Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles


Timbermen

Recommended Posts

@GLASSJAW Very nicely put by Chomsky, and the reason that having a discourse within the framework that's set out by the media of today is futile.  It's become an insult to one's intelligence to the point that I would rather follow sports which give me entertainment and joy.  No, I don't know the players, but it's a hobby that's currently keeping me from having to study for my 4th year electrical course ;) 

 

Sidenote: I got to experience the absurdity of the western media firsthand during the Yugoslavia conflict, and at one point living in the west and seeing what's being shown on CNN, Fox and even CBC.  Last 20 years have done nothing to change my mind on it, in a positive way.  Seeing countries being turned upside down by staged coups, only for the media to not even question that but just stage the whole conversation around how bad the old leader was, is mind blowing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Gnarcore said:

 

Solid video.  I wonder what JP's reasoning for cancelling was.  I'd love to see a debate between Peterson and Wolff.  I agreed with most of what he said except the theory of course, and the whole hierarchy thing at the end.  Thanks for sharing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BoKnows said:

Solid video.  I wonder what JP's reasoning for cancelling was.  I'd love to see a debate between Peterson and Wolff.  I agreed with most of what he said except the theory of course, and the whole hierarchy thing at the end.  Thanks for sharing!

Timber posted some stuff (didn't watch)  about the left. Abby is a great voice of the left but with some out there ideas. I go from really right to really left depending on the issue. However, I fell in love with Martin and her stance on Israel after seeing her on Joe Rogan's podcast.  

 

I have a profound love for smart brunettes. Always and always will. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gnarcore said:

Timber posted some stuff (didn't watch)  about the left. Abby is a great voice of the left but with some out there ideas. I go from really right to really left depending on the issue. However, I fell in love with Martin and her stance on Israel after seeing her on Joe Rogan's podcast.  

 

I have a profound love for smart brunettes. Always and always will. 

I don't watch half the stuff in here, if it's by Shapiro, Crowder, and any of those right-leaning "celebs" I refuse to watch it.  Gone down that rabbit hole before and don't feel like doing it again.

 

I enjoyed that video you posted though, hearing things that don't fit my narrative is really important.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BoKnows said:

I don't watch half the stuff in here, if it's by Shapiro, Crowder, and any of those right-leaning "celebs" I refuse to watch it.  Gone down that rabbit hole before and don't feel like doing it again.

 

I enjoyed that video you posted though, hearing things that don't fit my narrative is really important.

 

 

Here she in on JRE last year. It's a really good watch as well :)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2020 at 3:08 PM, VancouverHabitant said:

I only heard about this Jordan dude recently because a woman was telling me about his criticism of gender equality and how it's being implemented.  

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but his view is that it should be equality of opportunity instead of equality of outcome, meaning that everyone should be considered for potential employment/position but that it should still be given out on merit as opposed to having a goal of hiring 50% men, 50% women.  

 

Anyways, quite liked that idea and I come here to find out there's a 30 page thread on the dude...  so I have a question, why would you all spend so much of your time on this type of entertainment?  It leads to a lot of arguing, negative feelings and can be quite polarizing.  I suppose it's better then just pure politics, but I still look at these talking heads and see nothing but "I'm right, you're wrong" type of flaunting that doesn't accomplish anything. 

 

I've also noticed a lot of character assassination that is becoming more prevalent.  Like whoever posted that picture of Jordan with that dude wearing an Islamophobia shirt, without giving Jordan's quote about not being happy about the picture but being for freedom of speech.  It's kind of disingenuous and really the reason that the common man gets turned off of news and all this stupid talk going on.  You never hear the complete picture, just what one side wants you to see/think.  

 

Rant over, carry on this debate for the next 30 pages, I'll be in the Canucks section. 

Blatant misinformation needs to be contested because the consequences can be disastrous.


Its vital to push back against dudes like Peterson and his unfalsifiable woo for much the same reason as its important to push back against people who deny global warming, or those who don't believe in evolution, or those who think the world is flat, or those who claim that condoms cause (rather then prevent) STDs to spread (This list goes on for a very long time)

 

Its important work that is badly needed in as much abundance as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Red Light Racicot said:

Blatant misinformation needs to be contested because the consequences can be disastrous.


Its vital to push back against dudes like Peterson and his unfalsifiable woo for much the same reason as its important to push back against people who deny global warming, or those who don't believe in evolution, or those who think the world is flat, or those who claim that condoms cause (rather then prevent) STDs to spread (This list goes on for a very long time)

 

Its important work that is badly needed in as much abundance as possible.

I'm just curious to what exactly we should push back on, Jordan Peterson says a lot of stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BoKnows said:

 

His response makes sense, some of his points I thought were wrong.  I don't even know if this guy is a marxist, or just studies it.  After listening to him a few times now, I still feel very strongly against marxism.

 

A good point Wolff does make tho is that there isn't just "Marxism" - its a very wide subject area with many different views and interpretations. Most people don't take the time to bother to examine it that way, so its easy for some to throw out very superficial arguments against "Marxism" that a particular researcher may never have put forward.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

 

A good point Wolff does make tho is that there isn't just "Marxism" - its a very wide subject area with many different views and interpretations. Most people don't take the time to bother to examine it that way, so its easy for some to throw out very superficial arguments against "Marxism" that a particular researcher may never have put forward.

 

 

 

 

 

That's very true, marxism seems to be used are some umbrella term for socialism, communism, Maoism, Leninism, etc.  My gripe is that some of the arguments Wolff talks about aren't good in my opinion.  He said something along the line of "under capitalism you don't have freedom", which I think is blatantly false.  The other argument he commonly talks about is the exploitation of the working class.  I think this is a horrible argument against capitalism for multiple reasons.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, BoKnows said:

He said something along the line of "under capitalism you don't have freedom", which I think is blatantly false.  The other argument he commonly talks about is the exploitation of the working class.  I think this is a horrible argument against capitalism for multiple reasons.

The full statement was 'under capitalism you don't have freedom, equality and fraternity'...I don't know if we have those three things.

 

Did these two ever have a debate? 

Edited by bishopshodan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

The full statement was 'under capitalism you don't have freedom, equality and fraternity'...I don't know if we have those three things.

 

Did these two ever have a debate? 

Under those three I'd say we don't have equality but we have freedom and fraternity.

 

I don't think they debated and they probably will never end up debating unless JP's health does a 180 for the better.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, BoKnows said:

That's very true, marxism seems to be used are some umbrella term for socialism, communism, Maoism, Leninism, etc.  My gripe is that some of the arguments Wolff talks about aren't good in my opinion.  He said something along the line of "under capitalism you don't have freedom", which I think is blatantly false.  The other argument he commonly talks about is the exploitation of the working class.  I think this is a horrible argument against capitalism for multiple reasons.

its true in the sense that you don't have complete freedom. He's an academic, they like arguments like that. 

 

Capitalism - the way we're doing it today - does allow exploitation tho. Just look at how we treat people who work part time, its pretty bad.

 

The other issue I have with the superficial attacks - which is one of reasons i don't like guys like Peterson and Shaprio - is that they are so superficial they only work on people unfamiliar with the subject matter.

 

Marxism = bad, right? thats an easy one. Or is it? Marx advocated strongly for a free press. Does that mean a free press must now be thrown out? But...Stalin.... but Stalin didn't actually follow a lot of Marx's ideas. 

 

These superficial videos don't really teach us anything substantial. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

its true in the sense that you don't have complete freedom. He's an academic, they like arguments like that. 

 

Capitalism - the way we're doing it today - does allow exploitation tho. Just look at how we treat people who work part time, its pretty bad.

 

The other issue I have with the superficial attacks - which is one of reasons i don't like guys like Peterson and Shaprio - is that they are so superficial they only work on people unfamiliar with the subject matter.

 

Marxism = bad, right? thats an easy one. Or is it? Marx advocated strongly for a free press. Does that mean a free press must now be thrown out? But...Stalin.... but Stalin didn't actually follow a lot of Marx's ideas. 

 

These superficial videos don't really teach us anything substantial. 

I don't understand his take on freedom then.  To me we're free because we have freedom of choice on work, spending, living, etc.

 

I also don't really agree with Karl Marx's definition of exploitation.  Anyone is able to start their own company, and quit a job if they don't like it.  The real kick in the balls is the million regulations/hoops the government makes you jump through before you can even open your doors.  The government should make it easier to start companies not insanely annoying and difficult to the point where people give up.  For the part-time workers, if there's a legitimate reason why they're limited to only work part-time hours there should be a program in place to help them out.  

 

The whole idea of "Seizing the means of production" so the working class isn't "exploited" is a flawed ideology.

 

I do agree with you on these superficial videos though, they're meant to install fear into people and teach them very little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...