Jordan Peterson Is Canada's Most Infamous Intellectual - General

Sorry for the bump, but now that Vice has come under fire from cutting the interview up, they released a longer version, and if you compare it to what they actually released it's quite illuminating. I mean, if you can watch this and not feel like he was being mis-represented, then I don't know what to say. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZrSrZpX5l8[/media]

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53159535]Sorry for the bump, but now that Vice has come under fire from cutting the interview up, they released a longer version, and if you compare it to what they actually released it's quite illuminating. I mean, if you can watch this and not feel like he was being mis-represented, then I don't know what to say. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZrSrZpX5l8[/media][/QUOTE] The interviewers reply on why they not just releasing the full interview was already wonky. [t]https://i.redd.it/173fw89qclg01.jpg[/t] Now we know they edited segments, that were minutes apart, to appear as sentence-to-sentence replies. I am use obvious cuts for time purposes, but that is pathetic. Ironically, Vice has had some major trouble lately in one area; [media]https://youtu.be/LBVJsAGwQB4[/media]

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53159535]Sorry for the bump, but now that Vice has come under fire from cutting the interview up, they released a longer version, and if you compare it to what they actually released it's quite illuminating. I mean, if you can watch this and not feel like he was being mis-represented, then I don't know what to say. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZrSrZpX5l8[/media][/QUOTE] He's still a disgusting pig in this though??? I don't have time to watch all 20 mins right now, but his 'point' between 3:15 - 4:10ish is abhorrent, and that's just like 2 minutes into the new footage lol.

[QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;53160511]He's still a disgusting pig in this though??? I don't have time to watch all 20 mins right now, but his 'point' between 3:15 - 4:10ish is abhorrent, and that's just like 2 minutes into the new footage lol.[/QUOTE] If that point is so abhorrent, then please explain why it is? He said that it is not clear that those are 'seperate worlds' or issues, and to make quasi-intellectual appeal to correlation vs causation is entirely missing the point. He is saying that it is not clear where these delimiations exist psychologically, and in an industry where sexuality is admitedly a key component, it is not clear that we have taken anything near the required precaution to ensure that first of all we are not creating an environment where rules are blurred, and secondly that we are not creating an environment of overly-sexualized people(minds). His point is basically a sexually conservative point about the sort of culture and environment that many of the main groups in hollywood have fostered thus far. The interviewer then tries to make it sound like JP is saying an individual shouldn't speak out, and JP says thats not what he's saying, and secondly the interviewer tries to say JP is saying that hollywood in general shouldnt speak on this topic, and he also denies that and says that they should speak [i]carefully[/i], especially given the less than sexually conservative attitude it has fostered thus far by selling sex (which, to be fair, isn't a new thing).

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53160553]If that point is so abhorrent, then please explain why it is? He said that it is not clear that those are 'seperate worlds' or issues, and to make quasi-intellectual appeal to correlation vs causation is entirely missing the point. He is saying that it is not clear where these delimiations exist psychologically, and in an industry where sexuality is admitedly a key component, it is not clear that we have taken anything near the required precaution to ensure that first of all we are not creating an environment where rules are blurred, and secondly that we are not creating an environment of overly-sexualized people(minds). His point is basically a sexually conservative point about the sort of culture and environment that many of the main groups in hollywood have fostered thus far. The interviewer then tries to make it sound like JP is saying an individual shouldn't speak out, and JP says thats not what he's saying, and secondly the interviewer tries to say JP is saying that hollywood in general shouldnt speak on this topic, and he also denies that and says that they should speak [I]carefully[/I], especially given the less than sexually conservative attitude it has fostered thus far by selling sex (which, to be fair, isn't a new thing).[/QUOTE] He is placing the blame on the women for being a part of a male dominated industry, and is doing everything he can to imply that they should expect sexual advances or even assault, without saying it as explicitly as that(which is all the coward ever fucking doessss). Like listen to yourself, fuck. [QUOTE]and he also denies that and says that they should speak carefully[/QUOTE] How is that ok in any way??? Why should a woman trying to make a living in an industry she is passionate about, have to "speak carefully" about any sexual advances she has had to deal with? If she was sexually assaulted or harassed by someone, she owes them NOTHING, and should not have to take into consideration their poor little feelings dude, jesus

[QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;53160511]He's still a disgusting pig in this though??? I don't have time to watch all 20 mins right now, but his 'point' between 3:15 - 4:10ish is abhorrent, and that's just like 2 minutes into the new footage lol.[/QUOTE] "I don't have time to watch all 20 minutes" AKA "I don't care about making an argument regarding the broader context"

[QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;53160677]He is placing the blame on the women for being a part of a male dominated industry, and is doing everything he can to imply that they should expect sexual advances or even assault, without saying it as explicitly as that(which is all the coward ever fucking doessss). Like listen to yourself, fuck. [B]How is that ok in any way??? Why should a woman trying to make a living in an industry she is passionate about, have to "speak carefully" about any sexual advances she has had to deal with? If she was sexually assaulted or harassed by someone, she owes them NOTHING, and should not have to take into consideration their poor little feelings dude, jesus[/B][/QUOTE] You realize the 'speak carefully' part was directed at the industry representatives and large initiatives, not individuals. I mean, maybe I used one too many commas, but I did try to make the as explicit as possible. He did NOT say the blame is placed on the women, certainly not solely (as he says the degree to which we are all complicit in this atmosphere is unclear), he is saying there is probably some blame, or discussion to be had, on the general practices of the larger industry. Furthermore, when that industry decides to speak on general terms, it should also recognize its own role and not pretend as though it has some moral high ground, or lack of complicity. I mean, yet again, the thing being attacked is the literal opposite of what he was saying when he made a specific distinction.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53160691]You realize the 'speak carefully' part was directed at the industry representatives and large initiatives, not individuals. I mean, maybe I used one too many commas, but I did try to make the as explicit as possible. He did NOT say the blame is placed on the women, certainly not solely (as he says the degree to which we are all complicit in this atmosphere is unclear), he is saying there is probably some blame, or discussion to be had, on the general practices of the larger industry. Furthermore, when that industry decides to speak on general terms, it should also recognize its own role and not pretend as though it has some moral high ground, or lack of complicity. I mean, yet again, you have taken the literal opposite of what he was saying when he made a specific distinction.[/QUOTE] You can say whatever you want I guess, but that is definitely not what he meant, like [I]at all[/I]? he literally says that the women who are dedicating their lives to acting and so on, are inherently [URL="https://youtu.be/DZrSrZpX5l8?t=288"]contributing to Hollywood's culture of sexual harassment/abuse by choosing to take part in something completely beyond their control[/URL](with releasing their experiences to the press being their only means of wrangling any semblance of control, which he argues they shouldn't do go figure). He says it in a surprisingly clear manner at that, without attempting to mask it behind pretty sounding words. Basically, he is arguing that for women to be against the issues within Hollywood, they should just never go into acting at all if they don't want to deal with the harassment. Absolutely backwards bullshit that lacks any basis in reality, and I will no longer be participating in this ridiculous nonsense. Thanks for at least taking the effort to respond though I guess, rather than just dipping, but ya this is all far too absolutely ridiculous to me.

[QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;53160706]You can say whatever you want I guess, but that is definitely not what he meant, like [I]at all[/I]? he literally says that the women who are dedicating their lives to acting and so on, are inherently [URL="https://youtu.be/DZrSrZpX5l8?t=288"]contributing to Hollywood's culture of sexual harassment/abuse by choosing to take part in something completely beyond their control[/URL]. He says it in a surprisingly clear manner at that, without attempting to mask it behind pretty sounding words. Basically, he is arguing that for women to be against the issues within Hollywood, they should just never go into acting at all if they don't want to deal with the harassment. Absolutely backwards bullshit that lacks any basis in reality, and I will no longer be participating in this ridiculous nonsense. Thanks for at least taking the effort to respond though I guess, rather than just dipping, but ya this is all far too absolutely ridiculous to me.[/QUOTE] Just slow down with me here. Who do you think the "they" he is talking about is? I guess you assume he is talking about women and not hollywood. [editline]25th February 2018[/editline] The quote you linked: "So you think hollywood doesn't exploit sex? Hasn't the feminist been saying that for 30 years? The entire entertainment industry does nothing but exploit women sexually. Is that true or not? And if that is true, then aren't [B]they[/B] contributing to the problem?"

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53160707]Just slow down with me here. Who do you think the "they" he is talking about is? I guess you assume he is talking about women and not hollywood.[/QUOTE] Women are a part of Hollywood, and are clearly the part of Hollywood that those two are talking about. It's made clear at 3:20, when he refers to "all these people coming out of Hollywood". Yes both men and women have been coming out with stories, but the women outweigh the men tenfold(naturally, given the gender disparity within it, especially in positions of control such as producers and directors), and the women have been the ones catching the brunt of the flack, not the men who have released stories. How many people defended Kevin Spacey, and went after his [B]male[/B] accuser? It is very clear that the two are referring to the women coming out of Hollywood, and all this right now is just semantics.

[QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;53160711]Women are a part of Hollywood, and are clearly the part of Hollywood that those two are talking about. It's made clear at 3:20, when he refers to "all these people coming out of Hollywood". Yes both men and women have been coming out with stories, but the women outweigh the men tenfold(naturally, given the gender disparity within it, especially in positions of control such as producers and directors), and the women have been the ones catching the brunt of the flack, not the men who have released stories. How many people defended Kevin Spacey, and went after his [B]male[/B] accuser? It is very clear that the two are referring to the women coming out of Hollywood, and all this right now is just semantics.[/QUOTE] Given the fact he uses a sentence where the subject is hollywood('the entertainment industry') and the object is women I think he is drawing a pretty important distinction, but if you refuse to hear me out then fine. [editline]25th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;53160711] It is very clear that the two are referring to the women coming out of Hollywood, and all this right now is just semantics.[/QUOTE] So it's not possible he is talking about the overall environment that hollywood (which is made up by interests comprised of a variety of people) has fostered? I mean, you are really reading into it a lot when he goes to the effort of making the distinction and calling out hollywood for bad practices - not the women that are subjected to it.

[QUOTE=J!NX;53160684]"I don't have time to watch all 20 minutes" AKA "I don't care about making an argument regarding the broader context"[/QUOTE] i've heard jordan peterson say enough disgusting shit that i wouldn't wade through an extra 20 minutes of footage either on the off-chance maybe something he says is slightly less gross. i've heard enough from him that he gets none of my respect and no more views from me. why do his supporters seem to insist we watch more of him before we have a valid opinion. like we'll suddenly here some insight that makes all his weird sexist remarks go away? the only extra context which would change anything is if the full sentence was "women only dress up nice for men to look at... just kidding!"

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53159535]Sorry for the bump, but now that Vice has come under fire from cutting the interview up, they released a longer version, and if you compare it to what they actually released it's quite illuminating. I mean, if you can watch this and not feel like he was being mis-represented, then I don't know what to say. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZrSrZpX5l8[/media][/QUOTE] There is an awful lot of victim blaming going on here. He is acting as if the people who were abused brought it onto themselves. At the start, he says that by being complicit in the provocativeness in movies, by acting in a sexual manner in them, you are opening yourself to being sexually abused. Later, he goes on by asking if make-up, high heels, or flirting should be allowed in the workplace, since they are based on sexual attractiveness. But all these things are just based around the victim. What is she doing that's making her be abused? How should he not act to be more likely to not be grabbed in his private parts? It's the same thing as the old argument of "she shouldn't have been wearing such revealing clothes if she didn't want to be attacked", but with a new coat of paint for the professional sector. This is a problem I have with his entire argument. He is trying to set rules the abused can follow to limit their attractiveness to the other gender, not changing the mind or the understanding of the abuser.

[QUOTE=goluffy;53160744] This is a problem I have with his entire argument. [B]He is trying to set rules the abused can follow to limit their attractiveness to the other gender, not changing the mind or the understanding of the abuser.[/B][/QUOTE] I don't really see it that way. He clearly has his sight on the over-sexually-liberal males as well, and goes on about them at length in other talks. He is no friend of people who think it is even remotely correct to grab someone by the whatever, and he even states as much. Beyond that, however, how much more is there to say beyond the fact that the men who do it are in the wrong to the extent that they are breaking the rules? The question then becomes: Is telling the abuser's 'no bad!' all that its going to take to end harassment in the workplace? If yes, then how long before that happens? If not, then what else has to happen and who else needs to follow rules? Let us assume for a second that he is making a non-gendered argument about the likelihood of workplace sexual harassment as it relates to general work-place conduct, and whether we really want to impose such extra rules so as to eliminate it completely. (spoiler: he doesn't) He thinks there it is unclear what should be done beyond this point short of a toning down of our sexualized culture (which is his stance afaik) or, if you think its the way to go, mandating draconian workplace restrictions on co-worker interactions.

Wait, since when has a cut down interview, an incredibly normal and actually important part of interviews that have been part of the industry since time immemorial, suddenly a bad thing? Does that mean Project Veritas, who also knowingly cut up their undercover videos and upload those days before the full video goes up, is also guilty of misinforming people?

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53160787]Wait, since when has a cut down interview, an incredibly normal and actually important part of interviews that have been part of the industry since time immemorial, suddenly a bad thing? Does that mean Project Veritas, who also knowingly cut up their undercover videos and upload those days before the full video goes up, is also guilty of misinforming people?[/QUOTE] If they chopped up the sentences to make them seem sensational and then left out the parts that make them seem at least understandable then yeah, but I don't think what-aboutism is what's needed here. [editline]25th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=gtanoofa;53138650]I dunno. I’d say people who cat call in the first place would cat call anyone anyway and policing a woman’s/man’s clothing is part of rape culture and blaming the victim instead of the perpetrator and why it happens in the first place. [B]What Peterson is implying here is that men can’t control their urges and will act upon them which I think is not the case.[/B][/QUOTE] I agree with you almost. I think he is implying that there will be people who can't control their urges, or are otherwise prone to having less self control. These people will always exist. He isn't saying any given man with any given woman will produce harassment, but rather that statistically speaking, in our current environment, it seems to be the result every now and then for some reason. It seems to me that besides just reminding everyone that harassment is bad, it is not unreasonable to ask what else should be done, and to think through the options calmly and rationally. Just because something is proposed (like the makeup thing) doesn't mean it has to happen, and furthermore he is against that kind of banning.

[QUOTE=gtanoofa;53160839]yet a lot of people justify the actions of someone because "She was wearing a skirt, clearly asking for it" when it was the perpetrator who was completely in the fault.[/QUOTE] I think anyone who wishes to justify such actions is thoroughly in the wrong, and I'd hope that that stops being a thing as well. Also, to rekindle the discussion, on the point that Jordan Peterson is making a mountain out of the molehill that is critical theory, I found this video which makes the problematic aspects of its current influence at least more visible, if not completely agreeable to all; [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIOX1hVRE8Y[/media] I again admit that I may not have the same level of experience with this school of thought as others, so I welcome posters such as Ziks, Crumpet and other people familiar with critical theory to comment. This is an area in which I currently lack.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53163257]I think anyone who wishes to justify such actions is thoroughly in the wrong, and I'd hope that that stops being a thing as well. Also, to rekindle the discussion, on the point that Jordan Peterson is making a mountain out of the molehill that is critical theory, I found this video which makes the problematic aspects of its current influence at least more visible, if not completely agreeable to all; I again admit that I may not have the same level of experience with this school of thought as others, so I welcome posters such as Ziks, Crumpet and other people familiar with critical theory to comment. This is an area in which I currently lack.[/QUOTE] Critical theory isn't a school of thought. Critical theory is a general term for the outcomes of scholarship, usually in philosophy or history or literature, on any given person's worldview via those fields preferred methodology and ethical framework. It's no single thing. Critical theory is also not "SJW" or whatever else pop culture wants to misapprehend it or brand it as. And if I can just skip ahead, this Jordan Peterson guy is taking advantage of exactly that ambiguity. He's a con. He's insinuated himself in this communicative gap to foment paranoia and position himself as both the universitarian and the everyman and savior to the latter. The myth of universities as effete strongholds for degenerate, fragile people isn't a new one and he's just the latest insignificant person to kick that can down the road. In actual universities, work continues as it always has, where real intellectuals work nose-to-grindstone without parading themselves on youtube and leaning on their affect to fake expertise and thereby take advantage of people like you, by which I simply mean people who happen to hear of him and take him at his word. I'll give you an example. I'm not sure who this guy on the right was in the interview, but he was apparently shocked to find that "objectivity" is questioned in this womens' studies textbook. I find that strange, given that many people, men, have questioned the idea of objectivity in very uncontroversial terms for arguably more than 2,000 years. The textbook is also not at all wrong in pointing out that we're sold on a definition of objectivity which is generally understood to be based in Western philosophy, which it ironically dishes out a few different ways. Philosophy is not a science. History is not a science. But here, that gender studies textbook is being presented to you in a context that introduces the idea and frames it in a way such as to seem outrageous. Business schools' textbooks can likewise be mocked if taken out of context - sometimes they're pretty absurd as it is. This guy is fucking with you. He's charismatic, in an anemic dogshit sort of way, but I can kind of see it. Don't buy it.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53160788]If they chopped up the sentences to make them seem sensational and then left out the parts that make them seem at least understandable then yeah, but I don't think what-aboutism is what's needed here.[/QUOTE] Less whataboutism, more hypocrisy.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53163257]I think anyone who wishes to justify such actions is thoroughly in the wrong, and I'd hope that that stops being a thing as well. Also, to rekindle the discussion, on the point that Jordan Peterson is making a mountain out of the molehill that is critical theory, I found this video which makes the problematic aspects of its current influence at least more visible, if not completely agreeable to all; [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIOX1hVRE8Y[/media] I again admit that I may not have the same level of experience with this school of thought as others, so I welcome posters such as Ziks, Crumpet and other people familiar with critical theory to comment. This is an area in which I currently lack.[/QUOTE] The prof that talks immediately departs reality and reveals his biases here. He says "I remember vividly on page 14 ... it said Objectivity as found through rational thought is a western and masculine concept that we will challenge throughout this text!" *googly eyes* (wow I can't believe this book is about to attack the thing I really really like it must be garbage) Then Peterson interjects and goes "it's too bad you're shocked by that because" and I had some hope that he'd call him out for reading 14 pages into what amazon describes as "[B]Paperback: 560 pages[/B]" but then no, it's just circlejerking. The teacher then follows it up with "I couldn't believe it so you want to go for irrational!?" proving that he just encountered an idea and dismissed it while imagining that he knew everything that the book was about to say. He got offended just like any "bad sjw". Embarassing. JBP is hanging out with a professor who got outraged because he didn't read and JBP is playing into it with his conspiracy theory again. They didn't discuss the book race, class, and gender (an anthology) they just discussed their feelings there. other misread: "I saw a paper called mathematics is whiteness I didn't know that mathematics could have a race (haha)" (from googling) this is a paper about how we view mathematicians as white and don't really talk about the nonwhite ones. There's like rational, normal explanations to most of these, it'd be nice to force them to read past the headlines but JBP at least gets some of his news from Campus Reform so even reading past the headline probably won't save him from being wrong there. As for the part about the hierarchy view of the world jbp does an all right definition but then he starts giving motives and pathologies and labels to everyone and then the conspiracy theory takes over. It's kinda like alex jones starting with frogs being turned gay by toxic waste (true) then hopping to "and the illuminati is gonna do it to your kids" (wat). These are not your freethinkers persecuted for speaking the truth, they're normal people that have been convinced that the sjws are taking over and the only way to fight back is to be a right wing sjw and get a victim complex and laugh at a fucking 560 page book because you got offended at an idea and decided that you know what the rest of the book says.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53163257]I think anyone who wishes to justify such actions is thoroughly in the wrong, and I'd hope that that stops being a thing as well. Also, to rekindle the discussion, on the point that Jordan Peterson is making a mountain out of the molehill that is critical theory, I found this video which makes the problematic aspects of its current influence at least more visible, if not completely agreeable to all; I again admit that I may not have the same level of experience with this school of thought as others, so I welcome posters such as Ziks, Crumpet and other people familiar with critical theory to comment. This is an area in which I currently lack.[/QUOTE] I notice he doesn't have a woman examining this textbook. Which isn't a problem in and of itself but I do not think these guys commenting on this are unbiased observers. [editline]27th February 2018[/editline] Also yeah critical theory can mean a boatload of different things. It would mean a different thing in film compared to philosophy.