That's my general impression as well. Peterson was in my city a couple of nights ago and it seems that a vast majority of people who attend his talks are normal people interested in his critiques of identity politics, gender relations etc.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
That's my general impression as well. Peterson was in my city a couple of nights ago and it seems that a vast majority of people who attend his talks are normal people interested in his critiques of identity politics, gender relations etc.
Most of the interviews by news outlets are poor because the interviewers have to adhere to positions their news organization can defend - in this case, gender equality in the work place. They therefore don't have much debating latitude to properly engage Peterson on his data and ideas that are at some point going to leave the narrow PC realm and veer into the uncomfortable.
Last edited:
This is the first time I have seen Harris and he seems to be anti-Trump, which is not typical of an average conservative in the US.
He should not be grouped with Shapiro.
Harris isn't remotely conservative. He just has strong views at the ideational level that transcend the usual left/right foodfight.
Shapiro on the other hand is basically a cookie cutter conservative masquerading as a wannabee intellectual.
All the way through, it's grand. It is probably the one you listened you though.Without even watching it, how long do they do the Kermit voice for in this one?
Interesting. I will listen to Harris. The first 5 minutes are promising.
I enjoy hearing different views that aren't steeped in hyperbole and rigidity.
I find in general people need to listen more, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum.
And agree re: Shapiro. That's my exact impression of him.
I think the thread title should be changed to “Peterson, Hitchens, Harris 3 etc...”
No one’s really discussing Shapiro’s views and the guy doesnt deserve his own thread on the caf. Or if he really needs one make it: Shapiro, Barr, Limbaugh etc..”
No one’s really discussing Shapiro’s views and the guy doesnt deserve his own thread on the caf. Or if he really needs one make it: Shapiro, Barr, Limbaugh etc..”
Not my nephew but yeah, you’re not far wrong.
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/148662/jordan-peterson-psychology-anymore
Rule 8: Tell the truth – or, at least, don't lie
Rule 8: Tell the truth – or, at least, don't lie
Shapiro was in the title since most of this thread was about him.
Don't be absurd. They're the alt-right don't you know.
That's a pretty weak argument by the author imo. Its implicit in all of his appearances that he doesn't practice or teach much if he's traveling to support his books and appearances. But that doesn't make him any less credible or qualified to talk about his subject matter. If online journos are scraping the bottom of the barrel to criticize his schedule then its a good sign they are starting to give up on challenging him on the merits of his ideas.
here's the longer version: http://www.canadalandshow.com/how-jordan-petersons-fame-affected-his-private-practice/
he's a bad at his job and lied to his patients
I'm sure more complaints will magically come to light relative to how famous and popular he gets. He should like the others listed in the previous article, stop practicing psychology and simply do the books and tours from here on out.
He has a broad vocabulary (perhaps this is what you mean). He often uses this to mask the substance, or lack thereof, of what he's saying. Fry was right-a huckster snake oil salesman.
It is no coincidence that the best point he made was with a quote from someone else.
The impression I got was a bit complicated. I'll have to see if those videos are the same I watched later, but iirc his reasoning was more like:
The left failed to represent the issues of the left. Clinton is not a leftist. Trump represented some sort of chaotic shakeup that gives the Democrats a chance to clean their house and nominate an actual liberal next time.
Not saying I am an expert on Zizek's opinions, I could be interpreting him wrong myself but it sounded like a roundabout protest against the non-left Democrats more than actual support of Trump.
More of a this is how the left failed and why people will go with Trump.
Russell Brand is, sadly, very light on content in my opinion. However, his heart is in the right place, I feel, and I feel he has worked hard to expand his understanding of issues. He's ferociously charismatic though, and very comfortable speaking in public, which is very important. But sometimes, much like Dyson, I feel he speaks as though he swallowed a thesaurus.
Brand has a lot of potential as an advocate for something more than just humor and podcasts imo.
He can also be a bit reactionary. I remember him advocating non-voting back in 2015...and then endorsing Labour after one chat with Ed Miliband. After the deadline for registering to vote had passed.
But, yeah, he generally means well. Seems to have largely disappeared in the last couple of years though.
What do you think that "something more" is?
Either something related to addiction or something broader related to his interest in humanity and spirituality.
There's an interesting video of him debating drugs with Peter Hitchens. Depending on which side of the debate you fall on, either Brand is hilarious and Hitchens bigoted, or Brand is a child in a man's body and Hitchens is the voice of reason.
If its the one where Hitchens was appalled at being put on the same show as Brand, it was pretty hilarious.
I'll check that out now. I actually think Brand would be a decent person to discuss drugs so could be interesting!!He had a stroke in 2016 and seems to have decided not to get involved in public discourse since.
He got married, had a kid and brought a farmhouse(I think), I like the guy but it's sort of clear he just really into trends rather than a concrete.
Peter Hitchens is a marvel. How someone can talk so much shite while sounding so confident while doing so, is something to be admired.
His car-crash, embarrassing clash with Matthew Perry on the subject (who isn't exactly a top intellectual) was pretty staggering to watch.
Hitchens is just a rent-a-gob for Little Englanders. The man thinks the Tories are so soft they might as well be socialists.
Hitchens really comes across poorly there. I don't have time right now to go digging through my old criminal law drug deterrence statistics but I might later.
I will add that often when we believe we're seeking deterrence through punishment, we are actually operating with a retributivist objective, even unbeknownst to ourselves.
Forever in your brother's shadow, Peter.
I will add that often when we believe we're seeking deterrence through punishment, we are actually operating with a retributivist objective, even unbeknownst to ourselves.
Forever in your brother's shadow, Peter.
My God, is this man for real? Being an addict isnt just a lack of willpower. What a tool.
Last edited:
Is it though?
If I may respond to that with a video.
That's one of the most truthful statements ever made. It really is.
One of the most disgusting things about Brexit was this idea that 'experts' are so cock-sure of themselves. Which really made me question how many experts these people had actully met.
Troubling.
What resonated with me was that girl who said that she's scared to have a nuanced opinion. I actually shared that sentiment when I was at uni several years ago. It felt like some opinions were not allowed.
Hitchens has the audacity to call someone else 'smug'. What a pompous twat.
That was my first exposure to him and I have no desire to listen to him further.