Free speech debate. Dyson vs. Jordan Peterson

[Jack V Savage]

It does seem to be the claim, your unwillingness to grasp that is why you are confused. A populist movement need not be massively popular, just enough to win.

Seems that way to you because of your habit of distorting everything that people say to fit your own narrow lens, no? And, right on the "populist" issue (doesn't even have to win), but remember the claim. Right-wingers taking power isn't a success of right wingers but a failure of the left? "I didn't flip a coin and get heads; I flipped a coin and got non-tails." Deep, isn't it?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Seems that way to you because of your habit of distorting everything that people say to fit your own narrow lens, no? And, right on the "populist" issue (doesn't even have to win), but remember the claim. Right-wingers taking power isn't a success of right wingers but a failure of the left? "I didn't flip a coin and get heads; I flipped a coin and got non-tails." Deep, isn't it?

I have no such habit nor am I doing that here. I am trying to explain to you an argument that most people seem to understand but that was confusing you. As is often the case, I now regret interacting with you.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I have no such
habit nor am I doing that here.

Riiight.

I am trying to explain to you an argument that most people seem to understand but that was confusing you. As is often the case, I now regret interacting with you.

It's not an "argument"; it's a vacuous statement. And, yes, right-wingers here tend to prefer echo chambers.

 

[franklinstower]

There is nothing wrong with the perspective that JP is angry, I think so too, I just don't think it's always a bad thing, anger can be good.

Inserting the fact that he's white is a prick move, though.

Fair enough on the anger part. I dont trust anger as a motive unless the person has totally left the anger behind. You cant see anything clearly if you remain angry about it.

 

[Bamboozled]

Dyson and the Goldberg were more concerned about getting their cheap shots in and arguing on behalf of their group opposed to addressing the structural issues they have "problems" with. The cheap shots at Peterson were sad, and the audacity to call him an angry white man then somehow act surprised when he calls you out on your bullshit is pathetic. It goes to show that it's okay to attack Peterson as a white male and nobody really bats an eye.

Frye was okay, he wasn't providing much other than asking for clarity for the most part. Which I think is appropriate because Peterson was the only one who had an argument.

 

[panamaican]

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 ...

I'm actually going to disagree here, although I only heard the statement in the abridged video so there might have been more elsewhere.

I don't think those things have anything to do with the failures of the left. As @Jack V Savage notes, it's said but I don't know that it's ever explained.

The left didn't fail. The right didn't succeed. There is a pushback by nativists against inclusionary economic policy because it is perceived as a taking from them. But in the context of political correctness and liberal government policy, what nativists pushed against is not what the left has actually promoted. What nativists have actually pushed against is the policy direction of the right.

If there is a failure on the left it is that they've allowed themselves to take the blame for what are right economic policy being misrepresented as leftist social policy. I guess that's a catastrophic failure on their part but it's not the failure that people are thinking of when they make that reference.

 

[dontsnitch]

Eric Dyson is the master at meaningless word salad. That explains why he's so revered by the left. They eat that stuff up. He never moves discussion or conversation forward. All he does is revert everything back to white supremacy and white privilege. Even when Peterson called him out for referencing his race Dyson just responded with a bunch of word salad that basically said..."well, this is what you guys do to people of color and this is how we feel all the time... so I stand by it" lol. But he fluffed it up so much libs think he actually said something insightful and intelligent.

He strikes me as being resentful from having had negative experiences as a black person, and that sucks, but that doesn't make it okay to give whitey some of his own medicine. But Dyson is intelligent, and I think that when and if he and JP speak one-on-one, they will come to some sort of understanding because I think they agree in principle, despite Dyson's lack of consistency in treating people as individuals. Perhaps I'm way off, but it wouldn't surprise me if something notable comes from these two having a dialogue.

 

[panamaican]

To expand a bit on what I've said. The right has gradually deconstructed the government's ability to protect the average American from the economic creep of international corporations. They have done so by framing it as a need to rein abuses by identity groups. The left has challenged those deconstructions by pointing to the strategy. The right has responded by recharacterizing the response as a championing of the identity groups by the left. Nativists end up pushing back against that perceived championing of identity groups.

 

[Bamboozled]

This has been my take from when I first started paying attention to the guy and why I've been pretty positive on him. With the NY Times piece, it looks like the influence might be going the other way a bit, too, though, which is unfortunate. I would still say that alt-right lost boys could do much worse when looking for a father figure, though.

You didn't understand the NYtimes piece.

that's okay though, you don't understand most of what is being discussed here.

 

[dontsnitch]

Fair enough on the anger part. I dont trust anger as a motive unless the person has totally left the anger behind. You cant see anything clearly if you remain angry about it.

Also fair, though in this context, I was less concerned with competency as I was with ethics. Anger does often lead to bad decision making, no doubt, but a person who is angry is not necessarily bad, wrong, immoral, etc. as the argument often goes.

 

[Jack V Savage]

@LogicalInsanity, since you've been posting better lately, I'd like to see an attempt to explain your takeaway from the comment.

Pan's posts were really good, but I also see that from either leftists who are trying to be magnanimous but end up looking condescending (implying that Trump voters are children who are throwing an electoral tantrum in response to not being pandered to enough) or never-Trumper right-wingers who are trying to shift blame. But, again, it's more of a mood being expressed than a concrete thought.

With regard to Trump specifically, I see it as a culmination of a longer-term trend of growing anti-intellectualism on the right that previously produced VP nominees Palin and Quayle, and president W. And a big enabler of that is the creation of an alternate-reality media system, which in turn turns the GOP into a con. We don't see, for example, disagreements about who should bear the burden of funding gov't--we see Republicans pass deeply regressive cuts that shift wealth upward while claiming that they're passing middle-class cuts. We don't see arguments about the tradeoffs of addressing climate change--we see Republicans pretend it isn't happening or that nothing can be done. That kind of thing makes the party ripe to be taken over by a pure conman.

 

[HomerThompson]

That kind of thing makes the party ripe to be taken over by a pure conman.

 

[BEER]

Wait, there is actually a side arguing "intellectually" against free speech?

What a world.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

@LogicalInsanity, since you've been posting better lately, I'd like to see an attempt to explain your takeaway from the comment.

Pan's posts were really good, but I also see that from either leftists who are trying to be magnanimous but end up looking condescending (implying that Trump voters are children who are throwing an electoral tantrum in response to not being pandered to enough) or never-Trumper right-wingers who are trying to shift blame. But, again, it's more of a mood being expressed than a concrete thought.

With regard to Trump specifically, I see it as a culmination of a longer-term trend of growing anti-intellectualism on the right that previously produced VP nominees Palin and Quayle, and president W. And a big enabler of that is the creation of an alternate-reality media system, which in turn turns the GOP into a con. We don't see, for example, disagreements about who should bear the burden of funding gov't--we see Republicans pass deeply regressive cuts that shift wealth upward while claiming that they're passing middle-class cuts. We don't see arguments about the tradeoffs of addressing climate change--we see Republicans pretend it isn't happening or that nothing can be done. That kind of thing makes the party ripe to be taken over by a pure conman.

Brb Jack. .I'll respond...on my work desktop

 

[Darth_Inv1ctu5]

Dyson is super annoying in the way he speaks, one of the YouTube comments was right, it's a debate, not some beatnik poet throwdown or some shit. He thinks that because he picks (what he thinks is) non-pedestrian vernacular, he adds to the power of his arguments. In reality, he's 20% substance and 80% fluff. The entirety of his schtick consists of trying to sound educated, funny and of defending something entirely unassailable that nobody is even arguing against. That whole debate he literally never engaged in discussing political correctness and how/whether it carries any benefits. The whole point of the debate was to bring it closer to the audience, not alienate people by using obscure language and terminology, and this guy was relentless.

Peterson is on the other side of the spectrum, he'll sometimes argue semantics just because he can and just because his counterparts are weak, like in this debate. He's the kind of guy who could win a high school debate for both sides merely on the merit of his reasoning skills and the fact that he can run laps around average person challenging him. I don't agree with many of the things he says but in this debate he wasn't even challenged.

 

[panamaican]

@LogicalInsanity, since you've been posting better lately, I'd like to see an attempt to explain your takeaway from the comment.

Pan's posts were really good, but I also see that from either leftists who are trying to be magnanimous but end up looking condescending (implying that Trump voters are children who are throwing an electoral tantrum in response to not being pandered to enough) or never-Trumper right-wingers who are trying to shift blame. But, again, it's more of a mood being expressed than a concrete thought.

With regard to Trump specifically, I see it as a culmination of a longer-term trend of growing anti-intellectualism on the right that previously produced VP nominees Palin and Quayle, and president W. And a big enabler of that is the creation of an alternate-reality media system, which in turn turns the GOP into a con. We don't see, for example, disagreements about who should bear the burden of funding gov't--we see Republicans pass deeply regressive cuts that shift wealth upward while claiming that they're passing middle-class cuts. We don't see arguments about the tradeoffs of addressing climate change--we see Republicans pretend it isn't happening or that nothing can be done. That kind of thing makes the party ripe to be taken over by a pure conman.

I actually think your statement and mine coincide. Part of how the right has convinced the populace to buy into their strategy is by waging a war on experts and promoting anti-intellectualism. By taking knowledge out of the conversation, it makes fear a more powerful persuasive tool.

 

[TheComebackKid]

He strikes me as being resentful from having had negative experiences as a black person, and that sucks, but that doesn't make it okay to give whitey some of his own medicine. But Dyson is intelligent, and I think that when and if he and JP speak one-on-one, they will come to some sort of understanding because I think they agree in principle, despite Dyson's lack of consistency in treating people as individuals. Perhaps I'm way off, but it wouldn't surprise me if something notable comes from these two having a dialogue.

They will agree that people need and should be treated as individuals but then Dyson will immediately pivot to blaming white people as a group for the experiences of blacks as a group. He will then explain that in order for everyone to be treated as individuals the white group must first heal wounds and stone for passed sins...somehow. they will then go in circles for eternity.

 

[berimBOWLoh]

if you didnt tell me what the debate was about i would have never really known. what a waste of time. not worth discussing.

 

[franklinstower]

I actually think your statement and mine coincide. Part of how the right has convinced the populace to buy into their strategy is by waging a war on experts and promoting anti-intellectualism. By taking knowledge out of the conversation, it makes fear a more powerful persuasive tool.

This is an absolute fact and it is an amazing strategy by the right. It is dishonest, manipulative and degenerate also-- and sadly it is very effective.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

I'm actually going to disagree here, although I only heard the statement in the abridged video so there might have been more elsewhere.

I don't think those things have anything to do with the failures of the left. As @Jack V Savage notes, it's said but I don't know that it's ever explained.

The left didn't fail. The right didn't succeed. There is a pushback by nativists against inclusionary economic policy because it is perceived as a taking from them. But in the context of political correctness and liberal government policy, what nativists pushed against is not what the left has actually promoted. What nativists have actually pushed against is the policy direction of the right.

If there is a failure on the left it is that they've allowed themselves to take the blame for what are right economic policy being misrepresented as leftist social policy. I guess that's a catastrophic failure on their part but it's not the failure that people are thinking of when they make that reference.

Honest question, what are these "inclusionary economic policies" you are referring to? I am from Canada so I am not fully aware of all of the policies being debated and fought over in the USA. The only thing I see in Canada that appears to be something like inclusionary economic policies are some pushing for mandated diversity. This is essentially equality of outcome which is a bad idea for everyone. Equality of opportunity on the other hand is great for everyone. Governments should work to create high quality public education that is uniform across its nation. If there are areas where there is a lack of resources or quality educators then this is creating a meaningful disadvantage. The other thing governments can do is work to ensure that people aren't being discriminated against in regards to educational and employment opportunities. That if an individual fails to receive educational or employment opportunities that it was because there were superior candidates.

Can you elaborate on these inclusionary economic policies that you were referring to?