Free speech debate. Dyson vs. Jordan Peterson

[tkotom]

Dyson is an even bigger faux-intellectual can than Peterson. He wins the word-salad tossing contest.

Articulate why Peterson is a faux-intellectual, please.

 

[IDL]

I don't care if guys throw ad hominem attacks around online, but this was a formal debate. Dyson is a clown, no wonder the crowd started booing. It looks like it rattled Peterson though, whereas he's usually known for keeping his cool in situations like that. I think he's been pushing himself too hard lately. My prediction is this whole rock star world tour that he's on now is gonna end with him being hospitalized for exhaustion or something like that.

It's creepy how Peterson has become almost like an Antichrist figure for so many on the left.

People have been worried about Peterson collapsing from exhaustion for a long time now. Dude is a machine. He seems to be speeding up rather than slowing down.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Articulate why Peterson is a faux-intellectual, please.

I think we've been down this long and painful road before...

 

[tkotom]

I think we've been down this long and painful road before...

Don’t be scared

 

[asdffdsa]

I don't care if guys throw ad hominem attacks around online, but this was a formal debate. Dyson is a clown, no wonder the crowd started booing. It looks like it rattled Peterson though, whereas he's usually known for keeping his cool in situations like that. I think he's been pushing himself too hard lately. My prediction is this whole rock star world tour that he's on now is gonna end with him being hospitalized for exhaustion or something like that.

It's creepy how Peterson has become almost like an Antichrist figure for so many on the left.

Yeah Dyson sucks. I had only seen him on Maher's show where he can demonstrate his ability to create sound bites. It appears that given more time to talk he will make a real was of himself.

He called Peterson an angry white guy because of how he addressed others at the debate yet he is the one taking cheap shots the entire time regardless of how far off topic it takes him.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Peterson I think was trying to get into something more underlying, but it wasn't obvious what he was getting at as related solely to the topic. I know it was related but it wasn't obvious and could be perceived as confusing. I think he was trying to talk about the ideology underlying political correctness, but not political correctness itself. I think it would have been a better conversation if it was kept closer to topic in a conventional sense.

Early on he brought up society benefiting most through an individual to individual philosophy at the core. So he touched on ideology there and in my opinion did so to show we had to pick a path to apply to speech and the limiting thereof. To me that's on point. When he spoke of left wing government atrocities in the prior century that was to invite common ground into the discussion on how far is too far. Also on point, and they ducked it. When Dyson turned it around Peterson had no problem naming instances. To my memory, the PC side refused to denounce any specific instance in history.

Why can't you be an individual who is also part of a group. Like how most normal people act. Why is it one or the other.

You can. It's not one or the other exclusively. It's how do you view things at their core? Are you here to primarily better the group (by whoever's definition that is), or do you as an individual form groups to attain for yourself and loved ones the most life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (by your own definition)? I pick the second one.

Then I apply that to individuals exchanging ideas. In my opinion here's nothing more fundamental in nature than self-defense and there's nothing more important for the success of humans than the sharing of ideas and viewpoints.

Then I apply that philosophy to the idea that people should or shouldn't be bullied into following the pre-approved thinking and speaking process. PC, when looking at the aspect of it that attempts to control language, is an affront to that philosophy. That's just me though. For all I know you prefer the commie approach.

What exactly was his "point"?

No matter how he sees himself others will place him into a group (whether he likes it or not).

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

He seems to be speeding up rather than slowing down.

Sure sign of the end.

 

[IDL]

Sure sign of the end.

He's going to go supernova

 

[IDL]

Early on he brought up society benefiting most through an individual to individual philosophy at the core. So he touched on ideology there and in my opinion did so to show we had to pick a path to apply to speech and the limiting thereof. To me that's on point. When he spoke of left wing government atrocities in the prior century that was to invite common ground into the discussion on how far is too far. Also on point, and they ducked it. When Dyson turned it around Peterson had no problem naming instances. To my memory, the PC side refused to denounce any specific instance in history.

Yeah it's a great question really. How do you define where the left goes too far. Not a question with an easy answer, but clearly it can go too far (Russia, China, etc). Without that sort of introspection it is easy to freight train right into the same circumstances over and over again.

The lady tried to answer but it was a shallow answer. Not something she has really thought about most likely. Dyson just tried to turn it around and make it about the right rather than attempt to answer.

It is a common theme though, that of a historical blind spot that the left has because of how under educated people are on disastrous examples of leftism pushed too far in history. Whereas the education focuses largely on the right wing extremes.

Despite it being a good question though, it seemed a bit out of place within this particular debate, even though yes it is related in an indirect way.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The lady tried to answer but it was a shallow answer. Not something she has really thought about most likely. Dyson just tried to turn it around and make it about the right rather than attempt to answer.

Pretty much.

She wasn't very impressive overall and homie came off as a race baiter. In tandem it was one big appeal to emotion. If someone could point out a notable variance from that strategy I'd be surprised.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Early on he brought up society benefiting most through an individual to individual philosophy at the core. So he touched on ideology there and in my opinion did so to show we had to pick a path to apply to speech and the limiting thereof. To me that's on point. When he spoke of left wing government atrocities in the prior century that was to invite common ground into the discussion on how far is too far. Also on point, and they ducked it. When Dyson turned it around Peterson had no problem naming instances. To my memory, the PC side refused to denounce any specific instance in history.

I really wish Christopher Hitchens were still around to be in that debate. Hitch and Fry were a powerful duo. Hitch brought devastating wit while Fry brought sophistication. It would have been interesting watching Dyson and that female getting Hitchslapped.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

No matter how he sees himself others will place him into a group (whether he likes it or not).

That may be true for Mr. Dyson, who only sees Professor Peterson as an "angry white man".

Regardless, his group analysis is quite irrelevant. As Professor Peterson began to explain, groups are a concept comprised of individuals, and these concepts do not exist independent or superior to the individuals that comprise and create them.

On a side note, I'm not at all surprised that someone like Mr. Dyson who engaged in abysmal and unapologetic racism in this debate, would insist on classifying everyone into groups.

 

[nostradumbass]

I was very impressed with Dyson. You don't often hear someone go through a full roll of word-of-the-day toilet paper without actually saying anything.

 

[Bamboozled]

Watching now, I'm hopig JP blows this bitch out of the water on her absurd assumptions. If you're going to debate someone you shouldn't just throw out quotes without proper context or understanding what they mean by their statements. Frye is consistently hit or miss for me so I'm hoping this one he hits.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Don’t be scared

I wish I was so clueless that I thought educated people didn't want to engage in debate with me because they were afraid to lose. Rather than because they knew the depth of the discussion was way over my head and would be a waste of their time. That would be awesome.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

That may be true for Mr. Dyson, who only sees Professor Peterson as an "angry white man".

Regardless, his group analysis is quite irrelevant.

You may disagree with the groupings, but that's how humans work. We group shit.

I found it relevant. Just not persuasive.

 

[Grenz]

People have been worried about Peterson collapsing from exhaustion for a long time now. Dude is a machine. He seems to be speeding up rather than slowing down.

He's not teaching anymore and he's closed his practice, ostensibly temporarily. Sure he's busy, but he's no more busy than other successful people who are in the same line of work i.e. 'pop intellectualism'. This isn't even a dig at Peterson, but this martyrdom that's ascribed to him isn't real: all successful people are extremely busy, and so is he. It seems like he cleared out his life sufficiently to bear his new responsibilities.

 

[franklinstower]

Jordan Peterson is a brilliant man IMO but he cheapens himself greatly by focusing the issues he does. I listened to the bulk of this debate today on the road.

Bottom line is there are a bunch of assholes out there who are rude and loud and for whom it is too much of an inconvenience to take notice and change behavior to be more inclusive and kind. These same people are often the biggest pussies around even though they seem to try to lay claim to the tough old school pull yourself up by the bootstraps mythology. Most of them are fat out of shape softies who carry themselves like they are hard-- do anything or say anything against their CODE and arouse great anger (insert the words fear and emotionalism here as anger is a secondary emotion).

In the absence of loud assholes who are basically always mildly aggressive I have found MUCH better discussion and social interactions are possible. These people never see these interactions though as they dont happen in their presence in the same way that a delicate sand mandala cant happen when the wind is blowing.

 

[IDL]

He's not teaching anymore and he's closed his practice, ostensibly temporarily. Sure he's busy, but he's no more busy than other successful people who are in the same line of work i.e. 'pop intellectualism'. This isn't even a dig at Peterson, but this martyrdom that's ascribed to him isn't real: all successful people are extremely busy, and so is he. It seems like he cleared out his life sufficiently to bear his new responsibilities.

I think it has more to do with having to deal with sticking his head up in a way where people tend to take swipes at it. Getting protested, misrepresented, hit peices, etc, while also being fairly invested in his work of helping people and maintaining composure. The 'tole' is not simply the amount of time spent. There is a sort of orthodoxy that he is challenging that does not like to be challenged.

But yeah, he seems to be dealing with the time issue well, like you say. I don't think he sees himself as any sort of martyr, and I think he sees the swipes as something that comes with the territory, and oftentimes even something that turns out positive (see Cathy Newman).

And he was actually experiencing health issues not too long ago, but I don't think it was related. Looked kinda frail for a bit there.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Steven Fry stole the show. .one of his greatest quotes in this debate was, "the election of Trump, brexit, and successes of nativists all across Europe isn't bevause of triumphs of the right, it is the catastrophic failure of the left."

Fry's point on this perfectly exemplified why so many moderates, liberals and other sane minded folk are distancing themselves from the radical left ...