Aftermath of the bigoted channel 4 interview and other sensationalist muckrakers.

[Deleted]

He is interesting guy, with decent experience in clinical psychology and so plenty of things he could (and did) share on that front, book being one of them.

Good for seeing some ideas clearly defined that really should be discussed rather then automatically assumed as true or false as well.

States plenty of "formerly common sense" things that went out of vogue now then supports them with his experiences.

A bit too trusting to Solzhenitsyn writings though.

hes a crank. a devout Christian crank. his manafactured persona seems to appeal to people who feel the need for an authority figure who can provide an external source of order and stability which is pretty much his shtick. Think he was dubbed the stupid mans smart person.

His followers love shouting 'strawman' ignoring his “Postmodernists” and Marxists scarecrows.

Sharp yup sure. But hes another snake oil for rubes. Hollow and vacuous.

[urasim]

I don’t follow the guy but from what I’ve seen he only doesn’t use transgender words I’m not sure how that incorages people scared of woman.

He covers this in the interview. He doesn't use them because he hates being forced to use them. He's taken a great deal of influence from the book Ordinary Men - Christopher Browning. He's said a few times that the reason why these ordinary men did extraordinarily bad things is because they were pushed a little bit at a time to do small bad things, and that led them to the point where they were doing very bad things towards the end. His stance is to not be bullied by people who want to force others to use certain words.

[Projectmars]

What point of the interview does that start? I watched about 5mins and closed out cause it was going down a weird path and was becoming pointless to watch.

throughout the entire interview.

how about, irrational feminist gets owned by logic, facts and reason?

funny, the guy never struck me as a feminist in his ramblings.

[urasim]

Yeah, it would be good if the people buying his books learned critical thought and analysis. I'm a little cynical and am going to assume it's like any other self help book sold for the sole purpose of profit.

You won't know until you read it.

He offers something like that for free online, and he has countless lectures on youtube for free, as well.

[Shalcker]

bigot bullies female interviewer. there's the tldr.

"Interviewer tries to bully interviewee in 'so you say <bigoted thing>?' - 'no, that's not what i said at all' kind of way, then gets caught in a contradiction created by her own words".

[Scathbais]

throughout the entire interview.



funny, the guy never struck me as a feminist in his ramblings.

You would be correct. Your power of observation is astounding!

[Feltima]

The conversation might be, but a lot of these people having the conversation aren't important enough to actually influence more than a small group. The conversation is important, but who is having it is a lot more important. This guy and Milo aren't, do they have a following yes, is it huge enough to create a law? Or large enough to sway a population? No probably not.

They needed someone as famous as Donald Trump to make that work, and that is going to back fire, because now we get fun presidential candidates like Oprah. The right is going to love that.

Again, conversations are important, but who is having them is equally as important. People have been warping reality with their narrow fringes for decades as well, but they rarely have a serious effect on the mass population as a whole. They win small victories for themselves then end up vanishing away as more people debunk them over and over again.

People become popular by speaking on these issues. Peterson may have an agenda, however, he is still contributing to the conversation, and considering that the interview went viral means he's impacting people to some extent. That video has over 2 million plus views, and went viral. I don't think that's a small group of people.

Nah, I don't think so. Nobody really knew who Sanders was before he started his campaign, and now he's the most popular politican in the US. All it takes is for someone to say the right (or wrong) thing at the right time and they suddenly have a major impact.

Indeed it is, but I do think you're underestimating the impact of people who aren't the elites of media/politics. Those who are debunked fade into the ether, however, there are many examples of people throughout history who don't fade into the darkness and instead become immortalized through their work.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

That's only a small part of his agenda. I'm not saying he's an idiot, just stating the obvious fact that he earns his money by saying what right wingers/islamo-/transphobes want to hear and raging against "SJW-Madness".

His funding through Patreon has increased from $1,000 per month in August 2016 to $14,000 by January 2017 to more than $50,000 by July 2017.[13][36][39]

The Rebel Media launched an Indiegogo campaign on Peterson's behalf.[74] The campaign raised $195,000 by its end on May 6, equivalent to over two years of research funding.[75] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rebel_Media

Yep, he has an agenda, and its serving him well.

I thought he was a teacher why does he need a patron or indiegogo..

Also rebel media are a bunch of hacks so that’s not a very good indoursment.

[Moralgy]

throughout the entire interview.



funny, the guy never struck me as a feminist in his ramblings.

Could you explain that? The little bit I watched seemed to point towards an interviewer throwing terrible questions out that were large leaps in logic. Maybe I'm missing context of the guy that caused those questions, but within the conversation, it felt like that dude was talking with a troll.

[Feltima]

throughout the entire interview.



funny, the guy never struck me as a feminist in his ramblings.

Huh, can you explain how he bullied her? I'm failing to grasp how exactly he was bullying when he didn't even bring the conversation to her personally until the end when he made the point about freedom of speech vs. a right to not be offended. He used the inteview itself which he admitted was making him uncomfortable, but important for people to see to discern truth.

[Shalcker]

hes a crank. a devout Christian crank. his manafactured persona seems to appeal to people who feel the need for an authority figure who can provide an external source of order and stability which is pretty much his shtick. Think he was dubbed the stupid mans smart person.

Well, plenty of people do happen to need that in modern world.

"Nothing is true" perspective is a bit too chaotic for normal humans to manage.

His followers love shouting 'strawman' ignoring his “Postmodernists” and Marxists scarecrows.

No large following has only smart people really.

And postmodernism is really a problem; it was obvious decades ago. Some kind of return back to "modernity" is required.

Denying it is what rises people like Peterson to the top.

Sharp yup sure. But hes another snake oil for rubes. Hollow and vacuous.

Well, he is clinical psychologist with plenty of experience, so if anyone is qualified to write "personally transformative books", that would be him.

He isn't really qualified to talk on Marxism/Communism, but as far as human psychology goes his experience shouldn't be denied.

I think this part of video explains his view on his situation clearly enough.

[Demontjuh]

What point of the interview does that start? I watched about 5mins and closed out cause it was going down a weird path and was becoming pointless to watch.

nowhere, i watched the entire interview, its the interviewer who's trying to twist quotes from his book for an agenda.
she is hounding him into speaking words that she can use to make her point.
if you watch the interview bias-less even just listening to her comprehension will make your head hurt.


OT
i looked up more about the guy and apparently theres a whole storm about him being "hate speech" against transgenders, xcept its not.
multiple groups with different opinions are twisting his words to fit their agenda.

from what i understand and based on his direct quotes:
the so called "hate speech" is him going against a canadian law that forces people to use the words transgenders would like to be used to refer to them (theres a list of words), he is refusing because government forced words interferes with free speech not to demean transgenders, he even said that "language is evolving overtime and should not be forced by govenment law" and he said "if there comes a public consensus about a word that seamlessly integrates with language and is not forced upon people, then he will use it"

[Lokryn]

I'm not alt-right by any measure but having seen some of his lectures and the Joe Rogan podcasts, I'd say he's quite brilliant, reasonable, and entertaining. Unfortunately, there's been a lot of lies spread about him and his fans (happens to every internet personality I'm sure) but that's the internet for you. He's definitely not a traditional Christian that's for sure. I don't understand why people have to get so angry and condescending about someone with opposing views and ideas to their own.

[arandomuser]

I didnt watch the 30 minute interview so that makes me a cuck, but peterson i seen is actually relatively progressive i think, i seen him do a video that debunked this stupid race/IQ theory the alt right peddles nonestop, so bunching him in with those people is ridiculous

[Zoldor]

People become popular by speaking on these issues. Peterson may have an agenda, however, he is still contributing to the conversation, and considering that the interview went viral means he's impacting people to some extent. That video has over 2 million plus views, and went viral. I don't think that's a small group of people.

Nah, I don't think so. Nobody really knew who Sanders was before he started his campaign, and now he's the most popular politican in the US. All it takes is for someone to say the right (or wrong) thing at the right time and they suddenly have a major impact.

Indeed it is, but I do think you're underestimating the impact of people who aren't the elites of media/politics. Those who are debunked fade into the ether, however, there are many examples of people throughout history who don't fade into the darkness and instead become immortalized through their work.

2 mill is still pretty small. Example, song by lil pump, where he repeats one phrase has 90 million views. I think views skew a lot of stuff too. How many views were a click 10 seconds in turned off etc.

But I do agree people can get famous off speaking on small topics. Sanders was running for president though, that is a HUGE platform to stand on. Not just going on a UK tv show and getting blasted at. Which is the reason for the 2 million views, not really his ideas, as he doesn't get to mention them as much cause interviewer has her own agenda to become some hard nose interview person. Most of those 2 million are from people looking at the he got her, or she went after him etc. Not really there to back the ideology.

And yes, there are outliers, I think today though because the platforms are so available there are a lot more 15 min of fame people than lasting stars. And that 15 min probably burns brighter than before because sub groups have so many platforms and channels now. I'm still not sure how lasting of an impression they are making. Take Milo for example, this time last year was super hot shit, now I'd be pressed to find a freshman that knew who he was, now a junior or sophmore might remember him. And Milo was at one point huge popular riding that Bannon train. Even Bannon, now out of favor is flailing to stay relevant, despite possibly being responsible for Trump's success in winning his presidency.

The problem with SJ and associated ideologies on both sides, is until we can see a change at the top level with law or with people in their homes not a lot ever evolves for very long. A lot of people aren't becoming say alt-right, they were alt-right to start they just didn't know they sat on that side or that their side had a name beyond Right Wing or Republican (I'm generalizing I don't think all Republicans are alt-right just an example). Or ANTIFA, these people were probably violent before hand and left leaning, they just didn't group themselves. They saw themselves as Anarchists, who've existed forever, especially if you were involved in the punk movements in any town.

And my biggest reason for pushing most of this shit into the not as relevant as anyone thinks pile is, it is up to the people to change at heart, and sadly people rarely change. They stick to their ideas and seek out those that echo them. Very few actually care about the other sides ideas, Except, to attack, debunk, or find holes. They don't read or listen to actually attempt to learn. They go in with the bias and look for things that allow their bias to shine. This is again a broad generalization. The Milo talks are a good example and why it was easy for him to thrash a lot of those kids. He knew this going in and manipulated it to his advantage, basically knowing your enemies game plan works well. See the New England Patriots

[urasim]

I didnt watch the 30 minute interview so that makes me a cuck, but peterson i seen is actually relatively progressive i think, i seen him do a video that debunked this stupid race/IQ theory the alt right peddles nonestop, so bunching him in with those people is ridiculous

I think he's a libertarian. But I have no idea. I know he's not a progressive. That's further left of him.

He's apparently a christian. He hides it well and doesn't let it influence his practice or his speeches.

[Endus]

He covers this in the interview. He doesn't use them because he hates being forced to use them. He's taken a great deal of influence from the book Ordinary Men - Christopher Browning. He's said a few times that the reason why these ordinary men did extraordinarily bad things is because they were pushed a little bit at a time to do small bad things, and that led them to the point where they were doing very bad things towards the end. His stance is to not be bullied by people who want to force others to use certain words.

Yeah, the problem with that argument is that the behaviour he's defending is itself abusive, so his argument isn't functionally different from a bully saying "I hate being forced to not call people 'faggots', so I'm going to make sure I call a lot of people 'faggot' just to express how much I hate being forced to moderate my language."

He's the one doing that first "bad thing", and the "bullying" in question is others asking him to stop, to avoid precisely the escalation he cites in his own defense. That's the problem with his position on this particular issue.

[urasim]

Yeah, the problem with that argument is that the behaviour he's defending is itself abusive, so his argument isn't functionally different from a bully saying "I hate being forced to not call people 'faggots', so I'm going to make sure I call a lot of people 'faggot' just to express how much I hate being forced to moderate my language."

He's the one doing that first "bad thing", and the "bullying" in question is others asking him to stop, to avoid precisely the escalation he cites in his own defense. That's the problem with his position on this particular issue.

He's not forcing you to change. His stance is that he won't be pushed around by people. I really don't know how you can be abusive by standing your ground and not forcing other people into doing anything.

[Endus]

He's not forcing you to change. His stance is that he won't be pushed around by people. I really don't know how you can be abusive by standing your ground and not forcing other people into doing anything.

He's abusive because he insists on misgendering people, which is abusive behaviour. The only thing people are trying to "force" him to do is stop that abusive behaviour.

[Theodarzna]

Though Peterson is not some genius he is made out to be, Cathy Newman definitely came out looking to moral grandstand and extort some confession of evil out of the man. And she ended up looking foolish by the end.