Peterson, Harris, etc....

Silva said:
No it's just making some of the protections that trans had apply to federal agencies, you know, like the right not to get dragged out of a bathroom stall and have the shit kicked out of you.



yeah you'll probably get sacked if you're harassing people for whatever reason unless you have a shit employer
Click to expand...


Come on Silva I'm not condoning that kind of behavior and I'm pretty sure Canada had laws making that a criminal offense before the amendment in question.


I think that you shouldn't be guilty of harassment if you don't agree to use any pronoun that any person decides they want you to use.

I think that it isn't a good idea to make that illegal and sanctionable at all.

If your only argument is that my opinion makes me pro beating up transexuals then you just made a piss poor argument.
 
How should I go about getting funds from the Koch brothers?
 
Jon Stewart’s name came up in a thread yesterday, possibly the US Politics one and seeing this thread today... I would pay good money to see Stewart take on Shapiro in a debate.

As for Peterson, he'd flip him on his head and mop the floor with him because his shtick is so drenched in dogmatism built on straw men and idealistic nonsense. I’d say it’s ironic because it’s what he accuses his critics and the subject of his ire of but the reality is that it's just calculated projection. If you’re the one shouting the loudest about issues, it tends to form a bit of a barrier when people suggest you might be guilty of exactly the same things you accuse others of. I mean his form of freedom of speech is essentially just belittling and attempting to shut down the voices of any arguments he disagrees with.

It's always a very shallow, superficial angle he bases his arguments on (even if he spits out a thesaurus give the impression of depth, insight and intellect to give it "substance") and he conveniently ignores the the complexities behind the issue. He's just Yiannopoulos or Hopkins with a PHD. He knows the pressure points and he uses them to get the ever so oppressed sub section of society "white men" frothing at the mouth.

Trying to argue you're the victim because the society you're a member of has ruled that if someone has made a decision about their gender, you should respect that and refer to them as that, is beyond ridiculous. That's a rule established by a civilised society for the benefit of the society as a whole. Now, in trying to understand why being told to follow this rule get so deeply offended, I can think of two things. One is that you just want to reserve the right to be an asshole and hurt someone else's feelings, the second is that there's a deeper rooted issue with you and that you're uncomfortable with the decision that someone else has made in regards to their gender. If it's the latter, the issue is yours and yours to deal with, if you insist on reserving the right to refer to them as and treat them as whatever gender you think they are, then that is far more oppressive than the rule you are taking issue with.

That brings me back to the point I was making about Peterson being guilty of all the things he preaches. The difference is that one example is the right for a civilised society to go through civilised processes to judge the most civilised behaviour with the interests of society as a whole at heart and to then ensure that rule is followed. The other is the right for one person to be judge and jury and impose their beliefs on someone else because they wish to live their life in a way that you are not comfortable with.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
I think that you shouldn't be guilty of harassment if you don't agree to use any pronoun that any person decides they want you to use.
Click to expand...
Why? If you got a new co-worker tomorrow, they're a trans person and it comes up in conversation that they prefer being called this pronoun or the other, is it really that difficult to to say the slightly different word?

Isn't it harassment if you insist to call them by gods pronoun or whatever it may be despite being asked otherwise?

I mean, if said coworker was a woman called Catherine who went by Kate, isn't it a bit weird and off putting is you insist on using the birth name?
 
Minimalist said:
Most who criticise him were once fans who enjoyed his show for the first few months.

Now he’s a limp, dishonest hack who’s show consists of not only interviewing mostly right wingers but agreeing with them 90% of the time without any challenge.

The argument that he “gives them enough rope to hang themselves” is fecking nonsense now.

If you judge Rubin by what he tweets, posts on YouTube or how he interacts with his guests, he’s a conservative pretending he used to be a liberal. Calls himself a ‘classical liberal’ without the awareness that’s what the likes of Milton Friedman called themselves.

It’s his dishonesty that pisses off people. If he just admitted he was right wing (which he 100% is) then I don’t think people would even care about him anymore.

Also he loves to say that left wing or liberal types get invited all the time but they won’t come on. Then you find out it’s because he’s inviting literal celebrities (Chelsea Handler an example) as some sort of comparison to the obscure cnuts like Shapiro. When people have pointed out that he’s probably better inviting similar level YouTube star liberals, he bawks at that.

But he’s gay, is pro choice and likes memes. Apparently that’s enough for some people to not see he’s a source of support to the right.
Click to expand...
I'm not on twitter, which can explain why I don't get the inputs a lot of you do.
That and I'm by choice very slow to reach negative conclusions about people as I want to make sure I do it for stuff I know about instead of stuff others say about someone (and I'm slow on research due to my health issues).

I do agree that he seems to be a very agreeable person, and that he mostly takes liberals & right-wingers on his show, and that it comes across as not challenging people on their views.
I believe it's a choice he's made however, to just give people a platform to elaborate on their views and have viewers discern what is right or wrong. I believe he does it because it makes it more comfortable for people to be on his show as they don't feel attacked or threatened while there.

Naturally I can be wrong, but as I mentioned I'll get there in my pace & right now all I see is someone giving a speaking platform to others. I believe I'll eventually agree on Peterson, but I still think I'll see him as having interesting parts to his lectures about psychology, maybe because I'm uneducated on that field and always will be.

That said, I find your two last parts interesting to read, and I'll keep eyes open if I come across anything about who from the left he invites (what sources are there for his left-wing invites?).
It could be similar to how Shapiro, Crowler and the likes usually debate with people who haven't properly explored their opinions on school campuses. To explain which similarities I believe could be there I'd say that it's a dishonest choice of who to invite into the debate (under-developed opinions vs people not likely to show and "winning" by default).

Thanks for the reply though, it's the kind I'll need if I am to settle properly on a view.
 
Pexbo said:
Jon Stewart’s name came up in a thread yesterday, possibly the US Politics one and seeing this thread today... I would pay good money to see Stewart take on Shapiro in a debate.

As for Peterson, he'd flip him on his head and mop the floor with him because his shtick is so drenched in dogmatism built on straw men and idealistic nonsense. I’d say it’s ironic because it’s what he accuses his critics and the subject of his ire of but the reality is that it's just calculated projection. If you’re the one shouting the loudest about issues, it tends to form a bit of a barrier when people suggest you might be guilty of exactly the same things you accuse others of. I mean his form of freedom of speech is essentially just belittling and attempting to shut down the voices of any arguments he disagrees with.

It's always a very shallow, superficial angle he bases his arguments on (even if he spits out a thesaurus give the impression of depth, insight and intellect to give it "substance") and he conveniently ignores the the complexities behind the issue. He's just Yiannopoulos or Hopkins with a PHD. He knows the pressure points and he uses them to get the ever so oppressed sub section of society "white men" frothing at the mouth.

Trying to argue you're the victim because the society you're a member of has ruled that if someone has made a decision about their gender, you should respect that and refer to them as that, is beyond ridiculous. That's a rule established by a civilised society for the benefit of the society as a whole. Now, in trying to understand why being told to follow this rule get so deeply offended, I can think of two things. One is that you just want to reserve the right to be an asshole and hurt someone else's feelings, the second is that there's a deeper rooted issue with you and that you're uncomfortable with the decision that someone else has made in regards to their gender. If it's the latter, the issue is yours and yours to deal with, if you insist on reserving the right to refer to them as and treat them as whatever gender you think they are, then that is far more oppressive than the rule you are taking issue with.

That brings me back to the point I was making about Peterson being guilty of all the things he preaches. The difference is that one example is the right for a civilised society to go through civilised processes to judge the most civilised behaviour with the interests of society as a whole at heart and to then ensure that rule is followed. The other is the right for one person to be judge and jury and impose their beliefs on someone else because they wish to live their life in a way that you are not comfortable with.
Click to expand...

Also, silly diagrams..

jordan%2Bpeterson.jpg


UIKchihr.jpg

peterson3.jpg
 
berbatrick said:
Rubin is Koch-funded: https://i.imgur.com/b5Xl6Gg.jpg
Click to expand...
First off, I know nothing of Koch.
Tried to read up about Charles Koch for a few minutes and just bumped into his political siding where he is listed as a classical liberal. Wouldn't that be an explanation for why he would support someone who to some is seen as a classical liberal?
I'll be reading a bit more of this until I get tired, but I assume that the claim will be that Charles Koch is another who portray himself one way while having policies that goes to the right-wing?
 
Silva said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPete...this_sub_if_it_hasnt/?st=jf5a7ip8&sh=79811c52

His fans are paranoid that leftists are starting to infiltrate them and saying racist things to make them look bad. ha.
Click to expand...

“At this point they're trying to control troll the sub into making rules that stifle conversation and posting here.

It's the exact same thing that happened with magic the gathering, overwatch, marvel, comics, and other subreddits”

Definitely philosophy for grown ups.
 
Ødegaard said:
First off, I know nothing of Koch.
Tried to read up about Charles Koch for a few minutes and just bumped into his political siding where he is listed as a classical liberal. Wouldn't that be an explanation for why he would support someone who to some is seen as a classical liberal?
I'll be reading a bit more of this until I get tired, but I assume that the claim will be that Charles Koch is another who portray himself one way while having policies that goes to the right-wing?
Click to expand...
classic liberal means stop taxing me you cnut plebs
 
Silva said:
classic liberal means stop taxing me you cnut plebs
Click to expand...
Seems more to go against a welfare state, but not anti-tax if it comes to police, judges or other stuff that keeps a country going? (I obviously think a welfare state & health-care is included in this, but they don't?)
 
Silva said:
Why? If you got a new co-worker tomorrow, they're a trans person and it comes up in conversation that they prefer being called this pronoun or the other, is it really that difficult to to say the slightly different word?

Isn't it harassment if you insist to call them by gods pronoun or whatever it may be despite being asked otherwise?

I mean, if said coworker was a woman called Catherine who went by Kate, isn't it a bit weird and off putting is you insist on using the birth name?
Click to expand...

I think it would be impolite not to use the name and term which they prefer and I would and have used their new name and preferred term for them and with them at work.

I don't think it should be a legal matter because I think making speaking the truth illegal is a really bad idea.

Using your example, if you used the name Catherine even if it annoyed her, should that constitute the now legal definition of harassment and should you be sacked for that? It is her name after all.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
I think it would be impolite not to use the name and term which they prefer and I would and have used their new name and preferred term for them and with them at work.

I don't think it should be a legal matter because I think making speaking the truth illegal is a really bad idea.

Using your example, if you used the name Catherine even if it annoyed her, should that constitute the now legal definition of harassment and should you be sacked for that? It is her name after all.
Click to expand...

Truth is quite subjective here. And you probably know that you Catherine stuff isn’t a good comparison at all, right?
 
Silva said:
yeah, that person is clearly a massive dick and should not be welcome in that place of work
Click to expand...

No, I don't think it necessarily follows that using someones given name makes you a massive dick but even if it did then are we going to implement legislation to make being a massive dick at work constitute harassment? Maybe Catherine is a complete cnut and deserves the everyday jibe of using her given name just to remind her of what a cnut she is. Who knows but I'd rather not get into that level of police state where such disputes go to court.

I guess we will agree to differ
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
No, I don't think it necessarily follows that using someones given name makes you a massive dick but even if it did then are we going to implement legislation to make being a massive dick at work constitute harassment? Maybe Catherine is a complete cnut and deserves the everyday jibe of using her given name just to remind her of what a cnut she is. Who knows but I'd rather not get into that level of police state where such disputes go to court.

I guess we will agree to differ
Click to expand...
Everyday jibes are bullying, HR will probably warn you stop then you'd be fired if you persist.
 
fcbforever said:
Truth is quite subjective here. And you probably know that you Catherine stuff isn’t a good comparison at all, right?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree but it is an interesting debate and what we are talking about here is the imposition of one view of truth by legal means.

I don't defend every word out of Peterson's mouth but I agree with him on at least three points that he regularly makes and which seems to infuriate certain people.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
I don't defend every word out of Peterson's mouth but I agree with him on at least three points that he regularly makes and which seems to infuriate certain people.
Click to expand...

Transpeople should be deadnamed
Real men tidy their rooms
Dragons are cool.

Am I close?
 
Shut up Mockney.

We all know you are only here because you can only reach climax wanking dressed in a white gown with feathered wings, stood on a pedestal, heavily backlit while groups of acolytes kneel before you in adoration.

I'm not calling you The Archangel Mockney no matter how much of a looney Peterson is.
 
Raoul said:
Weren't you a massive Sam Harris fan at one point ? Or was that Plech ?
Click to expand...

Probably Plech. Pogue likes him a lot too.
I don’t mind him. I lose him when he gets into spirituality though. Also...

Mockney said:
... Harris has the persona of an alien trying to approximate human form and behaviour with only Ben Stiller films and a Sat Nav for reference.
Click to expand...

Of those lot, I was always more of a Dennet/Hitchens fan. (Though I also disagreed a lot with the latter. His hawkishness and rampant misogyny in particular)
 
Mockney said:
Probably Plech. Pogue likes him a lot too.
I don’t mind him. I lose him when he gets into spirituality though. Also...



Of those lot, I was always more of a Dennet/Hitchens fan. (Though I also disagreed a lot with the latter. His hawkishness and rampant misogyny in particular)
Click to expand...

Would've been great to see Hitchens debate Shapiro. Ben would've been hitchslapped into submission.
 
I like Sam Harris. Not a particularly entertaining debater (Unlike Hitchens) but the way he debates is suited to guys like Shapiro and Chopra who just spew an endless amount of crap to sound intelligent. Also, helps that I agree with Harris politically on most things.
 
Hitchez said:
I like Sam Harris. Not a particularly entertaining debater (Unlike Hitchens) but the way he debates is suited to guys like Shapiro and Chopra who just spew an endless amount of crap to sound intelligent. Also, helps that I agree with Harris politically on most things.
Click to expand...

Deepak is more of a mysticism huckster who can't with any degree of credibility be put in the same category as Harris, who generally builds his arguments around some form of reason.
 
Raoul said:
Deepak is more of a mysticism huckster who can't with any degree of credibility be put in the same category as Harris, who generally builds his arguments around some form of reason.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree but Deepak Chopra has this gift of pulling out words of his ass in no coherent order without any hint of hesitation that makes him sound intelligent. Unless you're prepared for that style of "debate" it can put you at a loss. Richard Dawkins was so bewildered at the level of bullshit gushing out of Deepak's mouth that I'm almost convinced he suffered a stroke and probably lost a good few years of his life. You can count on Harris remaining unruffled at the best of times.
 
Big Sam Harris fan myself. Been listening to him for years. I find that he has a very coherent and succinct way of making his points. He's great to listen to and has that rare gift of making you feel smarter. Although, as one poster already said in this thread, he kinda loses me when he gets into spirituality/meditation side of things. Over my head that stuff.

I think it's unfortunate that he has been lumped in with people like Peterson or Dave Rubin. He's much more left leaning than those two for a start, and way more intellectually honest. Particularly more so than Rubin, who's basically a hack who parrots the same shite in order to continue making the money; incredibly disingenuous guy. And as for Peterson? Well, the guy is just an obscurantist. He speaks in riddles and prevaricates often when he's properly challenged on his views. In fact, the one criticism i have of Harris is the fact that he had the guy on his podcast twice. The first time was a fecking car crash and he should have left it there.
 
Ødegaard said:
First off, I know nothing of Koch.
Tried to read up about Charles Koch for a few minutes and just bumped into his political siding where he is listed as a classical liberal. Wouldn't that be an explanation for why he would support someone who to some is seen as a classical liberal?
I'll be reading a bit more of this until I get tired, but I assume that the claim will be that Charles Koch is another who portray himself one way while having policies that goes to the right-wing?
Click to expand...

I don't want to get into the labels, especially classical liberal since I'm not sure what that means.*

About the Koch brothers (Charles and David): they are oil billionaires who do a LOT of political activities. They are among the biggest Republican donors, and are involved with Ted Cruz and Mike Pence very heavily. Their main cause is less government - so they fund poiticians and campaigns against universal healthcare (they spent a lot against Obamacare too), for privatising education, and cutting or eliminating environmental regulations. In their home state, they funded Sam Brownback, who pretty much brought income taxes near-zero, but it didn't work out too well.

They also put a lot of money into universities and their own think-tanks, including big funding for global warming denial. Many economics departments in universities are heavily funded by them, and they have a program that helps put economics students who love the free market on the path to professorship. Apart from pouring billions into actual elections, they are even pouring money into college election races, to get fewer left-wing people in college student leadership!

To be fair to them, they fund a lot of other stuff too, random research positions in universities, some museums, etc. Unlike some other Republican donors (Sheldon Adelson) war is not their thing, and unlike others (Mercers) they don't seem to be xenophobic.

I don't like them, and Bernie doesn't either, he has a short link with a summary of their worst positions.
If you have a *long* time to read, this is the article that first made them famous.

As I said, I don't like that label (classical liberal) in particular since it's so confusing, but IMO the Koch brothers are right-wing, and they fund Rubin and hire most of his guests for him so the show probably would reflect that.


*I think I've Peterson use it, and he's not really a liberal, he is quite conservative/traditionalist in his views about women. Sam Harris OTOH does have more liberal views for sure. I think it's a convenient label that helps you keep everyone happy.
 
Hitchez said:
Oh I agree but Deepak Chopra has this gift of pulling out words of his ass in no coherent order without any hint of hesitation that makes him sound intelligent. Unless you're prepared for that style of "debate" it can put you at a loss. Richard Dawkins was so bewildered at the level of bullshit gushing out of Deepak's mouth that I'm almost convinced he suffered a stroke and probably lost a good few years of his life. You can count on Harris remaining unruffled at the best of times.
Click to expand...

I'm going to guess you're referring to this one.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.