Jordan Peterson on JRE

[Shapecharge]

I bet you're just a riot at a party.

[Blaidd Drwg]

Fair enough, Spells.

I think if you "gleaned" that much from the first HH you are waaaay overreaching..but fair enough. Biases are what they are.


Your take on Communism (wrong target) and Marxism in higher ed is dead wrong, I'd encourage you to dig much much deeper. Cultural Marxism is the predominant narrative in humanities dept.s

[powerlifter54]

Was lukewarm on Rogan, always saw him as a less bright Henry Rollins who actually could kick my ass, but after hearing his Louie Simmons interview i changed my mind on Rogan. Somebody that dumb about PEDs couldn't kick anybody's ass.

[Blaidd Drwg]

Was lukewarm on Rogan, always saw him as a less bright Henry Rollins who actually could kick my ass, but after hearing his Louie Simmons interview i changed my mind on Rogan. Somebody that dumb about PEDs couldn't kick anybody's ass.

There's a small part of me that believes he may play intentionally stupid on that subject given the level of it he has to be exposed to at this point...plus he's on TRT himself.

That said, this is his best interview ever as far as staying quiet...he's got a few people hew does that with consistently. Steve Rinella and to a certain degree, Sam Harris

[Testiclaw]

I enjoy Sam Harris' visits to his show.

It's nice to hear Harris with the opportunity to be a little more off the cuff.

[TerryB]

Fair enough, Spells.

You totally pussed out, man!

[Shafpocalypse Now]

National Socialism and Soviet style communism are not opposite ends of the political spectrum. Rather they are close to each other on whatever side you put them on, if not occupying identical space

[Blaidd Drwg]

National Socialism and Soviet style communism are not opposite ends of the political spectrum. Rather they are close to each other on whatever side you put them on, if not occupying identical space

Truly.

If Spells had listened longer he might have gotten passed this tertiary declaration that the dude is essentially just a reflex conservative.
In retrospect, Spells extended commentary is consistent with the experience of a person who listened briefly, didn't bother to reflect on what little he heard and then then busted out a stream of unrelated text....But who among us hasn't? Everyone wants to IGX....

I'd urge anyone, even Spells to give Peterson an additional look...at the very least take a hard look at the legislation those poor Kanucks just passed. It should be deeply disturbing to you regardless of where you fall on the gender color wheel or however they are breaking it down this week.

[bennyonesix]

For reference, here is the text of the Bill: House Gov Bill C-16.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications ... Id=8280564

As I read it, "gender identity or expression" is almost entirely undefined in the bill.

[Shafpocalypse Now]

So, 'gender identification' . There are only 2 genders. 3 if you count hermaphrodites? Where is he pulling that bullshit other kin stuff from?

[bennyonesix]

No. The opposite I think. Who says gender is binary? Me? You? They don't care what we think. "Gender identification" is whatever the judiciary says it is. That's his whole argument. The other-kin say it is gender. Who are you to deny?

[Turdacious]

For reference, here is the text of the Bill: House Gov Bill C-16.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications ... Id=8280564

As I read it, "gender identity or expression" is almost entirely undefined in the bill.

Parliament is leaving it for the bureaucracy and the judiciary to define-- which they apparently have.

[dead man walking]

No. The opposite I think. Who says gender is binary? Me? You? They don't care what we think. "Gender identification" is whatever the judiciary says it is. That's his whole argument. The other-kin say it is gender. Who are you to deny?

judeo-christian tradition and biology say gender is binary. miley cyrus et al say gender is a spectrum.

the fight isn't simply about gender and trannies. it's about authority and norms/orthodoxy.

god may be dead.

thousands of years of western civilization are being challenged with arguments about whether the proper pronoun is he, she, they, it, or pussywillow and about who can piss in what bathroom. this debate isn't solely about discrimination, and it is not a matter of political correctness, it's about the foundational values on which society is built: known and certain (like the bible) or fluid and shifting (like whatever free-thinking secularists deem appropriate, based on reason, science, egalitarian ideals, and a pinch of crazy.)

but i'm not sure this challenge to absolute authority is anything new. imagine overthrowing a king who occupied his throne by divine right. that's kinda how we got started here.

[bennyonesix]

Great post DMW. And I think an honest and fair statement of your sides position. I would argue it is more like Nietzsche et al destroying the old age and ushering in WWI, but then I am a rightist. It is undeniable we are in the midst of a great civilizational tumult though. The forces of chaos and dissolution are afoot in the land.

Edit

One thing dmw, biology has nothing to say about gender. Biology says sex is binary. Seems small but I think important.

[dead man walking]

two quick responses:

as for "my side," i don't believe all that it says, believes, and what have you.

regarding binary sex/gender, point taken.

my compact oxford english dictionary from 1971 has nothing about "identity" in its definitions of gender. the 2000 edition of the american heritage dictionary has a first definition of gender that relates to grammatical categories, i.e. french nouns. it does note that it is increasingly the term is used for "sex-based based categories,' especially by anthropologists. gender is identity. sex is biology.

the definition of gender, like gender itself, has undergone a transition.

[Thud]

One thing dmw, biology has nothing to say about gender. Biology says sex is binary.

[bennyonesix]

Groace, yes, yes, no, yes

[bennyonesix]

two quick responses:

as for "my side," i don't believe all that it says, believes, and what have you.

regarding binary sex/gender, point taken.

my compact oxford english dictionary from 1971 has nothing about "identity" in its definitions of gender. the 2000 edition of the american heritage dictionary has a first definition of gender that relates to grammatical categories, i.e. french nouns. it does note that it is increasingly the term is used for "sex-based based categories,' especially by anthropologists. gender is identity. sex is biology.

the definition of gender, like gender itself, has undergone a transition.

Nice. The unmooring of words is what drives me nuts. But I am pretty autistic. Actually, it is the redefinition without acknowledgement that gets to me.

Also, the muh gay and tranny kid suicide argument gets me riled. But almost entirely because of its disingenuousness. There is only one suicide epidemic and its white men.

2016_04_22-SuicideRates-KK-racegender.r33536032366.png (28.99 KiB) Viewed 5979 times

[dead man walking]

The unmooring of words is what drives me nuts. . . .

as values lose their moorings, it seems reasonable to expect that words also will also go adrift.

perhaps the current cultural turmoil explains the rise of crossfit, which is to training what a tranny is to virility.

[Sangoma]

I am half way through the podcast and enjoying it. One note - the reference to the USSR and Marxism. I am not sure if Peterson read Das Kapital, but most people who mention Marx never did. Marx was an outstanding economist and is considered one of the pillars of economics, along with Adam Smith and Keynes. Marxist ideas are way more than promoting Communism, where everybody is equal and goods are distributed for free and everything is shared.

Whatever the essence of Marxism, USSR is often mentioned as the example of failure of Marxist ideas. But USSR was not Communism. Rather, it was badly run dictatorial Socialism. Sure, Marx was continuously mentioned as the basis of the political makeup, but it was not true. You could as well take Soviet Constitution - which was impeccable in terms of human rights and freedom - and make an argument that that was the reason for the hardship in USSR. No, it wasn't, just like the utopian ideas were not. As I said, it was badly run and Socialism, permeated by twisted ideology and corruption, run by uneducated idiots. Repressions served two goals: intimidation and cheap labor. Most European countries, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, to name some,. run more proper versions of Socialism, and a lot of it is based on Marxist ideas.

As far as gender, trans-gender and other politically correct aspects of modern society Petersen is talking about I completely agree. Policies that cover these topics are completely fucked up. I personally couldn't give less fuck about what kind of sexual relation other people want to engage in, as long as I am not forced to participate. If you're transgender tell me what you want me to call you and I will. Similarly, feminism has gone completely out of whack, and I am glad there are academics who are not afraid to talk about it.

[bennyonesix]

Serious question. How is what you wrote not the one true scotsman fallacy applied to communism?

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... none of them were Communist if you listen to some people.

[Turdacious]

I am half way through the podcast and enjoying it. One note - the reference to the USSR and Marxism. I am not sure if Peterson read Das Kapital, but most people who mention Marx never did. Marx was an outstanding economist and is considered one of the pillars of economics, along with Adam Smith and Keynes.

Eh? Which of Marx's economic ideas holds up today? He is to economics what Doctor Oz to medicine.

[Sangoma]

Serious question. How is what you wrote not the one true scotsman fallacy applied to communism?

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... none of them were Communist if you listen to some people.

You illustrate the point I made in the first paragraph very well: people talk about Marxism without reading a single line of his work. If you took trouble to look up the definition of Communism you will see that none of these countries had it. USSR and others were ruled by the Communist countries, but the official social order was non-market Socialism. The proof that it was true is in the legal system that acknowledged individual and state property, something that's absent in Communist society.

The model closest to Communism exists in Israel - Kibbutzim are running on the principle of common property and their members are not paid.

[Sangoma]

I am half way through the podcast and enjoying it. One note - the reference to the USSR and Marxism. I am not sure if Peterson read Das Kapital, but most people who mention Marx never did. Marx was an outstanding economist and is considered one of the pillars of economics, along with Adam Smith and Keynes.

Eh? Which of Marx's economic ideas holds up today? He is to economics what Doctor Oz to medicine.

1. Surplus value
2. Instability of Capitalist economy
3. Globalisation of Capitalism
4. Monopolisation of the economy
5. Skewed accumulation of wealth
6. Surplus army of workers
7. Imaginary appetites

That's from the top of my head and not even scratching the surface.

[Turdacious]

I am half way through the podcast and enjoying it. One note - the reference to the USSR and Marxism. I am not sure if Peterson read Das Kapital, but most people who mention Marx never did. Marx was an outstanding economist and is considered one of the pillars of economics, along with Adam Smith and Keynes.

Eh? Which of Marx's economic ideas holds up today? He is to economics what Doctor Oz to medicine.

1. Surplus value
2. Instability of Capitalist economy
3. Globalisation of Capitalism
4. Monopolisation of the economy
5. Skewed accumulation of wealth
6. Surplus army of workers
7. Imaginary appetites

Most of that is built on David Ricardo's work-- and while Ricardo holds up, Marx's adaptation doesn't. Keynes said it best, calling Das Kapital "an obsolete textbook which I know to be not only scientifically erroneous but without interest or application for the modern world."