Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
definitely not racist
fecking hell
I haven’t listened to them, so I won’t comment on that. But going from ‘Islam is bad’ (which is true, all religions sucks shit) to ‘airport profiling and pre-emptive tactical nuclear strikes are justified’ does suggest a certain frame of mind, or implicit bias towards the group of people in question.
definitely not racist
It's a very weird point but that tends to be the case when you take anyone's point out of context. Of course, even within that clip there's a pretty essential phrase missing from that wonderful Twitter feed. Clearly what he said and what he was summarised as saying are two completely different things. Which is how caricatures are built up.
Forgot I posted this and laughed at it againOld man is ruthless
definitely not racist
Yeah but.........he is just like Ed Miliband.
Spouting BS like it ain't no thang.
definitely not racist
Why do people quote rando Twitter users who deliberately manipulate the information to score points?
It's an annoying trend at the moment.
Tweet 1 is talking about alt right, not right wing.
Tweet 2 is about the warping effect of trying not to appear racist, if that makes sense. In the example, he thinks that if the man on the lift is white she may wait for the next one because her instict is to avoid the lift (schrodinger's rapist concept), however her instict may be overidden by not wanting to appear racist if the man was black.
The point being that the man's race shouldn't play a role in whether she gets on the lift and safety should be the priority. I'm not sure I agree with his example on a factual level but on its face he's making a wider point that is pretty much the opposite of racist.
Last edited:
Hardcore History is brilliant, and I won't watch this in case it sours my view of Dan Carlin.
@Sweet Square Sorry for the delay. Here is a piece which sums up his views on wealth inequality, if you're interested:
https://samharris.org/how-rich-is-too-rich/
I'm not sure if I made myself completely clear though, he is on the left but he is by no means a raging leftie. His views on identity culture and islam are obviously not that of a leftie. So call it left or centre left or something like that, as you say those terms don't make much sense with the skewering of the spectrum, but right wing is not a correct label.
https://samharris.org/how-rich-is-too-rich/
I'm not sure if I made myself completely clear though, he is on the left but he is by no means a raging leftie. His views on identity culture and islam are obviously not that of a leftie. So call it left or centre left or something like that, as you say those terms don't make much sense with the skewering of the spectrum, but right wing is not a correct label.
No worries. Thanks for the link
I'm now more confused than before. There's is no mention of universal healthcare, workers rights, higher wages in there(All this isn't raging lefty talk but basic social democracy). Harris also talks about cutting government spending(Although later on says the US government should spend trillions of dollars) and the one ''redistributive policy'' is a one time tax that rich people would voluntarily pay.
Its a completely mess.
I'm not saying Harris is Ted Cruz but the only reason he is considered on the left by some is down to just far right and screwed the american political system is. Anyway where else Harris would be considered at best a conservative liberal e.g. David Cameron.
Also this bit made me laugh. Harris fans - Tax = Communism.
Last edited:
I went to see JBP a few months ago. Had a VIP ticket, front row. The venue was packed. He walked in very slowly. Like an old prophet. Looked around and started talking. Afterwards there were about 100 people with VIP tickets and JBP stayed another hour for Q&A. Then in the end the obligatory handshake and a photo with the man. Was a fun experience.
The weirdest part was whilst people were waiting in line to have a quick chat and a photo with Peterson, an offer was made to kill some time and meet Dave Rubin backstage, for a private chat. They asked £50 for it. I think only one or two people did it. Came back after ten minutes or so. Seemed like a complete waste of money at that point.
The weirdest part was whilst people were waiting in line to have a quick chat and a photo with Peterson, an offer was made to kill some time and meet Dave Rubin backstage, for a private chat. They asked £50 for it. I think only one or two people did it. Came back after ten minutes or so. Seemed like a complete waste of money at that point.
Dr Jordan Peterson: Cambridge University fellowship rescinded:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47656933
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47656933
Jordan Peterson's response to Cambridge:
I visited Cambridge University in November of last year, during my 12 Rules for Life Book tour, one stop of which was the city of Cambridge, where I spoke publicly at the venerable Cambridge Corn Exchange. While there, I had lunch and dinner and various scheduled conversations with a good number of faculty members and other interested individuals who came in for the occasion, and we took the opportunity to speak with a welcome frankness about theological, philosophical and psychological matters. I also recorded twoYouTube videos/podcasts: one with the eminent *********** Sir Roger Scruton, presented by The Cambridge Center for the Study of Platonism, and another with Dr. Stephen Blackwood, founding President of Ralston College, a university in Savannah, Georgia, preparing for launch.
I was also invited to address the student-run Cambridge Union, the oldest continuously running debating society in the world – a talk which was delivered to a packed house (a relatively rare occurrence) and which, despite being posted only four months ago, is now the second-most watched of their 200 total videos. I’m mentioning this for a very particular purpose: CUSU, the Cambridge University Student Union (not to be confused with the aforementioned Cambridge Union), pinned to their Twitter account the rescindment announcement three minutes before (!) the Faculty of Divinity did so, and in a spirit of apparent “relief.” The Guardian cited the following CUSU statement:
We are relieved to hear that Jordan Peterson’s request for a visiting fellowship to Cambridge’s faculty of divinity has been rescinded following further review. It is a political act to associate the University with an academic’s work through offers which legitimise figures such as Peterson. His work and views are not representative of the student body and as such we do not see his visit as a valuable contribution to the University, but one that works in opposition to the principles of the University.
It seems to me that the packed Cambridge Union auditorium, the intelligent questioning associated with the lecture, and the overwhelming number of views the subsequently posted video accrued, indicates that there a number of Cambridge students are very interested in what I have to say, and might well regard my visit “as a valuable contribution to the University.” I also have to say, as a university professor concerned with literacy, that the CUSU statement offered to The Guardian borders on the unintelligible, perhaps even crossing the line (as so much ideological-puppet-babble tends to): what in the world does it mean that “it is a political act to associate the University with an academic’s work through offers which legitimise figures such as Peterson”? And who could write or say something of that rhetorical nature without a deep sense of betraying their personal conscience?
In any case: In November, when I was in Cambridge, I began discussions with one of the faculty members (whom I had met briefly before, in London) about the possibility of entering into a collaboration with the Cambridge Divinity Faculty. I enjoyed the conversations I had at Cambridge immensely. I learned a lot about Biblical matters that had remained unknown to me in a very short time. This was of particular relevance to me, but also perhaps of more broad and public import, because of a series of lectures on the Biblical stories of Genesis I prepared, delivered live (at the Isabel Bader Theatre in Toronto) and then posted on YouTube (playlist here) and in podcast form.
Since their posting, beginning in May of 2017, these lectures have received about 10 million hits (as well as an equal or greater number of downloads). The first lecture alone, on the first sentence of Genesis, has, alone, garnered 3.7 million of those, which makes it the most well-received of all the talks I have ever posted online. I have received correspondence in great volume from religious people all over the world, Jews, Christians, Buddhists and Muslims alike—and an equally large number from atheists—all telling me that my psychological take on the Genesis material resonated very strongly with their faith, or that it helped them understand for the first time the value of these stories. You can see this for yourself by reading the comments on the YouTube channel, which are remarkably civilized and positive, by modern social media standards. I don’t think there is another modern religious/psychological phenomenon or happening that is genuinely comparable. It’s also the case that my books, 12 Rules for Life and Maps of Meaning both rely heavily on Judeo-Christian thinking, and are predicated on the idea that the stories that make up such thought constitute the bedrock of our civil, peaceful and productive society. The former has now sold 3 million copies (one million in tongues other than English), and will be translated into 50 languages; the latter, a much older book, was recently a New York Times bestseller in audio format. This volume of interest is clear indication of the widespread cross-cultural appeal of the work that I am doing.
In the fall, I am planning to produce a series of lectures on the Exodus stories. I presume they will have equal drawing power. I thought that I could extend my knowledge of the relevant stories by spending time in Cambridge, and that doing so would be useful for me, for faculty members who might be interested in speaking with me, and to the students. I also regarded it as a privilege and an opportunity. I believed (and still believe) that collaborating with the Faculty of Divinity on such a project would constitute an opportunity of clear mutual benefit. Finally, I thought that making myself more knowledgeable about relevant Biblical matters by working with the experts there would be of substantive benefit to the public audience who would eventually receive the resultant lectures.
Now the Divinity school has decided that signaling their solidarity with the diversity-inclusivity-equity mob trumps that opportunity–or so I presume. You see, I don’t yet know, because (and this is particularly appalling) I was not formally notified of this decision by any representative of the Divinity school. I heard about the rescinded offer through the grapevine, via a colleague and friend, and gathered what I could about the reasons from social media and press coverage (assuming that CUSU has at least something to do with it).
I would also like to point out something else. As I already noted, the Divinity Faculty (@CamDivinity) tweeted their decision to rescind, consciously making this a public issue. This is inexcusable, in my estimation, given (1) that they did not equally publicize the initial agreement/invitation (which has to be considered an event of equal import) and (2) that they implied that I came cap-in-hand to the school for the fellowship. This is precisely the kind of half-truth particularly characteristic of those who deeply practice to deceive, as the fellowship offer was a consequence of mutual discussion between those who invited me to Cambridge in July and my subsequent formal request, and not something I had dreamed up on my own.
It’s not going to make much difference to my future, in some sense. I have more opportunities at the moment than I can keep track of, let alone (let’s say) capitalize on. It’s a complex and surreally fortunate position to occupy, and I’m not taking it for granted, but it happens to be true. In the fall, therefore, I will produce the lectures I plan to produce on Exodus, regardless of whether they occur in the UK or in Canada or elsewhere, and they will attract whatever audience remains interested. But I think that it is deeply unfortunate that the authorities at the Divinity school in Cambridge decided that kowtowing to an ill-informed, ignorant and ideologically-addled mob trumped participating in an extensive online experiment in mass Christian and psychological education. Given the continued decline of church attendance, the rise in atheistic or agnostic sentiment, the increasing irrelevance of theological education and the collapse in interest in such matters among young people, wiser and more profound decisions might have been made.
You see, it matters whether people around the world understand these ancient stories. It deeply matters. We are becoming unmoored, because we no longer share the structure these stories undergird. This is psychologically destabilizing. It’s producing a pathological and desperate nihilism that is increasingly common and, at the same time, a pronounced proclivity for the ideological certainty that mimics but cannot replace true religious belief. Both consequences are bound to be, as the evidence certainly indicates, divisive and truly dangerous.
I think the Faculty of Divinity made a serious error of judgement in rescinding their offer to me (and I’m speaking about those unnamed persons who made that specific decision). I think they handled publicizing the rescindment in a manner that could hardly have been more narcissistic, self-congratulatory and devious.
I believe that the parties in question don’t give a damn about the perilous decline of Christianity, and I presume in any case that they regard that faith, in their propaganda-addled souls, as the ultimate manifestation of the oppressive Western patriarchy, despite their hypothetical allegiance to their own discipline.
I think that it is no bloody wonder that the faith is declining (and with it, the values of the West, as it fragments) with cowards and mountebanks of the sort who manifested themselves today at the helm.
I wish them the continued decline in relevance over the next few decades that they deeply and profoundly and diligently work toward and deserve.
P.S. I also find it interesting and deeply revealing that I know the names of the people who invited me, both informally and formally, but the names of the people who have disinvited me remain shrouded in exactly the kind of secrecy that might be expected from hidden, conspiratorial, authoritarian and cowardly bureaucrats. How many were there? No one knows. By what process did they come to the decision (since there were obviously people who wanted me there)? No one knows. On what grounds was the decision made? That has not been revealed. What role was played by pressure from, for example, the CUSU? That’s apparently no one’s business. It is on such ground that tyranny does not so much grow as positively thrive.
P.P.S. Here’s something from Vice-Chancellor Professor Stephen Toope of the University of Cambridge that’s worth consideration, in the current context (the described “openness” is apparently part of the university’s declared strategic initiatives regarding (what else) equality and diversity (bold mine):
One very specific aspect of…openness is being inclusive, and open to diversity in all its forms – diversity of interests and beliefs, of gender, of religion, of sexual identity, of ethnicity, of physical ability.
I was also invited to address the student-run Cambridge Union, the oldest continuously running debating society in the world – a talk which was delivered to a packed house (a relatively rare occurrence) and which, despite being posted only four months ago, is now the second-most watched of their 200 total videos. I’m mentioning this for a very particular purpose: CUSU, the Cambridge University Student Union (not to be confused with the aforementioned Cambridge Union), pinned to their Twitter account the rescindment announcement three minutes before (!) the Faculty of Divinity did so, and in a spirit of apparent “relief.” The Guardian cited the following CUSU statement:
We are relieved to hear that Jordan Peterson’s request for a visiting fellowship to Cambridge’s faculty of divinity has been rescinded following further review. It is a political act to associate the University with an academic’s work through offers which legitimise figures such as Peterson. His work and views are not representative of the student body and as such we do not see his visit as a valuable contribution to the University, but one that works in opposition to the principles of the University.
It seems to me that the packed Cambridge Union auditorium, the intelligent questioning associated with the lecture, and the overwhelming number of views the subsequently posted video accrued, indicates that there a number of Cambridge students are very interested in what I have to say, and might well regard my visit “as a valuable contribution to the University.” I also have to say, as a university professor concerned with literacy, that the CUSU statement offered to The Guardian borders on the unintelligible, perhaps even crossing the line (as so much ideological-puppet-babble tends to): what in the world does it mean that “it is a political act to associate the University with an academic’s work through offers which legitimise figures such as Peterson”? And who could write or say something of that rhetorical nature without a deep sense of betraying their personal conscience?
In any case: In November, when I was in Cambridge, I began discussions with one of the faculty members (whom I had met briefly before, in London) about the possibility of entering into a collaboration with the Cambridge Divinity Faculty. I enjoyed the conversations I had at Cambridge immensely. I learned a lot about Biblical matters that had remained unknown to me in a very short time. This was of particular relevance to me, but also perhaps of more broad and public import, because of a series of lectures on the Biblical stories of Genesis I prepared, delivered live (at the Isabel Bader Theatre in Toronto) and then posted on YouTube (playlist here) and in podcast form.
Since their posting, beginning in May of 2017, these lectures have received about 10 million hits (as well as an equal or greater number of downloads). The first lecture alone, on the first sentence of Genesis, has, alone, garnered 3.7 million of those, which makes it the most well-received of all the talks I have ever posted online. I have received correspondence in great volume from religious people all over the world, Jews, Christians, Buddhists and Muslims alike—and an equally large number from atheists—all telling me that my psychological take on the Genesis material resonated very strongly with their faith, or that it helped them understand for the first time the value of these stories. You can see this for yourself by reading the comments on the YouTube channel, which are remarkably civilized and positive, by modern social media standards. I don’t think there is another modern religious/psychological phenomenon or happening that is genuinely comparable. It’s also the case that my books, 12 Rules for Life and Maps of Meaning both rely heavily on Judeo-Christian thinking, and are predicated on the idea that the stories that make up such thought constitute the bedrock of our civil, peaceful and productive society. The former has now sold 3 million copies (one million in tongues other than English), and will be translated into 50 languages; the latter, a much older book, was recently a New York Times bestseller in audio format. This volume of interest is clear indication of the widespread cross-cultural appeal of the work that I am doing.
In the fall, I am planning to produce a series of lectures on the Exodus stories. I presume they will have equal drawing power. I thought that I could extend my knowledge of the relevant stories by spending time in Cambridge, and that doing so would be useful for me, for faculty members who might be interested in speaking with me, and to the students. I also regarded it as a privilege and an opportunity. I believed (and still believe) that collaborating with the Faculty of Divinity on such a project would constitute an opportunity of clear mutual benefit. Finally, I thought that making myself more knowledgeable about relevant Biblical matters by working with the experts there would be of substantive benefit to the public audience who would eventually receive the resultant lectures.
Now the Divinity school has decided that signaling their solidarity with the diversity-inclusivity-equity mob trumps that opportunity–or so I presume. You see, I don’t yet know, because (and this is particularly appalling) I was not formally notified of this decision by any representative of the Divinity school. I heard about the rescinded offer through the grapevine, via a colleague and friend, and gathered what I could about the reasons from social media and press coverage (assuming that CUSU has at least something to do with it).
I would also like to point out something else. As I already noted, the Divinity Faculty (@CamDivinity) tweeted their decision to rescind, consciously making this a public issue. This is inexcusable, in my estimation, given (1) that they did not equally publicize the initial agreement/invitation (which has to be considered an event of equal import) and (2) that they implied that I came cap-in-hand to the school for the fellowship. This is precisely the kind of half-truth particularly characteristic of those who deeply practice to deceive, as the fellowship offer was a consequence of mutual discussion between those who invited me to Cambridge in July and my subsequent formal request, and not something I had dreamed up on my own.
It’s not going to make much difference to my future, in some sense. I have more opportunities at the moment than I can keep track of, let alone (let’s say) capitalize on. It’s a complex and surreally fortunate position to occupy, and I’m not taking it for granted, but it happens to be true. In the fall, therefore, I will produce the lectures I plan to produce on Exodus, regardless of whether they occur in the UK or in Canada or elsewhere, and they will attract whatever audience remains interested. But I think that it is deeply unfortunate that the authorities at the Divinity school in Cambridge decided that kowtowing to an ill-informed, ignorant and ideologically-addled mob trumped participating in an extensive online experiment in mass Christian and psychological education. Given the continued decline of church attendance, the rise in atheistic or agnostic sentiment, the increasing irrelevance of theological education and the collapse in interest in such matters among young people, wiser and more profound decisions might have been made.
You see, it matters whether people around the world understand these ancient stories. It deeply matters. We are becoming unmoored, because we no longer share the structure these stories undergird. This is psychologically destabilizing. It’s producing a pathological and desperate nihilism that is increasingly common and, at the same time, a pronounced proclivity for the ideological certainty that mimics but cannot replace true religious belief. Both consequences are bound to be, as the evidence certainly indicates, divisive and truly dangerous.
I think the Faculty of Divinity made a serious error of judgement in rescinding their offer to me (and I’m speaking about those unnamed persons who made that specific decision). I think they handled publicizing the rescindment in a manner that could hardly have been more narcissistic, self-congratulatory and devious.
I believe that the parties in question don’t give a damn about the perilous decline of Christianity, and I presume in any case that they regard that faith, in their propaganda-addled souls, as the ultimate manifestation of the oppressive Western patriarchy, despite their hypothetical allegiance to their own discipline.
I think that it is no bloody wonder that the faith is declining (and with it, the values of the West, as it fragments) with cowards and mountebanks of the sort who manifested themselves today at the helm.
I wish them the continued decline in relevance over the next few decades that they deeply and profoundly and diligently work toward and deserve.
P.S. I also find it interesting and deeply revealing that I know the names of the people who invited me, both informally and formally, but the names of the people who have disinvited me remain shrouded in exactly the kind of secrecy that might be expected from hidden, conspiratorial, authoritarian and cowardly bureaucrats. How many were there? No one knows. By what process did they come to the decision (since there were obviously people who wanted me there)? No one knows. On what grounds was the decision made? That has not been revealed. What role was played by pressure from, for example, the CUSU? That’s apparently no one’s business. It is on such ground that tyranny does not so much grow as positively thrive.
P.P.S. Here’s something from Vice-Chancellor Professor Stephen Toope of the University of Cambridge that’s worth consideration, in the current context (the described “openness” is apparently part of the university’s declared strategic initiatives regarding (what else) equality and diversity (bold mine):
One very specific aspect of…openness is being inclusive, and open to diversity in all its forms – diversity of interests and beliefs, of gender, of religion, of sexual identity, of ethnicity, of physical ability.
imagine being too transphobic to write bible stories
holy shit he's so mad
Last edited:
He's quite vindictive really. Doesn't like criticism or rejection, at all
what a whopping great cnut of a man
It’s funny how butthurt he is over being rejected by the same ‘left wing academia’ he so despised.
I mean, it's not obvious, is it?
Is he actually a bible carrying Christian himself?
He's such a flog.
He’s unbearably long winded. Written word or verbally. So much so you feel like a masochist trying to follow whatever the feck he’s saying.
He’s not wrong in this instance though. The way he’s being treated as some sort of evil pariah by certain people/academic institutions is laughably knee-jerk, hysterical nonsense.
He’s not wrong in this instance though. The way he’s being treated as some sort of evil pariah by certain people/academic institutions is laughably knee-jerk, hysterical nonsense.
So someone with zero academic credentials in theology is mad because Cambridge doesn't want him to speak. The real controversy is how the hell does someone whose only credentials are youtube views get invited to Cambridge in the first place?
I couldnt read it through to work out whether he was right or wrong because of what you said in the first part, so I appreciate the translation: if you say he has a point on this occasion I defer to your judgement.
There is overlap between most science and social science disciplines. Doesn't mean that he is any more qualified and certainly isn't entitled to speak somewhere academic regarding it over anyone else with a social science degree. Using Youtube views to make a case for why he should be entitled to speak at Cambridge is amateur as feck and comes off so arrogant and anti-intellectual at the same time.
The amount of entitlement from some of these wind-up speakers would be humorous if their supporters didn't get so aggressive over it.
Leave Kermit alone you libtards.
You can disinvite him from your campus all you like, it’s the prerogative of that university. It’s the people who act like he’s some kind of Nazi that baffle me. He’s long-winded and pretentious, but he isn’t saying anything too controversial, really.
He is not entitled to that either.
He is throwing a hissy fit but its not understandable at all. Its acting entitled and arrogant in ways that only these wind-up speakers act (I know he insists he is a liberal and not right wing). No just because you make troll videos on Youtube doesn't mean you are entitled to a visiting fellowship in an academic setting like Cambridge. Cambridge is allowed to make these choices. He can bitch and whine like a spoiled baby all he wants but there is nothing wrong with what Cambridge did.
Yes, I agree. Racists deserve respect too.
He said he’s not right wing. Not the same as saying he’s left wing
he also said he only ate beef for 6 months
You're saying he's always been open about being a conservative when he says he isn't there. For wiw i think he's mostly harmless because he has absolutely nothing to say bar a load of fluff mixed with some quack theology and basic self help tips. He's no white supremacist
Agreed. Also kudos on the “for wiw” workaround. Been bugging me having to type that in full.
The best thing about these YouTube darkwebbers is that they have all the horrible social views of the old philosophers but none of the rigorous enquiry. So now you can be a misogynist, a racist and a lobster without needing to strive for coherence. There's a ready made audience of the credulous and casually bigoted to defend you - as above (so bellow).
I think if you applied more academic rigor to his post you would see that's in fact not what he was saying.