Perhaps. But in this context, does it matter? I would be interested in their ideas and opinions, not their character. Also, they aren't a homogenous blob. These guys at times openly disagree and debate about a variety of topics. And is it accurate to claim they are all friends? Perhaps they are, but I don't see the issue. l have friends with whom I disagree politically: I have friends on the extreme left and on the "far" right. Some follow guys like Shapiro, some classify themselves as Marxists. Some support Liverpool. I don't define myself through the beliefs of my friends. Nor should anyone else. I stand by my own convictions.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
You're not - as far as I know - an influential public figure though, mate. And not tacitly (or otherwise), publicly endorsing your friends' views even if by association.
They certainly don't agree with one another, in fact they likely disagree more than they agree on many topics.
Of course. Would be a boring world if we all got agreed, and I get along well with people who hold plenty of views I'd disagree with. But at the same time people can sometimes be defined to an extent by the company they keep politically - you'd likely be uncomfortable befriending and socialising with someone if they admitted to being an out and out Nazi, for example. That's not to say such a label applies to Peterson/Shapiro obviously, much as I personally quite dislike both, but they do have a history of making some fairly troubling remarks and if you're a neutral arbitrator it's certainly interesting to see how Harris seems to have drifted from his old atheist crowd to conservative-type commentators over time in his public associations. Although the extent to which we're discussing them all does funnily enough probably give them all credit than they deserve by applying so much scrutiny to a meet-up. So yeah, I agree, don't judge people on who they hang out with alone, but there are obviously limits to who we tolerate politically. Or at least there should be.
They're too self-congratulatory a crowd to make me believe they're simply trying to find hitherto absent common ground.
I don't think they are attempting to seek common ground. When Harris was part of the old four horsemen, there was more of a feeling that each of them were attempting to reconcile their views on atheism. This new thing is just a marketing clique imo.
I was just making a dumb and unfair point in response to another dumb and unfair point. I consider myself left-leaning on most issues, but my god, this so-called progressive movement is really testing my patience. The extreme sanctimony and demand for absolute moral purity (and sheer hysteria when someone is perceived to step out of bounds even slightly) makes me understand more and more why someone would want to give them the middle-finger and vote in someone like Trump.
Well that says it all. It appears they have the cowardice of their supposed convictions.
let me help you out there mate, youre not left leaning
Case in point.
if someone pointing out that "arabs like to live in sewage" is racist makes you want to vote for trump then you always wanted to vote for trump
True. But if I agreed with something, I would endorse it, theoretically. They also publically endorse their disagreements. One could accuse Bill Maher of publically endorsing Shapiro's views by association: having him on his show and giving him a platform to speak. Seems a bit arbitrary.
Your reading skills are about as good as your use of capital letters.
youre the guy who thinks john edwards is a leftyNah, sorry, but that doesn't fly. Most of us - if we're actually honest - would admit that PC barely affects our lives beyond sensationalist daily headlines (and we're not exactly lacking in sensationalism; we're practically force-fed with it). So, being irritated to the point of empathising with the 'other side' is the weakest, knowing, & most wilfully self-justifying excuse there is.Borden said:
What's this specifically in reference to though? Do you mean when people on the left condemn figures like Shapiro etc, or in how they expect their own candidates to be? Cause as much as I do agree some posters can sometimes be a bit too extreme to the point of WUMmishness, I don't think there's really anything particularly wrong about pointing out how Shapiro's views make him come across like an absolute knob to someone who's not on the right. And yeah, it'd be nice if everyone was civil, but recent elections have shown that polite civility isn't really working against the right a lot of the time, and that alternative approaches need to at least be considered. Sometimes a bit of conviction is needed, and if something is completely opposite your moral and ethical compass, why should you not make that known? Isn't that politics?
This is fair. I pretty much fully agree.
oh no someone was mean to me on the internet, better prove them right to make a point
Whatever you might think of them individually or as a group, this whole 'movement' if it even is one, is at least engaging people to think about and engage with issues. That has to be seen as a positive, I mean before YouTube and the likes came a long what did people consume? Pure shite from daytime TV and radio? Ideally the more people engaging with issues the better.
There is a concern about echo chambers and a pseudo circle-jerk forming when the same guests are just going on each other's shows and straw-manning or cherry picking certain things from the radical left. However this same thing could be aimed at any number of political or philosophical publications or broadcasters. From what I've understood there's a fair bit of disagreement between the likes of Peterson and Harris when they meet.
The only one of this supposed 'intellectual dark web' I've ever really listened to is Peterson on Rogan's podcast and on that shameful C4 'interview'. Bret Weinstein and his wife who's name I've forgotten were also on Rogan once and that was an interesting listen too. Personally I think it's a good thing they are gaining popularity, it's just up to the other side of the debate to put forward similar personalities to offer an alternative. I've always believed that education and ease of access to information is paramount. This platform of long-form debate and communication that we now have through the internet can therefore be a great benefit.
The likes of Harris, Peterson etc are really just one of the early waves I think. Like anything it's important to think for yourself and not take everything you hear as gospel. One problem you see more and more these days is dismissing someone entirely if they say one controversial or horrendous thing. That doesn't really add up. If you have a good argument in one area, having a faulty belief or argument in another doesn't mean the former should be discredited too. What it does mean is that you have to consider carefully and critically which parts of their argument you think may be correct or at least interesting and be more than ready to disagree on others.
For example with Peterson he is a very religious man, so your alarm bells should be ringing straight away when he wants to tell you about why monogamy is important or how he uses biblical parables to explain how we should ideally live our lives. On the other hand, you can look at things like compelled speech and his arguments on why equality of outcome is a dangerous idea and clearly see there is merit there.
There is a concern about echo chambers and a pseudo circle-jerk forming when the same guests are just going on each other's shows and straw-manning or cherry picking certain things from the radical left. However this same thing could be aimed at any number of political or philosophical publications or broadcasters. From what I've understood there's a fair bit of disagreement between the likes of Peterson and Harris when they meet.
The only one of this supposed 'intellectual dark web' I've ever really listened to is Peterson on Rogan's podcast and on that shameful C4 'interview'. Bret Weinstein and his wife who's name I've forgotten were also on Rogan once and that was an interesting listen too. Personally I think it's a good thing they are gaining popularity, it's just up to the other side of the debate to put forward similar personalities to offer an alternative. I've always believed that education and ease of access to information is paramount. This platform of long-form debate and communication that we now have through the internet can therefore be a great benefit.
The likes of Harris, Peterson etc are really just one of the early waves I think. Like anything it's important to think for yourself and not take everything you hear as gospel. One problem you see more and more these days is dismissing someone entirely if they say one controversial or horrendous thing. That doesn't really add up. If you have a good argument in one area, having a faulty belief or argument in another doesn't mean the former should be discredited too. What it does mean is that you have to consider carefully and critically which parts of their argument you think may be correct or at least interesting and be more than ready to disagree on others.
For example with Peterson he is a very religious man, so your alarm bells should be ringing straight away when he wants to tell you about why monogamy is important or how he uses biblical parables to explain how we should ideally live our lives. On the other hand, you can look at things like compelled speech and his arguments on why equality of outcome is a dangerous idea and clearly see there is merit there.
Last edited:
One thing that Peterson is very good at is confusing the shit out of people. I just think he's too obtuse for his own good. It's amazing how often his "enforced monogamy" stuff gets misunderstood but hey, at least it's a great stick to beat him with and these "debates" are all about scoring points after all. So that's the main thing.
I think the podcast as a medium is a bit of a game-changer. The ability for people to talk through their ideas at such length (without being forced to debate them in front of an audience) is a brand new phenomenon. That's how a not particularly intelligent, hacky stoner comedian like Joe Rogan ends up being associated with this whole thing. He's been at the forefront of the whole podcast scene from day one.
If you actually take the time to listen to podcasts involving most of this "intellectual dark web" people then you soon realise they're all quite different, with fairly diverse ideas on lots of different topics. I mean, Sam Harris is a strident atheist, while Peterson is strongly religious. When two men are so completely in disagreement over such a fundamental world view then it's really kind of stupid to decide they're basically interchangeable.
It's crystal clear. If this is another that's not what I mint comment, he needs to shut up and feck off because his grasp of the English language would need to be so bad he should be in kindergarten not a stage.
Oh my god, they're having drinks
It's interesting to see how obsessed some people seem to be with this group, to the point that a mundane picture of them having drinks triggers several instant reponses from people who hate them. The thread has evolved from a discussion about Shapiro to a couple of posters bumping it every once in a while to tell us all how stupid he, Peterson and the rest of them are. It's like reverse fanboyism.
This, we're laughing at a few lads having a meal. It's like they're humans too (except Shapiro, jury's out on him)
I know it's crystal clear. It's evolutionary psychology 101. Why are humans so frequently monogamous, when all of our close primate relations are polygamous?
The reason for this (according to Peterson) is because a society that enforces monogamous relationships is less likely to experience incidents of violent conflict over potential mates. Hence monogamy gradually became the norm. Like most evolutionary psychological theories I'd take it with a massive pinch of salt but the way that so many people have decided that amounts to him saying that all men are entitled to a partner of their choice is hilarious.
Typical of the way social media needs bogey men, so everyone can pile on them in a display of righteous indignation. Virtue signalling is an overused phrase but fits the bill perfectly here.
What are you talking about? He was asked about the incel terrorist attack in Canada, and his answer was that women should be forced to marry men because that makes them less violent. Which flies in the face of the overwhelming majority of violence being domestic and targeted at people the abusers know. It's very, very stupid Pogue. He's a very stupid man.
The clue is in the word "emerges". He's talking about why he thinks society is the way it is. Because - over a very long period of time - monogamy has become the norm, so you're less likely to see violent outbursts from men who can't get a mate because some of the more desirable men are cornering the market. Theories like this are why evolutionary psychology so often strikes a chord with alpha/beta obsessed right wing gimps.
It's obviously a deliberately provocative response to that question (we've established he's an effective agent provocateur) but it's equally obviously not a demand that women should be forced to marry men.
Full quote
Peterson said:
also half of men don't fail to get laid, he only says stupid things, he is a very stupid man
Peterson said:
dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Jordan Peterson is fanfic for people who think fanfic is only for teenage girls
Imagine hearing about a terrorist attack and your first thought is he did it because he couldn’t get laid.
Even being extremely generous, you can only say that Peterson is a man incapable of admitting ignorance when facing an issue he’s not familiar with or hasn’t spent time researching, and defaults to his area of expertise. That’s not very intelligent.
Even being extremely generous, you can only say that Peterson is a man incapable of admitting ignorance when facing an issue he’s not familiar with or hasn’t spent time researching, and defaults to his area of expertise. That’s not very intelligent.
Wasn’t that the specific reason yer man gave for doing what he did? It’s not like Jordan Petersen is blaming 9/11 on a dearth of pussy in Afghanistan.
He talks bollox constantly. I’m well aware of that. I’ve said this a few times in this thread. I just find it unhelpful when people call him out by misinterpreting/misunderstanding what he says. If only because it’s exactly what his acolytes want to happen. The progressive left peddling lies to demonise the truth-tellers so they can virtue signal to their peers. They love that shit.
This is some Sarah Palin/Donald Trump level revisionism here. *Direct quote* "the media loves their gotcha questions"
And it's worth repeating one more time one of the central rules he put forth in his own book was "speak clearly", if it's so easy to misinterpret him by directly quoting him, what's the point of him at all? Because at face value, he just seems like a very stupid misogynist.
Eh?
it's the exact argument used by Sarah Palin during the 2008 campaign when people asked what she meant by the very stupid things she said, it's also what Trump said during the 2016 campaign when people quoted his plethora of racist quotes
if people are constantly misunderstand what you say, it's probably not their fault
I've never been to Toronto but I'm sure hookers exist there.
The maniac couldn't get laid with the women he wants. Anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together would probably realised 'enforced monogamy' - whatever it means, doesn't solve the problem. Unless, it means men can choose whoever they desire to be their spouse and the women have no say in it. There's a name for that.
Don’t know if it’s been posted, but The Independent interviewed Harris a couple of days ago ahead of his O2 event with Peterson and Murray. Touches on some of the things we’ve been discussing here, like his affiliation with Peterson and the ‘intellectual dark web’ label. Certainly doesn’t seem to be too fond of Peterson.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...odcast-jordan-peterson-o2-arena-a8424416.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...odcast-jordan-peterson-o2-arena-a8424416.html
You’re taking him far too literally. He’s a Jungian psychoanalytical odd-ball who sees every behaviour in terms of archetypes, rather than anything to do with the individual. With a touch of evolutionary psychology thrown in for shits and giggles.
Anyway, I’m done defending him. I think he’s a tool. And fairly unpleasant at that. I just think the way some stuff he says gets twisted or used out of context so everyone can pile on him is a bit silly. As I said, what annoys me about it is the ammunition it gives his acolytes.