Peterson, Harris, etc....

While I wasn’t impressed with Dyson’s contribution to the munk debates with Peterson, I’ll admit his hoovers are amazing.
 
McUnited said:
Because he is more articulate than anyone posting on this forum?
Click to expand...

Wait. So your standard for being impressed by someone in a televised debate is "better than a redcafe poster"? I'm asking you why you were so impressed by him. It's a genuine question. I'm interested because I, and anyone whose opinion of debate and public speaking I hold in high regard I spoke to about the Munk debate, thought he was awful. I have given my reasons in this thread.

And your answer isn't an answer to that. It would be like asking "why were you impressed by Herrera against Spurs?" (random player and team) and getting the answer "because he's better at football than anyone on redcafe."
 
Halftrack said:
Well, we're all hairdressers and cabdrivers who lack the intelligence required to critcise them. Or something.
Click to expand...
To be fair I’d like to see this dyson bloke debate Cal? and Peyroto in the Messi vs Ronaldo case. He’l be murdered.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Out of interest, can anyone nominate any impressive thinkers who could counter the more erroneous crap put about by Shapiro, Hitchens, Peterson et al? There does seem to be a big gap in the market. Conservatives seem to be all over the interweb, moaning about free speech and influencing impressionable youth. I'm actually quite worried about the lack of any sort of coherent spokesman/woman for a more liberal, left-leaning view of the word. Right now, the whole thing seems very much like a one way street.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about this earlier, as the whole idea of public ‘intellectuals’ having seemingly dedicated followers is really weird to me. From my memory of getting interested in these types of discussions around 15 years ago, it used to be only leftist figures like Chomsky or Zinn who would inspire that level of devotion among young student types (and both were at least truly great thinkers in contrast to this apparent wave of mediocrity - I say this though have only watched an interview each of Shapiro and Peterson). But they operated mostly before the instant-internet age, which the right seem to have taken full advantage of - I think it may have to do with their message being a bit simpler and therefore more suitable for the medium of the internet. Someone like Greenwald I suppose has something of a cult following, but doesn’t seem to have the reach these guys have, has zero charisma, and finds it really hard not to come across as a complete arsehole, even when he’s right (as he often is). Sign of the times perhaps - liberals are naturally gong to have a tough time right now articulating a message that isn’t “everything’s actually ok, more of the same please!”

(Btw like others here I wouldn’t lump Hitchens in with the rest, or necessarily Harris).
 
2cents said:
I was thinking about this earlier, as the whole idea of public ‘intellectuals’ having seemingly dedicated followers is really weird to me. From my memory of getting interested in these types of discussions around 15 years ago, it used to be only leftist figures like Chomsky or Zinn who would inspire that level of devotion among young student types (and both were at least truly great thinkers in contrast to this apparent wave of mediocrity - I say this though have only watched an interview each of Shapiro and Peterson). But they operated mostly before the instant-internet age, which the right seem to have taken full advantage of - I think it may have to do with their message being a bit simpler and therefore more suitable for the medium of the internet. Someone like Greenwald I suppose has something of a cult following, but doesn’t seem to have the reach these guys have, has zero charisma, and finds it really hard not to come across as a complete arsehole, even when he’s right (as he often is). Sign of the times perhaps - liberals are naturally gong to have a tough time right now articulating a message that isn’t “everything’s actually ok, more of the same please!”

(Btw like others here I wouldn’t lump Hitchens in with the rest, or necessarily Harris).
Click to expand...

That's a fair point. Academics are generally people to be engaged with, not worshiped - many of them are extremely intelligent and well-versed in their fields and so should be held in high regard, but they're still ultimately people and so their ideas and theories can always be advanced, criticised and examined closely. Indeed if you're engaging with academia (in any field) and not doing that then you're doing it wrongly, I'd say.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Out of interest, can anyone nominate any impressive thinkers who could counter the more erroneous crap put about by Shapiro, Hitchens, Peterson et al? There does seem to be a big gap in the market. Conservatives seem to be all over the interweb, moaning about free speech and influencing impressionable youth. I'm actually quite worried about the lack of any sort of coherent spokesman/woman for a more liberal, left-leaning view of the word. Right now, the whole thing seems very much like a one way street.
Click to expand...

these people (*) are talking about some specific aspects and are hardly representative of conservatism in general. Many of those listed aren't even conservatives at all. I am also not entirely comfortable to label them as "thinker", because that only covers part of their work. I think a label like advocate/activist is a much better fit. What connects them (to some extend) is their criticism of certain left-wing phenomena. Especially "political correctness".

Additionally many people seem to also complain about "SJWs" being all over the internet and there is a huge blog-podcast-twitter-socialmedia (**) sphere where you find all their ideas in a billion different forms and shapes. What I agree with is, that left-leaning speaker (and their platforms), who match the likes of Shapiro, Harris or Hitchens (&Co) are slightly less prominent.

In my opinon that has many reasons for that, but here are two:
1) There are a long list of left-wing issues(***), that are discusses from a (center) left-wing point of view in the mainstream every day. All these topics have high profile spokes persons (****). They are all over academia, journalism and a gigantic network of NGOs, institutions and initiatives (supported by almost every celebrity on this planet). The "top-dogs" hold extremely prestigious positions and its hard to compete with that.
2) Slightly more specific: Most of those famous left-wing critics are to some extend engaging in criticism of "political correctness". You'll find an endless list of advocates of more social awareness/consciousness/correctness/respect and most of these causes are well represented in the liberal mainstream, while being too critical of this can come with social stigma in a liberal setting. Thats exactly the line, that the aforementioned dancing around (or just completely eradicate). My point is: There is a huge opening on this side of the debate for this specific issue.


-------------------
(*) I agree, that it is extremely problematic to put all these people in the same bracket. Many of them are clowns/trolls, while others are serious thinkers.

(**) there are platforms/podcasts/people like CHT, Nathan Robertson, democracy now!, TheIntercept, Jimmy Dore, Adam Simpson, The Nostalgia Trap and many many more that are to some extend similar

(***) e.g. anti-globalization, anti-capitalism, anti-war movement, against inequality, against gentrification, against corporations, against nationalism, environmental causes, feminism, LGBT, worker-rights/Unionism, human-rights and development politics)

(****) just out of the top of my head, e.g. Chomsky, Chossudovsky, Martha Nussbaum, David Graeber, Crenshaw, Jean Ziegler, Piketty, Stiglitz, Varoufakis, Naomi Klein, Amartya Sen, Greenwald, Judith Butler, Nouriel Roubini, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Zizek, Chris Hedges, Paul Krugman, Matthew Yglesias, Jon Stewart
 
Charlie Foley said:
Wait. So your standard for being impressed by someone in a televised debate is "better than a redcafe poster"? I'm asking you why you were so impressed by him. It's a genuine question. I'm interested because I, and anyone whose opinion of debate and public speaking I hold in high regard I spoke to about the Munk debate, thought he was awful. I have given my reasons in this thread.

And your answer isn't an answer to that. It would be like asking "why were you impressed by Herrera against Spurs?" (random player and team) and getting the answer "because he's better at football than anyone on redcafe."
Click to expand...

Impressed by his verbal skills, yes. As a conservative, I disagree with most of what he says.
But I wish I could speak with his fluency.

Which is why I said 'I thought Michael Dyson articulately put across his thoughts in his debate with Peterson.'
 
McUnited said:
Impressed by his verbal skills, yes. As a conservative, I disagree with most of what he says.
But I wish I could speak with his fluency.

Which is why I said 'I thought Michael Dyson articulately put across his thoughts in his debate with Peterson.'
Click to expand...

So you value eloquence over substance? Do you rate a book on it’s cover as well? Dyson called him “a mad, mean white man”, that’s a kindergarten level insult, hardly worthy of the term debate.

Also, have you heard every caf poster speak? Some of us might be eloquent as feck. I see why you like Shapiro though. You say something offensive to rile people up only to come up with some bullshit nuance when people call you out.

Just own up to being a cnut or don’t be one at all. Who cares, it’s only the internet.
 
KirkDuyt said:
So you value eloquence over substance? Do you rate a book on it’s cover as well? Dyson called him “a mad, mean white man”, that’s a kindergarten level insult, hardly worthy of the term debate.

Also, have you heard every caf poster speak? Some of us might be eloquent as feck. I see why you like Shapiro though. You say something offensive to rile people up only to come up with some bullshit nuance when people call you out.

Just own up to being a cnut or don’t be one at all. Who cares, it’s only the internet.
Click to expand...

I value both.

No, I haven't heard any poster here speak. But the way in which people write at least reflects the sort of language they would most likely use in speech.

It's not 'bullshit nuance'. It's about saying precisely what one means.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Out of interest, can anyone nominate any impressive thinkers who could counter the more erroneous crap put about by Shapiro, Hitchens, Peterson et al? There does seem to be a big gap in the market. Conservatives seem to be all over the interweb, moaning about free speech and influencing impressionable youth. I'm actually quite worried about the lack of any sort of coherent spokesman/woman for a more liberal, left-leaning view of the word. Right now, the whole thing seems very much like a one way street.
Click to expand...

Liberals are IMO more inclined to have a wider varied world view that can't be summed up by old white men pontificating on YouTube.

The idea of one person being so intelligent he can change your life is aimed at the classic Conservative youngster. Someone who is alienated by their position in society and is worried about losing 'power'.
 
Thanks everyone who answered. It’s a bit of a conundrum though. I know someone who devours everything produced by Harris and Peterson and it’s very clearly pushing his politics to the right. I’d love to encourage him to listen/watch to some content which offers a more left-leaning world view in a similarly convincing way but am struggling. Ended up telling him to read Pickety’s book. That’ll be a start, I suppose.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Thanks everyone who answered. It’s a bit of a conundrum though. I know someone who devours everything produced by Harris and Peterson and it’s very clearly pushing his politics to the right. I’d love to encourage him to listen/watch to some content which offers a more left-leaning world view in a similarly convincing way but am struggling. Ended up telling him to read Pickety’s book. That’ll be a start, I suppose.
Click to expand...

Through what medium does he access their stuff - mainly online? Still no substitute for reading a book IMO, although it’s obviously time-consuming.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Thanks everyone who answered. It’s a bit of a conundrum though. I know someone who devours everything produced by Harris and Peterson and it’s very clearly pushing his politics to the right. I’d love to encourage him to listen/watch to some content which offers a more left-leaning world view in a similarly convincing way but am struggling. Ended up telling him to read Pickety’s book. That’ll be a start, I suppose.
Click to expand...
Give them a link to -

Zero Books Youtube Channel -
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyoQK-mZXr2ws4C0nXGCH1w


and

Contrapoint Youtube Channel
-https://www.youtube.com/user/ContraPoints/featured


Pickety won't do anything for them but show the economics system produces huge inequality and offer boring(Not to mention impossible)technocrat answers.
 
Sweet Square said:
Give them a link to -

Zero Books Youtube Channel -
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyoQK-mZXr2ws4C0nXGCH1w


and

Contrapoint Youtube Channel
-https://www.youtube.com/user/ContraPoints/featured


Pickety won't do anything for them but show the economics system produces huge inequality and offer boring(Not to mention impossible)technocrat answers.
Click to expand...


Hmmm. I gave both those videos a crack and couldn’t hack them at all. Either too mannered or too dull. Tbf I can’t sit through Jordan Peterson monologues either. My only exposure is via his podcasts with Sam Harris and Russel Brand (who is by far the most charismatic and engaging left wing voice I’ve come across - just a little light on content!) Thanks anyway. I’ll see what my friend makes of them.
 
McUnited said:
I value both.

No, I haven't heard any poster here speak. But the way in which people write at least reflects the sort of language they would most likely use in speech.

It's not 'bullshit nuance'. It's about saying precisely what one means.
Click to expand...
That’s the thing with an internet forum; it’s anonymous. It might reflect someone’s real life personality, form of speech, beliefs and what not or it might not reflect these traits at all. For all you know Obama trolls the caf under the monniker Mike Schatner just for laughs.

You assume Dyson is more articulate than all caf members. I, on the otherhand, assume that I’m far more articulate in Dyson’s native language than he is in mine.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Hmmm. I gave both those videos a crack and couldn’t hack them at all. Either too mannered or too dull. Tbf I can’t sit through Jordan Peterson monologues either. My only exposure is via his podcasts with Sam Harris and Russel Brand (who is by far the most charismatic and engaging left wing voice I’ve come across - just a little light on content!) Thanks anyway. I’ll see what my friend makes of them.
Click to expand...
Cheers for trying. I'm sure it's not for everyone but I do think for someone like your friend(I'm guessing your friend watches a lot of this stuff on youtube)then it might be the best bet. Although in the end I image it's going to be difficult to change someone over something like this.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Thanks everyone who answered. It’s a bit of a conundrum though. I know someone who devours everything produced by Harris and Peterson and it’s very clearly pushing his politics to the right. I’d love to encourage him to listen/watch to some content which offers a more left-leaning world view in a similarly convincing way but am struggling. Ended up telling him to read Pickety’s book. That’ll be a start, I suppose.
Click to expand...

Recomand him to listen to the "chapo house trap" podcast, Varoufakis interviews and stuff from Ta-Nehisi Coates. Imo all three are quite entertaining and can inspire some enthusiasm about their topics.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Thanks everyone who answered. It’s a bit of a conundrum though. I know someone who devours everything produced by Harris and Peterson and it’s very clearly pushing his politics to the right. I’d love to encourage him to listen/watch to some content which offers a more left-leaning world view in a similarly convincing way but am struggling. Ended up telling him to read Pickety’s book. That’ll be a start, I suppose.
Click to expand...

Which specific content do you have in mind?

I don't pay much attention to the 'free speech', 'SJW', 'cultural Marxism' online catfight, but when it comes to good old left wing social commentary it's hard to look past Chomsky. Carlin is also great, cut through all the bs with comedy as a bonus.
 
I’d go as far as saying that reading Chomsky’s work has changed some of my more stubborn stances from the past. I’d actually been a more right leaning libertarian a decade ago until I started reading this work.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
when it comes to good old left wing social commentary it's hard to look past Chomsky
Click to expand...

Kaos said:
I’d go as far as saying that reading Chomsky’s work has changed some of my more stubborn stances from the past. I’d actually been a more right leaning libertarian a decade ago until I started reading this work.
Click to expand...

I don't share Chomsky's general worldview, but his books are great. A good, meticulously researched Chomsky book is a proper tour de force. He has a lot of imitators on the left these days, but they don't make them like that anymore.

He is truly awful to listen to though.
 
Sweet Square said:
Cheers for trying. I'm sure it's not for everyone but I do think for someone like your friend(I'm guessing your friend watches a lot of this stuff on youtube)then it might be the best bet. Although in the end I image it's going to be difficult to change someone over something like this.
Click to expand...

Yeah. He spends fecking hours on youtube, looking for the meaning of life. Tbf he’s very well read too. Started off with an interest in self improvement and mental health but ended up mainlining Jordan Peterson and Stefan Molyneux (who is such a complete prick he makes Peterson seem like your cuddly uncle in comparison) and, as a result, his politics have shifted to the right.

What’s interesting to me is that I don’t see a similar route for someone to end up becoming more progressive. There just doesn’t seem to be the equivalent role models.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Out of interest, can anyone nominate any impressive thinkers who could counter the more erroneous crap put about by Shapiro, Hitchens, Peterson et al? There does seem to be a big gap in the market. Conservatives seem to be all over the interweb, moaning about free speech and influencing impressionable youth. I'm actually quite worried about the lack of any sort of coherent spokesman/woman for a more liberal, left-leaning view of the word. Right now, the whole thing seems very much like a one way street.
Click to expand...

I don't think any of Shapiro, Hitchens and Peterson should be group together as they are all very different IMO.

A lot of people are mentioning Chomsky and I want to push back a little. While I read Chomsky a lot in the 1990s, I don't think he really is a best representation of liberal intellectuals as he has his own issues. So here are a few more important stuff

George Lakoff - Moral Politics
Lakoff is a former Chomsky student who is the major linguistic theorist that opposes Chomsky. For the record I think Lakoff's cognitive linguistics is accurate and Chomsky's Universal Grammar is not supported by the current scientific evidence. For the record I also think Lakoff is an asshat as a person but his theories i still believe are the best in linguistics.


Stephen Pinker
Pinker in the mid 2000s was one of the biggest rock star academics I have ever seen. I've literally seen "hot girl groupies" outside a Pinker lecture talking about how hot he was (and those were Harvard students btw). He is not as relevant to the "sjw vs alt-right debates" but that is a positive IMO as that dichotomy has thrown public intellectualism into the garbage can, but Pinker is definitely worthwhile
https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate

Slavoj Zizek
He hasn't been mentioned specifically as a counterpoint but I think Zizek is important at the moment as the most prominent neo-Marxist (or post-neo) intellectual.

Richard Rorty
For anything on post-modern philosophy I'd recommend Rorty as the go-to although he passed away a decade ago so no modern media to listen to.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rorty/

Daniel Kahneman
Psychologist, Nobel Laurete in Economics and co-founder of the field of behavioral economics. Kahneman is a legend. Not sure if he qualifies as public intellectual but his ideas are worth listening to
 
Raoul said:
Its funny watching journo after journo twisting themselves into pretzels to try and "expose" Peterson's views on various topics.
Click to expand...
Why arent they wearing shoes? It looks so silly.

The point about women wearing high heels to sexualize themselves is a bit silly imho. Perhaps they want to feel sexy to feel good about themselves. It should have no connection at all to inappropriate behaviour. Ofcourse determining the exact line between feeling good about yourself and just being indecent is hard to define, but being able to judge that from the situation is what sets us apart from robots. And psychopaths. Though judging on his demeanor I always wonder whether Peterson is secretly a serial killer. He’s such a scary fella.

Peterson must be a fan of the niqaab though, is he?
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
Thought it was a nice touch to the interview.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I just always imagine a brainstorm session with one guy saying: “wait, let’s have em not wear shoes!” And the manager saying: “ah, good one Phil, make it happen!”

It does give it a special touch though I suppose.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
I don't think any of Shapiro, Hitchens and Peterson should be group together as they are all very different IMO.

A lot of people are mentioning Chomsky and I want to push back a little. While I read Chomsky a lot in the 1990s, I don't think he really is a best representation of liberal intellectuals as he has his own issues. So here are a few more important stuff

George Lakoff - Moral Politics
Lakoff is a former Chomsky student who is the major linguistic theorist that opposes Chomsky. For the record I think Lakoff's cognitive linguistics is accurate and Chomsky's Universal Grammar is not supported by the current scientific evidence. For the record I also think Lakoff is an asshat as a person but his theories i still believe are the best in linguistics.


Stephen Pinker
Pinker in the mid 2000s was one of the biggest rock star academics I have ever seen. I've literally seen "hot girl groupies" outside a Pinker lecture talking about how hot he was (and those were Harvard students btw). He is not as relevant to the "sjw vs alt-right debates" but that is a positive IMO as that dichotomy has thrown public intellectualism into the garbage can, but Pinker is definitely worthwhile
https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate

Slavoj Zizek
He hasn't been mentioned specifically as a counterpoint but I think Zizek is important at the moment as the most prominent neo-Marxist (or post-neo) intellectual.

Richard Rorty
For anything on post-modern philosophy I'd recommend Rorty as the go-to although he passed away a decade ago so no modern media to listen to.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rorty/

Daniel Kahneman
Psychologist, Nobel Laurete in Economics and co-founder of the field of behavioral economics. Kahneman is a legend. Not sure if he qualifies as public intellectual but his ideas are worth listening to
Click to expand...


Zizek supported Trump IIRC



 
Last edited:
Pogue Mahone said:
Yeah. He spends fecking hours on youtube, looking for the meaning of life. Tbf he’s very well read too. Started off with an interest in self improvement and mental health but ended up mainlining Jordan Peterson and Stefan Molyneux (who is such a complete prick he makes Peterson seem like your cuddly uncle in comparison) and, as a result, his politics have shifted to the right.

What’s interesting to me is that I don’t see a similar route for someone to end up becoming more progressive. There just doesn’t seem to be the equivalent role models.
Click to expand...

Pogue I honestly think the person who is spending hours on YouTube for ways to improve themselves is more predetermined to be right wing. The amount of lads that I went to school with who were very intelligent but didn’t apply themselves all drifted this way. Would I be right in saying that your nephew was academically gifted, but as he fails to apply himself is struggling to fulfil his potential? That describes my “Peterson” friends to a tee. Lads who had every opportunity but got stoned and intellectually wanker each other off instead of building a CV
 
Wumminator said:
You don’t need to go very far. The man comes across as genuinely idiotic when you look
Click to expand...

He may in some instances, but certainly not in this one. The interviewer just gave him the usual PC nonsense which Peterson easily dealt with since he's been fielding the same questions in most interviews.
 
Wumminator said:
Pogue I honestly think the person who is spending hours on YouTube for ways to improve themselves is more predetermined to be right wing. The amount of lads that I went to school with who were very intelligent but didn’t apply themselves all drifted this way. Would I be right in saying that your nephew was academically gifted, but as he fails to apply himself is struggling to fulfil his potential? That describes my “Peterson” friends to a tee. Lads who had every opportunity but got stoned and intellectually wanker each other off instead of building a CV
Click to expand...
Peterson's main "self-help" message is to take responsibility for yourself and do so by finding something meaningful in your life that will facilitate the adoption of that responsibility. So perhaps people who have wasted opportunity and are floundering in the world are more likely to need "advice" than someone who has their shit together, and are therefore more likely to respond positively to Peterson's self-help messages.

All of my Peterson-listening friends are highly successful. Not because of him, but what he says resonates for whatever reason.
 
Raoul said:
He may in some instances, but certainly not in this one. The interviewer just gave him the usual PC nonsense which Peterson easily dealt with since he's been fielding the same questions in most interviews.
Click to expand...
Vice was shockingly poor.

Someone from the BBC (former professor) interviewed Peterson recently and that was by far the best interview I've seen because the professor challenged him tangibly on his views and provided some excellent counter points and debate. Both came across well.
 
Kaos said:
I’d go as far as saying that reading Chomsky’s work has changed some of my more stubborn stances from the past. I’d actually been a more right leaning libertarian a decade ago until I started reading this work.
Click to expand...
Yeah Chomsky is stupidly good at making his arguments even if they aren’t ones you’d natural agree with. Probably superior to Hitchens in many ways.

Made a dick of Harris too in the email exchange.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.