Peterson, Harris, etc....

The major problem attributed to Jordan Peterson by people more intellectually savvy than myself is that when he branches out into political, economic and philosophical arguments or debates, he's monumentally stupid. When he talks about psychology, the actual field he's based and educated in, he's fine.

Jordan Peterson refuses to back a normative claim in any of the contentious issues he debates. He only makes a series of descriptive claims which people take to the logical conclusions hes alluding to and when called out on it he goes "No i never said that, I've never said that" so like he will say things along the lines of Women and men dont get along in the office, women arent as happy as they used to be, Men are better in competitive work environments etc, but he wont give any prescriptive ideas about what to do with this information which is the most important thing we discuss in society, discuss value judgements. So when people see what hes talking about and connect the dots he refuses to take responsibility for the position hes obviously alluding to.
 
Tarrou said:
Its the outside of the womb bit that confused me. Anyway, what a colossal prick!
Click to expand...

Oh I glazed over that and read it as inside. Typo? Or maybe some new abortion-related messaging, I don't know.
 
That’s one of the most impressive self owns I’ve ever seen. A female doctor staying up all night with a coughing child before going to work, while her husband snores the night away so he can be fresh for a long day on twitter would be a textbook answer to “what is the opposite of feminism?”
 
Adebesi said:
Whatever your views about late term abortions in extreme situations, that is still talking about abortions in utero. So it still doesnt make any sense.
Click to expand...

But his comments about third-trimester abortions set off critics. The procedures, he said, are “done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s not viable. So in this particular example, if a mother’s in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
Click to expand...

Here we go. They’re getting riled up about temporary ex utero life support for non viable foetuses.
 
I've heard about those procedures being performed but have never come across it. Generally if there's danger to the mother's life beyond 20 weeks, a delivery via C-section is performed and then you do your best to keep the baby alive.

If the foetus is found to be non-viable (i.e. dead) then an evacuation may be performed but this usually requires consultation with at least one other consultant OB-GYN in my experience. What I think Northam may have been talking about is a fetus delivered and then put on a respirator and then showing no signs of brain stem function. The criteria for declaring infants brain dead is complicated and where I work requires 3 consultant pediatricians to sign off on before the diagnosis is made. Only then can a conversation be had with the parents about removing life-preserving measures. So clearly I think Shapiro et. al are taking the Governor's words out of context.
 
Had an interview with German newspaper "Die Zeit" published today.

Let me just translate my favourite part:

Zeit: "What goes wrong for young men? You often talk about their problems."

Peterson: "What went wrong all the time. Why are they not attractive for a proper woman? Young men have nothing, no talent, no ability, no experience. They have youth and potential, that's something but ...

Zeit: "The same applies to young women, no?"

Peterson: "Not at all. Young women are beautiful and attractive."

Zeit: "Young men aren't?"

Peterson: "It's not the same."

Zeit: "Why?"

Peterson: "Because men don't have babies."

Zeit: "How do you mean that?"

Peterson: "Men and women choose each other differently. An important trait for matching attractiveness is the youth of women. It's more important for men in relation to a women than the other way around (...)
Click to expand...

So apart from the fact that the bloke talks like the random pub goer but with a degree, all I take from him is that "what goes wrong for young men" is their inability to give birth which makes them unattractive.

Great.

Amazing.
 
Actually, forget about that, this is my favourite part:

Peterson explains why men are order and women are chaos:

Chaos is what happens when the incels always get rejected. For example, you have an eye on a potential female partner for reproduction - you are in love! You even want to risk to have children. And the answer is: "No!" Why? Because you are not good enough. If you don't believe that this produces chaos you have no clue about psychology.
Click to expand...

feck my life. This dude actually qualifies as an intellectual.

Answer from the Zeit interviewer:

"I take it, one has to read the 600 pages of your book to actually understand that one."

:lol:
 
Peterson is like that crazy idea you wake up with in the hazy twilight, and which you dismiss by the time you've stepped out of bed. Only this time you don't dismiss it but instead go around telling every person you meet during the day about it, and then look on aghast when people query your penguin-spacesuits with racist embroidery innovation.
 
Florida Man said:
What do people here think of Andrew Yang? Seems to also talk a lot of sense and has, imo, good plans to tackle unprecedented challenges in the coming future.


His birthday is a day after mine :)
Click to expand...



Nothing if he is chatting to Joe Rogan
 
lsd said:
Nothing if he is chatting to Joe Rogan
Click to expand...
What's wrong with Joe? I like him. And to be fair, it's hard to say no to getting paid to talk about your ideas for the president on a pretty popular platform that reaches people across the political spectrum.
 
Florida Man said:
What's wrong with Joe? I like him. And to be fair, it's hard to say no to getting paid to talk about your ideas for the president on a pretty popular platform that reaches people across the political spectrum.
Click to expand...


I just can't trust Joe he seems to be trying to hard to hide he is really right wing .

I've read about Yang and would like him somewhere else other than on rogan
 
lsd said:
I just can't trust Joe he seems to be trying to hard to hide he is really right wing .

I've read about Yang and would like him somewhere else other than on rogan
Click to expand...

He has a fairly diverse group on his show....from Roger Penrose to Tulsi Gabbard to Jordan Peterson to Steven Rinella.
 
lsd said:
I just can't trust Joe he seems to be trying to hard to hide he is really right wing .

I've read about Yang and would like him somewhere else other than on rogan
Click to expand...
I think he's just his own thing. We really gotta stop grouping people in either left or right. You can refer to my original post, which is Yang speaking in Iowa. No Joe Rogan in sight.
 
lsd said:
I just can't trust Joe he seems to be trying to hard to hide he is really right wing .

I've read about Yang and would like him somewhere else other than on rogan
Click to expand...

Rogan isn't right wing. He's just gone all the way down the anti-SJW rabbit hole which has led to him platforming a lot of trash. How own views are pretty liberal, socially at least.
 
lsd said:
I just can't trust Joe he seems to be trying to hard to hide he is really right wing .

I've read about Yang and would like him somewhere else other than on rogan
Click to expand...

How is he right wing?

He’s intelligent enough to realise there is no right or left wing.

There are issues. We have opinions about them.

He could be painted as far left just as easily as right wing.
 
entropy said:
Cause he provides a platform for right wing lunatics.
Click to expand...

And more often than not agrees with them . It's not just me a lot of people feel the same .

Also this this I'm a libertarian is often an excuse to deny you are a Republican.

That's my problem with him really he clearly comes off as right wing but denies it hiding behind the libertertarian banner .
 
lsd said:
And more often than not agrees with them . It's not just me a lot of people feel the same .

Also this this I'm a libertarian is often an excuse to deny you are a Republican.

That's my problem with him really he clearly comes off as right wing but denies it hiding behind the libertertarian banner .
Click to expand...

I can see how he may irk someone on the left by allowing people like Peterson to come on his show but when you look at his over all guest list, it represents a pretty broad spectrum of people, most of which are people outside politics - ranging from UFC fighters to Neuroscientists to comedians to health experts to basically any number of other people.
 
lsd said:
And more often than not agrees with them . It's not just me a lot of people feel the same .

Also this this I'm a libertarian is often an excuse to deny you are a Republican.

That's my problem with him really he clearly comes off as right wing but denies it hiding behind the libertertarian banner .
Click to expand...

I used to think the same but having watched more of his stuff I've noticed he tends to agree with whoever his guest is, even if their point of view is at odds with something he agreed with previously.

I think he's a moron but not quite as right wing as one might think based solely on his podcasts with right wing personalities.
 
I often get the feeling Rogan is more right wing than he lets on. Maybe thats just my own left wing bias at play though? Actually now that I think of it that is probably more likely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.