Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

I'm not sure if this video should be posted in JP's ongoing threads, but I thought about sharing it with you guys since I found it's a very powerful compilation of some of his best speeches so far.

Yes, it should have been posted in JP's thread and now it can be merged.
 
Thanks for the Munk debate, Turgon.
Agree with your initial assessment, and the 'Pro' side were both unexposed to what was happening in Canadian correctness politics (being American); which is what JP has had his focus on, which also gets twisted. As for the attacks here in the debate, it's how they twist what the debate really was about.

Here (so many comments could be made) the debate digressed at times - Dyson goes after Peterson (Peterson was right to say, you don't know anything about me) with the race card and the rebuttle gets fiery - this was all too bad, and expected, as it seemed to carry though to the end. You pointed out Dyson's hypnotizing oritor ways, and that seemed so - he even started clapping for LBJ, hmmm. Fry made some excellent points on topic, from Russel Means to #MeToo. Goldberg seems at time to be unsure of where to go, and seems somewhat moderate at the same time, sympathetic to con points of view (don't know her work). JP is use to the attacks and pays attention and does well - no notes; an excellent speaker.

I just watched the remainder of the interview and I agree, Stephen Fry did a great job and Jordan Peterson said the same thing. Loved the fact that he put his arm around Jordan's shoulder while pictures were being taken. I do think Goldberg made a good point when she said that she receives the same kind of backlash when she writes about the way the IDF deals with the Palestinians (trying to paraphrase what she said) which is in line with what SOTT has said as well: Zionism is the Right's 'Identity Politics' -- Sott.net
And: The Truth Perspective: Identity Politics on Steroids: How Zionism Outdoes Them All -- Sott.net

Peterson is a classy man, because after the debate he immediately walked up to Dyson and shook his hand and he will accompany him to a black church. I can't say the same thing about Dyson.

Thanks Turgon and Bobo and Marina for the other videos, I hope I can watch them soon.
 
Wow.

Peterson got a bit too worked up, but then it's hard to blame him. Dyson fancies himself as this glorious black intellectual, but he really was a grumbling slimy childish preacher. He was also seriously hostile towards Peterson especially, and even nasty to Fry apparently because Fry is gay! So much for lefty progress...

What's really interesting is the closing remarks... Peterson and Fry basically said nothing, whereas Goldberg and Dyson took every opportunity to slam Peterson. Goldberg even brought up the "women shouldn't wear makeup" Vice hit-video and told people again to go watch it.

That's particularly telling. It's also quite sad, because when you watch that interview (and you have a functioning brain) it's very easy to see that Peterson was making a specific point and Vice edited the whole thing - and thus people like Goldberg are taking what Peterson said SO out of context that it's actually ridiculous.

Most interesting is that the poll results can be found here: Munk Debates - Munk Debates

Be it resolved, what you call political correctness, I call progress…

Pre-debate: 36% Pro, 64% Con
After: 30% Pro, 70% against

Which means that before the debate, more people sided with the Peterson/Fry side, and even more did after.
 
At the same I was wondering whether Dyson has some sort of disability. I noticed that at times he was rocking back and forth in his chair.

I dunno if it was just my head, but Dyson's body language also was weird, there were many times were sitting he was just rocking back and forth, I dunno this is just my opinion but I thought it was weird, and also the way he talked to the audience, almost no eye contact, for me it said some things about his personality also. But anywho, maybe im just reading too much into this.

I'll watch it later on in full as well. In the little snippet of this "debate" I did see so far though, I can only agree that this Dyson guy is more then just a little appalling. He certainly exposed himself and his ideas to be rather pathological and I think Jordan noticed that as well. He certainly missed no chance to paint Jordan in a bad light. In regards to the rocking back and forth mentioned above, I'm somehow reminded of the following guy. I dunno why though.


Sorry I couldn't resist this one...
 
What follows is another interesting discussion that was recently published between Peterson and the self proclaimed atheistic activist Matt Dillahunty. Haven't watched all of it completely, but from what I did see, it looked to me like a pretty fruitful discussion and this time from an atheist/materialist who didn't seem to determent to paint Peterson in a bad light or smash him, but rather someone who tried to understand (as best as possible from his point of view) what Paterson is saying. I dunno if something happened before the show started, that made Peterson rather worked up (or so it seemed) that might have pushed him in a way, to more like wanting to win arguments rather then bringing points across, but this time it seemed to me that Jordan was maybe trying to hard to disproof the arguments of opponent and proofing himself right?

On several occasions Dillahunty felt in some way personally attacked (at some points I could sort of understand, how he got that feeling although I don't think that was Petersons intention) and explains that this is not what the discussion was supposed to be. In fact it gets rather rough between the two (verbally) and obviously both are very skilled talkers and thinkers. Toward the end, I got the feeling it developed into an intellectual/verbal battle between the two, skillfully not directly pointed against each other, but through metaphors while answering questions from the audience. Hard to explain, you have to watch it! It seems like the tension between the two, developed to a point that you could really feel it. I think the tension between the two was there from the get go, but more from Petersons side OSIT.

Nonetheless both stayed polite. I have to say, in this case, I probably have seen much better argumentations and performances of Peterson and at some points during the discussion I think Dillahunty had some decent/understandable points, which Peterson didn't seem to handle all that well (for his standards!). He also seemed to be pretty nervous/edgy (as for example seen by his shaky hands and drinking from the bottle instead of the glass, which he just filled with the water of that same bottle). But that is criticism on a very high level and I certainly don't think I'm in any position to do so. But I thought I should bring it up to see if others can figure it out far better then I can.

Since I haven't watched it in its entirety though, I'm not sure at all if any of the above is in any way accurate. So take the above with a big grain of salt! Would be nice to hear other opinions!

Here is the discussion:

 
On several occasions Dillahunty felt in some way personally attacked (at some points I could sort of understand, how he got that feeling although I don't think that was Petersons intention) and explains that this is not what the discussion was supposed to be. In fact it gets rather rough between the two (verbally) and obviously both are very skilled talkers and thinkers. Toward the end, I got the feeling it developed into an intellectual/verbal battle between the two, skillfully not directly pointed against each other, but through metaphors while answering questions from the audience. Hard to explain, you have to watch it! It seems like the tension between the two, developed to a point that you could really feel it. I think the tension between the two was there from the get go, but more from Petersons side OSIT.

Nonetheless both stayed polite. I have to say, in this case, I probably have seen much better argumentations and performances of Peterson and at some points during the discussion I think Dillahunty had some decent/understandable points, which Peterson didn't seem to handle all that well (for his standards!). He also seemed to be pretty nervous/edgy (as for example seen by his shaky hands and drinking from the bottle instead of the glass, which he just filled with the water of that same bottle). But that is criticism on a very high level and I certainly don't think I'm in any position to do so. But I thought I should bring it up to see if others can figure it out far better then I can.

Since I haven't watched it in its entirety though, I'm not sure at all if any of the above is in any way accurate. So take the above with a big grain of salt! Would be nice to hear other opinions!
I listened to the whole thing a few days ago (didn't watch the video, though). There's a lot of interesting stuff going on. I agree that I don't think Peterson made his points as well as he could have, but on these topics he usually doesn't, because I don't think he has articulated them well enough for himself. I'm planning on either doing a video commentary on this interview, or playing clips and discussing them on Truth Perspective (or both!), because I think there's a way of taking the best points of both of them and making a synthesis. But on the whole, I think Peterson is more correct than Dillahunty.

I'll just comment on one point for now. Dillahunty took offense to Peterson saying Dillahunty is "not a real atheist". On the one hand, Dillahunty was kind of justified. It's like saying someone's "not a real Christian" or "not a real Muslim". Unless they're actively faking their religion, it's better to just accept their self-identification - there are many different Christianities and Islams. But that wasn't really Peterson's point. He probably would have said the same thing if Dillahunty were a solipsist. Here's a hypothetical exchange:

Person 1: I'm a solipsist.

Person 2: You say you are, but you don't act like you're one.

Person 1: How dare you say that. I believe I'm the only being that exists, and I deeply believe that. You can't tell me who I am and what I believe.

Person 2: Again, you don't act like it. Your actions contradict your stated beliefs. For example, right now you're speaking to me as if I actually exist and not as if I'm a figment of your imagination. If you were a real skeptic, you would be skeptical of that belief because of the hidden assumptions behind it, and how those assumptions are in conflict the the assumptions behind your actual behavior. You can't help but act as if you are NOT a solipsist. That's a performative contradiction and it shows that your stated belief is incoherent. It's actually impossible to act in the world as if you were a real solipsist.

Peterson's claim, which I agree with, is that it's impossible to act in a way that isn't predicated on some sort of theism. (Just like religions, there are various sorts of theisms, some better than others.) But that takes a while to flesh out, thus the plan to make a video or radio show on the subject.
 
One more thing on the Dillahunty interview. Peterson gave this interview before doing it:
It gives some context for the interview, and he's freer to develop his ideas. Peterson gives his opinion of the "celebrity atheists" and lays out some of the fundamental things he thinks they get wrong, can't explain, or ignore.
 
The debate with Matt Dillahunty was a tough one for me to watch, and I agree with you Pashalis, that there was something up with Jordan Peterson that night. I can't help but wonder if going on a relentless tour de force to promote his book, and coming across so many hostile interviewers, that it has put him on edge and hostile himself. Even the strongest and most put-together person must have their limits when faced with journalists and interviewers that are 'out to get him'. And having every little thing he say's scrutinized must be very difficult for him.

But Dillahunty was definitely far more relaxed and in good spirits about the whole thing, although thinking about it, his position of atheism is also a lot easier to convey, which in a roundabout way is because we can't see god, and there is no way to really prove or provide smoking gun evidence of the existence of higher realms outside our immediate realms of perception, therefore, it doesn't have to play a major role in conducting our lives. We can get along without those belief systems in place. Jordan Peterson has to prove that there is something that underlies our moral choices, and that without it, we'd be lost, or not able to navigate the world the same way. And that's more difficult because it does require a leap of faith, just not a leap of ignorance. But then you have to explain the difference between the two.

I think it's also what's part of the idea of service to others and how Life is religion. How exactly do you convey that to somebody when it's something that permeates our entire existence? Even writing this particular paragraph, people could easily gawk at that, but then again, deep-down, when I hear that, and write it out, I'm also struck with this emotional up-welling, and sense that gives me an indication of the inherent truth and value of it. Now, an atheist could easily just say I'm having a physiological experience marked by electrical responses in my brain that are somehow activated when hearing those words, and that prescribing additional meaning to that is a product of my imagination or subjective impressions, and maybe that is true. But is that all that's happening?

I think where he finally started explaining himself well was when answering the question at the 1 hr 20 minute mark of the video. He goes back to his roots of Order and Chaos, Being, and the purpose of meaning in helping us to orient and navigate between the known and unknown. And there in-lies Jordan Peterson's marker that says, Atheism cannot explain it all away and can present a strong argument why that's the case. Because how do you explain the unknown in Atheism, where the limits of what there is resides in the physical universe, yet the idea of god, archetypes and thought exists in the abstract?

That's my take on it, anyways.
 
The debate with Matt Dillahunty was a tough one for me to watch, and I agree with you Pashalis, that there was something up with Jordan Peterson that night. I can't help but wonder if going on a relentless tour de force to promote his book, and coming across so many hostile interviewers, that it has put him on edge and hostile himself. Even the strongest and most put-together person must have their limits when faced with journalists and interviewers that are 'out to get him'. And having every little thing he say's scrutinized must be very difficult for him.

In another interview he said that he is actually an agreeable person, and to run into such relentless hostility, even though balanced by the warmth his 'constituency' feels for him, is wearing.

I'm not surprised that he's on edge, if only for the pace he is driving himself at. He described his situation once as 'surfing a 100 ft. wave' and in his estimation 'it can only end badly'. So I think he's doing all he can before that hypothetical bad ending comes. He's fairly pessimistic in general, so things may not go as poorly as he envisions. But he's always on guard for it.
 
I think it's much more difficult for JP to have conversations with atheists because they seem to have a very different way of searching for the truth. JP also did appear to be a bit flustered throughout the talk. To me it seems something like this:

The truth is only that which I can confirm without a doubt is the truth - which seems to be more along the lines of Matt Dillahunty's thinking.
All is a possible truth except that which I can confirm is not the truth - Which seems closer to Jordan Peterson's line of reasoning.

Given those two extremes I've seen JP struggle to close the gap in these conversations and it looks like he can really only poke around at the edges of an atheists idea of truth. Mouravieff talks about it in one of his Gnosis books, from memory, and he says that holding onto a seed of truth and rejecting all else versus seeing all as a possible truth are both valid paths although they have their differences.
 
But Dillahunty was definitely far more relaxed and in good spirits about the whole thing, although thinking about it, his position of atheism is also a lot easier to convey, which in a roundabout way is because we can't see god, and there is no way to really prove or provide smoking gun evidence of the existence of higher realms outside our immediate realms of perception, therefore, it doesn't have to play a major role in conducting our lives. We can get along without those belief systems in place. Jordan Peterson has to prove that there is something that underlies our moral choices, and that without it, we'd be lost, or not able to navigate the world the same way. And that's more difficult because it does require a leap of faith, just not a leap of ignorance. But then you have to explain the difference between the two.

I think Ruppert Sheldrake expressed the problem well that people who argue with Atheists usually face in this short video:


The debate is actually a philosophical one between rigid materialism and other options that allow "higher realms" or the unknown that exists outside the framework of rigid materialism. But Peterson has no philosophical background and has never really thought through these things, hence he doesn't go there, and I think it's wise - the power of his presentations lies in the fact that he has deeply thought about what he's presenting; he doesn't just repeat some arguments he has read about somewhere.

But as Sheldrake says in the video, you cannot win a debate against an atheist/materialist if you take the materialist perspective for granted. Then it's how you said, Turgon: you are on the defensive, and you need to explain why "supernatural" things should be possible if by the very definition of materialism they are not.

I think the only "weapon" Peterson has is the is-ought problem: empirical facts tell us what is, but they can't tell us how we should act. I think Peterson does a great job nailing this problem when he says that we orient ourselves in the world through stories, religious beliefs and so on, and that we literally can't see without a value structure.

But the thing is that 19th century materialism, on which the atheist faith (sic) is based, doesn't hold up - it's riddled with contradictions and rests on assumptions that make no sense when you look at them closely. Sheldrake has done a splendid job in his book "the science delusion" showing all this.

In fact, the atheists/materialists always imply that their worldview - the universe is a lifeless machine, everything is just made of dead matter and nothing but dead matter etc. - is totally obvious and proven and that we "believers" need to provide definite proof in the form of some repeatable miracle in the lab or something.

But it's actually the other way around: our default, world view that is totally obvious for almost everyone is that we are all conscious beings, that animals, humans and plants are living organism with a life force that connects all of us, that we are the architects of our own fate because we are conscious beings with free will, that our actions have moral meaning, that nature is full of wonder and surprises, that everything is made up of cycles and subject to constant change, that life is sacred and so on. That's the obvious way to look at the world. The materialists, on the other hand, think that we are just machines with illusions, life sprang into being "randomly" by "billiard ball atoms" bouncing around, that everything is determined and we have no free will, the whole universe is a big machine like a steam engine, the laws of nature are weirdly forever existing outside time and space and immutable, yet nothing can really exist outside the material world, that we have it all figured out except for some details and are on a linear path, somehow having escaped the cyclical nature of the cosmos etc.

So, it's a theory this outrageous and far-fletched that needs "definitive proof", and not the obvious (religious) view that the realm of consciousness is the true driver of the universe. In other words, to debate an atheist, you need to turn the tables and attack his ridiculous 19th century materialism that he doesn't even know he's possessed by.
 
fwiw Peterson’s discussions with materialists reminds me of all the interactions Laura has had with them over the years (I vaguely remember a back and forth email exchange, but I can't find it).

Here's something she wrote back in 2012 - Science and Religion
[..]
Just so, the flesh of our idea bodies are built on certain skeletal foundations and long observation has convinced me that it is not the foundation that is either “scientific” or “religious” but something else that is far more interesting and subtle: an ideological state. Let me try to explain.


Wikipedia tells us that “ideology” is:


[…] a set of ideas that constitutes one’s goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things […], as in common sense […] and several philosophical tendencies […], or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a “received consciousness” or product of socialization). […] Ideologies are systems of abstract thought applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought. It is how society sees things.​

There appear to be two fundamental “skeleton types” on which the flesh of our idea structures are grown and to which they are attached with all the permanence of ligaments attaching flesh to bones, and it cannot be so easily disposed of as labeling it “religious” or “scientific”. One of them is well understood within our culture: “Materialism”. But what is the other? Well, oddly enough there isn’t a well-defined alternative commonly understood in our world today. Wikipedia (again), informs us that:


In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. […] The philosophical alternatives to materialism are dualism and idealism.​

The only alternatives are dualism and idealism?! Well, when you look a bit deeper you find that there are some other options such as Pluralism and Monism. In the end, when you’ve finished frying your brain reading all the philosophical arguments, you come back to the realization that there are actually just TWO basic positions: those who think that matter is somehow the root and branch of existence and that consciousness is just a by-product of sensations of atoms jostling one another (so to say), and those who think that consciousness (not personal consciousness, but Cosmic Consciousness) is the fundamental Oneness from which all else springs or emanates, including matter. Interestingly, you can find fanatical adherents of religion building their religious beliefs on a very materialistic ideology while you can also find brilliant scientists – pure experimentalists – among those who are convinced that consciousness, i.e. spirit, is somehow the fundamental element of all that exists. That’s really it. Bake it, fry it, or boil it down, it ends up as one of these two basic views which we can, I think, define for our purposes as Material vs. Spiritual – using the term “spiritual” as a convention to stand in for pre-existent Cosmic Consciousness.


As I pointed out in “The Golden Age, Psychopathy and the Sixth Extinction,” I actually think that these two fundamental states in human beings are the result of genetics – possibly a mixing of Neanderthal genes with modern humans, producing numerous personality pathologies including psychopathy and the Authoritarian Personality. What seems to be clear and frightening is that such types have taken over science. Such individuals do not make the best scientists – probably not even good ones – but psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski explains how this can happen – because he witnessed it himself in Communist Poland and described the process in his seminal work, Political Ponerology. [..]
 
In fact, the atheists/materialists always imply that their worldview - the universe is a lifeless machine, everything is just made of dead matter and nothing but dead matter etc. - is totally obvious and proven and that we "believers" need to provide definite proof in the form of some repeatable miracle in the lab or something.

From painful experience, that is a "debate" that I will simply not engage in anymore. I tried it several times, and there is simply no common ground to be found.

The atheist/materialist generally won't even accept that, "I have my views, and you have yours". Even that's not allowed. In fact, it's disallowed with a ferocious intensity that is exactly the fiery type of "faith" that materialists claim to be against!

That's a particular type of mind-BLEEP that is insanely strong, and the only one who can change it is the materialist/atheist themselves. The same is true of "true believers" of whatever religion. We think that those ideas and beliefs are SO central to who we are that we don't leave much room for discussion or doubt. To do so often means inner collapse.

The only thing that works is time, life experience, and more time... And even then, most people will go to their graves still clinging to the same ideas they formed at a rather young age.
 
Back
Top Bottom