# The friends of Jordan Peterson



## Tommy Tainant

Cathy Newman says her 14-year-old daughter received vitriolic online abuse after Jordan Peterson gender pay gap interview

They seem like a pretty sick crew of incels. Is this guy a total twat ? He did a panel show over here in 2018 and came across as sort of normal but with nothing much to say.

*Channel 4 presenter Cathy Newman has said her 14-year-old daughter witnessed a torrent of vitriolic online abuse directed at the veteran journalist. 

The news presenter recounted the harassment she was subjected to after interviewing controversial Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson – revealing her child even saw a fake pornographic image of her.

Channel 4 was forced to call in security specialists to analyse threats targeted at Ms Newman after her interview about the gender pay gap with Prof Peterson – a controversial figure who has attracted a far-right following.


The 44-year-old, who has worked for Channel 4 for over a decade, has looked back at the vile online abuse and harassment she experienced in a piece for The Pool.

She wrote: “One of the 200 or so on-screen interviews I did this year [2018] was with the controversial Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson. I challenged him about the gender pay gap, which he believes is a fiction, and what he calls the ‘murderous equity doctrine’ embraced by many modern women.*


----------



## Meathead

Tommy Tainant said:


> Cathy Newman says her 14-year-old daughter received vitriolic online abuse after Jordan Peterson gender pay gap interview
> 
> They seem like a pretty sick crew of incels. Is this guy a total twat ? He did a panel show over here in 2018 and came across as sort of normal but with nothing much to say.
> 
> *Channel 4 presenter Cathy Newman has said her 14-year-old daughter witnessed a torrent of vitriolic online abuse directed at the veteran journalist.
> 
> The news presenter recounted the harassment she was subjected to after interviewing controversial Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson – revealing her child even saw a fake pornographic image of her.
> 
> Channel 4 was forced to call in security specialists to analyse threats targeted at Ms Newman after her interview about the gender pay gap with Prof Peterson – a controversial figure who has attracted a far-right following.
> 
> 
> The 44-year-old, who has worked for Channel 4 for over a decade, has looked back at the vile online abuse and harassment she experienced in a piece for The Pool.
> 
> She wrote: “One of the 200 or so on-screen interviews I did this year [2018] was with the controversial Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson. I challenged him about the gender pay gap, which he believes is a fiction, and what he calls the ‘murderous equity doctrine’ embraced by many modern women.*


Poor child didn't get to choose her mother, but that's life.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Tommy Tainant said:


> Cathy Newman says her 14-year-old daughter received vitriolic online abuse after Jordan Peterson gender pay gap interview
> 
> They seem like a pretty sick crew of incels. Is this guy a total twat ? He did a panel show over here in 2018 and came across as sort of normal but with nothing much to say.
> 
> *Channel 4 presenter Cathy Newman has said her 14-year-old daughter witnessed a torrent of vitriolic online abuse directed at the veteran journalist.
> 
> The news presenter recounted the harassment she was subjected to after interviewing controversial Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson – revealing her child even saw a fake pornographic image of her.
> 
> Channel 4 was forced to call in security specialists to analyse threats targeted at Ms Newman after her interview about the gender pay gap with Prof Peterson – a controversial figure who has attracted a far-right following.
> 
> 
> The 44-year-old, who has worked for Channel 4 for over a decade, has looked back at the vile online abuse and harassment she experienced in a piece for The Pool.
> 
> She wrote: “One of the 200 or so on-screen interviews I did this year [2018] was with the controversial Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson. I challenged him about the gender pay gap, which he believes is a fiction, and what he calls the ‘murderous equity doctrine’ embraced by many modern women.*



*They seem like a pretty sick crew of incels.*

They remind you of.....you?


----------



## there4eyeM

The hysteria about Dr. Jordan Peterson is entirely incomprehensible. The man is a reasoned thinker who brings nothing but intelligent observation to the table. That he is vilified is testimony to the inability to listen and hear, see and understand.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

there4eyeM said:


> The hysteria about Dr. Jordan Peterson is entirely incomprehensible. The man is a reasoned thinker who brings nothing but intelligent observation to the table. That he is vilified is testimony to the inability to listen and hear, see and understand.


He isnt being vilified..Its his supporters who are the agressors.


----------



## Street Juice

Tommy Tainant said:


> Cathy Newman says her 14-year-old daughter received vitriolic online abuse after Jordan Peterson gender pay gap interview
> 
> They seem like a pretty sick crew of incels. Is this guy a total twat ? He did a panel show over here in 2018 and came across as sort of normal but with nothing much to say.
> 
> *Channel 4 presenter Cathy Newman has said her 14-year-old daughter witnessed a torrent of vitriolic online abuse directed at the veteran journalist.
> 
> The news presenter recounted the harassment she was subjected to after interviewing controversial Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson – revealing her child even saw a fake pornographic image of her.
> 
> Channel 4 was forced to call in security specialists to analyse threats targeted at Ms Newman after her interview about the gender pay gap with Prof Peterson – a controversial figure who has attracted a far-right following.
> 
> 
> The 44-year-old, who has worked for Channel 4 for over a decade, has looked back at the vile online abuse and harassment she experienced in a piece for The Pool.
> 
> She wrote: “One of the 200 or so on-screen interviews I did this year [2018] was with the controversial Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson. I challenged him about the gender pay gap, which he believes is a fiction, and what he calls the ‘murderous equity doctrine’ embraced by many modern women.*


Boohoo


----------



## Tehon

Tommy Tainant said:


> Cathy Newman says her 14-year-old daughter received vitriolic online abuse after Jordan Peterson gender pay gap interview
> 
> They seem like a pretty sick crew of incels. Is this guy a total twat ? He did a panel show over here in 2018 and came across as sort of normal but with nothing much to say.
> 
> *Channel 4 presenter Cathy Newman has said her 14-year-old daughter witnessed a torrent of vitriolic online abuse directed at the veteran journalist.
> 
> The news presenter recounted the harassment she was subjected to after interviewing controversial Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson – revealing her child even saw a fake pornographic image of her.
> 
> Channel 4 was forced to call in security specialists to analyse threats targeted at Ms Newman after her interview about the gender pay gap with Prof Peterson – a controversial figure who has attracted a far-right following.
> 
> 
> The 44-year-old, who has worked for Channel 4 for over a decade, has looked back at the vile online abuse and harassment she experienced in a piece for The Pool.
> 
> She wrote: “One of the 200 or so on-screen interviews I did this year [2018] was with the controversial Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson. I challenged him about the gender pay gap, which he believes is a fiction, and what he calls the ‘murderous equity doctrine’ embraced by many modern women.*


Peterson is a twat, but not in totality.

He certainly can't be held responsible for the way in which people act out on the internet.


----------



## Olde Europe

Tommy Tainant said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hysteria about Dr. Jordan Peterson is entirely incomprehensible. The man is a reasoned thinker who brings nothing but intelligent observation to the table. That he is vilified is testimony to the inability to listen and hear, see and understand.
> 
> 
> 
> He isnt *[SIC]* being vilified..Its *[SIC]* his supporters who are the agressors. *[SIC]*
Click to expand...


"That he is vilified is testimony to the *inability to listen and hear, see and understand.*"

Amazing, isn't it?

BTW, Tommy, and with all due respect, did someone steal your ' button?


----------



## Olde Europe

Tehon said:


> Peterson is a twat, but not in totality.
> 
> He certainly can't be held responsible for the way in which people act out on the internet.



Really, a "tw**"?  The best you can come up with in this context is a misogynistic slur?

Moreover, if you're the kind of guy who systematically attracts a devoted misogynistic, alt-right, incel crowd, and incite them to a point where dozens or hundreds of them feel encouraged to release their vitriol, you "certainly can't be held responsible"?  It so happens I disagree.  Maybe, depending on the law, you are not liable, but in a moral sense you sure are responsible for the reactions you can predict will ensue from your advocacy.  Mr. Peterson does know what he's doing:

“I tweeted out, ‘Look, lay the hell off. Enough is enough’,” he told the Radio Times. “Or something a little bit more civilised than that. You don’t need to beat a dead horse. I’m glad I wasn’t the one who was being torn to shreds online.”​
Except, his followers aren't beating a dead horse.  They are vilifying a woman, a woman Mr. Peterson then moves further to dehumanize.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Tommy Tainant said:


> Cathy Newman says her 14-year-old daughter received vitriolic online abuse after Jordan Peterson gender pay gap interview
> 
> They seem like a pretty sick crew of incels. Is this guy a total twat ? He did a panel show over here in 2018 and came across as sort of normal but with nothing much to say.
> 
> *Channel 4 presenter Cathy Newman has said her 14-year-old daughter witnessed a torrent of vitriolic online abuse directed at the veteran journalist.
> 
> The news presenter recounted the harassment she was subjected to after interviewing controversial Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson – revealing her child even saw a fake pornographic image of her.
> 
> Channel 4 was forced to call in security specialists to analyse threats targeted at Ms Newman after her interview about the gender pay gap with Prof Peterson – a controversial figure who has attracted a far-right following.
> 
> 
> The 44-year-old, who has worked for Channel 4 for over a decade, has looked back at the vile online abuse and harassment she experienced in a piece for The Pool.
> 
> She wrote: “One of the 200 or so on-screen interviews I did this year [2018] was with the controversial Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson. I challenged him about the gender pay gap, which he believes is a fiction, and what he calls the ‘murderous equity doctrine’ embraced by many modern women.*



Butt hurt ramblings 101


----------



## Correll

Olde Europe said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peterson is a twat, but not in totality.
> 
> He certainly can't be held responsible for the way in which people act out on the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, a "tw**"?  The best you can come up with in this context is a misogynistic slur?
> 
> Moreover, if you're the kind of guy who systematically attracts a devoted misogynistic, alt-right, incel crowd, and incite them to a point where dozens or hundreds of them feel encouraged to release their vitriol, you "certainly can't be held responsible"?  It so happens I disagree.  Maybe, depending on the law, you are not liable, but in a moral sense you sure are responsible for the reactions you can predict will ensue from your advocacy.  Mr. Peterson does know what he's doing:
> 
> “I tweeted out, ‘Look, lay the hell off. Enough is enough’,” he told the Radio Times. “Or something a little bit more civilised than that. You don’t need to beat a dead horse. I’m glad I wasn’t the one who was being torn to shreds online.”​
> Except, his followers aren't beating a dead horse.  They are vilifying a woman, a woman Mr. Peterson then moves further to dehumanize.
Click to expand...



1. He does not "attract" a following as you describe. He attracts a huge number of listeners, and a small, very small percentage are as you describe. 

2. And what do you mean by "alt-right"? Are you using in the broadest sense, ie some one sort of on the right, not traditional, or in the more slanderous one, ie White Supremacist? 

3. He did not incite them in this case. Cathy Newman's behavior was absurd in the interview, and afterwards.

4. I doubt he said anything to "dehumanize" her. YOu want to back that up?


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Correll said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peterson is a twat, but not in totality.
> 
> He certainly can't be held responsible for the way in which people act out on the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, a "tw**"?  The best you can come up with in this context is a misogynistic slur?
> 
> Moreover, if you're the kind of guy who systematically attracts a devoted misogynistic, alt-right, incel crowd, and incite them to a point where dozens or hundreds of them feel encouraged to release their vitriol, you "certainly can't be held responsible"?  It so happens I disagree.  Maybe, depending on the law, you are not liable, but in a moral sense you sure are responsible for the reactions you can predict will ensue from your advocacy.  Mr. Peterson does know what he's doing:
> 
> “I tweeted out, ‘Look, lay the hell off. Enough is enough’,” he told the Radio Times. “Or something a little bit more civilised than that. You don’t need to beat a dead horse. I’m glad I wasn’t the one who was being torn to shreds online.”​
> Except, his followers aren't beating a dead horse.  They are vilifying a woman, a woman Mr. Peterson then moves further to dehumanize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. He does not "attract" a following as you describe. He attracts a huge number of listeners, and a small, very small percentage are as you describe.
> 
> 2. And what do you mean by "alt-right"? Are you using in the broadest sense, ie some one sort of on the right, not traditional, or in the more slanderous one, ie White Supremacist?
> 
> 3. He did not incite them in this case. Cathy Newman's behavior was absurd in the interview, and afterwards.
> 
> 4. I doubt he said anything to "dehumanize" her. YOu want to back that up?
Click to expand...


He simply suffers from Butt hurt.
Peterson has been handily kicking leftist ass in Canada for years.
They cannot beat him on substance, so this is just a pathetic attempt to attack him in a different way.
And shows you how weak his "opponents" really are right in this thread.


----------



## Correll

iamwhatiseem said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peterson is a twat, but not in totality.
> 
> He certainly can't be held responsible for the way in which people act out on the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, a "tw**"?  The best you can come up with in this context is a misogynistic slur?
> 
> Moreover, if you're the kind of guy who systematically attracts a devoted misogynistic, alt-right, incel crowd, and incite them to a point where dozens or hundreds of them feel encouraged to release their vitriol, you "certainly can't be held responsible"?  It so happens I disagree.  Maybe, depending on the law, you are not liable, but in a moral sense you sure are responsible for the reactions you can predict will ensue from your advocacy.  Mr. Peterson does know what he's doing:
> 
> “I tweeted out, ‘Look, lay the hell off. Enough is enough’,” he told the Radio Times. “Or something a little bit more civilised than that. You don’t need to beat a dead horse. I’m glad I wasn’t the one who was being torn to shreds online.”​
> Except, his followers aren't beating a dead horse.  They are vilifying a woman, a woman Mr. Peterson then moves further to dehumanize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. He does not "attract" a following as you describe. He attracts a huge number of listeners, and a small, very small percentage are as you describe.
> 
> 2. And what do you mean by "alt-right"? Are you using in the broadest sense, ie some one sort of on the right, not traditional, or in the more slanderous one, ie White Supremacist?
> 
> 3. He did not incite them in this case. Cathy Newman's behavior was absurd in the interview, and afterwards.
> 
> 4. I doubt he said anything to "dehumanize" her. YOu want to back that up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He simply suffers from Butt hurt.
> Peterson has been handily kicking leftist ass in Canada for years.
> They cannot beat him on substance, so this is just a pathetic attempt to attack him in a different way.
> And shows you how weak his "opponents" really are right in this thread.
Click to expand...



Agreed. 

The best clips of Peterson are when lefties TRY to slam him on anything, and he gets a chance to answer them. 


Because he always crushes them.


----------



## Tehon

Olde Europe said:


> Really, a "tw**"? The best you can come up with in this context is a misogynistic slur?


Twat - Wikipedia
The word _*twat*_ is widely used as a derogatory epithet, especially in British English, referring to a person considered obnoxious or stupid.



Olde Europe said:


> Moreover, if you're the kind of guy who systematically attracts a devoted misogynistic, alt-right, incel crowd, and incite them to a point where dozens or hundreds of them feel encouraged to release their vitriol, you "certainly can't be held responsible"? It so happens I disagree. Maybe, depending on the law, you are not liable, but in a moral sense you sure are responsible for the reactions you can predict will ensue from your advocacy. Mr. Peterson does know what he's doing:
> 
> “I tweeted out, ‘Look, lay the hell off. Enough is enough’,” he told the Radio Times. “Or something a little bit more civilised than that. You don’t need to beat a dead horse. I’m glad I wasn’t the one who was being torn to shreds online.”
> Except, his followers aren't beating a dead horse. They are vilifying a woman, a woman Mr. Peterson then moves further to dehumanize.



I watched the interview. Where was the incitement to cause the interviewer harm?

The problem for Cathy Newman wasn't Peterson's beliefs. The problem was the perception of how the interview was conducted. Peterson had no control over Cathy Newman's approach.


----------



## Olde Europe

Tehon said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, a "tw**"? The best you can come up with in this context is a misogynistic slur?
> 
> 
> 
> Twat - Wikipedia
> The word _*twat*_ is widely used as a derogatory epithet, especially in British English, referring to a person considered obnoxious or stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, if you're the kind of guy who systematically attracts a devoted misogynistic, alt-right, incel crowd, and incite them to a point where dozens or hundreds of them feel encouraged to release their vitriol, you "certainly can't be held responsible"? It so happens I disagree. Maybe, depending on the law, you are not liable, but in a moral sense you sure are responsible for the reactions you can predict will ensue from your advocacy. Mr. Peterson does know what he's doing:
> 
> “I tweeted out, ‘Look, lay the hell off. Enough is enough’,” he told the Radio Times. “Or something a little bit more civilised than that. You don’t need to beat a dead horse. I’m glad I wasn’t the one who was being torn to shreds online.”
> Except, his followers aren't beating a dead horse. They are vilifying a woman, a woman Mr. Peterson then moves further to dehumanize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched the interview. Where was the incitement to cause the interviewer harm?
> 
> The problem for Cathy Newman wasn't Peterson's beliefs. The problem was the perception of how the interview was conducted. Peterson had no control over Cathy Newman's approach.
Click to expand...


You may want to think about that pap, because defining away your slur doesn't cut it, and neither does trying to blame Newman for what happened to her.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

He seems to have problems with women for some reason . He was a guest on Question Time last year and didnt have much to say. Maybe he felt a bit out of his comfort zone.


----------



## Tehon

Olde Europe said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, a "tw**"? The best you can come up with in this context is a misogynistic slur?
> 
> 
> 
> Twat - Wikipedia
> The word _*twat*_ is widely used as a derogatory epithet, especially in British English, referring to a person considered obnoxious or stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, if you're the kind of guy who systematically attracts a devoted misogynistic, alt-right, incel crowd, and incite them to a point where dozens or hundreds of them feel encouraged to release their vitriol, you "certainly can't be held responsible"? It so happens I disagree. Maybe, depending on the law, you are not liable, but in a moral sense you sure are responsible for the reactions you can predict will ensue from your advocacy. Mr. Peterson does know what he's doing:
> 
> “I tweeted out, ‘Look, lay the hell off. Enough is enough’,” he told the Radio Times. “Or something a little bit more civilised than that. You don’t need to beat a dead horse. I’m glad I wasn’t the one who was being torn to shreds online.”
> Except, his followers aren't beating a dead horse. They are vilifying a woman, a woman Mr. Peterson then moves further to dehumanize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched the interview. Where was the incitement to cause the interviewer harm?
> 
> The problem for Cathy Newman wasn't Peterson's beliefs. The problem was the perception of how the interview was conducted. Peterson had no control over Cathy Newman's approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may want to think about that pap, because defining away your slur doesn't cut it, and neither does trying to blame Newman for what happened to her.
Click to expand...

I didn't blame her. And you didn't answer the question.


----------



## Tehon

Tommy Tainant said:


> He seems to have problems with women for some reason .


In what way?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Tehon said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> He seems to have problems with women for some reason .
> 
> 
> 
> In what way?
Click to expand...

He doesnt think women have ever been oppressed. Thats bonkers.


----------



## westwall

Tehon said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cathy Newman says her 14-year-old daughter received vitriolic online abuse after Jordan Peterson gender pay gap interview
> 
> They seem like a pretty sick crew of incels. Is this guy a total twat ? He did a panel show over here in 2018 and came across as sort of normal but with nothing much to say.
> 
> *Channel 4 presenter Cathy Newman has said her 14-year-old daughter witnessed a torrent of vitriolic online abuse directed at the veteran journalist.
> 
> The news presenter recounted the harassment she was subjected to after interviewing controversial Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson – revealing her child even saw a fake pornographic image of her.
> 
> Channel 4 was forced to call in security specialists to analyse threats targeted at Ms Newman after her interview about the gender pay gap with Prof Peterson – a controversial figure who has attracted a far-right following.
> 
> 
> The 44-year-old, who has worked for Channel 4 for over a decade, has looked back at the vile online abuse and harassment she experienced in a piece for The Pool.
> 
> She wrote: “One of the 200 or so on-screen interviews I did this year [2018] was with the controversial Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson. I challenged him about the gender pay gap, which he believes is a fiction, and what he calls the ‘murderous equity doctrine’ embraced by many modern women.*
> 
> 
> 
> Peterson is a twat, but not in totality.
> 
> He certainly can't be held responsible for the way in which people act out on the internet.
Click to expand...







A "twat"  Why do you say that?  Because he is so clearly able to demolish the progressives arguments, succinctly, and with polite, reasoned thinking?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Tommy Tainant said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> He seems to have problems with women for some reason .
> 
> 
> 
> In what way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesnt think women have ever been oppressed. Thats bonkers.
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## Tehon

Tommy Tainant said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> He seems to have problems with women for some reason .
> 
> 
> 
> In what way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesnt think women have ever been oppressed. Thats bonkers.
Click to expand...

To put it in proper context, he doesn't believe they are oppressed by man made social structures.

I don't agree with him either.


----------



## Tehon

westwall said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cathy Newman says her 14-year-old daughter received vitriolic online abuse after Jordan Peterson gender pay gap interview
> 
> They seem like a pretty sick crew of incels. Is this guy a total twat ? He did a panel show over here in 2018 and came across as sort of normal but with nothing much to say.
> 
> *Channel 4 presenter Cathy Newman has said her 14-year-old daughter witnessed a torrent of vitriolic online abuse directed at the veteran journalist.
> 
> The news presenter recounted the harassment she was subjected to after interviewing controversial Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson – revealing her child even saw a fake pornographic image of her.
> 
> Channel 4 was forced to call in security specialists to analyse threats targeted at Ms Newman after her interview about the gender pay gap with Prof Peterson – a controversial figure who has attracted a far-right following.
> 
> 
> The 44-year-old, who has worked for Channel 4 for over a decade, has looked back at the vile online abuse and harassment she experienced in a piece for The Pool.
> 
> She wrote: “One of the 200 or so on-screen interviews I did this year [2018] was with the controversial Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson. I challenged him about the gender pay gap, which he believes is a fiction, and what he calls the ‘murderous equity doctrine’ embraced by many modern women.*
> 
> 
> 
> Peterson is a twat, but not in totality.
> 
> He certainly can't be held responsible for the way in which people act out on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "twat"  Why do you say that?  Because he is so clearly able to demolish the progressives arguments, succinctly, and with polite, reasoned thinking?
Click to expand...

He has an informed opinion, I will give him that. He has obviously given thought to his beliefs. Doesn't make him right.

I find him a bit obnoxious at times.


----------



## Tehon

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> He seems to have problems with women for some reason .
> 
> 
> 
> In what way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesnt think women have ever been oppressed. Thats bonkers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Tehon said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> He seems to have problems with women for some reason .
> 
> 
> 
> In what way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesnt think women have ever been oppressed. Thats bonkers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To put it in proper context, he doesn't believe they are oppressed by man made social structures.
> 
> I don't agree with him either.
Click to expand...

He isnt really on my  radar but he came to note a few weeks ago when one of our Universities withdrew a job offer. As I say he seems relatively harmless but the "cultural marxism" thing raises eyebrows.


----------



## Tehon

Tommy Tainant said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> He seems to have problems with women for some reason .
> 
> 
> 
> In what way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesnt think women have ever been oppressed. Thats bonkers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To put it in proper context, he doesn't believe they are oppressed by man made social structures.
> 
> I don't agree with him either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He isnt really on my  radar but he came to note a few weeks ago when one of our Universities withdrew a job offer. As I say he seems relatively harmless but the "cultural marxism" thing raises eyebrows.
Click to expand...

It was the cultural marxism thing that got my attention as well. So I made a sincere effort to hear him out. He has yet to convince me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Tehon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> He seems to have problems with women for some reason .
> 
> 
> 
> In what way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesnt think women have ever been oppressed. Thats bonkers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Thanks for the video.
At what point in that did he say women haven't ever been oppressed?


----------



## Tehon

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> He seems to have problems with women for some reason .
> 
> 
> 
> In what way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesnt think women have ever been oppressed. Thats bonkers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the video.
> At what point in that did he say women haven't ever been oppressed?
Click to expand...

At the 2:30 mark he states that it is moronic to think that woman are oppressed by unjust social structures.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Tehon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what way?
> 
> 
> 
> He doesnt think women have ever been oppressed. Thats bonkers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the video.
> At what point in that did he say women haven't ever been oppressed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At the 2:30 mark he states that it is moronic to think that woman are oppressed by unjust social structures.
Click to expand...


I heard that, thanks.
So we agree, he never said women haven't ever been oppressed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Tehon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what way?
> 
> 
> 
> He doesnt think women have ever been oppressed. Thats bonkers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the video.
> At what point in that did he say women haven't ever been oppressed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At the 2:30 mark he states that it is moronic to think that woman are oppressed by unjust social structures.
Click to expand...






Doesn't look like he denies women have ever been oppressed...….


----------



## Tehon

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> He doesnt think women have ever been oppressed. Thats bonkers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the video.
> At what point in that did he say women haven't ever been oppressed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At the 2:30 mark he states that it is moronic to think that woman are oppressed by unjust social structures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 254061
> 
> Doesn't look like he denies women have ever been oppressed...….
Click to expand...

Yes, I already put his beliefs into context in post #22.


----------



## Olde Europe

Tommy Tainant said:


> He seems to have problems with women for some reason . He was a guest on Question Time last year and didnt have much to say. Maybe he felt a bit out of his comfort zone.



No, he doesn't necessarily have a problem with women, personally.  But, being the obnoxious nutcase he is, he panders to the frustrations and resentments of men who manifestly do have a problem with women, mostly with not getting any, and he then throws in a dollop of Islamophobia in his quest for fame and fortune.  It's easy enough to understand: Since he is bent on collecting followers who feel they are the victims of women, and the "PC mob" that insists even women be treated with respect, he needs to quash the competing female victim narrative, and deny its historical accuracy.  Of course, a person who calls him on his nonsense - and a woman, to boot - quite predictably stirs up the rage of "The friends of Jordan Peterson".  In other words, he's a pied piper, and "harmless" is the very last term I would use to describe him.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Olde Europe said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> He seems to have problems with women for some reason . He was a guest on Question Time last year and didnt have much to say. Maybe he felt a bit out of his comfort zone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he doesn't necessarily have a problem with women, personally.  But, being the obnoxious nutcase he is, he panders to the frustrations and resentments of men who manifestly do have a problem with women, mostly with not getting any, and he then throws in a dollop of Islamophobia in his quest for fame and fortune.  It's easy enough to understand: Since he is bent on collecting followers who feel they are the victims of women, and the "PC mob" that insists even women be treated with respect, he needs to quash the competing female victim narrative, and deny its historical accuracy.  Of course, a person who calls him on his nonsense - and a woman, to boot - quite predictably stirs up the rage of "The friends of Jordan Peterson".  In other words, he's a pied piper, and "harmless" is the very last term I would use to describe him.
Click to expand...

You know more about him than me.The one time I saw him he was quite subdued and didnt have much to say.But "cultural marxism" doesnt mark him out as a great thinker.


----------



## there4eyeM

Dr. Peterson personifies a dignified, erudite position other than "right" and "left". For this he is to be respected and his arguments taken to heart. His refutations of the dominant divisive forms of rhetoric are extremely helpful to those of us who have long sought to find a similar ground.


----------



## Papageorgio

Tommy Tainant said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hysteria about Dr. Jordan Peterson is entirely incomprehensible. The man is a reasoned thinker who brings nothing but intelligent observation to the table. That he is vilified is testimony to the inability to listen and hear, see and understand.
> 
> 
> 
> He isnt being vilified..Its his supporters who are the agressors.
Click to expand...


Are you sure?


----------



## Tehon

there4eyeM said:


> Dr. Peterson personifies a dignified, erudite position other than "right" and "left". For this he is to be respected and his arguments taken to heart. His refutations of the dominant divisive forms of rhetoric are extremely helpful to those of us who have long sought to find a similar ground.


Do you hold the same position as Peterson in terms of women? That they have been oppressed by nature and not by men to any great extent?


----------



## Olde Europe

Tommy Tainant said:


> You know more about him than me.The one time I saw him he was quite subdued and didnt have much to say.But "cultural marxism" doesnt mark him out as a great thinker.



Yep, but with cultural Marxism you've already identified one of the main memes: "Cultural Marxism" is dead set to destroy academia, and Western societies, from within, and it's everywhere.  He peddles that pap to his already frustrated and perennially frightened followers, and what do you expect they do?  Of course, a certain portion of these goofs think they are called upon to defend academia and Western society itself.  Let's just hope that none of them picks up a gun to do it.

Here's what I found to be a fairly reasonable summary of what Peterson really is, and why it's so troubling.

With an eye towards the perception by the Friends of Peterson, here's why it's so hard to argue with him: He already adopts a posturing of being a victim of the PC mob; any opponent can then let Peterson reaffirm that victim status unencumbered, without challenge; or take him and his BS apart, in which case the victim status is being confirmed, with the very predictable rage of his followers ensuing.  That is to say, the onslaught against Cathy Newman was not an accident.  It's exactly what you would expect, given Peterson's anti-PC, Great Marxist Scare tactics.


----------



## there4eyeM

The man charts his own course, kowtowing to no one and nothing. He seeks rational thought and action based on science and facts melded with sensitivity. Those who find fault with him will have a difficult time naming another person better for the moment in history.


----------



## Tehon

Olde Europe said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know more about him than me.The one time I saw him he was quite subdued and didnt have much to say.But "cultural marxism" doesnt mark him out as a great thinker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, but with cultural Marxism you've already identified one of the main memes: "Cultural Marxism" is dead set to destroy academia, and Western societies, from within, and it's everywhere.  He peddles that pap to his already frustrated and perennially frightened followers, and what do you expect they do?  Of course, a certain portion of these goofs think they are called upon to defend academia and Western society itself.  Let's just hope that none of them picks up a gun to do it.
> 
> Here's what I found to be a fairly reasonable summary of what Peterson really is, and why it's so troubling.
> 
> With an eye towards the perception by the Friends of Peterson, here's why it's so hard to argue with him: He already adopts a posturing of being a victim of the PC mob; any opponent can then let Peterson reaffirm that victim status unencumbered, without challenge; or take him and his BS apart, in which case the victim status is being confirmed, with the very predictable rage of his followers ensuing.  That is to say, the onslaught against Cathy Newman was not an accident.  It's exactly what you would expect, given Peterson's anti-PC, Great Marxist Scare tactics.
Click to expand...

Cathy Newman mischaracterized Peterson's position at every turn. She was woefully ill prepared for that interview.

There is an argument to be made against his beliefs, but there is no way he is going to allow you to build it out of straw men. No one would.


----------



## there4eyeM

"Mischaracterization" is probably to most common occurrence in interviews with and reports about Dr. Peterson.


----------



## Correll

Olde Europe said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> He seems to have problems with women for some reason . He was a guest on Question Time last year and didnt have much to say. Maybe he felt a bit out of his comfort zone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he doesn't necessarily have a problem with women, personally.  But, being the obnoxious nutcase he is, he panders to the frustrations and resentments of men who manifestly do have a problem with women, mostly with not getting any, and he then throws in a dollop of Islamophobia in his quest for fame and fortune.  It's easy enough to understand: Since he is bent on collecting followers who feel they are the victims of women, and the "PC mob" that insists even women be treated with respect, he needs to quash the competing female victim narrative, and deny its historical accuracy.  Of course, a person who calls him on his nonsense - and a woman, to boot - quite predictably stirs up the rage of "The friends of Jordan Peterson".  In other words, he's a pied piper, and "harmless" is the very last term I would use to describe him.
Click to expand...




Sounds like nothing I have heard him say.


----------



## Correll

Tommy Tainant said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> He seems to have problems with women for some reason . He was a guest on Question Time last year and didnt have much to say. Maybe he felt a bit out of his comfort zone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he doesn't necessarily have a problem with women, personally.  But, being the obnoxious nutcase he is, he panders to the frustrations and resentments of men who manifestly do have a problem with women, mostly with not getting any, and he then throws in a dollop of Islamophobia in his quest for fame and fortune.  It's easy enough to understand: Since he is bent on collecting followers who feel they are the victims of women, and the "PC mob" that insists even women be treated with respect, he needs to quash the competing female victim narrative, and deny its historical accuracy.  Of course, a person who calls him on his nonsense - and a woman, to boot - quite predictably stirs up the rage of "The friends of Jordan Peterson".  In other words, he's a pied piper, and "harmless" is the very last term I would use to describe him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know more about him than me.The one time I saw him he was quite subdued and didnt have much to say.But "cultural marxism" doesnt mark him out as a great thinker.
Click to expand...



Why not?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Correll said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> He seems to have problems with women for some reason . He was a guest on Question Time last year and didnt have much to say. Maybe he felt a bit out of his comfort zone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he doesn't necessarily have a problem with women, personally.  But, being the obnoxious nutcase he is, he panders to the frustrations and resentments of men who manifestly do have a problem with women, mostly with not getting any, and he then throws in a dollop of Islamophobia in his quest for fame and fortune.  It's easy enough to understand: Since he is bent on collecting followers who feel they are the victims of women, and the "PC mob" that insists even women be treated with respect, he needs to quash the competing female victim narrative, and deny its historical accuracy.  Of course, a person who calls him on his nonsense - and a woman, to boot - quite predictably stirs up the rage of "The friends of Jordan Peterson".  In other words, he's a pied piper, and "harmless" is the very last term I would use to describe him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know more about him than me.The one time I saw him he was quite subdued and didnt have much to say.But "cultural marxism" doesnt mark him out as a great thinker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
Click to expand...

Because cultural marxism is just a loony conspiracy theory.


----------



## Correll

Tommy Tainant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> He seems to have problems with women for some reason . He was a guest on Question Time last year and didnt have much to say. Maybe he felt a bit out of his comfort zone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he doesn't necessarily have a problem with women, personally.  But, being the obnoxious nutcase he is, he panders to the frustrations and resentments of men who manifestly do have a problem with women, mostly with not getting any, and he then throws in a dollop of Islamophobia in his quest for fame and fortune.  It's easy enough to understand: Since he is bent on collecting followers who feel they are the victims of women, and the "PC mob" that insists even women be treated with respect, he needs to quash the competing female victim narrative, and deny its historical accuracy.  Of course, a person who calls him on his nonsense - and a woman, to boot - quite predictably stirs up the rage of "The friends of Jordan Peterson".  In other words, he's a pied piper, and "harmless" is the very last term I would use to describe him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know more about him than me.The one time I saw him he was quite subdued and didnt have much to say.But "cultural marxism" doesnt mark him out as a great thinker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because cultural marxism is just a loony conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...


Calling something a name, is not an argument. 

I assume that is all you have, or you would have posted something real.


So, that complaint of yours has been debunked.


So, you want to admit your real problem with him? Or you want me to guess?


----------



## there4eyeM

Considering the level of what passes for discourse generally, of late, Dr. Peterson is a refreshing zephyr. Posed with a reasoned and dispassionate question, his responses are considerate, considered and concise. He expresses expertly what so many think and feel when they find themselves in the uncertain zone between "left" and "right".


----------



## Correll

there4eyeM said:


> Considering the level of what passes for discourse generally, of late, Dr. Peterson is a refreshing zephyr. Posed with a reasoned and dispassionate question, his responses are considerate, considered and concise. He expresses expertly what so many think and feel when they find themselves in the uncertain zone between "left" and "right".




And when confronted by this, liberals have a real problem.


----------



## there4eyeM

Correll said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the level of what passes for discourse generally, of late, Dr. Peterson is a refreshing zephyr. Posed with a reasoned and dispassionate question, his responses are considerate, considered and concise. He expresses expertly what so many think and feel when they find themselves in the uncertain zone between "left" and "right".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when confronted by this, liberals have a real problem.
Click to expand...

It certainly seems that expressing a different view of any kind is met with instant, vociferous hostility from some people.


----------



## Correll

there4eyeM said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the level of what passes for discourse generally, of late, Dr. Peterson is a refreshing zephyr. Posed with a reasoned and dispassionate question, his responses are considerate, considered and concise. He expresses expertly what so many think and feel when they find themselves in the uncertain zone between "left" and "right".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when confronted by this, liberals have a real problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly seems that expressing a different view of any kind is met with instant, vociferous hostility from some people.
Click to expand...



While , if you watched the infamous Cathy Newman interview, their first line of defense, is utter denial of what other people say.


Repeatedly, in that interview, Peterson would say something, and Cathy would immediately restate it, completely misrepresenting what he just said, and then ask him to defend the shit she just made up.


And that behavior is very common. Hell, Seely is doing it right now, in another thread with me.


----------



## Dragonlady

there4eyeM said:


> The hysteria about Dr. Jordan Peterson is entirely incomprehensible. The man is a reasoned thinker who brings nothing but intelligent observation to the table. That he is vilified is testimony to the inability to listen and hear, see and understand.



The man is an idiot.  I'm not surprised you think he's great.  You have an affinity for fools.


----------



## K9Buck

Are you telling me that someone on the internet gave that girl a hard time after her interview?!  

Well that does it for me.  I'm leaving the GOP!  I'm going to disavow God, join the Democratic Party, call for the destruction of Israel, change my gender and advocate for open borders and unlimited immigration.


----------



## K9Buck

Dragonlady said:


> The man is an idiot.



I agree.  Peterson is not the wise, old sage that you clearly are.


----------



## Correll

Dragonlady said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hysteria about Dr. Jordan Peterson is entirely incomprehensible. The man is a reasoned thinker who brings nothing but intelligent observation to the table. That he is vilified is testimony to the inability to listen and hear, see and understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The man is an idiot.  I'm not surprised you think he's great.  You have an affinity for fools.
Click to expand...



THe man is literally a genius, and only a liar or a fool would claim otherwise.


----------



## Tehon

Correll said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hysteria about Dr. Jordan Peterson is entirely incomprehensible. The man is a reasoned thinker who brings nothing but intelligent observation to the table. That he is vilified is testimony to the inability to listen and hear, see and understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The man is an idiot.  I'm not surprised you think he's great.  You have an affinity for fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THe man is literally a genius, and only a liar or a fool would claim otherwise.
Click to expand...

He is not a genius and I am neither a liar or a fool. His beliefs are fundamentally flawed.


----------



## Correll

Tehon said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hysteria about Dr. Jordan Peterson is entirely incomprehensible. The man is a reasoned thinker who brings nothing but intelligent observation to the table. That he is vilified is testimony to the inability to listen and hear, see and understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The man is an idiot.  I'm not surprised you think he's great.  You have an affinity for fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THe man is literally a genius, and only a liar or a fool would claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is not a genius and I am neither a liar or a fool. His beliefs are fundamentally flawed.
Click to expand...



What do you consider the greatest flaw?


----------



## Tehon

Correll said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hysteria about Dr. Jordan Peterson is entirely incomprehensible. The man is a reasoned thinker who brings nothing but intelligent observation to the table. That he is vilified is testimony to the inability to listen and hear, see and understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The man is an idiot.  I'm not surprised you think he's great.  You have an affinity for fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THe man is literally a genius, and only a liar or a fool would claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is not a genius and I am neither a liar or a fool. His beliefs are fundamentally flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider the greatest flaw?
Click to expand...

I will pick one, not necessarily of the most import.

He believes the antidote to moral relativism is found in meaning. But meaning is itself, relative.


----------



## Correll

Tehon said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hysteria about Dr. Jordan Peterson is entirely incomprehensible. The man is a reasoned thinker who brings nothing but intelligent observation to the table. That he is vilified is testimony to the inability to listen and hear, see and understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The man is an idiot.  I'm not surprised you think he's great.  You have an affinity for fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THe man is literally a genius, and only a liar or a fool would claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is not a genius and I am neither a liar or a fool. His beliefs are fundamentally flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider the greatest flaw?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will pick one, not necessarily of the most import.
> 
> He believes the antidote to moral relativism is found in meaning. But meaning is itself, relative.
Click to expand...


If you have meaning in your life,  you know that it is not "relative".


----------



## there4eyeM

Dr. Peterson is not talking about how one might act in a "Zen" world; he is talking about how humans function and have functioned and what we can do now in the present conditions. 
Of course, all words, all language, all names/nouns are relative in an absolute, existential sense.


----------



## Tehon

there4eyeM said:


> Dr. Peterson is not talking about how one might act in a "Zen" world; he is talking about how humans function and have functioned and what we can do now in the present conditions.
> Of course, all words, all language, all names/nouns are relative in an absolute, existential sense.


When one starts out with a faulty premise it is only natural to end up with a faulty conclusion. That is part of the challenge we face together.

Peterson may very well be helpful to some.  I don't believe he offers a way forward for us all.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

The 'debate of the century': what happened when Jordan Peterson debated Slavoj Žižek

Dont think I would buy tickets for the rematch.


----------



## Tehon

Tommy Tainant said:


> The 'debate of the century': what happened when Jordan Peterson debated Slavoj Žižek
> 
> Dont think I would buy tickets for the rematch.


Jordan Peterson's opening remarks regarding Marx are a joke. He hasn't a clue what he is talking about. It is common for people to get Marx wrong. Most people haven't studied him and on a message board like this it is to be expected. From a leading "intellect", not so much. 

I wouldn't pay to see him speak either. But for free, it's worth a listen just for the laughs.


----------



## impuretrash

Tehon said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'debate of the century': what happened when Jordan Peterson debated Slavoj Žižek
> 
> Dont think I would buy tickets for the rematch.
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan Peterson's opening remarks regarding Marx are a joke. He hasn't a clue what he is talking about. It is common for people to get Marx wrong. Most people haven't studied him and on a message board like this it is to be expected. From a leading "intellect", not so much.
> 
> I wouldn't pay to see him speak either. But for free, it's worth a listen just for the laughs.
Click to expand...


Bah. Marx's theories have caused nothing but problems. Why do you insist on trying to rehabilitate him? How many mass graves will it take?


----------



## Tehon

impuretrash said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'debate of the century': what happened when Jordan Peterson debated Slavoj Žižek
> 
> Dont think I would buy tickets for the rematch.
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan Peterson's opening remarks regarding Marx are a joke. He hasn't a clue what he is talking about. It is common for people to get Marx wrong. Most people haven't studied him and on a message board like this it is to be expected. From a leading "intellect", not so much.
> 
> I wouldn't pay to see him speak either. But for free, it's worth a listen just for the laughs.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bah. Marx's theories have caused nothing but problems. Why do you insist on trying to rehabilitate him? How many mass graves will it take?
Click to expand...

Marx's theory of historical development is still playing out. The world can still be explained through a Marxist lens. It is still alive.


----------



## impuretrash

Tehon said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'debate of the century': what happened when Jordan Peterson debated Slavoj Žižek
> 
> Dont think I would buy tickets for the rematch.
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan Peterson's opening remarks regarding Marx are a joke. He hasn't a clue what he is talking about. It is common for people to get Marx wrong. Most people haven't studied him and on a message board like this it is to be expected. From a leading "intellect", not so much.
> 
> I wouldn't pay to see him speak either. But for free, it's worth a listen just for the laughs.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bah. Marx's theories have caused nothing but problems. Why do you insist on trying to rehabilitate him? How many mass graves will it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marx's theory of historical development is still playing out. The world can still be explained through a Marxist lens. It is still alive.
Click to expand...


Because his adherents are forcing it, not because it's natural.


----------



## Tehon

impuretrash said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'debate of the century': what happened when Jordan Peterson debated Slavoj Žižek
> 
> Dont think I would buy tickets for the rematch.
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan Peterson's opening remarks regarding Marx are a joke. He hasn't a clue what he is talking about. It is common for people to get Marx wrong. Most people haven't studied him and on a message board like this it is to be expected. From a leading "intellect", not so much.
> 
> I wouldn't pay to see him speak either. But for free, it's worth a listen just for the laughs.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bah. Marx's theories have caused nothing but problems. Why do you insist on trying to rehabilitate him? How many mass graves will it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marx's theory of historical development is still playing out. The world can still be explained through a Marxist lens. It is still alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because his adherents are forcing it, not because it's natural.
Click to expand...

No, actually, when it was forced is when it failed. Historical development is still occurring naturally.


----------



## impuretrash

Tehon said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'debate of the century': what happened when Jordan Peterson debated Slavoj Žižek
> 
> Dont think I would buy tickets for the rematch.
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan Peterson's opening remarks regarding Marx are a joke. He hasn't a clue what he is talking about. It is common for people to get Marx wrong. Most people haven't studied him and on a message board like this it is to be expected. From a leading "intellect", not so much.
> 
> I wouldn't pay to see him speak either. But for free, it's worth a listen just for the laughs.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bah. Marx's theories have caused nothing but problems. Why do you insist on trying to rehabilitate him? How many mass graves will it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marx's theory of historical development is still playing out. The world can still be explained through a Marxist lens. It is still alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because his adherents are forcing it, not because it's natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, actually, when it was forced is when it failed. Historical development is still occurring naturally.
Click to expand...


Uh huh. Kids are totally not being brainwashed into Marxist ideology on college campuses or anything.


----------



## Tehon

impuretrash said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan Peterson's opening remarks regarding Marx are a joke. He hasn't a clue what he is talking about. It is common for people to get Marx wrong. Most people haven't studied him and on a message board like this it is to be expected. From a leading "intellect", not so much.
> 
> I wouldn't pay to see him speak either. But for free, it's worth a listen just for the laughs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bah. Marx's theories have caused nothing but problems. Why do you insist on trying to rehabilitate him? How many mass graves will it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marx's theory of historical development is still playing out. The world can still be explained through a Marxist lens. It is still alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because his adherents are forcing it, not because it's natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, actually, when it was forced is when it failed. Historical development is still occurring naturally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh. Kids are totally not being brainwashed into Marxist ideology on college campuses or anything.
Click to expand...

Kids are not being taught Marx in college.


----------



## impuretrash

Tehon said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bah. Marx's theories have caused nothing but problems. Why do you insist on trying to rehabilitate him? How many mass graves will it take?
> 
> 
> 
> Marx's theory of historical development is still playing out. The world can still be explained through a Marxist lens. It is still alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because his adherents are forcing it, not because it's natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, actually, when it was forced is when it failed. Historical development is still occurring naturally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh. Kids are totally not being brainwashed into Marxist ideology on college campuses or anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kids are not being taught Marx in college.
Click to expand...


Not only are they being taught economic marxism but they're also being taught a lot of "secret" marxism disguised as sociology classes 

Intersectionality - Wikipedia

Critical theory - Wikipedia


----------



## Tehon

impuretrash said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marx's theory of historical development is still playing out. The world can still be explained through a Marxist lens. It is still alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because his adherents are forcing it, not because it's natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, actually, when it was forced is when it failed. Historical development is still occurring naturally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh. Kids are totally not being brainwashed into Marxist ideology on college campuses or anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kids are not being taught Marx in college.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only are they being taught economic marxism but they're also being taught a lot of "secret" marxism disguised as sociology classes
> 
> Intersectionality - Wikipedia
> 
> Critical theory - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

There is no secret Marxism. All of his works are available to anyone wishing to see them.

You make the same mistake Peterson does, conflate Marx with theorists who drew upon his work for inspiration. Only you are just a schmuck on the internet who doesn't know any better than to repeat what you have been led to believe and he is supposedly a world class intellectual.


----------



## impuretrash

Tehon said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because his adherents are forcing it, not because it's natural.
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, when it was forced is when it failed. Historical development is still occurring naturally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh. Kids are totally not being brainwashed into Marxist ideology on college campuses or anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kids are not being taught Marx in college.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only are they being taught economic marxism but they're also being taught a lot of "secret" marxism disguised as sociology classes
> 
> Intersectionality - Wikipedia
> 
> Critical theory - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no secret Marxism. All of his works are available to anyone wishing to see them.
> 
> You make the same mistake Peterson does, conflate Marx with theorists who drew upon his work for inspiration. Only you are just a schmuck on the internet who doesn't know any better than to repeat what you have been led to believe and he is supposedly a world class intellectual.
Click to expand...


Is it only a coincidence that all of those marx-inspired theories are destructive to western society? Or is it that the intent?


----------



## Tehon

impuretrash said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, when it was forced is when it failed. Historical development is still occurring naturally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh. Kids are totally not being brainwashed into Marxist ideology on college campuses or anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kids are not being taught Marx in college.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only are they being taught economic marxism but they're also being taught a lot of "secret" marxism disguised as sociology classes
> 
> Intersectionality - Wikipedia
> 
> Critical theory - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no secret Marxism. All of his works are available to anyone wishing to see them.
> 
> You make the same mistake Peterson does, conflate Marx with theorists who drew upon his work for inspiration. Only you are just a schmuck on the internet who doesn't know any better than to repeat what you have been led to believe and he is supposedly a world class intellectual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it only a coincidence that all of those marx-inspired theories are destructive to western society? Or is it that the intent?
Click to expand...

I think you misinterpret the cause of Western decline.


----------



## impuretrash

Tehon said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh. Kids are totally not being brainwashed into Marxist ideology on college campuses or anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Kids are not being taught Marx in college.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only are they being taught economic marxism but they're also being taught a lot of "secret" marxism disguised as sociology classes
> 
> Intersectionality - Wikipedia
> 
> Critical theory - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no secret Marxism. All of his works are available to anyone wishing to see them.
> 
> You make the same mistake Peterson does, conflate Marx with theorists who drew upon his work for inspiration. Only you are just a schmuck on the internet who doesn't know any better than to repeat what you have been led to believe and he is supposedly a world class intellectual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it only a coincidence that all of those marx-inspired theories are destructive to western society? Or is it that the intent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you misinterpret the cause of Western decline.
Click to expand...


The never ending push from Marxist fanatics to invent new victim/oppressor paradigms is hastening the decline.


----------



## boedicca

Tommy Tainant said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hysteria about Dr. Jordan Peterson is entirely incomprehensible. The man is a reasoned thinker who brings nothing but intelligent observation to the table. That he is vilified is testimony to the inability to listen and hear, see and understand.
> 
> 
> 
> He isnt being vilified..Its his supporters who are the agressors.
Click to expand...



I wouldn't put it past Newman and her loon associates to engage in a false flag operation.


----------



## there4eyeM

Marx contributed ideas and arguments to his milieu regarding the place of 'labor' in the social construct. What people did carrying his theories forward turned out to be disastrous, however. 
We need fresh approaches and thinking. Objectivity would help as well. Argumentation today seems always to devolve into emotion and feeling rather than rational reflection. Dr. Peterson has a place in that effort. He, and no one else either, is a messiah.


----------



## Tehon

there4eyeM said:


> Marx contributed ideas and arguments to his milieu regarding the place of 'labor' in the social construct. What people did carrying his theories forward turned out to be disastrous, however.
> We need fresh approaches and thinking. Objectivity would help as well. Argumentation today seems always to devolve into emotion and feeling rather than rational reflection. Dr. Peterson has a place in that effort. He, and no one else either, is a messiah.


No one expects Peterson to be messianic. We merely expect a reasoned argument, not the (impure)trash argument that he presented and can be found anywhere among the populace. Perhaps if you had a better understanding of Marx's contribution of ideas and arguments regarding social structure, you too would be in a better position to see just how awful that Peterson monologue was.

I'm all for new ideas and fresh approaches, if they are sincere. And if in doing so it is not necessary to destroy old ideas, tried and true, that have withstood the tests of time.


----------



## Correll

impuretrash said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kids are not being taught Marx in college.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only are they being taught economic marxism but they're also being taught a lot of "secret" marxism disguised as sociology classes
> 
> Intersectionality - Wikipedia
> 
> Critical theory - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no secret Marxism. All of his works are available to anyone wishing to see them.
> 
> You make the same mistake Peterson does, conflate Marx with theorists who drew upon his work for inspiration. Only you are just a schmuck on the internet who doesn't know any better than to repeat what you have been led to believe and he is supposedly a world class intellectual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it only a coincidence that all of those marx-inspired theories are destructive to western society? Or is it that the intent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you misinterpret the cause of Western decline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The never ending push from Marxist fanatics to invent new victim/oppressor paradigms is hastening the decline.
Click to expand...



Geez, it is almost as though he didn't want to answer your question.


----------



## Tehon

Correll said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only are they being taught economic marxism but they're also being taught a lot of "secret" marxism disguised as sociology classes
> 
> Intersectionality - Wikipedia
> 
> Critical theory - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> There is no secret Marxism. All of his works are available to anyone wishing to see them.
> 
> You make the same mistake Peterson does, conflate Marx with theorists who drew upon his work for inspiration. Only you are just a schmuck on the internet who doesn't know any better than to repeat what you have been led to believe and he is supposedly a world class intellectual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it only a coincidence that all of those marx-inspired theories are destructive to western society? Or is it that the intent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you misinterpret the cause of Western decline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The never ending push from Marxist fanatics to invent new victim/oppressor paradigms is hastening the decline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, it is almost as though he didn't want to answer your question.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the premise. I thought I made that clear.


----------



## impuretrash

Tehon said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no secret Marxism. All of his works are available to anyone wishing to see them.
> 
> You make the same mistake Peterson does, conflate Marx with theorists who drew upon his work for inspiration. Only you are just a schmuck on the internet who doesn't know any better than to repeat what you have been led to believe and he is supposedly a world class intellectual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it only a coincidence that all of those marx-inspired theories are destructive to western society? Or is it that the intent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you misinterpret the cause of Western decline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The never ending push from Marxist fanatics to invent new victim/oppressor paradigms is hastening the decline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, it is almost as though he didn't want to answer your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree with the premise. I thought I made that clear.
Click to expand...


His theories are out of date. We're not an agrarian society adapting to rapid industrialization any more.


----------



## Correll

Tehon said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no secret Marxism. All of his works are available to anyone wishing to see them.
> 
> You make the same mistake Peterson does, conflate Marx with theorists who drew upon his work for inspiration. Only you are just a schmuck on the internet who doesn't know any better than to repeat what you have been led to believe and he is supposedly a world class intellectual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it only a coincidence that all of those marx-inspired theories are destructive to western society? Or is it that the intent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you misinterpret the cause of Western decline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The never ending push from Marxist fanatics to invent new victim/oppressor paradigms is hastening the decline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, it is almost as though he didn't want to answer your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree with the premise. I thought I made that clear.
Click to expand...


Yes. 









See how a blanket answer with no explanation is not really an answer?


----------



## Tehon

impuretrash said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it only a coincidence that all of those marx-inspired theories are destructive to western society? Or is it that the intent?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you misinterpret the cause of Western decline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The never ending push from Marxist fanatics to invent new victim/oppressor paradigms is hastening the decline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, it is almost as though he didn't want to answer your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree with the premise. I thought I made that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His theories are out of date. We're not an agrarian society adapting to rapid industrialization any more.
Click to expand...

We are still a country with a ruling class. And what is it that gives them their power? Capital.

Do you see why his theories are still relevant? They explain our social relations.


----------



## Correll

Tehon said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you misinterpret the cause of Western decline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The never ending push from Marxist fanatics to invent new victim/oppressor paradigms is hastening the decline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, it is almost as though he didn't want to answer your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree with the premise. I thought I made that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His theories are out of date. We're not an agrarian society adapting to rapid industrialization any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are still a country with a ruling class. And what is it that gives them their power? Capital.
> 
> Do you see why his theories are still relevant? They explain our social relations.
Click to expand...


What percentage of your fellow Americans are you prepared to see die in order to fix that?


----------



## impuretrash

Correll said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never ending push from Marxist fanatics to invent new victim/oppressor paradigms is hastening the decline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, it is almost as though he didn't want to answer your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree with the premise. I thought I made that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His theories are out of date. We're not an agrarian society adapting to rapid industrialization any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are still a country with a ruling class. And what is it that gives them their power? Capital.
> 
> Do you see why his theories are still relevant? They explain our social relations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What percentage of your fellow Americans are you prepared to see die in order to fix that?
Click to expand...


All the "racist" ones


----------



## Tehon

Correll said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never ending push from Marxist fanatics to invent new victim/oppressor paradigms is hastening the decline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, it is almost as though he didn't want to answer your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree with the premise. I thought I made that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His theories are out of date. We're not an agrarian society adapting to rapid industrialization any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are still a country with a ruling class. And what is it that gives them their power? Capital.
> 
> Do you see why his theories are still relevant? They explain our social relations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What percentage of your fellow Americans are you prepared to see die in order to fix that?
Click to expand...

I'm not calling for revolution, nor do I believe there will be one in my lifetime.

I'm just asking for an honest discussion from Peterson. I know better than to ask for one from you two dilberts.


----------



## impuretrash

Tehon said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, it is almost as though he didn't want to answer your question.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with the premise. I thought I made that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His theories are out of date. We're not an agrarian society adapting to rapid industrialization any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are still a country with a ruling class. And what is it that gives them their power? Capital.
> 
> Do you see why his theories are still relevant? They explain our social relations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What percentage of your fellow Americans are you prepared to see die in order to fix that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not calling for revolution, nor do I believe there will be one in my lifetime.
Click to expand...


But you're not ruling out there being one in the future. Your comrades in antifa and the radical social justice movement will see to it.


----------



## Tehon

impuretrash said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with the premise. I thought I made that clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His theories are out of date. We're not an agrarian society adapting to rapid industrialization any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are still a country with a ruling class. And what is it that gives them their power? Capital.
> 
> Do you see why his theories are still relevant? They explain our social relations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What percentage of your fellow Americans are you prepared to see die in order to fix that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not calling for revolution, nor do I believe there will be one in my lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're not ruling out there being one in the future. Your comrades in antifa and the radical social justice movement will see to it.
Click to expand...

I think it is inevitable.


----------



## impuretrash

Tehon said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> His theories are out of date. We're not an agrarian society adapting to rapid industrialization any more.
> 
> 
> 
> We are still a country with a ruling class. And what is it that gives them their power? Capital.
> 
> Do you see why his theories are still relevant? They explain our social relations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What percentage of your fellow Americans are you prepared to see die in order to fix that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not calling for revolution, nor do I believe there will be one in my lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're not ruling out there being one in the future. Your comrades in antifa and the radical social justice movement will see to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it is inevitable.
Click to expand...


Yep. The plan is to foment social discord until the masses rise up and the government steps in.


----------



## Tehon

impuretrash said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are still a country with a ruling class. And what is it that gives them their power? Capital.
> 
> Do you see why his theories are still relevant? They explain our social relations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of your fellow Americans are you prepared to see die in order to fix that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not calling for revolution, nor do I believe there will be one in my lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're not ruling out there being one in the future. Your comrades in antifa and the radical social justice movement will see to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it is inevitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. The plan is to foment social discord until the masses rise up and the government steps in.
Click to expand...

Even the right is discontent with the "liberal" elites controlling things.


----------



## Correll

Tehon said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, it is almost as though he didn't want to answer your question.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with the premise. I thought I made that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His theories are out of date. We're not an agrarian society adapting to rapid industrialization any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are still a country with a ruling class. And what is it that gives them their power? Capital.
> 
> Do you see why his theories are still relevant? They explain our social relations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What percentage of your fellow Americans are you prepared to see die in order to fix that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not calling for revolution, nor do I believe there will be one in my lifetime.
> 
> I'm just asking for an honest discussion from Peterson. I know better than to ask for one from you two dilberts.
Click to expand...



When discussion Marxist revolution, it is reasonable to ask how many you are willing to see die. 


Indeed, any armed conflict,  you should consider the cost vs the potential benefit. To do that, you have to consider the cost. 


That is part of any honest discussion of any armed revolution, which is what marxism calls for.


----------



## westwall

Dragonlady said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hysteria about Dr. Jordan Peterson is entirely incomprehensible. The man is a reasoned thinker who brings nothing but intelligent observation to the table. That he is vilified is testimony to the inability to listen and hear, see and understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The man is an idiot.  I'm not surprised you think he's great.  You have an affinity for fools.
Click to expand...






And yet all you can come up with is name calling.  Looks like it just might be you who is the stupid one.


----------



## Tehon

Correll said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with the premise. I thought I made that clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His theories are out of date. We're not an agrarian society adapting to rapid industrialization any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are still a country with a ruling class. And what is it that gives them their power? Capital.
> 
> Do you see why his theories are still relevant? They explain our social relations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What percentage of your fellow Americans are you prepared to see die in order to fix that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not calling for revolution, nor do I believe there will be one in my lifetime.
> 
> I'm just asking for an honest discussion from Peterson. I know better than to ask for one from you two dilberts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When discussion Marxist revolution, it is reasonable to ask how many you are willing to see die.
> 
> 
> Indeed, any armed conflict,  you should consider the cost vs the potential benefit. To do that, you have to consider the cost.
> 
> 
> That is part of any honest discussion of any armed revolution, which is what marxism calls for.
Click to expand...

What part of "I'm not calling for revolution" did you not understand?


----------



## impuretrash

Tehon said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of your fellow Americans are you prepared to see die in order to fix that?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not calling for revolution, nor do I believe there will be one in my lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're not ruling out there being one in the future. Your comrades in antifa and the radical social justice movement will see to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it is inevitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. The plan is to foment social discord until the masses rise up and the government steps in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even the right is discontent with the "liberal" elites controlling things.
Click to expand...


Some of them are. A lot of the foot soldiers for the left seem content with being ruled by corporate overlords as long as they parrot the correct opinions, censor the wrong ones and label their products with rainbow flags.


----------



## Correll

Tehon said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> His theories are out of date. We're not an agrarian society adapting to rapid industrialization any more.
> 
> 
> 
> We are still a country with a ruling class. And what is it that gives them their power? Capital.
> 
> Do you see why his theories are still relevant? They explain our social relations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What percentage of your fellow Americans are you prepared to see die in order to fix that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not calling for revolution, nor do I believe there will be one in my lifetime.
> 
> I'm just asking for an honest discussion from Peterson. I know better than to ask for one from you two dilberts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When discussion Marxist revolution, it is reasonable to ask how many you are willing to see die.
> 
> 
> Indeed, any armed conflict,  you should consider the cost vs the potential benefit. To do that, you have to consider the cost.
> 
> 
> That is part of any honest discussion of any armed revolution, which is what marxism calls for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of "I'm not calling for revolution" did you not understand?
Click to expand...



The part where you sound like you want it, and that fact that seem to carefully NOT saying anything indicating that you think it would be a bad idea, or that you have any good feelings about the status quo.


----------



## Tehon

impuretrash said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not calling for revolution, nor do I believe there will be one in my lifetime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not ruling out there being one in the future. Your comrades in antifa and the radical social justice movement will see to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it is inevitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. The plan is to foment social discord until the masses rise up and the government steps in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even the right is discontent with the "liberal" elites controlling things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of them are. A lot of the foot soldiers for the left seem content with being ruled by corporate overlords as long as they parrot the correct opinions, censor the wrong ones and label their products with rainbow flags.
Click to expand...

The ruling class knows how to manipulate the population to do its bidding. Proving Marx correct again. And the right is not immune to the manipulation.


----------



## impuretrash

Tehon said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not ruling out there being one in the future. Your comrades in antifa and the radical social justice movement will see to it.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is inevitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. The plan is to foment social discord until the masses rise up and the government steps in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even the right is discontent with the "liberal" elites controlling things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of them are. A lot of the foot soldiers for the left seem content with being ruled by corporate overlords as long as they parrot the correct opinions, censor the wrong ones and label their products with rainbow flags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ruling class knows how to manipulate the population to do its bidding. Proving Marx correct again. And the right is not immune to the manipulation.
Click to expand...


What breed of authoritarianism we end up with depends on who's in control of the military when the time comes. Marx probably never factored in the internet which has served to open a lot of eyes, and reinvigorate ideas that were buried by the marxists who infliltrated higher education and the media.


----------



## Tehon

impuretrash said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is inevitable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. The plan is to foment social discord until the masses rise up and the government steps in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even the right is discontent with the "liberal" elites controlling things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of them are. A lot of the foot soldiers for the left seem content with being ruled by corporate overlords as long as they parrot the correct opinions, censor the wrong ones and label their products with rainbow flags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ruling class knows how to manipulate the population to do its bidding. Proving Marx correct again. And the right is not immune to the manipulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What breed of authoritarianism we end up with depends on who's in control of the military when the time comes. Marx probably never factored in the internet which has served to open a lot of eyes, and reinvigorate ideas that were buried by the marxists who infliltrated higher education and the media.
Click to expand...

What ideas would those be?


----------



## impuretrash

Tehon said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. The plan is to foment social discord until the masses rise up and the government steps in.
> 
> 
> 
> Even the right is discontent with the "liberal" elites controlling things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of them are. A lot of the foot soldiers for the left seem content with being ruled by corporate overlords as long as they parrot the correct opinions, censor the wrong ones and label their products with rainbow flags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ruling class knows how to manipulate the population to do its bidding. Proving Marx correct again. And the right is not immune to the manipulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What breed of authoritarianism we end up with depends on who's in control of the military when the time comes. Marx probably never factored in the internet which has served to open a lot of eyes, and reinvigorate ideas that were buried by the marxists who infliltrated higher education and the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What ideas would those be?
Click to expand...


Use your imagination, I'm sure you can come up with a few ideas.


----------



## Tehon

impuretrash said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the right is discontent with the "liberal" elites controlling things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of them are. A lot of the foot soldiers for the left seem content with being ruled by corporate overlords as long as they parrot the correct opinions, censor the wrong ones and label their products with rainbow flags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ruling class knows how to manipulate the population to do its bidding. Proving Marx correct again. And the right is not immune to the manipulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What breed of authoritarianism we end up with depends on who's in control of the military when the time comes. Marx probably never factored in the internet which has served to open a lot of eyes, and reinvigorate ideas that were buried by the marxists who infliltrated higher education and the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What ideas would those be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Use your imagination, I'm sure you can come up with a few ideas.
Click to expand...

The only idea I have at this moment is that you are talking out of your ass.


----------



## there4eyeM

Though not yet finished, I have watched the first parts of the Peterson-Zizek confrontation. First, it seems evident that the entire debate was much over-rated in its anticipation. It was not to be expected that some definitive point would be reached and one side 'defeated'. Second, neither person ever pretended to speak for others or for any particular 'cause'.
Having gotten an impression from comments seen here and elsewhere referring to the event, I expected to be disappointed in the quality and substance of the meeting. That impression was not sustained by what is to be witnessed in hearing the two men (and, interestingly, two white men). Quite the contrary; it was exemplary for its display of civilized, intelligent public discussion. There is nothing for either of them to be embarrassed nor apologetic about.


----------



## there4eyeM

there4eyeM said:


> Though not yet finished, I have watched the first parts of the Peterson-Zizek confrontation. First, it seems evident that the entire debate was much over-rated in its anticipation. It was not to be expected that some definitive point would be reached and one side 'defeated'. Second, neither person ever pretended to speak for others or for any particular 'cause'.
> Having gotten an impression from comments seen here and elsewhere referring to the event, I expected to be disappointed in the quality and substance of the meeting. That impression was not sustained by what is to be witnessed in hearing the two men (and, interestingly, two white men). Quite the contrary; it was exemplary for its display of civilized, intelligent public discussion. There is nothing for either of them to be embarrassed nor apologetic about.


Proceeding to the end, there was still nothing in the confrontation to condemn. The fact that it was not as dramatic as some appear to have hoped is the only way to perceive it as a failure.


----------



## there4eyeM

"Marx" has too much baggage at this point to insist on him as any kind of central point. We should take the serious contributions he had to make and move on. In fact, no ideology as such is needed, simply eclecticism and practicality.


----------



## Tehon

there4eyeM said:


> "Marx" has too much baggage at this point to insist on him as any kind of central point. We should take the serious contributions he had to make and move on. In fact, no ideology as such is needed, simply eclecticism and practicality.


Marx explained why the capitalist system of production could not deliver on the promise of emancipation.
He showed that it would become a hindrance to our development and that it would become necessary to move on to a more useful system, for practical reasons.
The eclecticism and practicality born out of the capitalist system of production is exactly what has led us to this moment in time. It has delivered to us, President Trump.

And keep in mind also, the baggage associated with Marx was also born out of practicality. The ruling capitalist class wants Marx forgotten, for practical reasons.




..... In that case we do not confront the world in a doctrinaire way with a new principle: Here is the truth, kneel down before it! We develop new principles for the world out of the world’s own principles. We do not say to the world: Cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you the true slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it _has to _acquire, even if it does not want to.

The reform of consciousness consists _only _in making the world aware of its own consciousness, in awakening it out of its dream about itself, in _explaining _to it the meaning of its own actions.
Letters: Letters from the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher by Karl Marx


----------



## Tehon




----------

