Although it shouldn't be it is still slightly surprising just how easy ''new atheists reddit guys'' have turned into a extreme religious sec.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
Although it shouldn't be it is still slightly surprising just how easy ''new atheists reddit guys'' have turned into a extreme religious sec.
Dog-whistling stereotyping racism at its finest.
A self reinforcing infinite loop, from the subreddit they follow to their FB news feed.
Most grew out of it and learn to live and let live though. Or, turn to the God Emperor cult eventually.
Jordan Peterson is an absolute ledge. Love listening to him talk.
Can you explain what "Enforced monogamy" is?
Last edited:
Wow. We’re at the “some animals do it” stage of excuse making for the faux pas of professional public speakers now are we? How long until eating our weakest young is on the table as a plausible idea for a stronger, stable, more responsibly masculine future?
However you slice it, it’s some regressive Middle Ages bullshit. How far have we regressed that the idea of rolling back the sexual revolution in favour of hypothetical Puritanism, based partly on the behaviour of fecking ants no less! is considered genuine intellectual discussion these days? feck me. I feel like I’m going mad. But like, all the fecking time now.
Is everyone drinking paint? Or is it just ‘cos the wimmins? It’s the winnins, right? The wimmins is to blames. WIMMINNNNS!!
However you slice it, it’s some regressive Middle Ages bullshit. How far have we regressed that the idea of rolling back the sexual revolution in favour of hypothetical Puritanism, based partly on the behaviour of fecking ants no less! is considered genuine intellectual discussion these days? feck me. I feel like I’m going mad. But like, all the fecking time now.
Is everyone drinking paint? Or is it just ‘cos the wimmins? It’s the winnins, right? The wimmins is to blames. WIMMINNNNS!!
Last edited:
The most incredible thing is that they promote this transparently misogynistic worldview while opining about western cultural superiority over places that actually implement their backward ideas.
And that their ‘radical’ ideas are being censored by the status quo establishment ‘elites’, despite said ‘elites’ being merely “people in favour of keeping (and continuing) the social progress made in the late 20th century... and their ‘radical’ ideas being “the antiquated conservative Puritanism it spent centuries overcoming”
They’ve literally formed a movement dedicated to forcing the cork back into the bottle, under the auspices that nostalgic cork bottle forcing is so scorned and unfashionable, that it must be important and dangerous by default. If this were the 19th century, they’d be the ones arguing Jack the Ripper only did what he did because too many women were reading Jane Austen. And also since the Workhouses shut, and chimney sweeps went out of fashion, young men had no order and discipline in their lives*
*yes I know all those time lines are off, but I’m using artistic license dammit. Or have the wimmin taken that from us too?... WIMMIIIIN!! (shakes fist)
Last edited:
Good guys won.
Good guys won.
Funniest bit was at 1:40:30 where Fry referred to Dyson's babble as huckstering, snake oil, pulpit talk.
Watched this yesterday. Was just about to post it!
I thought Fry was excellent. And a really interesting take on political correctness, attacking it from the left. And he was charming and self depreciating and witty, as ever. But he felt less 'under attack' than Peterson which could explain the difference of their character-it's a bit of a chicken or egg question.
While I thought there was of course truth to Dyson's comments (I would have liked to have heard some more about his 'freed into oppression' view, I think that's how he described it), I wasn't impressed with his speaking style personally. He kept saying "what I'm telling you is.../what I'm saying to you is," that's nothing to do with the content of his speech, just oratory preferences . Fry's "huckstering snake oil" comment was hilarious.
Goldberg looked nervous but that's fair enough. I would be too! And she did a better job at answering questions that were put to her (even if Peterson wasn't 'satisfied,' she thought her answer adequate). Her and Dyson did contradict themselves/each other at times, I felt, (especially re the impact of online backlashes) which was funny because you'd expect more disagreement to appear between Peterson and Fry.
A few moments that stand out in my memory:
When Peterson was saying 'show me precisely how much my success is down to white privilege and what should I do about it' and he said PRECISELY,a few times, and then Dyson shouted PRECISELY out of nowhere. I thought that made him sound like a dick tbh.
Peterson asking "at what point do you think the left goes too far," which is not a new question of his. And Dyson asked "has the right ever gone too far?" Which is whataboutery but anyway. And JBP answered "well how about Auschwitz?" To which Dyson answered 'what about more recently?' Is Auschwitz really that long ago? And then Peterson said Charlottesville (well, Fry said it and Peterson repeated it) and Norway, and "identitarian Europe." "How many more examples should I give?" and Dyson decided this meant Peterson hadn't answered the question? Furthermore, Dyson never gave his answer as to 'when does the left go to far?' At least Goldberg answered it!
(On the precision argument, I get JBP's point but I'm not sure it's the argument I would make. I don't think it's about a set percentage, rather an acknowledgement that it would exist. Of course Peterson says white privilege doesn't exist, so I don't know where you'd go in that discussion. The 'how much' might be a worthwhile discussion when addressing his second point, what do we do about it? Especially since Dyson said he liked the tax idea. How much of a tax do you want?)
Ultimately I can't help but think there would have been someone better than Dyson to argue Dyson's point of view.
Sorry for punctuation/spelling formatting issues, Im writing this on an iPhone with a Spanish keyboard
I thought Fry was excellent. And a really interesting take on political correctness, attacking it from the left. And he was charming and self depreciating and witty, as ever. But he felt less 'under attack' than Peterson which could explain the difference of their character-it's a bit of a chicken or egg question.
While I thought there was of course truth to Dyson's comments (I would have liked to have heard some more about his 'freed into oppression' view, I think that's how he described it), I wasn't impressed with his speaking style personally. He kept saying "what I'm telling you is.../what I'm saying to you is," that's nothing to do with the content of his speech, just oratory preferences . Fry's "huckstering snake oil" comment was hilarious.
Goldberg looked nervous but that's fair enough. I would be too! And she did a better job at answering questions that were put to her (even if Peterson wasn't 'satisfied,' she thought her answer adequate). Her and Dyson did contradict themselves/each other at times, I felt, (especially re the impact of online backlashes) which was funny because you'd expect more disagreement to appear between Peterson and Fry.
A few moments that stand out in my memory:
When Peterson was saying 'show me precisely how much my success is down to white privilege and what should I do about it' and he said PRECISELY,a few times, and then Dyson shouted PRECISELY out of nowhere. I thought that made him sound like a dick tbh.
Peterson asking "at what point do you think the left goes too far," which is not a new question of his. And Dyson asked "has the right ever gone too far?" Which is whataboutery but anyway. And JBP answered "well how about Auschwitz?" To which Dyson answered 'what about more recently?' Is Auschwitz really that long ago? And then Peterson said Charlottesville (well, Fry said it and Peterson repeated it) and Norway, and "identitarian Europe." "How many more examples should I give?" and Dyson decided this meant Peterson hadn't answered the question? Furthermore, Dyson never gave his answer as to 'when does the left go to far?' At least Goldberg answered it!
(On the precision argument, I get JBP's point but I'm not sure it's the argument I would make. I don't think it's about a set percentage, rather an acknowledgement that it would exist. Of course Peterson says white privilege doesn't exist, so I don't know where you'd go in that discussion. The 'how much' might be a worthwhile discussion when addressing his second point, what do we do about it? Especially since Dyson said he liked the tax idea. How much of a tax do you want?)
Ultimately I can't help but think there would have been someone better than Dyson to argue Dyson's point of view.
Sorry for punctuation/spelling formatting issues, Im writing this on an iPhone with a Spanish keyboard
Watched this yesterday. Was just about to post it!
I thought Fry was excellent. And a really interesting take on political correctness, attacking it from the left. And he was charming and self depreciating and witty, as ever. But he felt less 'under attack' than Peterson which could explain the difference of their character-it's a bit of a chicken or egg question.
While I thought there was of course truth to Dyson's comments (I would have liked to have heard some more about his 'freed into oppression' view, I think that's how he described it), I wasn't impressed with his speaking style personally. He kept saying "what I'm telling you is.../what I'm saying to you is," that's nothing to do with the content of his speech, just oratory preferences . Fry's "huckstering snake oil" comment was hilarious.
Goldberg looked nervous but that's fair enough. I would be too! And she did a better job at answering questions that were put to her (even if Peterson wasn't 'satisfied,' she thought her answer adequate). Her and Dyson did contradict themselves/each other at times, I felt, (especially re the impact of online backlashes) which was funny because you'd expect more disagreement to appear between Peterson and Fry.
A few moments that stand out in my memory:
When Peterson was saying 'show me precisely how much my success is down to white privilege and what should I do about it' and he said PRECISELY,a few times, and then Dyson shouted PRECISELY out of nowhere. I thought that made him sound like a dick tbh.
Peterson asking "at what point do you think the left goes too far," which is not a new question of his. And Dyson asked "has the right ever gone too far?" Which is whataboutery but anyway. And JBP answered "well how about Auschwitz?" To which Dyson answered 'what about more recently?' Is Auschwitz really that long ago? And then Peterson said Charlottesville (well, Fry said it and Peterson repeated it) and Norway, and "identitarian Europe." "How many more examples should I give?" and Dyson decided this meant Peterson hadn't answered the question? Furthermore, Dyson never gave his answer as to 'when does the left go to far?' At least Goldberg answered it!
(On the precision argument, I get JBP's point but I'm not sure it's the argument I would make. I don't think it's about a set percentage, rather an acknowledgement that it would exist. Of course Peterson says white privilege doesn't exist, so I don't know where you'd go in that discussion. The 'how much' might be a worthwhile discussion when addressing his second point, what do we do about it? Especially since Dyson said he liked the tax idea. How much of a tax do you want?)
Ultimately I can't help but think there would have been someone better than Dyson to argue Dyson's point of view.
Sorry for punctuation/spelling formatting issues, Im writing this on an iPhone with a Spanish keyboard
More or less my view as well. I thought Fry came off the best in all of this - not so much for anything he said but more so because the other three struggled to make any cogent points to move the needle and Fry wound up being as you say, witty and self deprecating, and generally more enjoyably thought provoking. Dyson and Goldberg were predictably mired in their own group identity politics nonsense - the former couldn't seem to stop talking about race and the latter about gender. Peterson also seemed well in over his head in all of this. He seems to struggle when others are attacking him or his views since most of his other appearances allow him to ramble endlessly with little pushback. Here, came across as small, unrefined, and seemed to spend too much time sulking when confronted by Dyson's attack minded mumbo. All things said however, I'd have to say that Fry, with Peterson hanging by his coat tails were on the right side of the debate here.
Last edited:
Agreed.
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a bit re Peterson last night-let's assume his view of people and the world, I think he's utterly sick of what he views as ad hominem attaacks, misquotes and misrepresentations. So it doesn't take long for him to get thrown off. His patience appears to be at an all time low. Of course, it's up to him to deal with that, and I would not be surprised if debate opponents such as Dyson intentionally targeted that. I find Peterson comes across very charismatic in a 'friendly' environment but then don't we all. He's very suspicious/paranoid/irritable when it comes to debating-but then just because you're paranoid doesn't mean no one is out to get you!! And I myself got frustrated at Dyson just watching.
I do think Fry's position is the best on this though. On top of his style and charm. It's easy for conservative views on PC or 'attacks from the right' to blend into or be interpreted as attacks on what political correctness has as its goal. You don't get that when you attack it from the left. Fry shares the same objectives he is just critiquing the vehicle. Goldberg/Dyson didn't really have an answer to that. Put most simply:
"I don't want to use A to get to B."
raises questions as to 'are you against using A? Or do you not want to get to B.' (And this is of course said not in a vacuum, so it is paired with some of Peterson's other comments, rightly or wrongly, to now mean 'I don't want to get to B, which is why I don't like A.')
Whereas
"I want to get to B, but I do not think A is an effective way."
Those who want to use A for B now have fewer routes. What can you say? Argue A is the only route? The best route (a tough argument in this context)? Suggest "you're saying that, but your objection to A betrays your true views on B!"? How on earth do you try and make that argument against Stephen Fry!*
*Actually, this can relate back to Peterson. What we know about his other views colours what he says more generally. Likewise with Fry. What we know about Stephen Fry makes it awfully difficult to critique him in a debate like this. That could be, of course, because he is right (?)
I don't have 2 hours, but did anyone bring up the stats about college students' commitment to free speech, and specifically the liberal vs conservative numbers within that?
Edit - and if they did, what was the response.
Edit - and if they did, what was the response.
I had it on in the background so I might have missed some parts but overall the answer to your question is no. The closest we got was Michelle Goldberg pointing out to Peterson that it's actually the far right who are now rising up and gaining power in Europe and the USA that are actually a danger to free speech and anyone who thinks the problem is the far left is clearly spending too much time on college campuses. Peterson didn't respond.
As usual this ''debate'' took the typical turn and ended up being a 2 hour session of a women and a black man having to slowly explain sexism and racism to two old white dudes.
Did Steven take the opportunity to tell childhood sexual abuse victims to get over it again?
There are a few shorter clips of various interesting exchanges
Thought Fry came across very well.
interesting reading the comments on those videos. I Think fanboy is appropriate here. The cult of Peterson online, claiming he won the debate single handedly and Fry just watched on.
Goldberg's point about Peterson's views coming from living his life on university campuses was a great one in my opinion. Maybe her strongest one
Goldberg's point about Peterson's views coming from living his life on university campuses was a great one in my opinion. Maybe her strongest one
That's the fundamental problem with Peterson. He seems to have a battalion of tribal fanboys who feel he can do or say nothing wrong. He does make some good points at times, but much of them are undercut by his academic bubble persona that seems to be heavy on academic speak and light on practicality. That's not to say his critics are in any way absolved in their attacks on him, just that he himself is generally still unrefined in his own platform.
The fundamental problem with Peterson is that he hasn't got an awful lot to say. He's a flavour of the month polemicist, whose schtick is half glaringly self evident life coach bullshit (clean your room, wash your dick!) and half right leaning hand waving (pro-nouns are Stalinist!) and dull traditionalist agitpop. With added dragons.
His zeitgeist fame is the result of the first generation of well off western white males being actively called on their privilege, and occasionally made to feel a tiny fraction of the identity prejudice every non-white citizen in a Western country has had to deal with, accept, and normalise for centuries. And finding it such an inconvenient, uncomfortable imposition, that they'd rather buy into the idea that feminism, privilege, racial politics and anything that devalues their intrinsically entitled self worth is complete bollocks, and actually probably a blight on humanity too. And also probably Marxist somehow. 'Cos dragons....
The fact that the two hugely famous people, with large popular platforms, won a vote against two largely unknown people, in a widely published video about how said really famous people, in said widely published video, feel their POVs are being stifled and censored somehow, because Universities, or something? proves precisely feckity feck all. Though I'm a bit disappointed in Fry if he genuinely stooped to claiming the "values of the Enlightenment are being rolled back" because the same benign political correctness that stops actual Politicians from openly calling him an abomination against nature, has lead to the occasionally aggressive criticism of often horrible ideas. Especially when he's tag teaming with a man tentatively opposed to both gay marriage and adoption, because of its natural confliction with his regressively traditionalist view of the world.
His zeitgeist fame is the result of the first generation of well off western white males being actively called on their privilege, and occasionally made to feel a tiny fraction of the identity prejudice every non-white citizen in a Western country has had to deal with, accept, and normalise for centuries. And finding it such an inconvenient, uncomfortable imposition, that they'd rather buy into the idea that feminism, privilege, racial politics and anything that devalues their intrinsically entitled self worth is complete bollocks, and actually probably a blight on humanity too. And also probably Marxist somehow. 'Cos dragons....
The fact that the two hugely famous people, with large popular platforms, won a vote against two largely unknown people, in a widely published video about how said really famous people, in said widely published video, feel their POVs are being stifled and censored somehow, because Universities, or something? proves precisely feckity feck all. Though I'm a bit disappointed in Fry if he genuinely stooped to claiming the "values of the Enlightenment are being rolled back" because the same benign political correctness that stops actual Politicians from openly calling him an abomination against nature, has lead to the occasionally aggressive criticism of often horrible ideas. Especially when he's tag teaming with a man tentatively opposed to both gay marriage and adoption, because of its natural confliction with his regressively traditionalist view of the world.
Last edited:
Dyson is very well known in the states. Goldberg is fairly anonymous here. The event was in Canada so its not particularly surprising that Peterson did well in his country and city of residence.
Sodomy didn't get much of a defence from the enlightenment, it's a very recent phenomenon intellectually, so it kind of makes sense to kick the gays a bit if you're a strict enlightenment thinker*.
*a couple of centuries behind everyone else
All it tells me is that the disenfranchised nostalgic middle aged men and frustrated 16 year old white boys who watch these things, are desperate to fill the vacuum left by Hitchens, but have no interest in the vast and complex myriad of differing political views he held throughout his life, and would rather settle for an easy facsimile of his latter years as an irascible Bush supporting misogynist. And, like, just super double down on that. 'Cos all this silly "examining how we treat women" stuff is not something wasps do.
Also stories are important. And they all tell us to conform to mainstream Christian normative roles. Trust me, I've watched all the Disney ones. Except for Frozen, which is evil and Marxist, 'cos wimmins.
Last edited:
Are dragons Stalinist?
Very possibly. Considering everything Peterson dislikes is either post modern or Marxist in some way (sometimes even the dreaded “culturally Marxist” - a term genuinely hard to ridicule on account of it being literally invented by the Nazis!) and that the long, brutal totalitarian reign of Stalin, and that one book of socio-exonomic philosophy of Marxs, are essentially one and the same to Peterson...It’s very possible everything from Dragons to Orangina is potentially Stalinist to ol’ Jo-Peez. Especially if the womens are involved.
Last edited:
I feel like that thread would have more impact if he a) didn’t give the impression he hadn’t read Peterson’s book and b) discussed actual
lobster at least once.
I think his point is that Peterson cherry picked lobsters because they fit his specific facile argument about natural order, and ignored the wealth of other similar shit that didn’t.
Yup, basically.
Whenever I read some stuff from the likes of Damore, Peterson, proponents of evolutionary psychology (at least the strands connected to that kind of activism), the men's rights movement, this argumentative strategy was quite prominent. I also had the impression it was generally a result of belief, rather than just being tactical about it.
I’ve managed to avoid Peterson’s lobster analogy thus far (as I’m sure it’s a load of bollox) and am mainly being pedantic. What lobster behaviours does he think applies to people?
Lobsters get given girlfriends by the state
Lobsters have been around longer than trees (300m years?). People are descended from lobsters. Lobsters have a central nervous system and operate within a hierarchy. If you give a lobster serotonin it will boost its status within the hierarchy.
Hierarchies are older than trees, people are hard-wired to operate within hierarchies.
I think that's it pretty much.
Not a lot to disagree with there. We’re also hard-wired to do a bunch of other deplorable stuff. Evolutionary psychology is really just about acknowledging what may be behind certain impulses. There’s no obligation to act on them.