we can have a conversation about this sort of thing here now though.
P.S. so basically what you're saying is...
At any rate, after I watched a couple of his lectures my youtube recommendation feed was full of MRA Red Pill stuff and I went "oh god, so he's being co-opted by the us vs them internet gender wars by ridiculous internet people" and bailed out without ever commenting on it on GAF or whatever because of how hostile and polarized and reductive everything had become and how many people would account suicide at me any time I made an appeal to civility and reason and moderation. Seems like maybe we can have a conversation about this sort of thing here now though.
P.S. so basically what you're saying is...
Lionel Richie
Member
That's not what I said, but yes, depending on which feedback a company listened to and how they changed their product it would lead them to bankruptcy. Look at Marvel or how well New Colossus sold. Socially conscious people don't buy the shit they nag people about and everyone else reject it.
Edit: which is not always fair, New Colossus was really fucking awesome. But maybe it's a cautionary tale for any artist that they should never try to please people based on the social content of their work, but rather just create whatever they want.
Last edited:
Makariel
Member
At least it lead to the first sensible article I read on the guardian in what feels like years:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rson-causing-offence-cathy-newman-free-speech
I think the interview went fine, she could have prepared better, sure, but I see nothing wrong with adversarial questioning. I've never seen Peterson laugh that much in the course of a single interview. Kudos to C4 that they put the entire thing online, and not just soundbites for teh clicks.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rson-causing-offence-cathy-newman-free-speech
I think the interview went fine, she could have prepared better, sure, but I see nothing wrong with adversarial questioning. I've never seen Peterson laugh that much in the course of a single interview. Kudos to C4 that they put the entire thing online, and not just soundbites for teh clicks.
That is sadly how it goes lieft or right they always try to put people like Peterson in these us vs them camps even though the stuff he is saying is really smart and informative. Sadly media(journalists) are going the same route these days. Be it symbols like Pepe, Milk (yes no Joke according to some journalists milk is a sigh of the alt-right or hand gestures like the ok symbol. Even more ridiculous is that the troll faction of the internet is using these camps to have their fun through memes, over use of said memes, symols etc. and MEdia is eating it up like a starving child.I think my first exposure to Jordan Peterson was when I was doing some independent research on gender pay gap to get a better understanding of all of the relevant factors, because "cuz the patriarchy" is a facile answer, even if that is a valid component of it. I listened to some of his lectures and he raised some points about how some women have their careers on fundamentally different tracks than men, i.e. at some point they want to shift priorities to having and raising children and will not be down for 120 hour work weeks aiming for the top of the ladder necessarily afterwards, and other factors like not being as assertive about pay raises as men as a whole (or jumping ship to a higher paying job if they're not being paid what they're worth), etc. I found supporting studies for these individual elements and everything seemed pretty reasonable overall: we need to have a multi-faceted understanding about the pay gap, and that understanding will better allow us to correct it. That is, for the components like assertiveness that bear correcting; if a women eschews the shift toward maternity in order to pursue her career fully and that element of the wage gap is corrected for her, one could argue that that component is not an actual problem, just a function of a personal life choice, though of course we can and arguably should have provisions in place for maternity/paternity leave so that everyone can partake in the human experience if they so desire without undue sacrifices. There's probably a healthy balance in there somewhere.
At any rate, after I watched a couple of his lectures my youtube recommendation feed was full of MRA Red Pill stuff and I went "oh god, so he's being co-opted by the us vs them internet gender wars by ridiculous internet people" and bailed out without ever commenting on it on GAF or whatever because of how hostile and polarized and reductive everything had become and how many people would account suicide at me any time I made an appeal to civility and reason and moderation. Seems like maybe we can have a conversation about this sort of thing here now though.
P.S. so basically what you're saying is...
None or less Peterson is someone who does not want to put in either camp which deserves my respet for all the shit he is going through.
Ghostbusters was the same. Yes it is a shitty movie but only their comments, the picture with the all female stuff to promote a fucking movie etc lead to the whole shitstorm. I will be honest here. I think I as well was really biased after thaat infamous picute came out. That was the moment I decided no matter what I will never watch this movie. Entertainment should not be politicized like that.
Last edited:
Maybe it's a cautionary tale that there aren't that many socially conscious people out there.
Maybe they wanted to create social content?
Anyhow. As I understand, you're equating self-censorship, -regulation and stuff to totalitarianism, or how else is it supposed to be the downfall of man? Whatever it is, I will probably find it hysterical.
Musky_Cheese
Banned
I agree. But people tend determine what is and isn’t true based on what they want true to be.
People don’t want to vote for a politician who places blame on citizens.
As an example, politicians love telling voters that evil corporations send jobs overseas to maximize profits. While that maybe part of the reason, the other part is citizens stopped caring about buying American products. But people don’t want to hear that.
Wage gap has many factors. But people don’t want to hear the reasons. They want a villain. People rarely want to even consider personal accountability.
Dr_LucienSanchez
Banned
Uhh, is this what constitutes new gaf?
StrikeNinja24
Banned
What, you haven't noticed this trend?
Lionel Richie
Member
Maybe there are different ways one can be socially conscious that doesn't adhere to the politically correct bullshit bible the current leftist ideology tries to push and that indeed maybe the agenda isn't as unanimous as some people would have hoped.
"Self"-censorship? Seriously? The problem with your argument is that you're forgetting that peer pressure is a thing and that many times the artist doesn't really have an option but to follow what a very loud and obnoxious part of the community want for a work they probably won't even consume lest someone somewhere be offended by it. Look at Yooka-Laylee and the Jontron thing, people in this very forum started a boycott campaign against A Hat in Time because those devs wouldn't do the same thing. That's not "criticism" or "voting with you wallet", that's trying to pressure the author into compromising his work for reasons that are unrelated to it. You have to do some really hard mental gymnastics in order to convince yourself that asking people to boycott stuff for moral reasons isn't censorship.
The downfall of man I mentioned is due to sheer stupidity. I'm paraphrasing here, but it's been said that the inability to entertain a thought you disagree with is a sign of stupidity.
ipukespiders
Member
The Peterson debate wasn’t a right vs left debate, it was a facts vs feelings debate. Luckily for Peterson, he handles himself with composure when confronted with bullies.
TTOOLL
Member
What's the problem with this thread? Really. Who is battling who? Who is shutting down discussion?
"Of all the delusions that grip our fractious era, one of the worst is the confident belief that greater restriction of speech will necessarily serve progressive ends. I see no logic in that whatsoever. As Peterson warns, everyone finds something objectionable or upsetting. It would be a moment of maximum peril if the primary test applied to expression became its capacity to offend. Why assume that those setting the rules would necessarily support the powerless or the disenfranchised? The injunction “You can’t say that” leads just as plausibly to Margaret Atwood’s Gilead or to Oceania."
Great article indeed.
Last edited:
StrikeNinja24
Banned
It's a circle jerk in the other direction, you know, what everyone complained about before.
Musky_Cheese
Banned
I don’t think that was the complaint.
Many recent threads are not that at all imo. Mods even post and ask people to get back on topic and be civil.
I have not seen dog piling. Or bans for disagreeing.
TTOOLL
Member
Well, maybe Jordan had a great performance and people recognise that.
It also explains why the thread was locked on reset.
PSlayer
Member
People complained about not being able to go against the "circlejerk" without being dogpilled by protected users or banned by biased mods.
As far as we know,the only thing keeping you,or anyone else who may disagree with something, from participating here is your own will to discuss the topic.
There will be always some dominant point of view(s), allowing different ones to show up is what makes here different from the simbling site and the reason why this thread is still open while the one in the other site was shut down almost immediately.
lifa-cobex
Member
5-minute teaser: Jordan Peterson responds to Channel 4 interview controversy
People jerking off each other's hate boners for ERA. Telling scary stories about the mean leftists. You must have missed it.
Consumers are not peers of producers.
They only have that much influence. Producers can still choose to not listen to them.
"They don't even really care" is just a convenient assumption to disregard criticism.
"Asking for boycott" is a good few steps away from censorship.
Last edited:
Kadayi
Banned
Did you have more to add there or were you hoping that your words alone would make a for compelling counterpoint?
Given their other article that's a refreshing move, though I think he's a tad generous to Cathy Newman in terms of how well it went for her. I watched the interview again last night and towards the end, she was falling over herself to try and get him to utter some questionable shibboleth that could be used against him wholesale.
Anyway with regard to the contents of the interview. I really found some of the points he talked about quite fascinating, and really resonated with me. The whole thing on focussing on equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome is straight up sensible talk. From an educational perspective, all children should have access to the same opportunities and be encouraged to excel as much as possible, but ultimately it's up to them what they will want to pursue and albeit I don't think we can deny that culture has some impact on shaping their decisions, there is more at play than that alone and it's reductive to try and argue that's the case.
Also, the Lobster stuff that he touched upon was not necessarily a revelation (social hierarchies in animals groups is something we are all aware of), but more the fact that those status protocols have been biologically built into life for hundreds of millions of years was the real eye-opener. It just puts the boot into any arguments of inequality being a social construct or more pertinently the idea that we can genuinely tackle inequality, not perhaps in the sense that we shouldn't bother (I think it's an admirable ambition), but more in the sense that we can at best look at mitigating/minimising it versus eliminating it entirely. Reminds me somewhat of that great line from Orwell's Animal farm "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".
Anyway. I actually bought Petersons 12 rules book, which I've been listening to today at work. Not too far in, but it's pretty interesting. I wouldn't say it's for everyone as he's quite verbose and wide-reaching in his explanations, but he gets to where he wants to in the end. Be warned though that there's a lot of religious references, though not from the perspective of a spiritual sense, more from the viewpoint of these early human works being codifications of human thought and morality.
You know there's a report post function (right below this line). Use that instead of derailing the thread further.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked