Forum Home > Battle Videos > Battle Video Archives
Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman


View Poll Results: Who Won?
Jordan 11 100.00%
Cathy 0 0%
Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-13-2018, 07:46 AM   #41
Profess
Registered User
 
Profess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,286
Mentioned: 249 Post(s)
Profess is better than Grind Time AntarcticaProfess is better than Grind Time AntarcticaProfess is better than Grind Time AntarcticaProfess is better than Grind Time AntarcticaProfess is better than Grind Time Antarctica
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuntoffs are Jumps View Post
this convo hurts my weiner, taking the inverse of naive liberal positions i.e. the 1% deserve what they have, have earned it etc. does not a convincing argument make (as an absolutist mantra it's stupid as saying they're all, without exception, total cunts)

you should text battle bout this tho fo tho.

'I got the heat here son'
I like how you articulated that "the inverse of liberal positions" here's the thing.. If we are talking about Peterson philosophy or the angle I'd take.. Neither would do that. But how you put that shines a light of where a lot of the misunderstandings lay
Profess is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 06:10 AM   #42
karkcack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
karkcack is not the worst person
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbylight View Post
To be honest I don't think that zonal has actually listened to Jordan Peterson at all. I think he has just heard second hand critiques of him. He has not specifically argued any points Peterson has made, just said he disagrees with overarching themes that don't even seem like an accurate representation of Peterson.

Watch this video and make arguments against it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofmuCXRMoSA
i watched a little of this out of morbid curiosity, i'll step in for a minute. i'll address all the positive points i remember him making in the 15 minutes of this i watched.

1. marxism assumes that being economically well-off is valuable

well, this is a weird one. a few minutes later peterson himself recapitulates orwell's description of miners at wiggan pier, shares orwell's opinion that the working conditions were horrendous, and expects the audience to think the same. there is no systematic argument, however, for why these conditions are undesirable--peterson believes it will be apparent from an empirical description of the conditions. so it seems that he himself recognizes that certain labor conditions seem desirable or undesirable in and of themselves, regardless of who the workers are. and justifiably so -- the conditions sound terrible. so why would he oppose marxism with the idea that people's values might lead them to have different views on the value of economic circumstance? sure, it may be the case that not everyone wants a mansion and a private jet, but what may seem more important here is that no one wants to be forced to work in squalid and exploitative working conditions. it's odd--in the interview op posted, Peterson seemed all about statistics, "being worth your weight in salt as a social scientist," understanding human behavior through biology... but now, here, to oppose Marxism, which presents itself as a science, he decides to lean on a certain relativism, which seems inconsistent with the sort of scholarly objectivity he seems interested in. if differences in human values are so important, why would they not also undermine his idea that humans should act like their lobster ancestors?

For that matter, how can you counter Marxism with the idea of differences in people's personal values without grappling with Marx's idea of false consciousness? Or its successors, such as Gramsci's idea of hegemony, Althusser's idea of ideology and interpellation, or Foucault's idea of governmentality? All of these suggest ways that individual autonomy and individual values are molded by dominant culture in ways that undermine simplistic ideas of individual autonomy and individual values.

2. the marxist idea that social arrangements should be changed and made more equal is simply a comforting idea that hides the fact that life is suffering

this one is also.... really weird. life is suffering? ok.... so. let me speak to you, individual person on rmbva who is reading my post rn. you've probably experienced some suffering in life, yeah? yeah. you've also experienced some other stuff that felt a little better, right? happiness maybe? joy? fulfillment? right. so. life may be suffering but it's also some other things. m'hm. right. so--let's think back to those mine workers. they had to stoop down and walk and walk through those tunnels to get to work. sounds like suffering right? what if a new law was passed that made making workers do that illegal, or--better yet--the workers owned their own business where they could make their own decisions and not be subjected to such drudgery. sounds like there's less suffering involved, right? ok. so, what we've determined, in other words, is that the human experience of suffering is not total and constant throughout life, but makes up only a part of life. what we've also determined is that it is possible to lessen suffering by transforming existing conditions. idk what else to say about this one

3. orwell's point that a weakness of the labor party in england (it was either that or a specific labor group) was that they were motivated not by empathy for the working-class, but hatred of the rich

So--this one's actually interesting. The interesting part, however, comes from Orwell, not Peterson. I stopped watching not too much after this, so I'm probably missing some directions that Peterson took this. But I got the impression that Peterson was trying to take this point of Orwell's and use it to characterize the entirety of the left--that they're (we're) all motivated by hatred for the rich, or the successful as he calls them. idk whether Peterson eventually mentions this, but Orwell of course was a socialist. His idea resonates with me because I too am concerned with ways that left rhetoric can be used in ways that don't actually accord with love or justice or liberation or other things that we might value. Orwell and I, then, would share the idea that it's possible to have left thinking and left movements that avoid being motivated primarily by hatred for a group of people. Peterson is right to point out that there is a tendency on the left to employ certain ethical rhetorics and then not live up to those ethics, or to virtue signal with ulterior motives. but these same critiques occur within the left. it's only by treating the left (or "marxists" or whatever his most general term is) as a monolithic entity that he seems able to leverage a critique. again here he borrows an argument from outside his typical ideological/academic comfort zone in an opportunistic attempt to make a lot of people and a lot of important ideas look bad
karkcack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 06:26 AM   #43
karkcack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
karkcack is not the worst person
what's really funny about saying that marxism is just a comforting idea to distract from the Christian fact that life is suffering is it's just an inversion of Marx's view of religion as an opiate of the masses lol

how the hell is marxism "comforting" lmao it's a call to action ffs. what's comforting about realizing that human greed and lust for power has led to unimaginably terrible working conditions all over the world and it's gotten into our heads and messed us up and now we have to organize to stop it?
karkcack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2018, 01:01 PM   #44
bobbylight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,544
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
bobbylight is not the worst person
Quote:
Originally Posted by karkcack View Post

2. the marxist idea that social arrangements should be changed and made more equal is simply a comforting idea that hides the fact that life is suffering

this one is also.... really weird. life is suffering? ok.... so. let me speak to you, individual person on rmbva who is reading my post rn. you've probably experienced some suffering in life, yeah? yeah. you've also experienced some other stuff that felt a little better, right? happiness maybe? joy? fulfillment? right. so. life may be suffering but it's also some other things. m'hm. right. so--let's think back to those mine workers. they had to stoop down and walk and walk through those tunnels to get to work. sounds like suffering right? what if a new law was passed that made making workers do that illegal, or--better yet--the workers owned their own business where they could make their own decisions and not be subjected to such drudgery. sounds like there's less suffering involved, right? ok. so, what we've determined, in other words, is that the human experience of suffering is not total and constant throughout life, but makes up only a part of life. what we've also determined is that it is possible to lessen suffering by transforming existing conditions. idk what else to say about this one
I think what Peterson is talking about is existential suffering. I am coming from a Buddhist framework but the first noble truth of Buddhism, what all of Buddhism is based on, is that life is suffering. This can be translated differently, and I prefer that life is stressful or it is full of incontentedness.

Yes, life has happiness. But it is never really lasting. From a Buddhist perspective suffering is caused by attachment or clinging; clinging to things, ideas, the self, thoughts, emotions, etc. Through non attachment we can relieve suffering. The 3 mile walk with hunched over is unpleasant, but it doesn't necessarily have to be suffering if you don't attach to the feelings of unpleasantness. I'm not saying this is an excuse for these conditions to be OK. I am just saying that with the right mindset someone working in those conditions could be happy. It is very likely that some of those people were happier and more content than their life than many in the royal family.

Transcending suffering is not necessarily about changing your own conditions but how you view your own conditions. And if you have the right view you will likely be able to make the right choices to improve your conditions as well. But if you cannot, then you can still be content living in shitty conditions with the right mindset.

You talk about these coal miners owning their own business. How many people own their own business? How many are capable of doing that successfully?

I heard a Buddhist monk named Ajahn Sumedho say a few things that might be relevant. One was that he would rather be a wise slave than an ignorant king. And he certainly meant that. All of the luxuries in the world coupled with a mind full of greed, hatred, and delusion is a life of far more suffering than a slave with horrible working conditions but understands the way things are. He also said that if you have to live in the sewer learn to be content with it. As a caveat he said if you can get out of the sewer, by all means do that, but if not, then learn to be content with your situation.

So many people want fame, money, and recognition and think it will bring them happiness. Yet many famous celebrities live in despair and in some cases take their own lives but I doubt many of those coal miners were killing themselves. You can be truly happy and have almost nothing.
bobbylight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 10:39 PM   #45
Jaybird
Registered User
 
Jaybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 739
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Jaybird is not the worst person
Chapo Trap House >
Jaybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
8217, 8220, 8221


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 
Forum Stats
Members: 5,544
Threads: 27,122
Posts: 732,967
Total Online: 1907

Newest Member: OnceAgainImHere

Latest Threads
- by iamHBY
- by Emancee
- by Profess
- by iamHBY
- by iamHBY
- by iamHBY
- by Bigzero



All times are GMT. The time now is 10:59 AM.