The Hitch said:
macbindle said:
(*Not specically US Politics related, but here is a great Peterson interview where he gets skewered repeatedly by his interviewer, who won't let him get away with his bully boy tactics and isn't at all intimidated by his intellectual superiority schtick:
https://youtu.be/yZYQpge1W5s
(I cant decide which is my favourite bit. It might be where he's talking about his Lobster analogy and she points out that he's just using an animal that fits his argument and asks why he doesn't use Killer whales who live in matriachal family structures....he doesn't respond :lol: or where she kicks the Lobster schitt into the bin with the words "“Lobsters don’t get depressed. I think you’re anthropomorphising to a ridiculous degree. These are creatures that urinate out of their faces.”)
And here is Peterson whining about it later, back home with acolyte Joe Rogan:
https://youtu.be/lG7ynbKhYX4 )
Seems you came out of it with a different interpretations than most people did.
But that's ok. At least its introducing you to Peterson's work. I would suggest some of his earlier stuff. His psychology lectures or talks/ confronting struggle etc. It shouldn't just be about catching him out.
she points out that he's just using an animal that fits his argument and asks why he doesn't use Killer whales who live in matriachal family structures....he doesn't respond
I'm surprised you think the "he's just using an animal that fits his argument" point is strong. First of all Peterson doesn't just talk about Lobsters, she happened to decide to grill him on that animal. H
e talks probably more about chimpanzees and other primates. He's had entire lectures on rats. I remember him analysing studies on monkeys. And this is just what I can remember and I have watched maybe 3 Peterson interviews in the last year.
Secondly its not like Lobsters are the only animal with a patriarchal structure is it? There are so many animals that happen to have a patriarchal structure. If Peterson had chosen any of them instead of Lobsters she would still have accused him of "using an animal that fits his argument". If there was 1 animal that had a patriarchal structure and he chose that, maybe you can use that accusation. When its like half the animal kingdom (figure of speech - lots of animals), it seems more like she is searching for something to pick up.
i
hope you aren't on the both genders are the exact same bandwagon, because that seems to me like a a loser
And here is Peterson whining about it later, back home with acolyte Joe Rogan:
Why wouldn't you believe Peterson here?
Not specically US Politics related, but here is a great Peterson interview where he gets skewered repeatedly by his interviewer, who won't let him get away with his bully boy tactics and isn't at all intimidated by his intellectual superiority schtick
The main take away I remember from this interview was that the interviewer disgraced herself by saying she thought Count Dankula is an actual Nazi.
If you are not familiar with the case, its the comedian who made a video, of his dog doing a "nazi salute" (lifting up its paw) to the words "gas the jews". He explicitly lays out before the act, the intention - to piss his gf off for fun. He is making fun of Nazis, but got a fine and is facing jail in the UK for doing this.
Its not like he has a schwastika tatoo, or had any links to far right groups, or had any political stuff on his channel at all. Not that that needs to be said, people do jokes at the expense of Nazis like that all the time.
For some reason elements of the far left decided to adopt him as an example of an actual Nazi.
And in the 2 years since he has moved from someone who had left wing opinions to joining UKIP and befriending Tommy Robinson.
Which brings up beautifully to the point of how someone can be made to move to the right by accusations of racism (though of course Dankula is not remotely a racist person, but I know to some crazies, joining UKIP may be intepreted that way)
First bolded:
How can you possibly claim to know what "most people's" interpretation of the interview was?
Think about that for a moment and consider the implications it has for pretty much anything you say
Second bolded:
Chimpanzees are cannibalistic. Did you know that? Still want to use chimpanzee behaviour as analogous to humans, and if you do where does it leave the notion of ethics?
Third bolded:
Both genders aren't the same? Do you subscribe to the view that gender is, at least in part, socially constructed? And if you do, are you open to the possibility that it can be re-constructed?
If no is the answer to both, do you sit in the Functionalist camp with regards to your understanding of gender?
Fouth bolded:
I don't believe Peterson because I think he is disingenuous at best, and possibly dishonest. You regard him as some sort of great thinker
de nos jours I view him as an ephemeral chancer who, by sheer fortune, has realised he can cleverly surf the wave of right-wing blowback against "identity politics", and in so doing quadruple his income for the brief moment in which he is an internet celebrity. He is a professional controversialist. Look at his great body of works. A mere two books, one of which is airport bookstore staple. This isn't Bertrand Russell we are talking about. :lol:
I note he refutes claims that his audience is composed of angry men by claiming they aren't angry when they come to his lectures. Of course they won't be...he's telling them what they want to hear. He's affirming their self-justifications.
Frankly his whining in that Joe Rogan interview is hardly in keeping with his own prescription for admirable noble male behaviour. Boo hoo the horrid feminist was mean to me.
The truth? She challenged him very effectively because she was both well-prepared and in possession of the arguments. She didn't allow him to engage in his usual tactics. He claims he was "more impatient" as a result of her behaviour, the implication being that he was somehow dealing with a stupid person who either didn't understand the genius of his arguments or was unable to engage in rational debate at his level.
The truth? He wasn't impatient. He was angry and frustrated that she was exposing him.