I can do this all day.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
Peterson Shapiro et all remind me of the shite I would spout after 4 days of taking MDMA without sleep. I was so delusionally sure of the shit I was talking and drug in-fuelled certain that I was an intellectual for all times (as did my similarly drugged up friends mind you). The only difference is I have never been a bigot. So congratulations Peterson, Shapiro et all are as intellectual as a 19 year old me while having the bonus of being bigoted. Turns out I wasn't an intellectual guy but at least I'm not bigoted but they are both idiots and bigoted. Anyone who listens to their bullshit would be better off and learn more from watching Geordie Shore. Past intellectuals have an excuse for being ignorant because of a lack of access to information, anyone in the present day has no excuse for that but still we laud them as intellectuals because they managed to swallow a dictionary and are able to stubbornly argue their points (ironically the sort of things that colleges try to sway students from).
Some people believe women are inferior to men, and some people believe black people are inferior to white people. We don't have a problem calling them bigots, regardless of the cause of their beliefs. If they disagree that trans people are a thing, they're disagreeing with science. It really is no different than being a shit to someone for being black, gay or a woman.
Are you saying that if someone doesn't "believe" in trans people, they should be free to be shitty to trans people? Or that whether their beliefs or the trans persons feelings is more important is somehow a difficult question to find an answer to? Because it isn't. The answer is that trans people have science and the law on their side, bigots have their beliefs, grounded in nothing but hatred of something they don't understand.
As I said above, it’s not really the same. Refusing to go along with the idea that you can just decide what gender you are is not the same as being a racist. It’s not the same because it isn’t discriminatory. If you don’t think all black people are equal to white people, you’re a racist. But no one is saying trans people aren’t equal, or that they’re inferior etc. They merely disagree with the assertion that gender is fluid. I’m not even trying to stick up for them really, I’m just saying from their point of view i understand why they think as they do, and I don’t think they should be lumped in with the despicable cnuts who go round hurling racial abuse at Raheem Sterling.
Define “be shitty”.
Anyone denying that genders are fluid are the same as those who believe in God. We have so much evidence that genders are fluid. I've a mate who is gay who struggled for years before coming out to everyone. He never wanted to be gay, he just wanted to be 'normal'. Do you really think that a boy really wants to be a girl or vice versa. Society doesn't condition these people, in fact society conditions them to go against what they really feel or else they'll be a 'freak'. Peterson is no better than someone who believes in God, in fact he is worse because there is no definitive evidence for or against God but we have a huge amount if physical evidence that gender is fluid. As @Silva said it's not about forcing people to refer to them a certain way but rather protecting them from being discriminated against in everyday live as unfortunately we have had to do for people of colour. I'm pretty sure nobody who is trans ever wanted to be the way they are as much as any gay person I know wanted to be the what they were.
Peterson is smart and that's what make it worse for him. I can accept a stupid person being stupid but a smart person like Peterson being stupid with the amount of information available nowadays is unacceptable. He doesn't even have fresh ideas, he literally holds opinions that have been disproven. It's like someone thinking the World is flat is this day and age.
It's not like they just suddenly decide that "hey, I'm gonna be a woman now", but okay. Trans people have science and the law on their side. If you treat a trans person worse than you would treat anyone else, that is the very definition of discrimination. If the law recognises that this person was born a man but is now a woman, then it stands to reason that discriminating against this person should be a crime, same as any other kind of discrimination. Just because some disagree that you can change gender doesn't mean that treating a trans person worse on the basis that they're trans is somehow not discrimination. What it does mean, is that this person is a bigot. That shouldn't even be in question.
Treating them in a way that would be considered discrimination if you did it against a gay person. Calling them ******, refusing to hire them, refusing them service, deliberately misgendering them.
Peterson is just a massive troll isn’t he? That clip of him discussing his all beef diet had me in stitches but that’s the sort of shit that gets shared and raises his profile.
I’ve enjoyed some of his debates before but tbh I’ve reached the point where I just can’t believe he’s sincere about half the shit he says.
I’m torn between thinking it’s all an elaborate ploy or he has a mental disorder, or a bit of both.
I’ve enjoyed some of his debates before but tbh I’ve reached the point where I just can’t believe he’s sincere about half the shit he says.
I’m torn between thinking it’s all an elaborate ploy or he has a mental disorder, or a bit of both.
I will hold my hands up and admit I have been lead to believe that the bolded is true. A lot of what I said in my last post was related to the validity of his position in regard to the interpretation he presented. I'm curious - what would be your opinion if that was what the law said?
I am bad at formatting
With respect, I posted in this thread with the genuine intention of opening up discussion and challenging my own perspective. You have met me with exactly the hostility that I was alluding toward. There are so many aspects of my post that you could have addressed but you chose only to attack my character and to sneer at my own self-assessment.
I hope you can appreciate the irony in your response.
I think this is a great question. I'm open to hearing other perspectives on this and I'm not so fixed on my own view that I see it as the only possible answer. It goes without saying that I am of the opinion that human beings should treat each other with respect. As I understand it, this is a discussion about how much protection an individual should have under law.
I am absolutely of the belief that if somebody asks you to refer to them a certain way that it would be disrespectful not to. I don't, however, feel that you should be legally obligated to do so. I think it's absolutely right to criticise somebody for deliberately mis-gendering somebody. It's absolutely right to call out those who wish to belittle, bully or otherwise abuse their position to make another person feel small. And organisations can choose whether or not they employ those persons and people can choose whether or not to befriend those persons (etc. etc.) - but I maintain that it should not be a legal standard to refer to another person by the manner in which they wish to be addressed.
Obviously this isn't what Canada have chosen to do - but if it was (which is what you said we're to pretend in you post) I would be firmly against it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_movement
On a "local scope" I have seen evidence that people "operated together" to play white noise or sound foghorns to prevent Peterson from airing his views. I'll admit that I'm making the presumption that those people are "liberal." I'm finding hard to agree with you on even the petty semantics that have you have reduced this to in order to, presumably, not discuss the bulk of my post.
The bolded is how I feel as well. I think it's unlikely that we are the only 2 in the world.
And the police used water cannon and launched grenades at DAPL protestors. The reason you don't hear much about that is because snowflaky whiny little bitches like Peterson and Shapiro have the reach and the veneer of respectability due to their institutional proximity to air their grievances. So for someone who is clued up on those matters, maybe it's a little bit more than galling to hear the oft-repeated rightwing talking point about 'political correctness gone mad' and 'the left clamping down on discourse' from someone who profess to be a liberal socialist?
I have to completely 180 on my post on the first page of this thread about Ben Shapiro's debating skills, and the same can be said about Peterson and all the rest of the surface level internet debaters as well as morons like Crowder. After a lot of watching, participating in and researching debates since then, all he does is use underhand techniques to beat inferior and less prepared participants even though the vast majority of his stances would be and have been annihilated by any sort of rigorous scrutiny and someone with some debating clout. There are in fact point by point breakdowns on a few of his debates where people show exactly what he's doing to pivot/strawman whatever his way past people with 0 experience. leading him to "Win" a lot of debates his position is actually untenable on under any rational breakdown.
That sums most of these guys up nicely. They debate people that are either too emotional or else inadequately prepared to deal with the subject matter, and in the the process, come off looking like they are winning the debates.
Last edited:
#2. Wonderful.
He's a bit of a weirdo and I strongly disagree with him on some issues (religion, eurgh) but he has his purpose.
All of those I agree with apart from the last one really. The first 3 are classic examples of discrimination, but I don’t think mis-gendering is the same. I just don’t think you can make the laws based around someone being a dick. What crime have they committed other than being insensitive to someone’s feelings? There are some things that just don’t need laws. If someone mis-genders you don’t run to the police, just ignore them and move on. It’s sticks and stones, basically.
Liking someone because they wind up certain people is pretty sad to be honest. The fact is that Shapiro and Peterson are lauded by idiots who think they are very smart. I'll never call either stupid, because they are not, but they are so inherently bigoted. It'd be acceptable 30-40 years ago but not today when we have the ability to access any amount of information we want on all topics. They are an embarrassment to the 'intellectual' tag. They choose their battles carefully and on the occasion that they are bettered they retreat like the guys they purport to hate. Anyone who can be beaten by one simple question from Jim Jeffries (I like his comedy at times but he ain't an 'intellectual') is someone whose views are quite clearly idiotic regardless of how much he sounds like his parents sent him to a private school.
Anyone who likes them because they 'trigger' people might as well go support the Westboro Baptist Church who do the same and who's views make as much sense, in that they make no sense at all.
Anyone who likes them because they 'trigger' people might as well go support the Westboro Baptist Church who do the same and who's views make as much sense, in that they make no sense at all.
Hostility? You sound a bit sensitive mate. Maybe you need a safe space.
I pointed out that despite claiming you are a liberal, your post suggests you gobble up right-wing drivel. Or at very least you take this shit way, way too seriously.
This is another personal attack.
As it happens I do take peoples rights incredibly seriously. I've come into the thread openly engaging in discussion and looking to have my views challenged or my perspective shifted. What have you done to facilitate that?
I posted that example as evidence of the point I'd made previously. I'm not sure how another event where police fired water cannons changes anything.
If you're saying that rightwing people are shutting down debate that doesn't mean that people on the left aren't. They're not mutually exclusive.
I watched the first clip and the person tweeting is completely misrepresenting what he actually says.
All he is doing is explaining what the circumstances at the time were in order for the Nazis to rise, which is what most historians would agree on. I don't ever see him justifying it as normal or logical, simply saying that the situation was chaotic and people turn to radical solutions in terms of chaos. Nothing he said would be at all controversial in a history seminar.
It's possible that elsewhere he's said something dodgy about the Nazis, but there is nothing wrong with the clip in question.
And generally a strong indicator that said person doesn't have anything to actually contribute to the debate themselves.
he literally says the nazis were order, the party which systematically murdered political allies before starting a genocidal war, it is modern nazi propaganda
it wasn't a point about the post ww1 set up making war inevitable, follow the rest of the thread and you'll see he was mimicking classic nazi apologetics
i.e
He said they represented order to people, because this is what they promised. He's right, people were living in a chaotic Germany which was extremely weak and divided, and were thus more attracted to the kind of rhetoric that the Nazis were offering. To me it just comes across as attempting to explain the context in which an evil like the Nazis could rise, rather than actually portraying the Nazis as orderly. I doubt someone as educated as Peterson (as much as I might disagree with him in many ways) would actually view them that way. They didn't even have order within their own party because Hitler let them fight among themselves in an ode to his stupid social darwinism.
I'll look through the rest of the thread, it's just the person has made a claim and then attached a clip which doesn't actually back up said claim.
Hitler was basically a crowd pleasing hack, just telling people what they wanted to hear. Germany was in a bad way at the time so people lapped it up. I definitely get the Trump parallels, since he did basically the same thing.
Oh god, don't get me started on that. People talk about Nazi efficiency, which is so laughably wrong that it's honestly absurd. Nazi Germany was chaos and inefficiency at all levels of the party and state and all the way down to design and production of war material. Can't believe they didn't win.
Come to think of it that does sort of remind me of the Trump administration...
yes what you typed is nazi apologetics, the nazis weren't viewed as order by germans at the time, they took over violently and with funding and approval from the german capitalist class, the idea that their rise was an organic consequence of the time is nazi apologetics
That's the mainstream view of the rise of the Nazi party. Most of the literature written on their rise to power will present it in that way and nearly all lecturers I've had on the subject have spoken in similar terms. Are you saying they are all Nazi apologists?
They weren't viewed as order by all Germans, certainly, especially since a huge number voted against them and many fled the country as they rose. But they were viewed as the party which could restore a sense of order to the country by a majority of those who voted for them. Obviously not everybody bought in to it, but I don't think anybody is implying that they had the total support of the German people?
Their rise was no more or less organic than the rise of communism in Russia. A result of the political, social and economic realities of the time which led to an extremist option becoming more attractive. You had an embarrassed, economically depressed and politically divided Germany, which the Nazis were able to take advantage of.
Indeed, even their economic 'success' was hugely exaggerated and mostly based on an unsustainable war economy. From top to bottom they were led by fear and scared people obviously exaggerate production figures etc, thus giving an inflated sense of how well they were actually doing.
Then you get the Wehraboos who are absolutely convinced that the German armed forces were some sort of unstoppable, efficient juggernaut at all levels, only stopped by being outnumbered 1000-1.
The capitalist class allowed the Nazis to take over violently because they feared the communists more than the fascists. A majority of Germans voted against them until the violent take over. They might have taken over violently without capital backing as the Communists in the east did, but that's not what happened in Germany. They were given backing from German capitalists and foreign capitalists. I don't know who your lecturer was, but I'd be surprised they left that out.
And the way peterson talks about it, mirroring Jung of all people, while he was working for the Nazi party and being one of their intellectual bedrocks, isn't the mainstream view.
I've very rarely seen capitalists given the majority of the credit for the rise of the Nazi party, that certainly is not the mainstream view on how it took place. There was investment from capitalists but it wasn't as significant as you're implying, the majority of their funding still came from their members and the events they held. Goebbels himself wrote about this in his diary, they weren't overly reliant on other forms of investment. I'm certainly aware the support was there (yes due to the fear of communism) but that doesn't change the fact that a great number of Germans did vote for the Nazis because they believed it could bring order to the country. Peterson isn't incorrect in that assertion. They were wrong of course, but it doesn't change how they felt. We have plenty of evidence in the form of letters, interviews etc from people who tell us exactly why they voted the way they did.
Taking that clip in isolation, Peterson isn't saying anything which isn't mainstream. It's not anything I haven't heard in a number of seminars or lectures. You'd struggle to find many respected academics who would watch that and be particularly opposed to what he's saying.
I don't want to get too caught up in the semantics of that though (or in to a bloated discussion about the rise of nazi germany, since this isn't the thread for that) since there's plenty of other stuff he says which is very weird.
What he says about the 'Jewish question' for example is far more worrying and not at all credible. Suggesting a certain group of people have higher IQs? Doesn't he understand how damaging that premise can be?
What he says about the 'Jewish question' for example is far more worrying and not at all credible. Suggesting a certain group of people have higher IQs? Doesn't he understand how damaging that premise can be?
Yeah I’ve heard him say that before and wondered what the feck he was on about.
yes, he provides an intellectual foundation for christian dominion, he isn't a good faith actor, he's a piece of shit
Every single word he says in the extended clip where he talks about the Jews is disgusting pseudo science, and absolutely the video I would most recommend if you're trying to discredit him. Utterly ludicrous claims based on totally unreliable studies, the kind that he would be saying was a 'grey area' if anybody confronted him on a transgender issue.
He actually has the nerve to call the science 'not settled, but reasonably solid', which is just a total fabrication and honestly makes me feel quite ill. The amount of controversy/discussion about the science of IQ itself makes it impossible to claim that.
Just look at the comments on the video .. disgusting. As a direct result of this video these people feel totally justified in their prejudices.
He actually has the nerve to call the science 'not settled, but reasonably solid', which is just a total fabrication and honestly makes me feel quite ill. The amount of controversy/discussion about the science of IQ itself makes it impossible to claim that.
Just look at the comments on the video .. disgusting. As a direct result of this video these people feel totally justified in their prejudices.
It is interesting to me that for someone who is so against identity politics, and categorising people solely by their membership of a certain club, be it race, gender etc, that a lot of his theories are actually based around things just like it. He often then references studies that place people into these groups. Saying that Jewish people on average tend to be 15% more intelligent etc. It seems very hypocritical saying that one minute, then the next saying how identity politics is evil.
shock horror as man who constantly talks about judeo-christian values might only hate identity politics that aren't about white men being amazing