FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Jordan peterson: The origin of covid 19.
Jordan peterson: The origin of covid 19.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I watched an interesting interview that jordan peterson did with matt ridley, here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEh5JyZC218&t=2315s have you also seen it and if so, what did you think of it? They talked about many things, they explore the covid 19 outbreak, like the bat theory, lab leak, how it is to be scientist in a communist country and how different china is to the west, they also talked about religion. it was a well put together interview. I give it a 10/10 rating "You have to wonder why the USA were funding 'Gain of function' research at a Wuhan lab perhaps the same lab where the alleged leak occurred? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I watched an interesting interview that jordan peterson did with matt ridley, here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEh5JyZC218&t=2315s have you also seen it and if so, what did you think of it? They talked about many things, they explore the covid 19 outbreak, like the bat theory, lab leak, how it is to be scientist in a communist country and how different china is to the west, they also talked about religion. it was a well put together interview. I give it a 10/10 rating
You have to wonder why the USA were funding 'Gain of function' research at a Wuhan lab perhaps the same lab where the alleged leak occurred?"Yes, one have to wonder why they did that. I reckon that usa are involved on it it as well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jordan Peterson sounds intellectual, he uses a lot of big words and speaks at a slow enough pace that it doesn't sound like he is blinding people with science. But, he is a crank. He makes far to many references to Scandinavian countries where there isn't as much diversity, a completely different culture and really shouldn't be taken seriously." is that Jp shouldn't be taken seriously, shouldn't be taken seriously when he references Scandinavia or Scandinavia shouldn't be taken seriously ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jordan Petersen is a master of using confirmation bias to gain people's trust. Think something sounds suspicious but you're waiting for someone with a PhD to air those suspicions? Step forward, Jordan Petersen. (See also the likes of Joe Rogan, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and other PhD-less populists.)"  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jordan Peterson sounds intellectual, he uses a lot of big words and speaks at a slow enough pace that it doesn't sound like he is blinding people with science. But, he is a crank. He makes far to many references to Scandinavian countries where there isn't as much diversity, a completely different culture and really shouldn't be taken seriously.is that Jp shouldn't be taken seriously, shouldn't be taken seriously when he references Scandinavia or Scandinavia shouldn't be taken seriously ?" For the sake of simplicity, if he appears on screen, just turn him off. You'll save 5 IQ points just by ignoring everything he says. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's funny how anyone who has a different perspective to an official narrative, or who has a differing view point is automatically chopped to ribbons.." nothing out of the ordinary depending what side of the fence you sit on if someone dosent agree with you your either a right wing crank, or commie griffter, its all rather amusing as these people who throw these insults about are more like each other than they realise | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's funny how anyone who has a different perspective to an official narrative, or who has a differing view point is automatically chopped to ribbons.." Not automatically. Millions of people have watched his videos and bought JP's books (some of those have even read them). In this world of no-filter social media, he's not being chopped to ribbons but given a gold-plated podium to say whatever the fuck he wants, no matter how wrong or hurtful it is. I feel that he means what he says and he genuinely wants us to be better people. But then so does the guy on the corner shouting about Jesus. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peterson is a crank, a grifter, and a transphobe, amongst other things. No reason to take his opinion seriously on anything. "
Also sexist, an islamophobe, flirts with the far-right and lied about his own recent drug use.
Plus, he's consistently wrong on the Bible, Lobsters and Jung - the very topics he is supposed to be an expert on. So I'm surprised anyone takes him seriously when he speaks on topics he is woefully qualified to comment on.
And his parenting advice makes me throw up in my mouth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's funny how anyone who has a different perspective to an official narrative, or who has a differing view point is automatically chopped to ribbons.." Unfortunately that is how the left work. Discredit everyone or publication that has an opposing view to theirs and cancel them immediately on Twitter etc..whilst calling them racists, conspiracy theorists climate change deniers etc.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wouldn't waste any time on Jordan peterson total wind bag!" Really? I think anyone who can construct an intelligent debate is worth attention...and appreciate many people know more than me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's funny how anyone who has a different perspective to an official narrative, or who has a differing view point is automatically chopped to ribbons" By 'chopped to ribbons' do you mean invited onto every news show on the planet, featured on all the top podcasts, interviewed endlessly on YT and consistently given more time and respect than he deserves? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I watched an interesting interview that jordan peterson did with matt ridley, here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEh5JyZC218&t=2315s have you also seen it and if so, what did you think of it? They talked about many things, they explore the covid 19 outbreak, like the bat theory, lab leak, how it is to be scientist in a communist country and how different china is to the west, they also talked about religion. it was a well put together interview. I give it a 10/10 rating "Jordan Peterson is absolutely fucking bonkers. I can only imagine the crazy shit it's making up about covid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wouldn't waste any time on Jordan peterson total wind bag! Really? I think anyone who can construct an intelligent debate is worth attention...and appreciate many people know more than me. " That completely rules out Jordan Peterson then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'll stick with the scientific evidence and not that awful gut. The origin topic has been done to death in the forum. China will nor be likely to permit further information to be released, so watching a video to promote the bank balance of this man seems abhorrent and pointless " Tell me everything you know about the Parasympathetic Nervous System  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd heard loads of terrible stuff about him then actually heard what he was saying. He definitely was saying very different things to the things I'd been told he was saying!" Perhaps you need to dig a bit deeper. He has said all the things people say he has. His deadnaming of Elliot Page was about the least detestable thing he's done. But very on brand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Weird because following him saved my life a few years back. Nobody is without value." How do you feel about him blaming women for their attacks by incels? Or his denial that Islamophobia exists? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's funny how anyone who has a different perspective to an official narrative, or who has a differing view point is automatically chopped to ribbons.. Unfortunately that is how the left work. Discredit everyone or publication that has an opposing view to theirs and cancel them immediately on Twitter etc..whilst calling them racists, conspiracy theorists climate change deniers etc.." The problem we have here is that by far the majority of higher educators are left wing and they detest the truths that Peterson speaks. They will try any trick in the book to discredit him and most of his detractors have not even read any of his publications. He willingly and eagerly debates with the leading adversaries and never shies away from meaningful discussion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd heard loads of terrible stuff about him then actually heard what he was saying. He definitely was saying very different things to the things I'd been told he was saying! Perhaps you need to dig a bit deeper. He has said all the things people say he has. His deadnaming of Elliot Page was about the least detestable thing he's done. But very on brand. " No he hasnt, he speaks 100 times more real common sense than any of his Alt Left adversaries. They spread vitreol about him because they are genuinely scared of him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Weird because following him saved my life a few years back. Nobody is without value. How do you feel about him blaming women for their attacks by incels? Or his denial that Islamophobia exists? " It is so easy to take a sound bite from Peterson and quote it completely out of context. So easy that most dumb pseudo intellectuals are doing it all the time to whip up anti-Peterson rhetoric but still thank god enough people actually listen to him rather than his misquoters and his following grows by the day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd heard loads of terrible stuff about him then actually heard what he was saying. He definitely was saying very different things to the things I'd been told he was saying!" Yeah, most of it is parroted by the woke mob who have tried so hard to cancel him. Do I agree with everything he says? No, not at all but I also don't write off everything one person says because of that, their politics, or because of some sort of tribal sense of "he's not on my team" JP makes a lot of good points. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's funny how anyone who has a different perspective to an official narrative, or who has a differing view point is automatically chopped to ribbons.. Unfortunately that is how the left work. Discredit everyone or publication that has an opposing view to theirs and cancel them immediately on Twitter etc..whilst calling them racists, conspiracy theorists climate change deniers etc.. The problem we have here is that by far the majority of higher educators are left wing and they detest the truths that Peterson speaks. They will try any trick in the book to discredit him and most of his detractors have not even read any of his publications. He willingly and eagerly debates with the leading adversaries and never shies away from meaningful discussion. " "the truths that Peterson speaks" this line here is where your problems are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's funny how anyone who has a different perspective to an official narrative, or who has a differing view point is automatically chopped to ribbons..nothing out of the ordinary depending what side of the fence you sit on if someone dosent agree with you your either a right wing crank, or commie griffter, its all rather amusing as these people who throw these insults about are more like each other than they realise" Yes. People who can’t actually challenge an argument should themselves be switched off here imo. I have watched a few of his lectures, he’s clearly got some unpopular but populist ideology coming through as pseudo science. Although he is an academic, phd and lecturer so much of his views are backed up with scientific method, but I’m not sure his record of publishing peer reviewed research , but he does seem to write pop psychology books instead. I’d put him in the sane category as people like Richard Dawkins. They start with personal beliefs rooted in hated for other people that will sell to those in society that feel unfairly treated. , then pretend to use science to back the ideas up to sell books | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's funny how anyone who has a different perspective to an official narrative, or who has a differing view point is automatically chopped to ribbons..nothing out of the ordinary depending what side of the fence you sit on if someone dosent agree with you your either a right wing crank, or commie griffter, its all rather amusing as these people who throw these insults about are more like each other than they realise Yes. People who can’t actually challenge an argument should themselves be switched off here imo. I have watched a few of his lectures, he’s clearly got some unpopular but populist ideology coming through as pseudo science. Although he is an academic, phd and lecturer so much of his views are backed up with scientific method, but I’m not sure his record of publishing peer reviewed research , but he does seem to write pop psychology books instead. I’d put him in the sane category as people like Richard Dawkins. They start with personal beliefs rooted in hated for other people that will sell to those in society that feel unfairly treated. , then pretend to use science to back the ideas up to sell books " Interesting, I see him as the polar opposite of Dawkins, everything he says is firmly rooted in science, with his opinions dumped on top. Peterson starts with opinions, and tries to work back to science, often ending up in psudoscience. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's funny how anyone who has a different perspective to an official narrative, or who has a differing view point is automatically chopped to ribbons..nothing out of the ordinary depending what side of the fence you sit on if someone dosent agree with you your either a right wing crank, or commie griffter, its all rather amusing as these people who throw these insults about are more like each other than they realise Yes. People who can’t actually challenge an argument should themselves be switched off here imo. I have watched a few of his lectures, he’s clearly got some unpopular but populist ideology coming through as pseudo science. Although he is an academic, phd and lecturer so much of his views are backed up with scientific method, but I’m not sure his record of publishing peer reviewed research , but he does seem to write pop psychology books instead. I’d put him in the sane category as people like Richard Dawkins. They start with personal beliefs rooted in hated for other people that will sell to those in society that feel unfairly treated. , then pretend to use science to back the ideas up to sell books Interesting, I see him as the polar opposite of Dawkins, everything he says is firmly rooted in science, with his opinions dumped on top. Peterson starts with opinions, and tries to work back to science, often ending up in psudoscience. " No they are the same. True scientists battle their own unconsci**s and conscious bias, it’s a crucial part of the scientific method. Neither of these two do, it’s ideology dressed up and sold to the stupid. The readers of these books minds are made up well before they start reading. No one of real faith cares what Dawkins’s has to say, it’s irrelevant he only sells to people hurt by religion, they are ready abd waiting to buy his rubbish . If it was was science why doesn’t he write a book about unlucky number 13 and discredit the millions of superstition believers world wide ? Because it wouldn’t sell & he doesn’t hate them as much. Peterson is exactly the same he knows what will sell, who his enemy is, and who the wounded people are ready to buy. It’s pure sales. Both use science and there’s snippets of truth in the propaganda to make stupid people justify a vile viewpoint. It’s exactly how people like Boris get to lead a county and push Brexit through. They talk in a way and say things that stupid people believe clever people do. The fact that Boris was a serial liar and moral failure his whole career, personally and professionally didn’t matter because of the way he spoke. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I watched an interesting interview that jordan peterson did with matt ridley, here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEh5JyZC218&t=2315s have you also seen it and if so, what did you think of it? They talked about many things, they explore the covid 19 outbreak, like the bat theory, lab leak, how it is to be scientist in a communist country and how different china is to the west, they also talked about religion. it was a well put together interview. I give it a 10/10 rating
You have to wonder why the USA were funding 'Gain of function' research at a Wuhan lab perhaps the same lab where the alleged leak occurred?"The problems with any "Origin of Covid" claim is that it is all speculation. Virologists tell us that Covid 19 isn't similar enough to the the naturally occurring virus to be "converted" in a lab, it would need to be 99.9% identical to be "theoretically possible". On the other hand, the Zoonotic transfer theory hasn’t been proven either. In previous cases where viruses have jumped between species to infect humans, there has been evidence of intermediary animal hosts (as with SARS & MERS)... these intermediate hosts have not been found for Covid 19. I can certainly see why the Lab Leak theory is attractive to people, it would give someone to blame for the whole shit-show. In the absence of any scientific evidence to support the claims, it seem unlikely... especially as the science just isn't available to modify the "origin virus" into C19. On the other hand, it would be daft to discount the theory completely. There is still "ZERO" scientific evidence to support any other theory either. The official stance is (to paraphrase) "We believe that the most likely origin is a zoonotic jump from bats (via another host) to humans" Ultimately... nobody knows the "Truth". Cal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I watched an interesting interview that jordan peterson did with matt ridley, here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEh5JyZC218&t=2315s have you also seen it and if so, what did you think of it? They talked about many things, they explore the covid 19 outbreak, like the bat theory, lab leak, how it is to be scientist in a communist country and how different china is to the west, they also talked about religion. it was a well put together interview. I give it a 10/10 rating
You have to wonder why the USA were funding 'Gain of function' research at a Wuhan lab perhaps the same lab where the alleged leak occurred?
The problems with any "Origin of Covid" claim is that it is all speculation.
Virologists tell us that Covid 19 isn't similar enough to the the naturally occurring virus to be "converted" in a lab, it would need to be 99.9% identical to be "theoretically possible".
On the other hand, the Zoonotic transfer theory hasn’t been proven either. In previous cases where viruses have jumped between species to infect humans, there has been evidence of intermediary animal hosts (as with SARS & MERS)... these intermediate hosts have not been found for Covid 19.
I can certainly see why the Lab Leak theory is attractive to people, it would give someone to blame for the whole shit-show. In the absence of any scientific evidence to support the claims, it seem unlikely... especially as the science just isn't available to modify the "origin virus" into C19.
On the other hand, it would be daft to discount the theory completely. There is still "ZERO" scientific evidence to support any other theory either. The official stance is (to paraphrase) "We believe that the most likely origin is a zoonotic jump from bats (via another host) to humans"
Ultimately... nobody knows the "Truth".
Cal"My view is lack of proof of transfer shouldn’t lead to lab theory , if you follow principles like Occam's razor, which is very useful science here, you would conclude zoonotic jump from bats | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's funny how anyone who has a different perspective to an official narrative, or who has a differing view point is automatically chopped to ribbons..nothing out of the ordinary depending what side of the fence you sit on if someone dosent agree with you your either a right wing crank, or commie griffter, its all rather amusing as these people who throw these insults about are more like each other than they realise Yes. People who can’t actually challenge an argument should themselves be switched off here imo. I have watched a few of his lectures, he’s clearly got some unpopular but populist ideology coming through as pseudo science. Although he is an academic, phd and lecturer so much of his views are backed up with scientific method, but I’m not sure his record of publishing peer reviewed research , but he does seem to write pop psychology books instead. I’d put him in the sane category as people like Richard Dawkins. They start with personal beliefs rooted in hated for other people that will sell to those in society that feel unfairly treated. , then pretend to use science to back the ideas up to sell books Interesting, I see him as the polar opposite of Dawkins, everything he says is firmly rooted in science, with his opinions dumped on top. Peterson starts with opinions, and tries to work back to science, often ending up in psudoscience. No they are the same. True scientists battle their own unconsci**s and conscious bias, it’s a crucial part of the scientific method. Neither of these two do, it’s ideology dressed up and sold to the stupid. The readers of these books minds are made up well before they start reading. No one of real faith cares what Dawkins’s has to say, it’s irrelevant he only sells to people hurt by religion, they are ready abd waiting to buy his rubbish . If it was was science why doesn’t he write a book about unlucky number 13 and discredit the millions of superstition believers world wide ? Because it wouldn’t sell & he doesn’t hate them as much. Peterson is exactly the same he knows what will sell, who his enemy is, and who the wounded people are ready to buy. It’s pure sales. Both use science and there’s snippets of truth in the propaganda to make stupid people justify a vile viewpoint. It’s exactly how people like Boris get to lead a county and push Brexit through. They talk in a way and say things that stupid people believe clever people do. The fact that Boris was a serial liar and moral failure his whole career, personally and professionally didn’t matter because of the way he spoke. " Yeah, fair enough. Just seems like these two started at different ends of the scientific spectrum and ended up in the same place maybe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The problems with any "Origin of Covid" claim is that it is all speculation. Virologists tell us that Covid 19 isn't similar enough to the the naturally occurring virus to be "converted" in a lab, it would need to be 99.9% identical to be "theoretically possible". On the other hand, the Zoonotic transfer theory hasn’t been proven either. In previous cases where viruses have jumped between species to infect humans, there has been evidence of intermediary animal hosts (as with SARS & MERS)... these intermediate hosts have not been found for Covid 19. I can certainly see why the Lab Leak theory is attractive to people, it would give someone to blame for the whole shit-show. In the absence of any scientific evidence to support the claims, it seem unlikely... especially as the science just isn't available to modify the "origin virus" into C19. On the other hand, it would be daft to discount the theory completely. There is still "ZERO" scientific evidence to support any other theory either. The official stance is (to paraphrase) "We believe that the most likely origin is a zoonotic jump from bats (via another host) to humans" Ultimately... nobody knows the "Truth". Cal =========== My view is lack of proof of transfer shouldn’t lead to lab theory , if you follow principles like Occam's razor, which is very useful science here, you would conclude zoonotic jump from bats" Yes I totally agree that's "most likely", and that a lab based origin is highly unlikely... but that there's not enough actual physical evidence (of anything) to rule it out completely. Most likely is the best we can do right now. Cal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is so easy to take a sound bite from Peterson and quote it completely out of context. So easy that most dumb pseudo intellectuals are doing it all the time to whip up anti-Peterson rhetoric but still thank god enough people actually listen to him rather than his misquoters and his following grows by the day." These are not soundbites. They are things he has said. Did you listen to his nauseating interview with Joe Rogan? Was his transphobia there misquoted? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anybody else wonder why there's a complete lack of evidence of.... Anything? Not even a tiny scratch of the chin? So there's a lab working on viruses 100m down the road.. And a virus appears like magic? Nah... That couldn't be linked at all. " That’s not real science that’s Facebook science. Same for intelligent life beyond earth, zero , not a tiny scrap of any evidence whatsoever in decades of searching. Why is that? Because none exists to be found. But it doesn’t stop the nutters constantly coming up with hypothesis like yours above. I have a hangover. 100 yards away there’s a 24 bar. Guess what , I wasn’t there & theres no evidence I was. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peterson is a crank, a grifter, and a transphobe, amongst other things. No reason to take his opinion seriously on anything.
Also sexist, an islamophobe, flirts with the far-right and lied about his own recent drug use.
Plus, he's consistently wrong on the Bible, Lobsters and Jung - the very topics he is supposed to be an expert on. So I'm surprised anyone takes him seriously when he speaks on topics he is woefully qualified to comment on.
And his parenting advice makes me throw up in my mouth."I couldn't have put it better myself. Some people just make me want to stick white noise on through headphones whenever they open their mouth. He's one. There's a few others too, but I won't name them to save people's 'w', 'k', 'e' and 'o' keys on their keyboards from being overused...... 
A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anybody else wonder why there's a complete lack of evidence of.... Anything? Not even a tiny scratch of the chin? So there's a lab working on viruses 100m down the road.. And a virus appears like magic? Nah... That couldn't be linked at all. That’s not real science that’s Facebook science. Same for intelligent life beyond earth, zero , not a tiny scrap of any evidence whatsoever in decades of searching. Why is that? Because none exists to be found. But it doesn’t stop the nutters constantly coming up with hypothesis like yours above. I have a hangover. 100 yards away there’s a 24 bar. Guess what , I wasn’t there & theres no evidence I was. " Who mentioned science? Often times if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.. Its a duck. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anybody else wonder why there's a complete lack of evidence of.... Anything? Not even a tiny scratch of the chin? So there's a lab working on viruses 100m down the road.. And a virus appears like magic? Nah... That couldn't be linked at all. That’s not real science that’s Facebook science. Same for intelligent life beyond earth, zero , not a tiny scrap of any evidence whatsoever in decades of searching. Why is that? Because none exists to be found. But it doesn’t stop the nutters constantly coming up with hypothesis like yours above. I have a hangover. 100 yards away there’s a 24 bar. Guess what , I wasn’t there & theres no evidence I was. Who mentioned science? Often times if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.. Its a duck. " I look at it from a probabilistic pov. How many wet markets are there in China ? For the sake of this thread let's say it's a million. So if this was from animal transfer it's a million to one it happens in Wuhan. What are the chances that there's a lab leak and there's no evidence. I'm lazy. A million to one. That would make it equally likely we saw an outbreak in Wuhan. My numbers clearly are rubbish. But it leaves me on the fence a bit. Two very unlikely events are on the table (coincidence of the wet market being in Wuhan v lab leak) does anyone recall which the first theory was? Irrc it was wet markets. Because often we get locked into the first explanation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peterson is a crank, a grifter, and a transphobe, amongst other things. No reason to take his opinion seriously on anything. " Couldn't have put it any better | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peterson is a crank, a grifter, and a transphobe, amongst other things. No reason to take his opinion seriously on anything. Couldn't have put it any better"
Viewing his YouTube eill also fund his 'work'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jordan Peterson sounds intellectual, he uses a lot of big words and speaks at a slow enough pace that it doesn't sound like he is blinding people with science. But, he is a crank. He makes far to many references to Scandinavian countries where there isn't as much diversity, a completely different culture and really shouldn't be taken seriously." ???????? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's funny how anyone who has a different perspective to an official narrative, or who has a differing view point is automatically chopped to ribbons.." It's not "a different perspective to the official narrative" he's just outright wrong about most of what he carps on about. He's anti-scientific, widely ridiculed for the clown he is amongst his peers in the psychiatry community, uses straw-man arguments and leading questions in an attempt to control a debate and when that fails he'll come out with some nonsense in that ridiculous Kermit voice of his like "What do we mean by 'debate'?" "What do we mean by 'mean'?" Whenever he is confronted by anyone with the knowledge and expertise to debunk the waffle he comes out with he falls apart. Oh, and him crying a lot in various interviews and victimising himself has been hilarious to watch recently. He couldn't be further from a victim if he tried, he's just a bully and a Transphobe. Can't believe there are people who are still taken in by such an obvious conman. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I watched an interesting interview that jordan peterson did with matt ridley, here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEh5JyZC218&t=2315s have you also seen it and if so, what did you think of it? They talked about many things, they explore the covid 19 outbreak, like the bat theory, lab leak, how it is to be scientist in a communist country and how different china is to the west, they also talked about religion. it was a well put together interview. I give it a 10/10 rating "Jordan Peterson is a grade a nutcase…… if you are giving him any credibility then I would seriously doubt yours.. That’s all I have!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd heard loads of terrible stuff about him then actually heard what he was saying. He definitely was saying very different things to the things I'd been told he was saying! Perhaps you need to dig a bit deeper. He has said all the things people say he has. His deadnaming of Elliot Page was about the least detestable thing he's done. But very on brand. " I've actually gone into a lot of depth from a non partisan position. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd heard loads of terrible stuff about him then actually heard what he was saying. He definitely was saying very different things to the things I'd been told he was saying! Perhaps you need to dig a bit deeper. He has said all the things people say he has. His deadnaming of Elliot Page was about the least detestable thing he's done. But very on brand. I've actually gone into a lot of depth from a non partisan position. " imo there's a pre addiction Peterson and a post addiction. His earlier stuff had some reasoning behind it. That doesn't mean he was always right and he tended to take on those who had done little review, but it gave some substance. And I people did strawman his position. From the little I've seen recently I don't get his views. The deadnaming tweet was odd. No context. No debate. Just a handgrenade thrown out there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shag, I can't delete posts that disagree with you. Either ignore them or refrain from posting anything as not everyone is going to agree with you" That is good and that is what I always do as well | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peterson is a crank, a grifter, and a transphobe, amongst other things. No reason to take his opinion seriously on anything. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I watched an interesting interview that jordan peterson did with matt ridley, here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEh5JyZC218&t=2315s have you also seen it and if so, what did you think of it? They talked about many things, they explore the covid 19 outbreak, like the bat theory, lab leak, how it is to be scientist in a communist country and how different china is to the west, they also talked about religion. it was a well put together interview. I give it a 10/10 rating
Jordan Peterson is a grade a nutcase…… if you are giving him any credibility then I would seriously doubt yours..
That’s all I have!!! "
It depresses me how many people have become enamoured with him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hold Jordan Peterson with less regard than I did Derek Achora, Beach front palm readers and Mystic Meg." How about David Icke ? 
A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is so easy to take a sound bite from Peterson and quote it completely out of context. So easy that most dumb pseudo intellectuals are doing it all the time to whip up anti-Peterson rhetoric but still thank god enough people actually listen to him rather than his misquoters and his following grows by the day. These are not soundbites. They are things he has said. Did you listen to his nauseating interview with Joe Rogan? Was his transphobia there misquoted? " In a word yes I do think they were misquoted, I dont believe Peterson is Transphobic he just doesnt follow the woke narrative that anyone can arbitrarily decide how they are to be identified. We all have to agree that the Them/They pronoun brigade are getting carried away with themselves and most are feeling fronted on behalf of others. He stated that if one of his students was dressed as a woman he would refer to that student as she but would not refer to her as they/them. He also believes in freedom of speech and doesnt believe it can be written in law that you must refer to them as they/them. I am not in any way transphobic but I personally believe that (as many trans people also do)Jordan Peterson has got it right, but the woke brigade jumped up in arms claiming he was transphobic, which he isnt. Try actually reading him and not reading people complaining about him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Try actually reading him and not reading people complaining about him." I've been reading and following Peterson since around 2016. I'd happily compare notes. He is clearly transphobic. Anyone who dismisses that is being disingenuous, hasn't paid attention or is just in denial. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is so easy to take a sound bite from Peterson and quote it completely out of context. So easy that most dumb pseudo intellectuals are doing it all the time to whip up anti-Peterson rhetoric but still thank god enough people actually listen to him rather than his misquoters and his following grows by the day. These are not soundbites. They are things he has said. Did you listen to his nauseating interview with Joe Rogan? Was his transphobia there misquoted? In a word yes I do think they were misquoted, I dont believe Peterson is Transphobic he just doesnt follow the woke narrative that anyone can arbitrarily decide how they are to be identified. We all have to agree that the Them/They pronoun brigade are getting carried away with themselves and most are feeling fronted on behalf of others. He stated that if one of his students was dressed as a woman he would refer to that student as she but would not refer to her as they/them. He also believes in freedom of speech and doesnt believe it can be written in law that you must refer to them as they/them. I am not in any way transphobic but I personally believe that (as many trans people also do)Jordan Peterson has got it right, but the woke brigade jumped up in arms claiming he was transphobic, which he isnt. Try actually reading him and not reading people complaining about him." Transgender people have a damn better idea about their gender identity than anyone else. If you are deliberately deadnaming someone then that is transphobia. It's like calling someone a racial slur and then claiming you are not racist. Gender identity is not political. It's a human rights issue. JP is being a contrarian, like most of this grifters, as it provides a so-called "alternative viewpoint". People seem to think "alternative view" = non-biased, which is wrong. It has its own bias too, just in the direction you seem to agree with. All these grifters have the same bias on unrelated topics - anti vax, anti science, transphobic, anti 'woke'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I watched an interesting interview that jordan peterson did with matt ridley, here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEh5JyZC218&t=2315s have you also seen it and if so, what did you think of it? They talked about many things, they explore the covid 19 outbreak, like the bat theory, lab leak, how it is to be scientist in a communist country and how different china is to the west, they also talked about religion. it was a well put together interview. I give it a 10/10 rating
Jordan Peterson is a grade a nutcase…… if you are giving him any credibility then I would seriously doubt yours..
That’s all I have!!!
It depresses me how many people have become enamoured with him."This is the state of the world today. An opinion carries as much weight as it's opposing scientific theory to a lot of people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He stated that if one of his students was dressed as a woman he would refer to that student as she but would not refer to her as they/them." Weird, given that he still refers to Elliot Page as "she" and dead names him for some bizarre publicity-seeking reason. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He stated that if one of his students was dressed as a woman he would refer to that student as she but would not refer to her as they/them. Weird, given that he still refers to Elliot Page as "she" and dead names him for some bizarre publicity-seeking reason. " Wow you seem to know quite a lot about him.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He stated that if one of his students was dressed as a woman he would refer to that student as she but would not refer to her as they/them. Weird, given that he still refers to Elliot Page as "she" and dead names him for some bizarre publicity-seeking reason. Wow you seem to know quite a lot about him.." Unfortunately. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is so easy to take a sound bite from Peterson and quote it completely out of context. So easy that most dumb pseudo intellectuals are doing it all the time to whip up anti-Peterson rhetoric but still thank god enough people actually listen to him rather than his misquoters and his following grows by the day. These are not soundbites. They are things he has said. Did you listen to his nauseating interview with Joe Rogan? Was his transphobia there misquoted? In a word yes I do think they were misquoted, I dont believe Peterson is Transphobic he just doesnt follow the woke narrative that anyone can arbitrarily decide how they are to be identified. We all have to agree that the Them/They pronoun brigade are getting carried away with themselves and most are feeling fronted on behalf of others. He stated that if one of his students was dressed as a woman he would refer to that student as she but would not refer to her as they/them. He also believes in freedom of speech and doesnt believe it can be written in law that you must refer to them as they/them. I am not in any way transphobic but I personally believe that (as many trans people also do)Jordan Peterson has got it right, but the woke brigade jumped up in arms claiming he was transphobic, which he isnt. Try actually reading him and not reading people complaining about him. Transgender people have a damn better idea about their gender identity than anyone else. If you are deliberately deadnaming someone then that is transphobia. It's like calling someone a racial slur and then claiming you are not racist. Gender identity is not political. It's a human rights issue. JP is being a contrarian, like most of this grifters, as it provides a so-called "alternative viewpoint". People seem to think "alternative view" = non-biased, which is wrong. It has its own bias too, just in the direction you seem to agree with. All these grifters have the same bias on unrelated topics - anti vax, anti science, transphobic, anti 'woke'." Although I am kind of banging my head against a wall here because I appear to have landed in woke heaven(thinks to myself, I would 100% guarantee these nutters are anti vaxers too) I would like to state that my human rights are being compromised by being forced by law to refer to you with an incorrectly english pronoun. There is a serious concern that the Alt Left brigade will continue eroding our human rights until we are in 1984 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He stated that if one of his students was dressed as a woman he would refer to that student as she but would not refer to her as they/them. Weird, given that he still refers to Elliot Page as "she" and dead names him for some bizarre publicity-seeking reason. Wow you seem to know quite a lot about him.. Unfortunately." There is a huge section of society that are confused and scared of making a mistake. They feel that the woke brigade are making new rules of speech and identity so quickly that they just cant keep up and they are genuinely concerned that they will accidentally wrongly name somebody and be ridiculed. These confused and scared people often dont have the power of speech or intellect to challenge this onslaught and it truly frightens them. When these people hear Peterson they breath a huge sigh of relief that someone has the power of reason and the intelligence to challenge these things. In Universities at the moment 90% of lecturers have far left leanings and as a result that is the narrative that is preached to all students. It is truly refreshing that someone is around that can challenge this narrative and give a voice to the scared majority. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to state that my human rights are being compromised by being forced by law to refer to you with an incorrectly english pronoun. There is a serious concern that the Alt Left brigade will continue eroding our human rights until we are in 1984" Ah, "alt left." Should've seen that coming. 
You are defending a clear transphobe and then - like Peterson so often does - playing the victim. The difference is that Peterson does that whilst complaining about victim culture.
If you seriously listened to that episode of Rogan and don't think Peterson is a miserable transphobe, then you may well be banging your head against a wall.
You are yet to explain your reasons for not having a problem with Peterson's deadnaming of Elliot Page. Incidentally, he also refers to Elliot Page as "she." The thing is "he" would appear to be on your list of correct english pronouns, so why do you think he does that?
(Oh, they/them has been used as a pronoun for hundreds of years.) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In Universities at the moment 90% of lecturers have far left leanings and as a result that is the narrative that is preached to all students." That's just simply not close to being true. Would you care to offer an example? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He stated that if one of his students was dressed as a woman he would refer to that student as she but would not refer to her as they/them. Weird, given that he still refers to Elliot Page as "she" and dead names him for some bizarre publicity-seeking reason. Wow you seem to know quite a lot about him.. Unfortunately. There is a huge section of society that are confused and scared of making a mistake. They feel that the woke brigade are making new rules of speech and identity so quickly that they just cant keep up and they are genuinely concerned that they will accidentally wrongly name somebody and be ridiculed. These confused and scared people often dont have the power of speech or intellect to challenge this onslaught and it truly frightens them. When these people hear Peterson they breath a huge sigh of relief that someone has the power of reason and the intelligence to challenge these things. In Universities at the moment 90% of lecturers have far left leanings and as a result that is the narrative that is preached to all students. It is truly refreshing that someone is around that can challenge this narrative and give a voice to the scared majority." At any of my 3 different universities I had no idea what the political leanings of any of lecturers. The student population in general certainly at the last 2 universities was in the majority right with if anything, certainly tory voters would have been in the majority. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In Universities at the moment 90% of lecturers have far left leanings and as a result that is the narrative that is preached to all students. That's just simply not close to being true. Would you care to offer an example? " A female lecturer in the USA (sorry I cannot remember her name or the college) quoted Peterson in a psychology lecture she was giving. One of the students was in the Hate Peterson brigade and complained to the college. The college told this lecturer that if she continued to quote Peterson she would be removed from the college. If it comes to the point of refusing to allow university lecturers to use whatever text or examples they want to use in educating our youth, censoring lecturers and only allowing left wing scholars to be referenced in lectures then in my belief we have already gone to far down this woke road. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In Universities at the moment 90% of lecturers have far left leanings and as a result that is the narrative that is preached to all students. That's just simply not close to being true. Would you care to offer an example? A female lecturer in the USA (sorry I cannot remember her name or the college) quoted Peterson in a psychology lecture she was giving. One of the students was in the Hate Peterson brigade and complained to the college. The college told this lecturer that if she continued to quote Peterson she would be removed from the college. If it comes to the point of refusing to allow university lecturers to use whatever text or examples they want to use in educating our youth, censoring lecturers and only allowing left wing scholars to be referenced in lectures then in my belief we have already gone to far down this woke road." Can you please provide evidence to support your claim that '90% of lecturers have far left leanings'? You are surely aware that no university only allows left-wing scholars to be referenced? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In Universities at the moment 90% of lecturers have far left leanings and as a result that is the narrative that is preached to all students. That's just simply not close to being true. Would you care to offer an example? A female lecturer in the USA (sorry I cannot remember her name or the college) quoted Peterson in a psychology lecture she was giving. One of the students was in the Hate Peterson brigade and complained to the college. The college told this lecturer that if she continued to quote Peterson she would be removed from the college. If it comes to the point of refusing to allow university lecturers to use whatever text or examples they want to use in educating our youth, censoring lecturers and only allowing left wing scholars to be referenced in lectures then in my belief we have already gone to far down this woke road. Can you please provide evidence to support your claim that '90% of lecturers have far left leanings'? You are surely aware that no university only allows left-wing scholars to be referenced? " A simple google search to find the political leanings of university lecturers will show this to be true. It is a fast growing change being led in the USA. Here is an excerpt from the Harvard Crimsen magaizine "More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April. A little over 37 percent of faculty respondents identified as “very liberal”— a nearly 8 percent jump from last year. Only 1 percent of respondents stated they are “conservative,” and no respondents identified as “very conservative.” Or how about this headline from The Daily Telegraph here in the UK back in 2017 (I assure you it hasnt swung to the right since then) More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April. A little over 37 percent of faculty respondents identified as “very liberal”— a nearly 8 percent jump from last year. Only 1 percent of respondents stated they are “conservative,” and no respondents identified as “very conservative.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In Universities at the moment 90% of lecturers have far left leanings and as a result that is the narrative that is preached to all students. That's just simply not close to being true. Would you care to offer an example? A female lecturer in the USA (sorry I cannot remember her name or the college) quoted Peterson in a psychology lecture she was giving. One of the students was in the Hate Peterson brigade and complained to the college. The college told this lecturer that if she continued to quote Peterson she would be removed from the college. If it comes to the point of refusing to allow university lecturers to use whatever text or examples they want to use in educating our youth, censoring lecturers and only allowing left wing scholars to be referenced in lectures then in my belief we have already gone to far down this woke road. Can you please provide evidence to support your claim that '90% of lecturers have far left leanings'? You are surely aware that no university only allows left-wing scholars to be referenced? A simple google search to find the political leanings of university lecturers will show this to be true. It is a fast growing change being led in the USA. Here is an excerpt from the Harvard Crimsen magaizine "More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April. A little over 37 percent of faculty respondents identified as “very liberal”— a nearly 8 percent jump from last year. Only 1 percent of respondents stated they are “conservative,” and no respondents identified as “very conservative.” Or how about this headline from The Daily Telegraph here in the UK back in 2017 (I assure you it hasnt swung to the right since then) More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April. A little over 37 percent of faculty respondents identified as “very liberal”— a nearly 8 percent jump from last year. Only 1 percent of respondents stated they are “conservative,” and no respondents identified as “very conservative.”" Sorry my Daily Telegraph Headline seems to have got muddled into the Harvard text, it is "More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April. A little over 37 percent of faculty respondents identified as “very liberal”— a nearly 8 percent jump from last year. Only 1 percent of respondents stated they are “conservative,” and no respondents identified as “very conservative.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In Universities at the moment 90% of lecturers have far left leanings and as a result that is the narrative that is preached to all students. That's just simply not close to being true. Would you care to offer an example? ... A simple google search to find the political leanings of university lecturers will show this to be true. It is a fast growing change being led in the USA. Here is an excerpt from the Harvard Crimsen magaizine "More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April. A little over 37 percent of faculty respondents identified as “very liberal”— a nearly 8 percent jump from last year. Only 1 percent of respondents stated they are “conservative,” and no respondents identified as “very conservative.”" Unfortunately, your google search did NOT show your assertion to be true. Do you not see that? Your claim: 'In Universities at the moment 90% of lecturers have far left leanings' Your evidence: One university (in the States) has 80% "liberal" or "very liberal" faculty. Liberal and "far left" are nowhere near to being synonymous. In fact, even if they had said they were left leaning, that is pretty much centrist for UK politics. The US have a very distinct understanding of "the Left" as can be seen by their OTT reaction to Obamacare, etc. So, no, you did not show your assertion to be true. Alarmist and fear-based, but not true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Daily Telegraph 2017 Eight in ten university lecturers are “Left-wing”, a survey has found as it warns of the dangers of “group think” in British institutions...." So the right-wing Telegraph reports that 80% of University lecturers are "left-wing." Not "far left" and not 90%. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In Universities at the moment 90% of lecturers have far left leanings and as a result that is the narrative that is preached to all students. That's just simply not close to being true. Would you care to offer an example? ... A simple google search to find the political leanings of university lecturers will show this to be true. It is a fast growing change being led in the USA. Here is an excerpt from the Harvard Crimsen magaizine "More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April. A little over 37 percent of faculty respondents identified as “very liberal”— a nearly 8 percent jump from last year. Only 1 percent of respondents stated they are “conservative,” and no respondents identified as “very conservative.” Unfortunately, your google search did NOT show your assertion to be true. Do you not see that? Your claim: 'In Universities at the moment 90% of lecturers have far left leanings' Your evidence: One university (in the States) has 80% "liberal" or "very liberal" faculty. Liberal and "far left" are nowhere near to being synonymous. In fact, even if they had said they were left leaning, that is pretty much centrist for UK politics. The US have a very distinct understanding of "the Left" as can be seen by their OTT reaction to Obamacare, etc. So, no, you did not show your assertion to be true. Alarmist and fear-based, but not true." As you chose to ignore the real concerns expressed by the Daily Telegraph about left wing teaching in the UK I just assume you want to preach but refuse to listen to reason so I will no longer respond to this thread. Banging my head against a wall would be less painful. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As you chose to ignore the real concerns expressed by the Daily Telegraph about left wing teaching in the UK I just assume you want to preach but refuse to listen to reason so I will no longer respond to this thread. Banging my head against a wall would be less painful." I am literally engaging with you. I am listening to you and trying to find the reasoning in what you are saying. I am discussing your viewpoint with you, inviting you to show any evidence you have and then discussing that evidence. Was I just meant to agree? As I said, I have family who are lecturers and know that the figure quoted 5 years ago in the Telegraph - and the concerns expressed as a result - are very likely to be nonsense. If you're interested, the report the Telegraph is talking about was put out by a right-wing think tank. It was widely refuted and dismissed by The University and College Union (UCU). I don't know if you've been to Uni in the UK, but they almost obsessively encourage debate and train students to challenge and think for themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In Universities at the moment 90% of lecturers have far left leanings and as a result that is the narrative that is preached to all students. That's just simply not close to being true. Would you care to offer an example? ... A simple google search to find the political leanings of university lecturers will show this to be true. It is a fast growing change being led in the USA. Here is an excerpt from the Harvard Crimsen magaizine "More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April. A little over 37 percent of faculty respondents identified as “very liberal”— a nearly 8 percent jump from last year. Only 1 percent of respondents stated they are “conservative,” and no respondents identified as “very conservative.” Unfortunately, your google search did NOT show your assertion to be true. Do you not see that? Your claim: 'In Universities at the moment 90% of lecturers have far left leanings' Your evidence: One university (in the States) has 80% "liberal" or "very liberal" faculty. Liberal and "far left" are nowhere near to being synonymous. In fact, even if they had said they were left leaning, that is pretty much centrist for UK politics. The US have a very distinct understanding of "the Left" as can be seen by their OTT reaction to Obamacare, etc. So, no, you did not show your assertion to be true. Alarmist and fear-based, but not true. As you chose to ignore the real concerns expressed by the Daily Telegraph about left wing teaching in the UK I just assume you want to preach but refuse to listen to reason so I will no longer respond to this thread. Banging my head against a wall would be less painful." let's ignore 80pc versus 90pc. And it's all university staff not lecturers. Yiu still need to show that who someone will vote results in a narrative being preached. And if you accept one of the reason may be openess to new experiences (a way Peterson cuts people too) then one may hypothesise many students are also non Tory voters. So they are preaching to the converted. But given all this, what's the next step? Postitive discrimination for Tory voting academics ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anybody else wonder why there's a complete lack of evidence of.... Anything? Not even a tiny scratch of the chin? So there's a lab working on viruses 100m down the road.. And a virus appears like magic? Nah... That couldn't be linked at all. " Yes, it seems strange doesnt it with the evidence, it is like they created a diversion, to not link it with the lab leak. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As you chose to ignore the real concerns expressed by the Daily Telegraph about left wing teaching in the UK I just assume you want to preach but refuse to listen to reason so I will no longer respond to this thread. Banging my head against a wall would be less painful. I am literally engaging with you. I am listening to you and trying to find the reasoning in what you are saying. I am discussing your viewpoint with you, inviting you to show any evidence you have and then discussing that evidence. Was I just meant to agree? As I said, I have family who are lecturers and know that the figure quoted 5 years ago in the Telegraph - and the concerns expressed as a result - are very likely to be nonsense. If you're interested, the report the Telegraph is talking about was put out by a right-wing think tank. It was widely refuted and dismissed by The University and College Union (UCU). I don't know if you've been to Uni in the UK, but they almost obsessively encourage debate and train students to challenge and think for themselves." Jordan speaks very highly of British Universities and holds them up as the last bastion for real intellectual debate and our government as the fairest in the world but there are real signs that our universities are starting to follow in the tracks of American universities. As I stated elsewhere many like me have real concerns that WOKE speak and thought is just going too far but to argue against these people who seem to take offence on behalf of others is scary because to challenge them is to be labelled as racist or sexist or transphobic. So the majority opt for a quiet life and just say nothing to avoid ridicule. When these people hear Peterson they genuinely feel relief that someone is speaking out on their behalf. In Russia anyone who speaks out against the state is locked away in Jail and it feels kind of like that to challenge this massive alt right movement. I am not an intellectual as may be obvious but I just want to point out that Peterson is not a Nutter, many people have publicly announced that they were close to suicide before Peterson changed their lives and made them realise that these Alt Right beliefs were by no means the only beliefs, just the most vocal. No matter what you say against them they always have another quote to spin out until most people just hold their hands up and give up. Nobody denys you the right to your beliefs so please allow others the right to their own beliefs and dont shame them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"sorry please replace alt right with alt left, should have proof read and I realise this will leave me further open to ridicule" has anyone ridiculed you? Imo many see in JP what they want to. Irrc he was anti a law compelling him to use pronouns but would respect someone's pronouns. It was the law, not the idea of transition, he was against. But those who are against changing pronouns saw him as a champion. (His later tweet does suggest something tho) And i don't recall a majority view that we should be forced to use pronouns. That appeared to be a Canada conversation only. The conversation many are having is about respecting pronouns. My take was (at the time) JP was part of those who said respect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"sorry please replace alt right with alt left, should have proof read and I realise this will leave me further open to ridiculehas anyone ridiculed you? Imo many see in JP what they want to. Irrc he was anti a law compelling him to use pronouns but would respect someone's pronouns. It was the law, not the idea of transition, he was against. But those who are against changing pronouns saw him as a champion. (His later tweet does suggest something tho) And i don't recall a majority view that we should be forced to use pronouns. That appeared to be a Canada conversation only. The conversation many are having is about respecting pronouns. My take was (at the time) JP was part of those who said respect. " The idea is that the militant left want to cancel all debate on changes to culture and language , it’s pure facism. Jk Rowling said women have periods, dangerous to them. And it’s not 80 or 90 % of lecturers. Most lecturers don't care,,it’s unelected activist staff, the UK intelligentsia. They can’t become elected politically so they work to change culture through public bodies like universities, BBC, also within momentum , although momentum destroyed the Labour Party in the process - clever move , destroy the one organisation that really threatens you because they are not democratic but facists. No political party would push through their agenda because it would need to be done democratically. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody denys you the right to your beliefs so please allow others the right to their own beliefs and dont shame them." Who was shamed? Elliot Page, perhaps? L. Ron Hubbard has also saved the lives of many young people. That does not mean his views and actions cannot be challenged. Peterson has made many disturbing statements about feminism, islamophobia, incels and trans people. As he boasted to Cathy Newman, he chooses his words very veryvm carefully. That's why he often doubles-down on some of the most troubling things he's said, which is not always the most mature thing to do. Do you know the reason he gave for his transphobic quote about Elliot Page? He said it was because "she" had the nerve to "flaunt" "her" abs on a magazine cover. You know, like celebs do all the time! Seems a bit like bullying to me. Doesn't it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"sorry please replace alt right with alt left, should have proof read and I realise this will leave me further open to ridiculehas anyone ridiculed you? Imo many see in JP what they want to. Irrc he was anti a law compelling him to use pronouns but would respect someone's pronouns. It was the law, not the idea of transition, he was against. But those who are against changing pronouns saw him as a champion. (His later tweet does suggest something tho) And i don't recall a majority view that we should be forced to use pronouns. That appeared to be a Canada conversation only. The conversation many are having is about respecting pronouns. My take was (at the time) JP was part of those who said respect. The idea is that the militant left want to cancel all debate on changes to culture and language , it’s pure facism. Jk Rowling said women have periods, dangerous to them. And it’s not 80 or 90 % of lecturers. Most lecturers don't care,,it’s unelected activist staff, the UK intelligentsia. They can’t become elected politically so they work to change culture through public bodies like universities, BBC, also within momentum , although momentum destroyed the Labour Party in the process - clever move , destroy the one organisation that really threatens you because they are not democratic but facists. No political party would push through their agenda because it would need to be done democratically. " that's a very different take from where the other poster was going. Do you have examples of these integentia ? It may be leaning, but I sense more undemocratic agendaa are delivered by money than taking public positions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody denys you the right to your beliefs so please allow others the right to their own beliefs and dont shame them. Who was shamed? Elliot Page, perhaps? L. Ron Hubbard has also saved the lives of many young people. That does not mean his views and actions cannot be challenged. Peterson has made many disturbing statements about feminism, islamophobia, incels and trans people. As he boasted to Cathy Newman, he chooses his words very veryvm carefully. That's why he often doubles-down on some of the most troubling things he's said, which is not always the most mature thing to do. Do you know the reason he gave for his transphobic quote about Elliot Page? He said it was because "she" had the nerve to "flaunt" "her" abs on a magazine cover. You know, like celebs do all the time! Seems a bit like bullying to me. Doesn't it?" What I am talking about is at the very top of this thread when somebody innocently said he had seen an interesting debate of Petersons on the origin of covid19 (one where he made no claims that it was a lab leak but said there was not enough evidence to close the book and it should still remain an open verdict) As soon as the Peterson haters saw this they all pounced (including yourself) claiming Peterson was a crank and shaming people for even listening to him. This cancel culture that denies the views of anyone who doesnt agree with their narrative is exactly what I am talking about. If nyou disagree with Peterson then debate with him, dont try to stop others from even watching him or as many universities have done cancel his talks because they dont agree with him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody denys you the right to your beliefs so please allow others the right to their own beliefs and dont shame them. Who was shamed? Elliot Page, perhaps? L. Ron Hubbard has also saved the lives of many young people. That does not mean his views and actions cannot be challenged. Peterson has made many disturbing statements about feminism, islamophobia, incels and trans people. As he boasted to Cathy Newman, he chooses his words very veryvm carefully. That's why he often doubles-down on some of the most troubling things he's said, which is not always the most mature thing to do. Do you know the reason he gave for his transphobic quote about Elliot Page? He said it was because "she" had the nerve to "flaunt" "her" abs on a magazine cover. You know, like celebs do all the time! Seems a bit like bullying to me. Doesn't it? What I am talking about is at the very top of this thread when somebody innocently said he had seen an interesting debate of Petersons on the origin of covid19 (one where he made no claims that it was a lab leak but said there was not enough evidence to close the book and it should still remain an open verdict) As soon as the Peterson haters saw this they all pounced (including yourself) claiming Peterson was a crank and shaming people for even listening to him. This cancel culture that denies the views of anyone who doesnt agree with their narrative is exactly what I am talking about. If nyou disagree with Peterson then debate with him, dont try to stop others from even watching him or as many universities have done cancel his talks because they dont agree with him." So it's not appropriate to have opinions on the validity of various sources? If someone is a crank, then presumably that's a piece of evidence that their work might not be reliable, evidence based, or unbiased? Or is it that we should swallow right wing cranks and what they say whole, because reasons, and silence the left? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody denys you the right to your beliefs so please allow others the right to their own beliefs and dont shame them. Who was shamed? Elliot Page, perhaps? L. Ron Hubbard has also saved the lives of many young people. That does not mean his views and actions cannot be challenged. Peterson has made many disturbing statements about feminism, islamophobia, incels and trans people. As he boasted to Cathy Newman, he chooses his words very veryvm carefully. That's why he often doubles-down on some of the most troubling things he's said, which is not always the most mature thing to do. Do you know the reason he gave for his transphobic quote about Elliot Page? He said it was because "she" had the nerve to "flaunt" "her" abs on a magazine cover. You know, like celebs do all the time! Seems a bit like bullying to me. Doesn't it? What I am talking about is at the very top of this thread when somebody innocently said he had seen an interesting debate of Petersons on the origin of covid19 (one where he made no claims that it was a lab leak but said there was not enough evidence to close the book and it should still remain an open verdict) As soon as the Peterson haters saw this they all pounced (including yourself) claiming Peterson was a crank and shaming people for even listening to him. This cancel culture that denies the views of anyone who doesnt agree with their narrative is exactly what I am talking about. If nyou disagree with Peterson then debate with him, dont try to stop others from even watching him or as many universities have done cancel his talks because they dont agree with him. So it's not appropriate to have opinions on the validity of various sources? If someone is a crank, then presumably that's a piece of evidence that their work might not be reliable, evidence based, or unbiased? Or is it that we should swallow right wing cranks and what they say whole, because reasons, and silence the left?" By extolling the virtues of Cancel Culture and trying to silence people you do not agree with or labeling them as cranks you are carrying out the doctrine of the Alt Left. If you dont agree with someone then argue with him, dont silence him. Its strange that this so called crank has debated some of the finest minds of the left wing and yet nobody has managed to make him look like a crank. So what do they do? discredit him and cancel him. That doesnt sound anything like democracy to me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody denys you the right to your beliefs so please allow others the right to their own beliefs and dont shame them. Who was shamed? Elliot Page, perhaps? L. Ron Hubbard has also saved the lives of many young people. That does not mean his views and actions cannot be challenged. Peterson has made many disturbing statements about feminism, islamophobia, incels and trans people. As he boasted to Cathy Newman, he chooses his words very veryvm carefully. That's why he often doubles-down on some of the most troubling things he's said, which is not always the most mature thing to do. Do you know the reason he gave for his transphobic quote about Elliot Page? He said it was because "she" had the nerve to "flaunt" "her" abs on a magazine cover. You know, like celebs do all the time! Seems a bit like bullying to me. Doesn't it? What I am talking about is at the very top of this thread when somebody innocently said he had seen an interesting debate of Petersons on the origin of covid19 (one where he made no claims that it was a lab leak but said there was not enough evidence to close the book and it should still remain an open verdict) As soon as the Peterson haters saw this they all pounced (including yourself) claiming Peterson was a crank and shaming people for even listening to him. This cancel culture that denies the views of anyone who doesnt agree with their narrative is exactly what I am talking about. If nyou disagree with Peterson then debate with him, dont try to stop others from even watching him or as many universities have done cancel his talks because they dont agree with him. So it's not appropriate to have opinions on the validity of various sources? If someone is a crank, then presumably that's a piece of evidence that their work might not be reliable, evidence based, or unbiased? Or is it that we should swallow right wing cranks and what they say whole, because reasons, and silence the left? By extolling the virtues of Cancel Culture and trying to silence people you do not agree with or labeling them as cranks you are carrying out the doctrine of the Alt Left. If you dont agree with someone then argue with him, dont silence him. Its strange that this so called crank has debated some of the finest minds of the left wing and yet nobody has managed to make him look like a crank. So what do they do? discredit him and cancel him. That doesnt sound anything like democracy to me." Ok, so what I hear you saying is you like this guy, you're convinced by him, and a fuckton of talking points from one political side of the aisle. Talking points don't interest me. Tell me what you think. Do you think it's valid to critique sources as one of the ways to decide what media to consume, or as one of the methods to decide the validity of a message? On what basis do you decide whether you trust a source or not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In Universities at the moment 90% of lecturers have far left leanings and as a result that is the narrative that is preached to all students. That's just simply not close to being true. Would you care to offer an example? A female lecturer in the USA (sorry I cannot remember her name or the college) quoted Peterson in a psychology lecture she was giving. One of the students was in the Hate Peterson brigade and complained to the college. The college told this lecturer that if she continued to quote Peterson she would be removed from the college. If it comes to the point of refusing to allow university lecturers to use whatever text or examples they want to use in educating our youth, censoring lecturers and only allowing left wing scholars to be referenced in lectures then in my belief we have already gone to far down this woke road. Can you please provide evidence to support your claim that '90% of lecturers have far left leanings'? You are surely aware that no university only allows left-wing scholars to be referenced? A simple google search to find the political leanings of university lecturers will show this to be true. It is a fast growing change being led in the USA. Here is an excerpt from the Harvard Crimsen magaizine "More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April. A little over 37 percent of faculty respondents identified as “very liberal”— a nearly 8 percent jump from last year. Only 1 percent of respondents stated they are “conservative,” and no respondents identified as “very conservative.” Or how about this headline from The Daily Telegraph here in the UK back in 2017 (I assure you it hasnt swung to the right since then) More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April. A little over 37 percent of faculty respondents identified as “very liberal”— a nearly 8 percent jump from last year. Only 1 percent of respondents stated they are “conservative,” and no respondents identified as “very conservative.”" So there's a clear link between intelligence and left leaning political views? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In Universities at the moment 90% of lecturers have far left leanings and as a result that is the narrative that is preached to all students. That's just simply not close to being true. Would you care to offer an example? A female lecturer in the USA (sorry I cannot remember her name or the college) quoted Peterson in a psychology lecture she was giving. One of the students was in the Hate Peterson brigade and complained to the college. The college told this lecturer that if she continued to quote Peterson she would be removed from the college. If it comes to the point of refusing to allow university lecturers to use whatever text or examples they want to use in educating our youth, censoring lecturers and only allowing left wing scholars to be referenced in lectures then in my belief we have already gone to far down this woke road. Can you please provide evidence to support your claim that '90% of lecturers have far left leanings'? You are surely aware that no university only allows left-wing scholars to be referenced? A simple google search to find the political leanings of university lecturers will show this to be true. It is a fast growing change being led in the USA. Here is an excerpt from the Harvard Crimsen magaizine "More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April. A little over 37 percent of faculty respondents identified as “very liberal”— a nearly 8 percent jump from last year. Only 1 percent of respondents stated they are “conservative,” and no respondents identified as “very conservative.” Or how about this headline from The Daily Telegraph here in the UK back in 2017 (I assure you it hasnt swung to the right since then) More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April. A little over 37 percent of faculty respondents identified as “very liberal”— a nearly 8 percent jump from last year. Only 1 percent of respondents stated they are “conservative,” and no respondents identified as “very conservative.” So there's a clear link between intelligence and left leaning political views?" What's that saying? If you can't do it, teach it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I am talking about is at the very top of this thread" What I am talking about is Peterson's abhorrent views and actions. Yet you seem to avoid that. "As soon as the Peterson haters saw this they all pounced (including yourself) claiming Peterson was a crank and shaming people for even listening to him." Where did I shame anyone? "cancel culture that denies the views of anyone who doesnt agree with their narrative is exactly what I am talking about. If nyou disagree with Peterson then debate with him, dont try to stop others from even watching him or as many universities have done cancel his talks because they dont agree with him." "Cancel culture" - if such a thing exists - does NOT deny anyone their views. Peterson can believe he is the return of Christ if he wants. But that doesn't mean I have to give him a microphone, or a platform. And you can't keep suggesting Peterson is being cancelled whilst talking about the massive impact he's having. He's having that impact because he *is* being allowed to share his views and given global platforms to do so. Where have I tried to stop others from watching him? I've mentioned the Rogan podcast numerous times. In fact, I would encourage people to watch that. You keep ignoring the question about Elliot Page. I encourage you to go and read/watch how Peterson behaved regarding him and then explain how he is not transphobic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its strange that this so called crank has debated some of the finest minds of the left wing and yet nobody has managed to make him look like a crank." Did you not see the debate with Zizek? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I am talking about is at the very top of this thread What I am talking about is Peterson's abhorrent views and actions. Yet you seem to avoid that. As soon as the Peterson haters saw this they all pounced (including yourself) claiming Peterson was a crank and shaming people for even listening to him. Where did I shame anyone? cancel culture that denies the views of anyone who doesnt agree with their narrative is exactly what I am talking about. If nyou disagree with Peterson then debate with him, dont try to stop others from even watching him or as many universities have done cancel his talks because they dont agree with him. "Cancel culture" - if such a thing exists - does NOT deny anyone their views. Peterson can believe he is the return of Christ if he wants. But that doesn't mean I have to give him a microphone, or a platform. And you can't keep suggesting Peterson is being cancelled whilst talking about the massive impact he's having. He's having that impact because he *is* being allowed to share his views and given global platforms to do so. Where have I tried to stop others from watching him? I've mentioned the Rogan podcast numerous times. In fact, I would encourage people to watch that. You keep ignoring the question about Elliot Page. I encourage you to go and read/watch how Peterson behaved regarding him and then explain how he is not transphobic." I won't even deny Peterson a microphone. Whatever. Everyone can have a microphone. Cool beans. (And yet I'm still accused of cancelling people. No, I believe in the marketplace of ideas. Which involves arguing back in order to establish good ideas) All I'm saying is bad source (for reasons I've gathered during my observation over time), bodes poorly for a piece. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In Universities at the moment 90% of lecturers have far left leanings and as a result that is the narrative that is preached to all students. That's just simply not close to being true. Would you care to offer an example? A female lecturer in the USA (sorry I cannot remember her name or the college) quoted Peterson in a psychology lecture she was giving. One of the students was in the Hate Peterson brigade and complained to the college. The college told this lecturer that if she continued to quote Peterson she would be removed from the college. If it comes to the point of refusing to allow university lecturers to use whatever text or examples they want to use in educating our youth, censoring lecturers and only allowing left wing scholars to be referenced in lectures then in my belief we have already gone to far down this woke road. Can you please provide evidence to support your claim that '90% of lecturers have far left leanings'? You are surely aware that no university only allows left-wing scholars to be referenced? A simple google search to find the political leanings of university lecturers will show this to be true. It is a fast growing change being led in the USA. Here is an excerpt from the Harvard Crimsen magaizine "More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April. A little over 37 percent of faculty respondents identified as “very liberal”— a nearly 8 percent jump from last year. Only 1 percent of respondents stated they are “conservative,” and no respondents identified as “very conservative.” Or how about this headline from The Daily Telegraph here in the UK back in 2017 (I assure you it hasnt swung to the right since then) More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April. A little over 37 percent of faculty respondents identified as “very liberal”— a nearly 8 percent jump from last year. Only 1 percent of respondents stated they are “conservative,” and no respondents identified as “very conservative.” So there's a clear link between intelligence and left leaning political views?" the telegraph / Adam Smith institute paper said no. Right leaning intelligent ppl don't choose to go into academia. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody denys you the right to your beliefs so please allow others the right to their own beliefs and dont shame them. Who was shamed? Elliot Page, perhaps? L. Ron Hubbard has also saved the lives of many young people. That does not mean his views and actions cannot be challenged. Peterson has made many disturbing statements about feminism, islamophobia, incels and trans people. As he boasted to Cathy Newman, he chooses his words very veryvm carefully. That's why he often doubles-down on some of the most troubling things he's said, which is not always the most mature thing to do. Do you know the reason he gave for his transphobic quote about Elliot Page? He said it was because "she" had the nerve to "flaunt" "her" abs on a magazine cover. You know, like celebs do all the time! Seems a bit like bullying to me. Doesn't it? What I am talking about is at the very top of this thread when somebody innocently said he had seen an interesting debate of Petersons on the origin of covid19 (one where he made no claims that it was a lab leak but said there was not enough evidence to close the book and it should still remain an open verdict) As soon as the Peterson haters saw this they all pounced (including yourself) claiming Peterson was a crank and shaming people for even listening to him. This cancel culture that denies the views of anyone who doesnt agree with their narrative is exactly what I am talking about. If nyou disagree with Peterson then debate with him, dont try to stop others from even watching him or as many universities have done cancel his talks because they dont agree with him. So it's not appropriate to have opinions on the validity of various sources? If someone is a crank, then presumably that's a piece of evidence that their work might not be reliable, evidence based, or unbiased? Or is it that we should swallow right wing cranks and what they say whole, because reasons, and silence the left? By extolling the virtues of Cancel Culture and trying to silence people you do not agree with or labeling them as cranks you are carrying out the doctrine of the Alt Left. If you dont agree with someone then argue with him, dont silence him. Its strange that this so called crank has debated some of the finest minds of the left wing and yet nobody has managed to make him look like a crank. So what do they do? discredit him and cancel him. That doesnt sound anything like democracy to me. Ok, so what I hear you saying is you like this guy, you're convinced by him, and a fuckton of talking points from one political side of the aisle. Talking points don't interest me. Tell me what you think. Do you think it's valid to critique sources as one of the ways to decide what media to consume, or as one of the methods to decide the validity of a message? On what basis do you decide whether you trust a source or not?" I would honestly say that in many cases the questions are well above my pay grade, so I enjoy watching renowned experts from both sides of the argument discuss the real issues. I do not believe in everything Peterson says, in fact I have not heard his views on everything. I will say that a lot of what Peterson says resounds well with me. The far left does seem to have made a culture whereby anyone who argues with them is a racist or a sexist or transphobic or fascist or any number of labels they choose to dish out. Therefor the common man dare not challenge them for fear of being vilified. That is where Peterson grows in popularity so fast. He is the only man who dares put his had over the parapet and challenge these people. He speaks for a huge number of people in this world (whether you discredit him or not, I really dont care, all I know is he often speaks for me) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody denys you the right to your beliefs so please allow others the right to their own beliefs and dont shame them. Who was shamed? Elliot Page, perhaps? L. Ron Hubbard has also saved the lives of many young people. That does not mean his views and actions cannot be challenged. Peterson has made many disturbing statements about feminism, islamophobia, incels and trans people. As he boasted to Cathy Newman, he chooses his words very veryvm carefully. That's why he often doubles-down on some of the most troubling things he's said, which is not always the most mature thing to do. Do you know the reason he gave for his transphobic quote about Elliot Page? He said it was because "she" had the nerve to "flaunt" "her" abs on a magazine cover. You know, like celebs do all the time! Seems a bit like bullying to me. Doesn't it? What I am talking about is at the very top of this thread when somebody innocently said he had seen an interesting debate of Petersons on the origin of covid19 (one where he made no claims that it was a lab leak but said there was not enough evidence to close the book and it should still remain an open verdict) As soon as the Peterson haters saw this they all pounced (including yourself) claiming Peterson was a crank and shaming people for even listening to him. This cancel culture that denies the views of anyone who doesnt agree with their narrative is exactly what I am talking about. If nyou disagree with Peterson then debate with him, dont try to stop others from even watching him or as many universities have done cancel his talks because they dont agree with him. So it's not appropriate to have opinions on the validity of various sources? If someone is a crank, then presumably that's a piece of evidence that their work might not be reliable, evidence based, or unbiased? Or is it that we should swallow right wing cranks and what they say whole, because reasons, and silence the left? By extolling the virtues of Cancel Culture and trying to silence people you do not agree with or labeling them as cranks you are carrying out the doctrine of the Alt Left. If you dont agree with someone then argue with him, dont silence him. Its strange that this so called crank has debated some of the finest minds of the left wing and yet nobody has managed to make him look like a crank. So what do they do? discredit him and cancel him. That doesnt sound anything like democracy to me. Ok, so what I hear you saying is you like this guy, you're convinced by him, and a fuckton of talking points from one political side of the aisle. Talking points don't interest me. Tell me what you think. Do you think it's valid to critique sources as one of the ways to decide what media to consume, or as one of the methods to decide the validity of a message? On what basis do you decide whether you trust a source or not? I would honestly say that in many cases the questions are well above my pay grade, so I enjoy watching renowned experts from both sides of the argument discuss the real issues. I do not believe in everything Peterson says, in fact I have not heard his views on everything. I will say that a lot of what Peterson says resounds well with me. The far left does seem to have made a culture whereby anyone who argues with them is a racist or a sexist or transphobic or fascist or any number of labels they choose to dish out. Therefor the common man dare not challenge them for fear of being vilified. That is where Peterson grows in popularity so fast. He is the only man who dares put his had over the parapet and challenge these people. He speaks for a huge number of people in this world (whether you discredit him or not, I really dont care, all I know is he often speaks for me)" Can you answer my question rather than just repeating talking points? I have not in this thread, before this sentence, used any word with the suffix -phobia. How do you determine whether a source is reliable or not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody denys you the right to your beliefs so please allow others the right to their own beliefs and dont shame them. Who was shamed? Elliot Page, perhaps? L. Ron Hubbard has also saved the lives of many young people. That does not mean his views and actions cannot be challenged. Peterson has made many disturbing statements about feminism, islamophobia, incels and trans people. As he boasted to Cathy Newman, he chooses his words very veryvm carefully. That's why he often doubles-down on some of the most troubling things he's said, which is not always the most mature thing to do. Do you know the reason he gave for his transphobic quote about Elliot Page? He said it was because "she" had the nerve to "flaunt" "her" abs on a magazine cover. You know, like celebs do all the time! Seems a bit like bullying to me. Doesn't it? What I am talking about is at the very top of this thread when somebody innocently said he had seen an interesting debate of Petersons on the origin of covid19 (one where he made no claims that it was a lab leak but said there was not enough evidence to close the book and it should still remain an open verdict) As soon as the Peterson haters saw this they all pounced (including yourself) claiming Peterson was a crank and shaming people for even listening to him. This cancel culture that denies the views of anyone who doesnt agree with their narrative is exactly what I am talking about. If nyou disagree with Peterson then debate with him, dont try to stop others from even watching him or as many universities have done cancel his talks because they dont agree with him. So it's not appropriate to have opinions on the validity of various sources? If someone is a crank, then presumably that's a piece of evidence that their work might not be reliable, evidence based, or unbiased? Or is it that we should swallow right wing cranks and what they say whole, because reasons, and silence the left? By extolling the virtues of Cancel Culture and trying to silence people you do not agree with or labeling them as cranks you are carrying out the doctrine of the Alt Left. If you dont agree with someone then argue with him, dont silence him. Its strange that this so called crank has debated some of the finest minds of the left wing and yet nobody has managed to make him look like a crank. So what do they do? discredit him and cancel him. That doesnt sound anything like democracy to me. Ok, so what I hear you saying is you like this guy, you're convinced by him, and a fuckton of talking points from one political side of the aisle. Talking points don't interest me. Tell me what you think. Do you think it's valid to critique sources as one of the ways to decide what media to consume, or as one of the methods to decide the validity of a message? On what basis do you decide whether you trust a source or not? I would honestly say that in many cases the questions are well above my pay grade, so I enjoy watching renowned experts from both sides of the argument discuss the real issues. I do not believe in everything Peterson says, in fact I have not heard his views on everything. I will say that a lot of what Peterson says resounds well with me. The far left does seem to have made a culture whereby anyone who argues with them is a racist or a sexist or transphobic or fascist or any number of labels they choose to dish out. Therefor the common man dare not challenge them for fear of being vilified. That is where Peterson grows in popularity so fast. He is the only man who dares put his had over the parapet and challenge these people. He speaks for a huge number of people in this world (whether you discredit him or not, I really dont care, all I know is he often speaks for me)" do you have any examples where the far right have shot down someone as racist etc unfairly. Eg you believe they are not what the far right say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In Universities at the moment 90% of lecturers have far left leanings and as a result that is the narrative that is preached to all students. That's just simply not close to being true. Would you care to offer an example? A female lecturer in the USA (sorry I cannot remember her name or the college) quoted Peterson in a psychology lecture she was giving. One of the students was in the Hate Peterson brigade and complained to the college. The college told this lecturer that if she continued to quote Peterson she would be removed from the college. If it comes to the point of refusing to allow university lecturers to use whatever text or examples they want to use in educating our youth, censoring lecturers and only allowing left wing scholars to be referenced in lectures then in my belief we have already gone to far down this woke road. Can you please provide evidence to support your claim that '90% of lecturers have far left leanings'? You are surely aware that no university only allows left-wing scholars to be referenced? A simple google search to find the political leanings of university lecturers will show this to be true. It is a fast growing change being led in the USA. Here is an excerpt from the Harvard Crimsen magaizine "More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April. A little over 37 percent of faculty respondents identified as “very liberal”— a nearly 8 percent jump from last year. Only 1 percent of respondents stated they are “conservative,” and no respondents identified as “very conservative.” Or how about this headline from The Daily Telegraph here in the UK back in 2017 (I assure you it hasnt swung to the right since then) More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April. A little over 37 percent of faculty respondents identified as “very liberal”— a nearly 8 percent jump from last year. Only 1 percent of respondents stated they are “conservative,” and no respondents identified as “very conservative.” So there's a clear link between intelligence and left leaning political views?the telegraph / Adam Smith institute paper said no. Right leaning intelligent ppl don't choose to go into academia. " Of course , they go into business. They believe successful organisations are the vehicle of change in the world. You know you can do a huge amount of good with capital. We built more molecular test labs in Africa during covid than some governments. Also where is real research now done and who pays for it ? In business R&D , no longer by universities since the numbers went up , it’s no longer the intelligent that go to uni. , not in the UK and not for much longer in the US. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody denys you the right to your beliefs so please allow others the right to their own beliefs and dont shame them. Who was shamed? Elliot Page, perhaps? L. Ron Hubbard has also saved the lives of many young people. That does not mean his views and actions cannot be challenged. Peterson has made many disturbing statements about feminism, islamophobia, incels and trans people. As he boasted to Cathy Newman, he chooses his words very veryvm carefully. That's why he often doubles-down on some of the most troubling things he's said, which is not always the most mature thing to do. Do you know the reason he gave for his transphobic quote about Elliot Page? He said it was because "she" had the nerve to "flaunt" "her" abs on a magazine cover. You know, like celebs do all the time! Seems a bit like bullying to me. Doesn't it? What I am talking about is at the very top of this thread when somebody innocently said he had seen an interesting debate of Petersons on the origin of covid19 (one where he made no claims that it was a lab leak but said there was not enough evidence to close the book and it should still remain an open verdict) As soon as the Peterson haters saw this they all pounced (including yourself) claiming Peterson was a crank and shaming people for even listening to him. This cancel culture that denies the views of anyone who doesnt agree with their narrative is exactly what I am talking about. If nyou disagree with Peterson then debate with him, dont try to stop others from even watching him or as many universities have done cancel his talks because they dont agree with him. So it's not appropriate to have opinions on the validity of various sources? If someone is a crank, then presumably that's a piece of evidence that their work might not be reliable, evidence based, or unbiased? Or is it that we should swallow right wing cranks and what they say whole, because reasons, and silence the left? By extolling the virtues of Cancel Culture and trying to silence people you do not agree with or labeling them as cranks you are carrying out the doctrine of the Alt Left. If you dont agree with someone then argue with him, dont silence him. Its strange that this so called crank has debated some of the finest minds of the left wing and yet nobody has managed to make him look like a crank. So what do they do? discredit him and cancel him. That doesnt sound anything like democracy to me. Ok, so what I hear you saying is you like this guy, you're convinced by him, and a fuckton of talking points from one political side of the aisle. Talking points don't interest me. Tell me what you think. Do you think it's valid to critique sources as one of the ways to decide what media to consume, or as one of the methods to decide the validity of a message? On what basis do you decide whether you trust a source or not? I would honestly say that in many cases the questions are well above my pay grade, so I enjoy watching renowned experts from both sides of the argument discuss the real issues. I do not believe in everything Peterson says, in fact I have not heard his views on everything. I will say that a lot of what Peterson says resounds well with me. The far left does seem to have made a culture whereby anyone who argues with them is a racist or a sexist or transphobic or fascist or any number of labels they choose to dish out. Therefor the common man dare not challenge them for fear of being vilified. That is where Peterson grows in popularity so fast. He is the only man who dares put his had over the parapet and challenge these people. He speaks for a huge number of people in this world (whether you discredit him or not, I really dont care, all I know is he often speaks for me)do you have any examples where the far right have shot down someone as racist etc unfairly. Eg you believe they are not what the far right say. " I can only assume you mean the far left (I stated far right earlier but then corrected myself) There are thousands of examples but your line of argument is just proving my point. It is impossible for the average man in the street to make valid points because the far left constantly quote obscure examples. This is why we need Peterson because he is well read enough to know all the facts and actually beat these people at their own game. I do not deny you any beliefs and do not try to discredit anybody you believe in I just know that many things the average man in the street dares not challenge Peterson challenges for him and that is why he is so popular and also the reason the far left hate him and try to discredit him so veheremently. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Weird because following him saved my life a few years back. Nobody is without value." This is by no means a unique story. I think anyone who has saved lives is worth something. Regardless of what some may think of him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody denys you the right to your beliefs so please allow others the right to their own beliefs and dont shame them. Who was shamed? Elliot Page, perhaps? L. Ron Hubbard has also saved the lives of many young people. That does not mean his views and actions cannot be challenged. Peterson has made many disturbing statements about feminism, islamophobia, incels and trans people. As he boasted to Cathy Newman, he chooses his words very veryvm carefully. That's why he often doubles-down on some of the most troubling things he's said, which is not always the most mature thing to do. Do you know the reason he gave for his transphobic quote about Elliot Page? He said it was because "she" had the nerve to "flaunt" "her" abs on a magazine cover. You know, like celebs do all the time! Seems a bit like bullying to me. Doesn't it? What I am talking about is at the very top of this thread when somebody innocently said he had seen an interesting debate of Petersons on the origin of covid19 (one where he made no claims that it was a lab leak but said there was not enough evidence to close the book and it should still remain an open verdict) As soon as the Peterson haters saw this they all pounced (including yourself) claiming Peterson was a crank and shaming people for even listening to him. This cancel culture that denies the views of anyone who doesnt agree with their narrative is exactly what I am talking about. If nyou disagree with Peterson then debate with him, dont try to stop others from even watching him or as many universities have done cancel his talks because they dont agree with him. So it's not appropriate to have opinions on the validity of various sources? If someone is a crank, then presumably that's a piece of evidence that their work might not be reliable, evidence based, or unbiased? Or is it that we should swallow right wing cranks and what they say whole, because reasons, and silence the left? By extolling the virtues of Cancel Culture and trying to silence people you do not agree with or labeling them as cranks you are carrying out the doctrine of the Alt Left. If you dont agree with someone then argue with him, dont silence him. Its strange that this so called crank has debated some of the finest minds of the left wing and yet nobody has managed to make him look like a crank. So what do they do? discredit him and cancel him. That doesnt sound anything like democracy to me. Ok, so what I hear you saying is you like this guy, you're convinced by him, and a fuckton of talking points from one political side of the aisle. Talking points don't interest me. Tell me what you think. Do you think it's valid to critique sources as one of the ways to decide what media to consume, or as one of the methods to decide the validity of a message? On what basis do you decide whether you trust a source or not? I would honestly say that in many cases the questions are well above my pay grade, so I enjoy watching renowned experts from both sides of the argument discuss the real issues. I do not believe in everything Peterson says, in fact I have not heard his views on everything. I will say that a lot of what Peterson says resounds well with me. The far left does seem to have made a culture whereby anyone who argues with them is a racist or a sexist or transphobic or fascist or any number of labels they choose to dish out. Therefor the common man dare not challenge them for fear of being vilified. That is where Peterson grows in popularity so fast. He is the only man who dares put his had over the parapet and challenge these people. He speaks for a huge number of people in this world (whether you discredit him or not, I really dont care, all I know is he often speaks for me)do you have any examples where the far right have shot down someone as racist etc unfairly. Eg you believe they are not what the far right say. I can only assume you mean the far left (I stated far right earlier but then corrected myself) There are thousands of examples but your line of argument is just proving my point. It is impossible for the average man in the street to make valid points because the far left constantly quote obscure examples. This is why we need Peterson because he is well read enough to know all the facts and actually beat these people at their own game. I do not deny you any beliefs and do not try to discredit anybody you believe in I just know that many things the average man in the street dares not challenge Peterson challenges for him and that is why he is so popular and also the reason the far left hate him and try to discredit him so veheremently." If there are thousands of examples, then presumably it'd be trivially easy to name one? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody denys you the right to your beliefs so please allow others the right to their own beliefs and dont shame them. Who was shamed? Elliot Page, perhaps? L. Ron Hubbard has also saved the lives of many young people. That does not mean his views and actions cannot be challenged. Peterson has made many disturbing statements about feminism, islamophobia, incels and trans people. As he boasted to Cathy Newman, he chooses his words very veryvm carefully. That's why he often doubles-down on some of the most troubling things he's said, which is not always the most mature thing to do. Do you know the reason he gave for his transphobic quote about Elliot Page? He said it was because "she" had the nerve to "flaunt" "her" abs on a magazine cover. You know, like celebs do all the time! Seems a bit like bullying to me. Doesn't it? What I am talking about is at the very top of this thread when somebody innocently said he had seen an interesting debate of Petersons on the origin of covid19 (one where he made no claims that it was a lab leak but said there was not enough evidence to close the book and it should still remain an open verdict) As soon as the Peterson haters saw this they all pounced (including yourself) claiming Peterson was a crank and shaming people for even listening to him. This cancel culture that denies the views of anyone who doesnt agree with their narrative is exactly what I am talking about. If nyou disagree with Peterson then debate with him, dont try to stop others from even watching him or as many universities have done cancel his talks because they dont agree with him. So it's not appropriate to have opinions on the validity of various sources? If someone is a crank, then presumably that's a piece of evidence that their work might not be reliable, evidence based, or unbiased? Or is it that we should swallow right wing cranks and what they say whole, because reasons, and silence the left? By extolling the virtues of Cancel Culture and trying to silence people you do not agree with or labeling them as cranks you are carrying out the doctrine of the Alt Left. If you dont agree with someone then argue with him, dont silence him. Its strange that this so called crank has debated some of the finest minds of the left wing and yet nobody has managed to make him look like a crank. So what do they do? discredit him and cancel him. That doesnt sound anything like democracy to me. Ok, so what I hear you saying is you like this guy, you're convinced by him, and a fuckton of talking points from one political side of the aisle. Talking points don't interest me. Tell me what you think. Do you think it's valid to critique sources as one of the ways to decide what media to consume, or as one of the methods to decide the validity of a message? On what basis do you decide whether you trust a source or not? I would honestly say that in many cases the questions are well above my pay grade, so I enjoy watching renowned experts from both sides of the argument discuss the real issues. I do not believe in everything Peterson says, in fact I have not heard his views on everything. I will say that a lot of what Peterson says resounds well with me. The far left does seem to have made a culture whereby anyone who argues with them is a racist or a sexist or transphobic or fascist or any number of labels they choose to dish out. Therefor the common man dare not challenge them for fear of being vilified. That is where Peterson grows in popularity so fast. He is the only man who dares put his had over the parapet and challenge these people. He speaks for a huge number of people in this world (whether you discredit him or not, I really dont care, all I know is he often speaks for me)do you have any examples where the far right have shot down someone as racist etc unfairly. Eg you believe they are not what the far right say. I can only assume you mean the far left (I stated far right earlier but then corrected myself) There are thousands of examples but your line of argument is just proving my point. It is impossible for the average man in the street to make valid points because the far left constantly quote obscure examples. This is why we need Peterson because he is well read enough to know all the facts and actually beat these people at their own game. I do not deny you any beliefs and do not try to discredit anybody you believe in I just know that many things the average man in the street dares not challenge Peterson challenges for him and that is why he is so popular and also the reason the far left hate him and try to discredit him so veheremently." asking for an example isn't me or the far left trying to minimise your views. I'm trying to understand how you've come to them. If you reread the thread I've got mixed views on JP. I agree with his view on compelled speech. I disagreed with the Paige tweet. But I dont see the far left cancel culture that you are saying is happening so I am asking you to help me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody denys you the right to your beliefs so please allow others the right to their own beliefs and dont shame them. Who was shamed? Elliot Page, perhaps? L. Ron Hubbard has also saved the lives of many young people. That does not mean his views and actions cannot be challenged. Peterson has made many disturbing statements about feminism, islamophobia, incels and trans people. As he boasted to Cathy Newman, he chooses his words very veryvm carefully. That's why he often doubles-down on some of the most troubling things he's said, which is not always the most mature thing to do. Do you know the reason he gave for his transphobic quote about Elliot Page? He said it was because "she" had the nerve to "flaunt" "her" abs on a magazine cover. You know, like celebs do all the time! Seems a bit like bullying to me. Doesn't it? What I am talking about is at the very top of this thread when somebody innocently said he had seen an interesting debate of Petersons on the origin of covid19 (one where he made no claims that it was a lab leak but said there was not enough evidence to close the book and it should still remain an open verdict) As soon as the Peterson haters saw this they all pounced (including yourself) claiming Peterson was a crank and shaming people for even listening to him. This cancel culture that denies the views of anyone who doesnt agree with their narrative is exactly what I am talking about. If nyou disagree with Peterson then debate with him, dont try to stop others from even watching him or as many universities have done cancel his talks because they dont agree with him. So it's not appropriate to have opinions on the validity of various sources? If someone is a crank, then presumably that's a piece of evidence that their work might not be reliable, evidence based, or unbiased? Or is it that we should swallow right wing cranks and what they say whole, because reasons, and silence the left? By extolling the virtues of Cancel Culture and trying to silence people you do not agree with or labeling them as cranks you are carrying out the doctrine of the Alt Left. If you dont agree with someone then argue with him, dont silence him. Its strange that this so called crank has debated some of the finest minds of the left wing and yet nobody has managed to make him look like a crank. So what do they do? discredit him and cancel him. That doesnt sound anything like democracy to me. Ok, so what I hear you saying is you like this guy, you're convinced by him, and a fuckton of talking points from one political side of the aisle. Talking points don't interest me. Tell me what you think. Do you think it's valid to critique sources as one of the ways to decide what media to consume, or as one of the methods to decide the validity of a message? On what basis do you decide whether you trust a source or not? I would honestly say that in many cases the questions are well above my pay grade, so I enjoy watching renowned experts from both sides of the argument discuss the real issues. I do not believe in everything Peterson says, in fact I have not heard his views on everything. I will say that a lot of what Peterson says resounds well with me. The far left does seem to have made a culture whereby anyone who argues with them is a racist or a sexist or transphobic or fascist or any number of labels they choose to dish out. Therefor the common man dare not challenge them for fear of being vilified. That is where Peterson grows in popularity so fast. He is the only man who dares put his had over the parapet and challenge these people. He speaks for a huge number of people in this world (whether you discredit him or not, I really dont care, all I know is he often speaks for me)do you have any examples where the far right have shot down someone as racist etc unfairly. Eg you believe they are not what the far right say. I can only assume you mean the far left (I stated far right earlier but then corrected myself) There are thousands of examples but your line of argument is just proving my point. It is impossible for the average man in the street to make valid points because the far left constantly quote obscure examples. This is why we need Peterson because he is well read enough to know all the facts and actually beat these people at their own game. I do not deny you any beliefs and do not try to discredit anybody you believe in I just know that many things the average man in the street dares not challenge Peterson challenges for him and that is why he is so popular and also the reason the far left hate him and try to discredit him so veheremently. If there are thousands of examples, then presumably it'd be trivially easy to name one?" As I also said as soon as I name one you will name obscure examples to counter it, I cannot win this debate, THAT is why we need Peterson and why you lot hate him, because he beats you in every debate. I dont claim to be a scholar so I will leave it to the professionals. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody denys you the right to your beliefs so please allow others the right to their own beliefs and dont shame them. Who was shamed? Elliot Page, perhaps? L. Ron Hubbard has also saved the lives of many young people. That does not mean his views and actions cannot be challenged. Peterson has made many disturbing statements about feminism, islamophobia, incels and trans people. As he boasted to Cathy Newman, he chooses his words very veryvm carefully. That's why he often doubles-down on some of the most troubling things he's said, which is not always the most mature thing to do. Do you know the reason he gave for his transphobic quote about Elliot Page? He said it was because "she" had the nerve to "flaunt" "her" abs on a magazine cover. You know, like celebs do all the time! Seems a bit like bullying to me. Doesn't it? What I am talking about is at the very top of this thread when somebody innocently said he had seen an interesting debate of Petersons on the origin of covid19 (one where he made no claims that it was a lab leak but said there was not enough evidence to close the book and it should still remain an open verdict) As soon as the Peterson haters saw this they all pounced (including yourself) claiming Peterson was a crank and shaming people for even listening to him. This cancel culture that denies the views of anyone who doesnt agree with their narrative is exactly what I am talking about. If nyou disagree with Peterson then debate with him, dont try to stop others from even watching him or as many universities have done cancel his talks because they dont agree with him. So it's not appropriate to have opinions on the validity of various sources? If someone is a crank, then presumably that's a piece of evidence that their work might not be reliable, evidence based, or unbiased? Or is it that we should swallow right wing cranks and what they say whole, because reasons, and silence the left? By extolling the virtues of Cancel Culture and trying to silence people you do not agree with or labeling them as cranks you are carrying out the doctrine of the Alt Left. If you dont agree with someone then argue with him, dont silence him. Its strange that this so called crank has debated some of the finest minds of the left wing and yet nobody has managed to make him look like a crank. So what do they do? discredit him and cancel him. That doesnt sound anything like democracy to me. Ok, so what I hear you saying is you like this guy, you're convinced by him, and a fuckton of talking points from one political side of the aisle. Talking points don't interest me. Tell me what you think. Do you think it's valid to critique sources as one of the ways to decide what media to consume, or as one of the methods to decide the validity of a message? On what basis do you decide whether you trust a source or not? I would honestly say that in many cases the questions are well above my pay grade, so I enjoy watching renowned experts from both sides of the argument discuss the real issues. I do not believe in everything Peterson says, in fact I have not heard his views on everything. I will say that a lot of what Peterson says resounds well with me. The far left does seem to have made a culture whereby anyone who argues with them is a racist or a sexist or transphobic or fascist or any number of labels they choose to dish out. Therefor the common man dare not challenge them for fear of being vilified. That is where Peterson grows in popularity so fast. He is the only man who dares put his had over the parapet and challenge these people. He speaks for a huge number of people in this world (whether you discredit him or not, I really dont care, all I know is he often speaks for me)do you have any examples where the far right have shot down someone as racist etc unfairly. Eg you believe they are not what the far right say. I can only assume you mean the far left (I stated far right earlier but then corrected myself) There are thousands of examples but your line of argument is just proving my point. It is impossible for the average man in the street to make valid points because the far left constantly quote obscure examples. This is why we need Peterson because he is well read enough to know all the facts and actually beat these people at their own game. I do not deny you any beliefs and do not try to discredit anybody you believe in I just know that many things the average man in the street dares not challenge Peterson challenges for him and that is why he is so popular and also the reason the far left hate him and try to discredit him so veheremently. If there are thousands of examples, then presumably it'd be trivially easy to name one? As I also said as soon as I name one you will name obscure examples to counter it, I cannot win this debate, THAT is why we need Peterson and why you lot hate him, because he beats you in every debate. I dont claim to be a scholar so I will leave it to the professionals." So what you're saying is that you don't have an example, you can't win an argument, but somehow you still win the argument because reasons? I'm not arguing with Peterson. I'm having a discussion with you. If you can't back up your claims, they are indistinguishable from something you made up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In Universities at the moment 90% of lecturers have far left leanings and as a result that is the narrative that is preached to all students. That's just simply not close to being true. Would you care to offer an example? A female lecturer in the USA (sorry I cannot remember her name or the college) quoted Peterson in a psychology lecture she was giving. One of the students was in the Hate Peterson brigade and complained to the college. The college told this lecturer that if she continued to quote Peterson she would be removed from the college. If it comes to the point of refusing to allow university lecturers to use whatever text or examples they want to use in educating our youth, censoring lecturers and only allowing left wing scholars to be referenced in lectures then in my belief we have already gone to far down this woke road. Can you please provide evidence to support your claim that '90% of lecturers have far left leanings'? You are surely aware that no university only allows left-wing scholars to be referenced? A simple google search to find the political leanings of university lecturers will show this to be true. It is a fast growing change being led in the USA. Here is an excerpt from the Harvard Crimsen magaizine "More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April. A little over 37 percent of faculty respondents identified as “very liberal”— a nearly 8 percent jump from last year. Only 1 percent of respondents stated they are “conservative,” and no respondents identified as “very conservative.” Or how about this headline from The Daily Telegraph here in the UK back in 2017 (I assure you it hasnt swung to the right since then) More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April. A little over 37 percent of faculty respondents identified as “very liberal”— a nearly 8 percent jump from last year. Only 1 percent of respondents stated they are “conservative,” and no respondents identified as “very conservative.” So there's a clear link between intelligence and left leaning political views?the telegraph / Adam Smith institute paper said no. Right leaning intelligent ppl don't choose to go into academia. " Interesting, did they say why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody denys you the right to your beliefs so please allow others the right to their own beliefs and dont shame them. Who was shamed? Elliot Page, perhaps? L. Ron Hubbard has also saved the lives of many young people. That does not mean his views and actions cannot be challenged. Peterson has made many disturbing statements about feminism, islamophobia, incels and trans people. As he boasted to Cathy Newman, he chooses his words very veryvm carefully. That's why he often doubles-down on some of the most troubling things he's said, which is not always the most mature thing to do. Do you know the reason he gave for his transphobic quote about Elliot Page? He said it was because "she" had the nerve to "flaunt" "her" abs on a magazine cover. You know, like celebs do all the time! Seems a bit like bullying to me. Doesn't it? What I am talking about is at the very top of this thread when somebody innocently said he had seen an interesting debate of Petersons on the origin of covid19 (one where he made no claims that it was a lab leak but said there was not enough evidence to close the book and it should still remain an open verdict) As soon as the Peterson haters saw this they all pounced (including yourself) claiming Peterson was a crank and shaming people for even listening to him. This cancel culture that denies the views of anyone who doesnt agree with their narrative is exactly what I am talking about. If nyou disagree with Peterson then debate with him, dont try to stop others from even watching him or as many universities have done cancel his talks because they dont agree with him. So it's not appropriate to have opinions on the validity of various sources? If someone is a crank, then presumably that's a piece of evidence that their work might not be reliable, evidence based, or unbiased? Or is it that we should swallow right wing cranks and what they say whole, because reasons, and silence the left? By extolling the virtues of Cancel Culture and trying to silence people you do not agree with or labeling them as cranks you are carrying out the doctrine of the Alt Left. If you dont agree with someone then argue with him, dont silence him. Its strange that this so called crank has debated some of the finest minds of the left wing and yet nobody has managed to make him look like a crank. So what do they do? discredit him and cancel him. That doesnt sound anything like democracy to me. Ok, so what I hear you saying is you like this guy, you're convinced by him, and a fuckton of talking points from one political side of the aisle. Talking points don't interest me. Tell me what you think. Do you think it's valid to critique sources as one of the ways to decide what media to consume, or as one of the methods to decide the validity of a message? On what basis do you decide whether you trust a source or not? I would honestly say that in many cases the questions are well above my pay grade, so I enjoy watching renowned experts from both sides of the argument discuss the real issues. I do not believe in everything Peterson says, in fact I have not heard his views on everything. I will say that a lot of what Peterson says resounds well with me. The far left does seem to have made a culture whereby anyone who argues with them is a racist or a sexist or transphobic or fascist or any number of labels they choose to dish out. Therefor the common man dare not challenge them for fear of being vilified. That is where Peterson grows in popularity so fast. He is the only man who dares put his had over the parapet and challenge these people. He speaks for a huge number of people in this world (whether you discredit him or not, I really dont care, all I know is he often speaks for me)do you have any examples where the far right have shot down someone as racist etc unfairly. Eg you believe they are not what the far right say. I can only assume you mean the far left (I stated far right earlier but then corrected myself) There are thousands of examples but your line of argument is just proving my point. It is impossible for the average man in the street to make valid points because the far left constantly quote obscure examples. This is why we need Peterson because he is well read enough to know all the facts and actually beat these people at their own game. I do not deny you any beliefs and do not try to discredit anybody you believe in I just know that many things the average man in the street dares not challenge Peterson challenges for him and that is why he is so popular and also the reason the far left hate him and try to discredit him so veheremently. If there are thousands of examples, then presumably it'd be trivially easy to name one? As I also said as soon as I name one you will name obscure examples to counter it, I cannot win this debate, THAT is why we need Peterson and why you lot hate him, because he beats you in every debate. I dont claim to be a scholar so I will leave it to the professionals." whataboutary would be poor form. I suspect what may happen is we will disagree of a) they've been cancelled (it's not well defined) and b) where the case is whateverphobe or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody denys you the right to your beliefs so please allow others the right to their own beliefs and dont shame them. Who was shamed? Elliot Page, perhaps? L. Ron Hubbard has also saved the lives of many young people. That does not mean his views and actions cannot be challenged. Peterson has made many disturbing statements about feminism, islamophobia, incels and trans people. As he boasted to Cathy Newman, he chooses his words very veryvm carefully. That's why he often doubles-down on some of the most troubling things he's said, which is not always the most mature thing to do. Do you know the reason he gave for his transphobic quote about Elliot Page? He said it was because "she" had the nerve to "flaunt" "her" abs on a magazine cover. You know, like celebs do all the time! Seems a bit like bullying to me. Doesn't it? What I am talking about is at the very top of this thread when somebody innocently said he had seen an interesting debate of Petersons on the origin of covid19 (one where he made no claims that it was a lab leak but said there was not enough evidence to close the book and it should still remain an open verdict) As soon as the Peterson haters saw this they all pounced (including yourself) claiming Peterson was a crank and shaming people for even listening to him. This cancel culture that denies the views of anyone who doesnt agree with their narrative is exactly what I am talking about. If nyou disagree with Peterson then debate with him, dont try to stop others from even watching him or as many universities have done cancel his talks because they dont agree with him. So it's not appropriate to have opinions on the validity of various sources? If someone is a crank, then presumably that's a piece of evidence that their work might not be reliable, evidence based, or unbiased? Or is it that we should swallow right wing cranks and what they say whole, because reasons, and silence the left? By extolling the virtues of Cancel Culture and trying to silence people you do not agree with or labeling them as cranks you are carrying out the doctrine of the Alt Left. If you dont agree with someone then argue with him, dont silence him. Its strange that this so called crank has debated some of the finest minds of the left wing and yet nobody has managed to make him look like a crank. So what do they do? discredit him and cancel him. That doesnt sound anything like democracy to me. Ok, so what I hear you saying is you like this guy, you're convinced by him, and a fuckton of talking points from one political side of the aisle. Talking points don't interest me. Tell me what you think. Do you think it's valid to critique sources as one of the ways to decide what media to consume, or as one of the methods to decide the validity of a message? On what basis do you decide whether you trust a source or not? I would honestly say that in many cases the questions are well above my pay grade, so I enjoy watching renowned experts from both sides of the argument discuss the real issues. I do not believe in everything Peterson says, in fact I have not heard his views on everything. I will say that a lot of what Peterson says resounds well with me. The far left does seem to have made a culture whereby anyone who argues with them is a racist or a sexist or transphobic or fascist or any number of labels they choose to dish out. Therefor the common man dare not challenge them for fear of being vilified. That is where Peterson grows in popularity so fast. He is the only man who dares put his had over the parapet and challenge these people. He speaks for a huge number of people in this world (whether you discredit him or not, I really dont care, all I know is he often speaks for me)do you have any examples where the far right have shot down someone as racist etc unfairly. Eg you believe they are not what the far right say. I can only assume you mean the far left (I stated far right earlier but then corrected myself) There are thousands of examples but your line of argument is just proving my point. It is impossible for the average man in the street to make valid points because the far left constantly quote obscure examples. This is why we need Peterson because he is well read enough to know all the facts and actually beat these people at their own game. I do not deny you any beliefs and do not try to discredit anybody you believe in I just know that many things the average man in the street dares not challenge Peterson challenges for him and that is why he is so popular and also the reason the far left hate him and try to discredit him so veheremently.asking for an example isn't me or the far left trying to minimise your views. I'm trying to understand how you've come to them. If you reread the thread I've got mixed views on JP. I agree with his view on compelled speech. I disagreed with the Paige tweet. But I dont see the far left cancel culture that you are saying is happening so I am asking you to help me. " I just think claims should be backed up by evidence. *Shrug* | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody denys you the right to your beliefs so please allow others the right to their own beliefs and dont shame them. Who was shamed? Elliot Page, perhaps? L. Ron Hubbard has also saved the lives of many young people. That does not mean his views and actions cannot be challenged. Peterson has made many disturbing statements about feminism, islamophobia, incels and trans people. As he boasted to Cathy Newman, he chooses his words very veryvm carefully. That's why he often doubles-down on some of the most troubling things he's said, which is not always the most mature thing to do. Do you know the reason he gave for his transphobic quote about Elliot Page? He said it was because "she" had the nerve to "flaunt" "her" abs on a magazine cover. You know, like celebs do all the time! Seems a bit like bullying to me. Doesn't it? What I am talking about is at the very top of this thread when somebody innocently said he had seen an interesting debate of Petersons on the origin of covid19 (one where he made no claims that it was a lab leak but said there was not enough evidence to close the book and it should still remain an open verdict) As soon as the Peterson haters saw this they all pounced (including yourself) claiming Peterson was a crank and shaming people for even listening to him. This cancel culture that denies the views of anyone who doesnt agree with their narrative is exactly what I am talking about. If nyou disagree with Peterson then debate with him, dont try to stop others from even watching him or as many universities have done cancel his talks because they dont agree with him. So it's not appropriate to have opinions on the validity of various sources? If someone is a crank, then presumably that's a piece of evidence that their work might not be reliable, evidence based, or unbiased? Or is it that we should swallow right wing cranks and what they say whole, because reasons, and silence the left? By extolling the virtues of Cancel Culture and trying to silence people you do not agree with or labeling them as cranks you are carrying out the doctrine of the Alt Left. If you dont agree with someone then argue with him, dont silence him. Its strange that this so called crank has debated some of the finest minds of the left wing and yet nobody has managed to make him look like a crank. So what do they do? discredit him and cancel him. That doesnt sound anything like democracy to me. Ok, so what I hear you saying is you like this guy, you're convinced by him, and a fuckton of talking points from one political side of the aisle. Talking points don't interest me. Tell me what you think. Do you think it's valid to critique sources as one of the ways to decide what media to consume, or as one of the methods to decide the validity of a message? On what basis do you decide whether you trust a source or not? I would honestly say that in many cases the questions are well above my pay grade, so I enjoy watching renowned experts from both sides of the argument discuss the real issues. I do not believe in everything Peterson says, in fact I have not heard his views on everything. I will say that a lot of what Peterson says resounds well with me. The far left does seem to have made a culture whereby anyone who argues with them is a racist or a sexist or transphobic or fascist or any number of labels they choose to dish out. Therefor the common man dare not challenge them for fear of being vilified. That is where Peterson grows in popularity so fast. He is the only man who dares put his had over the parapet and challenge these people. He speaks for a huge number of people in this world (whether you discredit him or not, I really dont care, all I know is he often speaks for me)do you have any examples where the far right have shot down someone as racist etc unfairly. Eg you believe they are not what the far right say. I can only assume you mean the far left (I stated far right earlier but then corrected myself) There are thousands of examples but your line of argument is just proving my point. It is impossible for the average man in the street to make valid points because the far left constantly quote obscure examples. This is why we need Peterson because he is well read enough to know all the facts and actually beat these people at their own game. I do not deny you any beliefs and do not try to discredit anybody you believe in I just know that many things the average man in the street dares not challenge Peterson challenges for him and that is why he is so popular and also the reason the far left hate him and try to discredit him so veheremently.asking for an example isn't me or the far left trying to minimise your views. I'm trying to understand how you've come to them. If you reread the thread I've got mixed views on JP. I agree with his view on compelled speech. I disagreed with the Paige tweet. But I dont see the far left cancel culture that you are saying is happening so I am asking you to help me. " Cambridge University Cancelled Peterson from holding a talk at the university because the people at the top claimed he was not the kind of person who should be talking at Cambridge, Eventually there was a huge pushback from the student body and he was allowed to speak. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In Universities at the moment 90% of lecturers have far left leanings and as a result that is the narrative that is preached to all students. That's just simply not close to being true. Would you care to offer an example? A female lecturer in the USA (sorry I cannot remember her name or the college) quoted Peterson in a psychology lecture she was giving. One of the students was in the Hate Peterson brigade and complained to the college. The college told this lecturer that if she continued to quote Peterson she would be removed from the college. If it comes to the point of refusing to allow university lecturers to use whatever text or examples they want to use in educating our youth, censoring lecturers and only allowing left wing scholars to be referenced in lectures then in my belief we have already gone to far down this woke road. Can you please provide evidence to support your claim that '90% of lecturers have far left leanings'? You are surely aware that no university only allows left-wing scholars to be referenced? A simple google search to find the political leanings of university lecturers will show this to be true. It is a fast growing change being led in the USA. Here is an excerpt from the Harvard Crimsen magaizine "More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April. A little over 37 percent of faculty respondents identified as “very liberal”— a nearly 8 percent jump from last year. Only 1 percent of respondents stated they are “conservative,” and no respondents identified as “very conservative.” Or how about this headline from The Daily Telegraph here in the UK back in 2017 (I assure you it hasnt swung to the right since then) More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April. A little over 37 percent of faculty respondents identified as “very liberal”— a nearly 8 percent jump from last year. Only 1 percent of respondents stated they are “conservative,” and no respondents identified as “very conservative.” So there's a clear link between intelligence and left leaning political views?the telegraph / Adam Smith institute paper said no. Right leaning intelligent ppl don't choose to go into academia. Interesting, did they say why? " openess to new experiences predicts support for left leaning parties. And academia may appeal pre to those with openess | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont claim to be an expert on Peterson I had not even seen the Paige tweet. I just know that he speaks a lot of sense in what I have seen of his." What is his relevant experience or expertise surrounding Covid-19? It's one of the questions to ask when considering whether a source is reliable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody denys you the right to your beliefs so please allow others the right to their own beliefs and dont shame them. Who was shamed? Elliot Page, perhaps? L. Ron Hubbard has also saved the lives of many young people. That does not mean his views and actions cannot be challenged. Peterson has made many disturbing statements about feminism, islamophobia, incels and trans people. As he boasted to Cathy Newman, he chooses his words very veryvm carefully. That's why he often doubles-down on some of the most troubling things he's said, which is not always the most mature thing to do. Do you know the reason he gave for his transphobic quote about Elliot Page? He said it was because "she" had the nerve to "flaunt" "her" abs on a magazine cover. You know, like celebs do all the time! Seems a bit like bullying to me. Doesn't it? What I am talking about is at the very top of this thread when somebody innocently said he had seen an interesting debate of Petersons on the origin of covid19 (one where he made no claims that it was a lab leak but said there was not enough evidence to close the book and it should still remain an open verdict) As soon as the Peterson haters saw this they all pounced (including yourself) claiming Peterson was a crank and shaming people for even listening to him. This cancel culture that denies the views of anyone who doesnt agree with their narrative is exactly what I am talking about. If nyou disagree with Peterson then debate with him, dont try to stop others from even watching him or as many universities have done cancel his talks because they dont agree with him. So it's not appropriate to have opinions on the validity of various sources? If someone is a crank, then presumably that's a piece of evidence that their work might not be reliable, evidence based, or unbiased? Or is it that we should swallow right wing cranks and what they say whole, because reasons, and silence the left? By extolling the virtues of Cancel Culture and trying to silence people you do not agree with or labeling them as cranks you are carrying out the doctrine of the Alt Left. If you dont agree with someone then argue with him, dont silence him. Its strange that this so called crank has debated some of the finest minds of the left wing and yet nobody has managed to make him look like a crank. So what do they do? discredit him and cancel him. That doesnt sound anything like democracy to me. Ok, so what I hear you saying is you like this guy, you're convinced by him, and a fuckton of talking points from one political side of the aisle. Talking points don't interest me. Tell me what you think. Do you think it's valid to critique sources as one of the ways to decide what media to consume, or as one of the methods to decide the validity of a message? On what basis do you decide whether you trust a source or not? I would honestly say that in many cases the questions are well above my pay grade, so I enjoy watching renowned experts from both sides of the argument discuss the real issues. I do not believe in everything Peterson says, in fact I have not heard his views on everything. I will say that a lot of what Peterson says resounds well with me. The far left does seem to have made a culture whereby anyone who argues with them is a racist or a sexist or transphobic or fascist or any number of labels they choose to dish out. Therefor the common man dare not challenge them for fear of being vilified. That is where Peterson grows in popularity so fast. He is the only man who dares put his had over the parapet and challenge these people. He speaks for a huge number of people in this world (whether you discredit him or not, I really dont care, all I know is he often speaks for me)do you have any examples where the far right have shot down someone as racist etc unfairly. Eg you believe they are not what the far right say. I can only assume you mean the far left (I stated far right earlier but then corrected myself) There are thousands of examples but your line of argument is just proving my point. It is impossible for the average man in the street to make valid points because the far left constantly quote obscure examples. This is why we need Peterson because he is well read enough to know all the facts and actually beat these people at their own game. I do not deny you any beliefs and do not try to discredit anybody you believe in I just know that many things the average man in the street dares not challenge Peterson challenges for him and that is why he is so popular and also the reason the far left hate him and try to discredit him so veheremently.asking for an example isn't me or the far left trying to minimise your views. I'm trying to understand how you've come to them. If you reread the thread I've got mixed views on JP. I agree with his view on compelled speech. I disagreed with the Paige tweet. But I dont see the far left cancel culture that you are saying is happening so I am asking you to help me. Cambridge University Cancelled Peterson from holding a talk at the university because the people at the top claimed he was not the kind of person who should be talking at Cambridge, Eventually there was a huge pushback from the student body and he was allowed to speak." thanks. Interesting to see it was pressure from the faculty and students that got it rescinded. I sense this is more risk adverse management rather than cancel culture. But I can see there could be a cancel view. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In Universities at the moment 90% of lecturers have far left leanings and as a result that is the narrative that is preached to all students. That's just simply not close to being true. Would you care to offer an example? A female lecturer in the USA (sorry I cannot remember her name or the college) quoted Peterson in a psychology lecture she was giving. One of the students was in the Hate Peterson brigade and complained to the college. The college told this lecturer that if she continued to quote Peterson she would be removed from the college. If it comes to the point of refusing to allow university lecturers to use whatever text or examples they want to use in educating our youth, censoring lecturers and only allowing left wing scholars to be referenced in lectures then in my belief we have already gone to far down this woke road. Can you please provide evidence to support your claim that '90% of lecturers have far left leanings'? You are surely aware that no university only allows left-wing scholars to be referenced? A simple google search to find the political leanings of university lecturers will show this to be true. It is a fast growing change being led in the USA. Here is an excerpt from the Harvard Crimsen magaizine "More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April. A little over 37 percent of faculty respondents identified as “very liberal”— a nearly 8 percent jump from last year. Only 1 percent of respondents stated they are “conservative,” and no respondents identified as “very conservative.” Or how about this headline from The Daily Telegraph here in the UK back in 2017 (I assure you it hasnt swung to the right since then) More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April. A little over 37 percent of faculty respondents identified as “very liberal”— a nearly 8 percent jump from last year. Only 1 percent of respondents stated they are “conservative,” and no respondents identified as “very conservative.” So there's a clear link between intelligence and left leaning political views?the telegraph / Adam Smith institute paper said no. Right leaning intelligent ppl don't choose to go into academia. Interesting, did they say why? openess to new experiences predicts support for left leaning parties. And academia may appeal pre to those with openess" Less money in an academic career too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just know that many things the average man in the street dares not challenge Peterson challenges for him and that is why he is so popular and also the reason the far left hate him and try to discredit him so veheremently." Firstly, I don't actually know what you mean by the far left, at least in the UK. I think you just mean the left. Secondly, as someone on the left, I don't 'hate' Person because he speaks for the person on the street. I dislike him because of what he does and says. Thirdly, have you ever wondered why it tends to be those on the left who complain of racism, homophobia, etc.? I mean, it could be because of this narrative you keep speaking of (which is itself a narrative). Or it could be because such behaviour often comes from the right. Fourthly, we could compile a list of wealthy white men who claim to speak for the man on the street. It's not really good company. Fifthly, if that man on the street is trans, does Peterson still speak for them? Or does he repeatedly mock them like a petulant bully? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""openess to new experiences predicts support for left leaning parties. And academia may appeal more to those with openess" I would answer this if I could even understand it." I've corrected a word if that helps. "Openess to new experiences" is a personality trait. Those with that trait tend to be left leaning. And may enjoy academia. So you end up with lefties in academia. It's not too far from some positions Peterson takes on the pay gap and other gender based differences. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont claim to be an expert on Peterson I had not even seen the Paige tweet. I just know that he speaks a lot of sense in what I have seen of his." Blimey. Whenever I've seen him it's been anti-science, misogynistic, anti-islam cleverly worded bollocks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont claim to be an expert on Peterson I had not even seen the Paige tweet. I just know that he speaks a lot of sense in what I have seen of his." You claimed to have watched or listened to the Rogan podcast. So, you either knew about the Elliot Page tweet, or you didn't listen very carefully. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""I just think claims should be backed up by evidence. *Shrug*" exactly what Peterson said in the TY vid that started this whole thread, he just asked for proof that the virus started in the market OR keep the decision open" He is excellent at manipulation, you're right. If only he used his powers for good instead of spreading misinformation and hateful rhetoric. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""I just think claims should be backed up by evidence. *Shrug*" exactly what Peterson said in the TY vid that started this whole thread, he just asked for proof that the virus started in the market OR keep the decision open" Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. The fact that Peterson can manipulate truisms doesn't mean there's a grand conspiracy. It means we don't know. You made claims, you back them up. Where did the virus originate? Evidence continues to be gathered. This stuff isn't easy. Anyone trying to claim we know or should know is intellectually unequipped or lying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cambridge University Cancelled Peterson from holding a talk at the university because the people at the top claimed he was not the kind of person who should be talking at Cambridge, Eventually there was a huge pushback from the student body and he was allowed to speak." Cambridge Uni is not really what I would class as a left-wing establishment, so mot sure that fits your narrative. It was clearly a business decision. Secondly, if there was a huge backlash from the student body, I guess that shows they are being taught to challenge authority and think and speak for themselves. That also doesn't support your narrative. Finally, do you think Cambridge Uni should be obliged to let anyone speak there? Or do they make case-by-case decisions, based on the good of the uni and the welfare of the student body? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody denys you the right to your beliefs so please allow others the right to their own beliefs and dont shame them. Who was shamed? Elliot Page, perhaps? L. Ron Hubbard has also saved the lives of many young people. That does not mean his views and actions cannot be challenged. Peterson has made many disturbing statements about feminism, islamophobia, incels and trans people. As he boasted to Cathy Newman, he chooses his words very veryvm carefully. That's why he often doubles-down on some of the most troubling things he's said, which is not always the most mature thing to do. Do you know the reason he gave for his transphobic quote about Elliot Page? He said it was because "she" had the nerve to "flaunt" "her" abs on a magazine cover. You know, like celebs do all the time! Seems a bit like bullying to me. Doesn't it? What I am talking about is at the very top of this thread when somebody innocently said he had seen an interesting debate of Petersons on the origin of covid19 (one where he made no claims that it was a lab leak but said there was not enough evidence to close the book and it should still remain an open verdict) As soon as the Peterson haters saw this they all pounced (including yourself) claiming Peterson was a crank and shaming people for even listening to him. This cancel culture that denies the views of anyone who doesnt agree with their narrative is exactly what I am talking about. If nyou disagree with Peterson then debate with him, dont try to stop others from even watching him or as many universities have done cancel his talks because they dont agree with him. So it's not appropriate to have opinions on the validity of various sources? If someone is a crank, then presumably that's a piece of evidence that their work might not be reliable, evidence based, or unbiased? Or is it that we should swallow right wing cranks and what they say whole, because reasons, and silence the left? By extolling the virtues of Cancel Culture and trying to silence people you do not agree with or labeling them as cranks you are carrying out the doctrine of the Alt Left. If you dont agree with someone then argue with him, dont silence him. Its strange that this so called crank has debated some of the finest minds of the left wing and yet nobody has managed to make him look like a crank. So what do they do? discredit him and cancel him. That doesnt sound anything like democracy to me. Ok, so what I hear you saying is you like this guy, you're convinced by him, and a fuckton of talking points from one political side of the aisle. Talking points don't interest me. Tell me what you think. Do you think it's valid to critique sources as one of the ways to decide what media to consume, or as one of the methods to decide the validity of a message? On what basis do you decide whether you trust a source or not? I would honestly say that in many cases the questions are well above my pay grade, so I enjoy watching renowned experts from both sides of the argument discuss the real issues. I do not believe in everything Peterson says, in fact I have not heard his views on everything. I will say that a lot of what Peterson says resounds well with me. The far left does seem to have made a culture whereby anyone who argues with them is a racist or a sexist or transphobic or fascist or any number of labels they choose to dish out. Therefor the common man dare not challenge them for fear of being vilified. That is where Peterson grows in popularity so fast. He is the only man who dares put his had over the parapet and challenge these people. He speaks for a huge number of people in this world (whether you discredit him or not, I really dont care, all I know is he often speaks for me)do you have any examples where the far right have shot down someone as racist etc unfairly. Eg you believe they are not what the far right say. I can only assume you mean the far left (I stated far right earlier but then corrected myself) There are thousands of examples but your line of argument is just proving my point. It is impossible for the average man in the street to make valid points because the far left constantly quote obscure examples. This is why we need Peterson because he is well read enough to know all the facts and actually beat these people at their own game. I do not deny you any beliefs and do not try to discredit anybody you believe in I just know that many things the average man in the street dares not challenge Peterson challenges for him and that is why he is so popular and also the reason the far left hate him and try to discredit him so veheremently.asking for an example isn't me or the far left trying to minimise your views. I'm trying to understand how you've come to them. If you reread the thread I've got mixed views on JP. I agree with his view on compelled speech. I disagreed with the Paige tweet. But I dont see the far left cancel culture that you are saying is happening so I am asking you to help me. Cambridge University Cancelled Peterson from holding a talk at the university because the people at the top claimed he was not the kind of person who should be talking at Cambridge, Eventually there was a huge pushback from the student body and he was allowed to speak.thanks. Interesting to see it was pressure from the faculty and students that got it rescinded. I sense this is more risk adverse management rather than cancel culture. But I can see there could be a cancel view. " I'd like to know the difference between being cancelled and a venue or platform being able to make its own decisions about who to host. Is everyone owed a platform wherever they want? If you stand in my living room, insult my mother, and I tell you to get out of my house, have I cancelled you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just know that many things the average man in the street dares not challenge Peterson challenges for him and that is why he is so popular and also the reason the far left hate him and try to discredit him so veheremently. Firstly, I don't actually know what you mean by the far left, at least in the UK. I think you just mean the left. Secondly, as someone on the left, I don't 'hate' Person because he speaks for the person on the street. I dislike him because of what he does and says. Thirdly, have you ever wondered why it tends to be those on the left who complain of racism, homophobia, etc.? I mean, it could be because of this narrative you keep speaking of (which is itself a narrative). Or it could be because such behaviour often comes from the right. Fourthly, we could compile a list of wealthy white men who claim to speak for the man on the street. It's not really good company. Fifthly, if that man on the street is trans, does Peterson still speak for them? Or does he repeatedly mock them like a petulant bully?" on your third point the left complains on behalf of others when often the people they claim to represent do not agree with them, Peterson has had a few trans people on his videos and they all agree with Petersons views and object to others speaking on their behalf, that also answers your fifth point. I keep trying to point out that I am not a disciple of Peterson I simply feel that he usually cuts through the bullshit and speaks sense If you are claiming all homophobes are right wing then sorry you are deluded, Homophobes are usually uneducated and that often means left wing too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just know that many things the average man in the street dares not challenge Peterson challenges for him and that is why he is so popular and also the reason the far left hate him and try to discredit him so veheremently. Firstly, I don't actually know what you mean by the far left, at least in the UK. I think you just mean the left. Secondly, as someone on the left, I don't 'hate' Person because he speaks for the person on the street. I dislike him because of what he does and says. Thirdly, have you ever wondered why it tends to be those on the left who complain of racism, homophobia, etc.? I mean, it could be because of this narrative you keep speaking of (which is itself a narrative). Or it could be because such behaviour often comes from the right. Fourthly, we could compile a list of wealthy white men who claim to speak for the man on the street. It's not really good company. Fifthly, if that man on the street is trans, does Peterson still speak for them? Or does he repeatedly mock them like a petulant bully? on your third point the left complains on behalf of others when often the people they claim to represent do not agree with them, Peterson has had a few trans people on his videos and they all agree with Petersons views and object to others speaking on their behalf, that also answers your fifth point. I keep trying to point out that I am not a disciple of Peterson I simply feel that he usually cuts through the bullshit and speaks sense If you are claiming all homophobes are right wing then sorry you are deluded, Homophobes are usually uneducated and that often means left wing too" What does this any of this have to do with Peterson's take on Covid, and whether it's worthwhile? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just know that many things the average man in the street dares not challenge Peterson challenges for him and that is why he is so popular and also the reason the far left hate him and try to discredit him so veheremently. Firstly, I don't actually know what you mean by the far left, at least in the UK. I think you just mean the left. Secondly, as someone on the left, I don't 'hate' Person because he speaks for the person on the street. I dislike him because of what he does and says. Thirdly, have you ever wondered why it tends to be those on the left who complain of racism, homophobia, etc.? I mean, it could be because of this narrative you keep speaking of (which is itself a narrative). Or it could be because such behaviour often comes from the right. Fourthly, we could compile a list of wealthy white men who claim to speak for the man on the street. It's not really good company. Fifthly, if that man on the street is trans, does Peterson still speak for them? Or does he repeatedly mock them like a petulant bully? on your third point the left complains on behalf of others when often the people they claim to represent do not agree with them, Peterson has had a few trans people on his videos and they all agree with Petersons views and object to others speaking on their behalf, that also answers your fifth point. I keep trying to point out that I am not a disciple of Peterson I simply feel that he usually cuts through the bullshit and speaks sense If you are claiming all homophobes are right wing then sorry you are deluded, Homophobes are usually uneducated and that often means left wing too" "Peterson....usually cuts through the bullshit and speaks sense" Only if you like unscientific points of view, hateful rhetoric and general misinformation. "Homophobes are usually uneducated and that often means left wing too" Interesting, do you have some evidence of this? Because it kinda sounds like bollocks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Look up the Some More News video on Jordan Petersen on YouTube. It is incredibly thorough, picks over all his bs (as in catches him in multiple lies) and doesn't take his words out of context. If you watch that video (it's nice and short, shorter than it takes JP to answer a simple question) and you still think positively about him then ... eesh" It has already been decided that the WOKE left would do anything to discredit Peterson. If they want to really really discredit him, dont make videos trashing him. Challenge him to really debate. Prove in front of millions that he is wrong, he is a liar, misogynist, etc etc. They have tried to do that many times and he always wins the debate. It is so harmful to them that they just spread hate and vitreol about him, take all his words out of context. Its not difficult to do and they find it easier to discredit him than to prove him wrong (which they cant) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Look up the Some More News video on Jordan Petersen on YouTube. It is incredibly thorough, picks over all his bs (as in catches him in multiple lies) and doesn't take his words out of context. If you watch that video (it's nice and short, shorter than it takes JP to answer a simple question) and you still think positively about him then ... eesh It has already been decided that the WOKE left would do anything to discredit Peterson. If they want to really really discredit him, dont make videos trashing him. Challenge him to really debate. Prove in front of millions that he is wrong, he is a liar, misogynist, etc etc. They have tried to do that many times and he always wins the debate. It is so harmful to them that they just spread hate and vitreol about him, take all his words out of context. Its not difficult to do and they find it easier to discredit him than to prove him wrong (which they cant)" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Look up the Some More News video on Jordan Petersen on YouTube. It is incredibly thorough, picks over all his bs (as in catches him in multiple lies) and doesn't take his words out of context. If you watch that video (it's nice and short, shorter than it takes JP to answer a simple question) and you still think positively about him then ... eesh It has already been decided that the WOKE left would do anything to discredit Peterson. If they want to really really discredit him, dont make videos trashing him. Challenge him to really debate. Prove in front of millions that he is wrong, he is a liar, misogynist, etc etc. They have tried to do that many times and he always wins the debate. It is so harmful to them that they just spread hate and vitreol about him, take all his words out of context. Its not difficult to do and they find it easier to discredit him than to prove him wrong (which they cant)" There are many rhetorical devices that can be used by the dishonest to look impressive in front of the gullible (such as the Gish Gallop). If you think that being able to put on an impressive show is how one determines what's true or not, then perhaps you care more about showmanship than truth or honesty? Have you already decided that anything disagreeing with Peterson is wrong or something? Calling things woke left doesn't discredit anything, not even if you turn on caps lock. Is your method for deciding a reliable source "Peterson rule, lefties drool" or something? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""What does this any of this have to do with Peterson's take on Covid, and whether it's worthwhile?" Not a thing but if anybody ever mentions Peterson in any discusion the WOKE always start screaming about him being transphobic etc etc. I watched the video refernced at the top of this thread and Jordan didnt seem to have a take on Covid, he was just allowing scientists to give their opinion on where it started and the answer he was trying to state was that nbody knows so we should continue looking not glibly say that we can rule out a lab leak which seems to be a politically motivated decision." OK. So if you dislike the way he gets dragged into culture wars, then why are you banging on about transphobia, homophobia, woke, etc? Why can't you discuss his merits as a source (not that you agree with him, what makes him reliable from an objective point of view)? Is he a virologist, epidemiologist, etc? What particular expertise or experience does he bring to this discussion? Why can't you discuss the merits of his arguments rather than repeating talking points that have nothing to do with the argument he's making? If you don't want to make this a discussion about the woke culture wars, why not stick to the subject at hand rather than thoroughly derail it into the woke culture wars? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont see what difference his credentials are as a virologist or epidemiologist in this context. He is not make any claims what so ever, he is just acting as a platform to allow imminent scientists to voice their concerns that the source of Covid has been whitewashed for political gain and the fact there is no evidence to rule out a lab leak and more than there is to blame the market. The fact that Peterson is involved in this video ensures it is viewed by a wider audience. The only problem with that is that as soon as Petersons name is associated with anything the wolf pack comes charging after him. I defy anyone to tell me one scientific fact that Peterson has made in this video, so what does it matter what his scientific background is. I do apologise for getting dragged off topic but I assure you it was not my design. As soon as my head came over the parapet the wolf pack came at me in numbers with numerous points on various subjects." So you think it makes no difference whether these ideas are discussed, moderated, or presented by people who know about the field? Peterson can discuss anything and is an asset because he's just so totally awesome? Personally, I'd want a discussion where everyone has a base level of knowledge about the area in question, to make sure that everyone was held to a reasonable standard. To pursue enquiry in areas that are fruitful - which Peterson won't know, given he's not that kind of expert. Why are people who disagree with Peterson a 'wolf pack'? Are people not allowed opinions that disagree with you? As it is, this thread is nearly over, and I've yet to hear any defence of Peterson's presentation on the origins of Covid-19, because it's been thoroughly derailed by right wing talking points. I've asked you several questions about the validity of sources you've ignored (one of the downsides of live debate is that one can ignore inconvenient questions and look like you're winning - I see you've learned from Peterson how to put on a show and avoid uncomfortable truths). As far as I can see, you've derailed the thread, and deprived us of the opportunity to hear from fans of Peterson why he has a point surrounding the origins of Covid-19. We already know that he earns money by exciting the anti-woke brigade, and yet that's all you've managed to tell us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think it's particularly necessary to engage in a full debate with a live audience in order to prove a lot of his points are incorrect. You can listen to many recent interviews he's done in the last 18 months, where people have pointed that out to him . Kyle Kulinski ( a political commentator) and Tim Dillon (a comedian) are 2 youtubers I can think of, off the top of my head that did just that. Personally I find Gabor Mate's work in psychology much more interesting than Peterson's. (He's also from Canada)." Again we are getting dragged off topic, this thread was not whether Peterson is good or bad, it is specific to this video. Peterson made no assertions in the video he left the talking to the scientists, so did any of the screamers actually watch the video or just hear the name Peterson and start condemnation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think it's particularly necessary to engage in a full debate with a live audience in order to prove a lot of his points are incorrect. You can listen to many recent interviews he's done in the last 18 months, where people have pointed that out to him . Kyle Kulinski ( a political commentator) and Tim Dillon (a comedian) are 2 youtubers I can think of, off the top of my head that did just that. Personally I find Gabor Mate's work in psychology much more interesting than Peterson's. (He's also from Canada)." I've come across Mate recently, and he is a fascinating figure. Debate has purpose, but to say it's the best or only way to uncover truth - it says to me that you're either on the side of lying for an audience, or you know less than the square root of fuck all about intellectual inquiry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think it's particularly necessary to engage in a full debate with a live audience in order to prove a lot of his points are incorrect. You can listen to many recent interviews he's done in the last 18 months, where people have pointed that out to him . Kyle Kulinski ( a political commentator) and Tim Dillon (a comedian) are 2 youtubers I can think of, off the top of my head that did just that. Personally I find Gabor Mate's work in psychology much more interesting than Peterson's. (He's also from Canada). Again we are getting dragged off topic, this thread was not whether Peterson is good or bad, it is specific to this video. Peterson made no assertions in the video he left the talking to the scientists, so did any of the screamers actually watch the video or just hear the name Peterson and start condemnation." Why is it bad to have an opinion on the validity of a source? I think a psychologist is an appalling choice to host any such discussion. One of the things you learn about intellectual inquiry is that there's a skill in asking what scholars would view as interesting questions. Why would a psychologist be able to advance discussion on tracing the roots of this virus? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think it's particularly necessary to engage in a full debate with a live audience in order to prove a lot of his points are incorrect. You can listen to many recent interviews he's done in the last 18 months, where people have pointed that out to him . Kyle Kulinski ( a political commentator) and Tim Dillon (a comedian) are 2 youtubers I can think of, off the top of my head that did just that. Personally I find Gabor Mate's work in psychology much more interesting than Peterson's. (He's also from Canada). Again we are getting dragged off topic, this thread was not whether Peterson is good or bad, it is specific to this video. Peterson made no assertions in the video he left the talking to the scientists, so did any of the screamers actually watch the video or just hear the name Peterson and start condemnation. Why is it bad to have an opinion on the validity of a source? I think a psychologist is an appalling choice to host any such discussion. One of the things you learn about intellectual inquiry is that there's a skill in asking what scholars would view as interesting questions. Why would a psychologist be able to advance discussion on tracing the roots of this virus?" it's his own podcast isn't it ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think it's particularly necessary to engage in a full debate with a live audience in order to prove a lot of his points are incorrect. You can listen to many recent interviews he's done in the last 18 months, where people have pointed that out to him . Kyle Kulinski ( a political commentator) and Tim Dillon (a comedian) are 2 youtubers I can think of, off the top of my head that did just that. Personally I find Gabor Mate's work in psychology much more interesting than Peterson's. (He's also from Canada). Again we are getting dragged off topic, this thread was not whether Peterson is good or bad, it is specific to this video. Peterson made no assertions in the video he left the talking to the scientists, so did any of the screamers actually watch the video or just hear the name Peterson and start condemnation. Why is it bad to have an opinion on the validity of a source? I think a psychologist is an appalling choice to host any such discussion. One of the things you learn about intellectual inquiry is that there's a skill in asking what scholars would view as interesting questions. Why would a psychologist be able to advance discussion on tracing the roots of this virus?it's his own podcast isn't it ? " I'm not saying can he discuss it, I'm asking if he's a good choice. I could get Peter Wilson (professor of classics at the University of Sydney) to discuss it. Classical Greek theatres? He's your man. Origins of viruses? Terrible choice. Why not go to someone who has a fucking clue in a relevant field? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wouldn't waste any time on Jordan peterson total wind bag!" Only when he's talking about religion. He was totally owned by Sam Harris. Other than that he's spot on. The Woke in here won't like it, but he knows his stuff... Apart from religion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"""Homophobes are usually uneducated and that often means left wing too" Interesting, do you have some evidence of this? Because it kinda sounds like bollocks." Walk into any pub in any council estate in the country and you will hear the modern day Alf Garnets moaning about fuckin torys and fuckin puffs, If you havent heard this guy you have never been into a council estate pub." This is quite possibly the weirdest thing I've ever seen posted on this site. And this site is the epicenter of weird shit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Not a thing but if anybody ever mentions Peterson in any discusion the WOKE always start screaming about him being transphobic etc etc." Why is it that you keep implying that only non-racists can see through his bullshit and his transphobia? You could be right, but it seems a little leftfield. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Not a thing but if anybody ever mentions Peterson in any discusion the WOKE always start screaming about him being transphobic etc etc. Why is it that you keep implying that only non-racists can see through his bullshit and his transphobia? You could be right, but it seems a little leftfield." I'm also not sure what transphobia has to do with this discussion at all tbh. (Perhaps one of many criteria for judging a source? maybe?) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Not a thing but if anybody ever mentions Peterson in any discusion the WOKE always start screaming about him being transphobic etc etc. Why is it that you keep implying that only non-racists can see through his bullshit and his transphobia? You could be right, but it seems a little leftfield. I'm also not sure what transphobia has to do with this discussion at all tbh. (Perhaps one of many criteria for judging a source? maybe?)" You keep bringing this back to Peterson not being the right person to raise this discussion and of course you are right there are much better qualified people to hold this discussion but for whatever reason the qualified people have decided not to raise this issue (maybe something like the reason why the assembled group of experts decided to change their mind within 24 hours, so what pressure is brought to bear on them) The fact of the matter remains that Peterson did raise the discussion that nobody else would so for that surely he should be congratulated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Not a thing but if anybody ever mentions Peterson in any discusion the WOKE always start screaming about him being transphobic etc etc. Why is it that you keep implying that only non-racists can see through his bullshit and his transphobia? You could be right, but it seems a little leftfield. I'm also not sure what transphobia has to do with this discussion at all tbh. (Perhaps one of many criteria for judging a source? maybe?) You keep bringing this back to Peterson not being the right person to raise this discussion and of course you are right there are much better qualified people to hold this discussion but for whatever reason the qualified people have decided not to raise this issue (maybe something like the reason why the assembled group of experts decided to change their mind within 24 hours, so what pressure is brought to bear on them) The fact of the matter remains that Peterson did raise the discussion that nobody else would so for that surely he should be congratulated." How do you know that people who are qualified aren't having the conversation? I came across a paper several months ago which attempted to use historic contact tracing along with genomics to attempt to source the earliest known information about the outbreak, and its proximity to both the market and the laboratory (and contacts of each). These conversations are certainly happening, as they have done with outbreaks of other novel pathogens like HIV or SARS. So no, I won't congratulate someone who has an income stream in seeking attention, for seeking attention, for having a conversation he's not equipped to have. I think it's irresponsible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jordan Peterson is a right-wing shill who makes a huge amount of money for talking utter bollocks. I can't stand him. Don't trust anything he says without checking it thoroughly. " But the fact that he upsets the woke means that we should accept anything he says without checking? or something I'm just like... psychologist with history of dishonest argumentation takes on virology. Even honest psychologist taking on virology is not a good source. This is why we have expertise, and Peterson is as out of his depth here as Peter Wilson (professor at classics at the University of Sydney, above) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who, prey tell, is this Jordan Peterson that everyone seems to wax lyrical about?" He is a psychologist University lecturer who pander to right-wingers and incels and spreads poisonous ideas while trying to make out he is well-informed and even-handed in his conclusions. I can give you an amazing video link explanating why he is so toxic but it is three hours long. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who, prey tell, is this Jordan Peterson that everyone seems to wax lyrical about? He is a psychologist University lecturer who pander to right-wingers and incels and spreads poisonous ideas while trying to make out he is well-informed and even-handed in his conclusions. Please I beg you to view some of his youtube videos and make up your own mind about him. I personally find him most enlightening but the staunch left wing seriously want to silence him and discredit him I can give you an amazing video link explanating why he is so toxic but it is three hours long. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who, prey tell, is this Jordan Peterson that everyone seems to wax lyrical about? He is a psychologist University lecturer who pander to right-wingers and incels and spreads poisonous ideas while trying to make out he is well-informed and even-handed in his conclusions. I personally find him most enlightening but the staunch left wing seriously want to silence him and discredit him I can give you an amazing video link explanating why he is so toxic but it is three hours long. Please I beg you to view some of his youtube videos and make up your own mind about him." Why do you think this poster does not have good reason to believe as they do? I've seen him in his videos, for what he's worth, and I find him intellectually slippery and dishonest, as well as hopelessly whiny. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who, prey tell, is this Jordan Peterson that everyone seems to wax lyrical about? He is a psychologist University lecturer who pander to right-wingers and incels and spreads poisonous ideas while trying to make out he is well-informed and even-handed in his conclusions. I can give you an amazing video link explaining why he is so toxic but it is three hours long. " ° That's very kind of you. Unfortunately I don't even have three mågïc beans for my giant lofty beanstalk, let alone ³ hours for HD audiovisual toxicity. I shall take your word for it.   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I watched an interesting interview that jordan peterson did with matt ridley, here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEh5JyZC218&t=2315s have you also seen it and if so, what did you think of it? They talked about many things, they explore the covid 19 outbreak, like the bat theory, lab leak, how it is to be scientist in a communist country and how different china is to the west, they also talked about religion. it was a well put together interview. I give it a 10/10 rating
You have to wonder why the USA were funding 'Gain of function' research at a Wuhan lab perhaps the same lab where the alleged leak occurred?
The problems with any "Origin of Covid" claim is that it is all speculation.
Virologists tell us that Covid 19 isn't similar enough to the the naturally occurring virus to be "converted" in a lab, it would need to be 99.9% identical to be "theoretically possible".
On the other hand, the Zoonotic transfer theory hasn’t been proven either. In previous cases where viruses have jumped between species to infect humans, there has been evidence of intermediary animal hosts (as with SARS & MERS)... these intermediate hosts have not been found for Covid 19.
I can certainly see why the Lab Leak theory is attractive to people, it would give someone to blame for the whole shit-show. In the absence of any scientific evidence to support the claims, it seem unlikely... especially as the science just isn't available to modify the "origin virus" into C19.
On the other hand, it would be daft to discount the theory completely. There is still "ZERO" scientific evidence to support any other theory either. The official stance is (to paraphrase) "We believe that the most likely origin is a zoonotic jump from bats (via another host) to humans"
Ultimately... nobody knows the "Truth".
Cal
My view is lack of proof of transfer shouldn’t lead to lab theory , if you follow principles like Occam's razor, which is very useful science here, you would conclude zoonotic jump from bats"Why would you conclude that when there is a lab in wuhan known to be working on actual coronaviruses? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peterson has had a few trans people on his videos and they all agree with Petersons views and object to others speaking on their behalf, that also answers your fifth point." Do you think those trans people were just chosen at random? Or perhaps they were selected precisely because they gave the false impression most trans people were in agreement with him. Look at Kanye West and Candace Owens. They demonstrate that typically persecuted communities can sometimes be persecuted even by members of said community. It doesn't give any validity to what it said, or excuse the persecution of others. Once again, implore you to listen to the Rogan podcast. "If you are claiming all homophobes are right wing then sorry you are deluded, Homophobes are usually uneducated and that often means left wing too" So why don't we see more right-wing people calling out homophobia? And aren't you the same person who previously said that much of Peterson's appeal is towards the uneducated? I'm interested why you think most homophobes are uneducated. Any comment yet on Peterson's treatment of Elliot Page? I'm beginning to get that head-banging feeling you spoke of. What did you think of his first book, btw? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think it's particularly necessary to engage in a full debate with a live audience in order to prove a lot of his points are incorrect. You can listen to many recent interviews he's done in the last 18 months, where people have pointed that out to him . Kyle Kulinski ( a political commentator) and Tim Dillon (a comedian) are 2 youtubers I can think of, off the top of my head that did just that. Personally I find Gabor Mate's work in psychology much more interesting than Peterson's. (He's also from Canada). Again we are getting dragged off topic, this thread was not whether Peterson is good or bad, it is specific to this video. Peterson made no assertions in the video he left the talking to the scientists, so did any of the screamers actually watch the video or just hear the name Peterson and start condemnation. Why is it bad to have an opinion on the validity of a source? I think a psychologist is an appalling choice to host any such discussion. One of the things you learn about intellectual inquiry is that there's a skill in asking what scholars would view as interesting questions. Why would a psychologist be able to advance discussion on tracing the roots of this virus?" Why did SAGE employ more human behavioural scientists ,and psychologist than virologist,and epidemiologists? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's funny how anyone who has a different perspective to an official narrative, or who has a differing view point is automatically chopped to ribbons.." I was thinking the same | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wouldn't waste any time on Jordan peterson total wind bag!" I think he’s great by the way  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wouldn't waste any time on Jordan peterson total wind bag! I think he’s great by the way "This sums it up. I was reading a little book recently called post-truth. In it a journalist challenged a congressman on some lies they said about crime statistics. The congressman refused to back down even in the face of the lies being exposed and facts shows this . He concluded that how people feel is more important than the truth. If people feel crime is increasing it doesn’t matter that the facts show it’s decreasing, they believe it’s increasing. Populists like Peterson, Boris Johnson and trans activists not only know this , they use it. Their language, style and words doesn’t care much about truth The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) pretty much predicted this too, then social media made it happen In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. ... Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
