In case you dislike the above, just do tell me what interesting things Peterson, the plausibly mediocre man, might have said to make him less than mediocre and confirmation biased?
What? no but yeah but no but yeah....
Could you make these posts a bit clearer please?
If you are saying what I think you are saying, then how would it be proved to you that a person isn't "mediocre"?
An above average education? University professor? Published author? Distinguished career? Rich? Succesful? Millions finding what they say resonates? What exactly?
If I have made a mistake and that's not what you were suggesting then I apologise as something has been lost in transalation I think.
@UnderstandMouseMagic Ignore them. They disappear from the forums for awhile, come back and immediately start insulting people in the more recent threads. Once trouble has been stirred up, they disappear again for about a month or so.
@UnderstandMouseMagic Ignore them. They disappear from the forums for awhile, come back and immediately start insulting people in the more recent threads. Once trouble has been stirred up, they disappear again for about a month or so.
@UnderstandMouseMagic Ignore them. They disappear from the forums for awhile, come back and immediately start insulting people in the more recent threads. Once trouble has been stirred up, they disappear again for about a month or so.
@ThacoBell have I been gone long enough so that I can start insulting people.
Don't discuss/judge other users in comments. If something is against the Site rules, report it to moderators.
Report any inappropriate content to the forum moderators. There's a button on every post - "Flag".
If you see a post that you think breaks one of the rules, click "Flag", then "Report". A window will pop up. Choose the rule that you think the post is breaking. If you're not sure, choose "Other". Provide any additional details in the Notes section. Press "Send Report".
Do this instead of engaging with the problem yourself in-thread. Let the moderators decide how to deal with any issues between users.
Eh, why would anyone advocate for equality of outcome? The contributions people make are clearly not equal.
in order to correct systemic injustice that precludes equality of opportunity so that at different social strata, within certain pronounced structures such as professions and positions of authority there can be a seeming of equal accomplishment, basically a seeming of equality. since the society is a spectacle this seeming-equality in turn makes the majority group start seeing people from other groups more openly and equally which affects their behavior which gradually produces real, material, equality. the belief is also that since equal opportunities would naturally create equal outcomes anyway, having artificially mandated equal outcomes now and true equal opportunity come along a little later can only be a good and more equal and never a bad and less equal thing.
in the us ideological framework this future oriented idea is called progress, and the person who upholds this approach to achieving equality is called a progressive. this was very clear to a lot of people until about 15 yrs ago, but as the center moved to the right, and the us ideological framework degraded, the notion of progressivism got diluted so while it still means something since people naturally want it to mean something different from "centrist liberal" it just means "a liberal who expresses appreciation and sensitivity towards minorities" without the underpinning political philosophy. the idea of equality of outcome is now not taken seriously anymore and it's being supplanted with the more "nuts & bilts" and confrontational concept of white privilege. as this is not progressivism since it's not a gradualist, future oriented approach, but it looks to the past injustices a lot and tends to work on an case-by-case basis by focusing on individual transgressions, progressivism as an ideology is effectively dead.
sadly all of this is quite bad. these ideas are highly corruptible and not robust at all. what was called progress was never comprehensive progress that created a sense of increased general wellbeing. now there aren't any okay popular ideas in american politics. americans don't know this, but the rest of the West, not even Canada, except mbe until recently shares these ideas, or "values". This has made the USA more isolated and less liked in the world. The USA is not seen as a cosmpolitan society and that's a shame.
Eh, why would anyone advocate for equality of outcome? The contributions people make are clearly not equal.
in order to correct systemic injustice that precludes equality of opportunity so that at different social strata, within certain pronounced structures such as professions and positions of authority there can be a seeming of equal accomplishment, basically a seeming of equality.
Why is "a seeming of equality" important? Also, why wouldn't equality of opportunity correct any precluding inequality over time?
from a humanist standpoint all people are believed to have the same basic preferences when it comes to really important things. when you apply this to a capitalist society and to what america is mostly all about: some kind of tangible, observable, success - you get a shared understanding that everyone wants to have access to places of prestige, wealth, authority, like silicon valley CEO jobs etc. this is obviously not a very deep idea, but that's really how it works.
Eh, why would anyone advocate for equality of outcome? The contributions people make are clearly not equal.
in order to correct systemic injustice that precludes equality of opportunity so that at different social strata, within certain pronounced structures such as professions and positions of authority there can be a seeming of equal accomplishment, basically a seeming of equality.
Why is "a seeming of equality" important? Also, why wouldn't equality of opportunity correct any precluding inequality over time?
it's important because thinkers and instigators of social change thought that the way things appear is the way things are to ordinary observers. when people start feeling the change by seeing things change, they will start acting accordingly. this undoubtedly is true to a large extent, but is it a good precept to organize a society around? apparently not that amazing (when trump was talking about the "forgotten man", a LOT of people responded to that, because over many years they started understanding that some force in the society is trying to make something be seen all the time, but somehow it's never them...)
after the civil rights movement it was thought that it's improbable that equality of opportunity will arise spontaneously because just "formal", legal equality won't transfer to real, material equality on it's own.
from a humanist standpoint all people are believed to have the same basic preferences when it comes to really important things. when you apply this to a capitalist society and to what america is mostly all about: some kind of tangible, observable, success - you get a shared understanding that everyone wants to have access to places of prestige, wealth, authority, like silicon valley CEO jobs etc. this is obviously not a very deep idea, but that's really how it works.
i'm not advocating for anything here (actually the opposite), and i'm not talking at that level and mode of argument where i'm supposed to provide evidence. this is really just talking broadly about ideas.
and, btw, did you really think a crusader for equality of outcome would come out of nowhere to give you the most integral and canonical recitation of his ideology right here, after you asked that question? unlikely. probably you expected that no-one would defend it, as very few people generally do. so i tried to fairly and briefly present you what i know about the idea. if that's not enough for you, you're asking for too much.
I realize I'm late, but @smeagolheart that is a total mischaracterization by David Pakman. The interview is almost 3 hours long, but the overall clip shown is 6-7 minutes of Peterson and Rogan. If you watch the entire interview, the solution being proposed is CULTURALLY ENFORCED monogamy. If taken into complete context, what he's calling for is for men to be better. Better can mean many different things, but that whole clip by Pakman is a strawman. Completely within Pakman's right to post the video, and within your's to share it, but it is not an accurate representation of the viewpoint being discussed.
I don't know that he says in the rest of the interview, just what it shows in the clip.
It seems to me he should be arguing for legal prostitution but that may be a position he is opposed to or uncomfortable with. If prostitution was legal, that would solve what is presented as a "problem" of men not being able to get sex.
@bob_veng I'm not sure he's been given the chance, although you're free to disagree. All of the shorter clips and interviews have been rather sensational. Rogan sometimes will play the devil's advocate with him, but I get the feeling he agrees with most of what Peterson is saying. Sam Harris has had some long form discussions with him recently, and they disagree on some things. I guess we'll see if he can consider such ideas as soon as they release those videos.
i've never heard him present ideas the he doesn't espouse in a fair way, and i've heard him do the opposite, so that's how i came to the conclusion. i haven't listened to the recent talks with sam harris yet, but i will.
The entire cadre of Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris and others recently dubbed as "intellectual dark web" reminds me of nothing so much as a bunch of pretentious college freshman having a circle jerk on the campus quad. Speaking for hours upon hours at a time and basically saying nothing.
Comments
Discussing Joe Rogan discrediting Jordan Peterson's position on incel
What? no but yeah but no but yeah....
Could you make these posts a bit clearer please?
If you are saying what I think you are saying, then how would it be proved to you that a person isn't "mediocre"?
An above average education? University professor? Published author? Distinguished career? Rich? Succesful? Millions finding what they say resonates?
What exactly?
If I have made a mistake and that's not what you were suggesting then I apologise as something has been lost in transalation I think.
Don't discuss/judge other users in comments. If something is against the Site rules, report it to moderators.
Report any inappropriate content to the forum moderators. There's a button on every post - "Flag".
If you see a post that you think breaks one of the rules, click "Flag", then "Report". A window will pop up. Choose the rule that you think the post is breaking. If you're not sure, choose "Other". Provide any additional details in the Notes section. Press "Send Report".
Do this instead of engaging with the problem yourself in-thread. Let the moderators decide how to deal with any issues between users.
Oh come on, it was a joke.
And the comment by @ThacoBell was not a joke. This is not something we can let pass.
in the us ideological framework this future oriented idea is called progress, and the person who upholds this approach to achieving equality is called a progressive. this was very clear to a lot of people until about 15 yrs ago, but as the center moved to the right, and the us ideological framework degraded, the notion of progressivism got diluted so while it still means something since people naturally want it to mean something different from "centrist liberal" it just means "a liberal who expresses appreciation and sensitivity towards minorities" without the underpinning political philosophy. the idea of equality of outcome is now not taken seriously anymore and it's being supplanted with the more "nuts & bilts" and confrontational concept of white privilege. as this is not progressivism since it's not a gradualist, future oriented approach, but it looks to the past injustices a lot and tends to work on an case-by-case basis by focusing on individual transgressions, progressivism as an ideology is effectively dead.
sadly all of this is quite bad. these ideas are highly corruptible and not robust at all. what was called progress was never comprehensive progress that created a sense of increased general wellbeing. now there aren't any okay popular ideas in american politics. americans don't know this, but the rest of the West, not even Canada, except mbe until recently shares these ideas, or "values". This has made the USA more isolated and less liked in the world. The USA is not seen as a cosmpolitan society and that's a shame.
after the civil rights movement it was thought that it's improbable that equality of opportunity will arise spontaneously because just "formal", legal equality won't transfer to real, material equality on it's own.
It seems to me he should be arguing for legal prostitution but that may be a position he is opposed to or uncomfortable with. If prostitution was legal, that would solve what is presented as a "problem" of men not being able to get sex.
- - -
@FinneousPJ
i've bothered to find an easily readable contemporary apologia for equality of outcome
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/merit-vs-equality-argument/
see if you find that more convincing