Free speech debate. Dyson vs. Jordan Peterson

[Jack V Savage]

That being said, I think we (you, @panamaican And I ) are interpreting the comment regarding "catastrophic failure by the left " differently.

What I mean by failure by the left, is the lefts new policies and causes they are championing that have failed to attract new voters, moderates , independents and simultaneously repelling many other voters....and in many cases, having voters switch sides completely. ( @IngaVovchanchyn alluded to this earlier)

First, the election (not going to comment on all of them, as it goes beyond what I know) is zero-sum, and logically, x losing and y winning are the same. You might make the comment to imply that there was some kind of screw-up that affected results and deny credit to the winner, but it's always kind of meaningless--designed to illicit an "ah, interesting" response without actually making a concrete statement.

Second, the primary policy failure of the past 10 years was austerity. Mostly in Europe--the U.S. did have a burst of fiscal stimulus first that led to a much stronger recovery and unimaginative but solid monetary policy throughout (and the one thing you can give Trump some credit there is making Fed appointments that stayed the course--note that Republicans were mostly calling for tightening, but that might have been bullshit like deficit concerns were). The stimulus and ACA were spectacular successes by any objective measure.

And aside from that, the general public is almost completely ignorant about policy and even who supports what. To a lot of rubes, the election was about open borders, sending a message to college kids, and keeping minorities in their place rather than about real policy differences (fight climate change/pollution or not? redistribute wealth upward or downward? Family leave or not? Affordable college for all or not? deregulate finance or tighter financial regs?). To the MSM, the election was a referendum on historical IT security practices (strangely, the issue seems to have been completely forgotten after, and Trump's own worse security practices are barely even news). Even here in the WR, where the crowd presumably follows politics more, you see people who think that the left wants open borders and a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Look at this thread. If you ask liberals what is important to them, read liberal pundits, or look at liberal platforms, there's no resemblance to what people who get their news from the right-wing bubble and the MSM (with the mostly right-leaning MSM defining the left border) think that liberals want and think about.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I also think its a culmination of the reactionary politics of the GOP under Obama. Dog-whistle politics crept slowly from the fringe to towards the center and the GOP committed itself to unprincipled reactionary obstructionism to resist Obama. That paved the way for Trump's unprecedented brand of politics.

That's definitely part of it, but the bigger thing is that Republicans can lie with total impunity now because any source that says, "that claim made is false" will be distrusted by the very fact that they said that. I think a lot of politicians have been a little ashamed to fully take advantage of that super power, which left them handicapped in a fight against Trump.

And it's only Republicans because A) Democratic voters have way more trust in mainstream sources (the MSM, academia, gov't stats, the CBO) and B) the MSM holds Democrats to much higher standards. The source of all rot in our system and discourse IMO is the combination of the "liberal media" CT being popular on the right and the existence of a whole alternative-reality media (where, for example, the Russia story is about how the corrupt, liberal FBI is trying to take Trump down after trying to cost him the election).

 

[o'dubhlaoich]

I find Dyson too insufferable to listen to, can't watch this.

He is a smug racist bating piece of shit who wouldnt have an income outside of the race bating industry. He says all these big words all while saying nothing.

 

[o'dubhlaoich]

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

Word salad vomit

 

[Gunny]

He is a smug racist bating piece of shit who wouldnt have an income outside of the race bating industry. He says all these big words all while saying nothing.

Perhaps that is because you regard any loquacious black man as a bete noire, viewing him with a modicum of animosity due to the recondite privilege of which you yourself are not au courant.

 

[o'dubhlaoich]

Perhaps that is because you regard any loquacious black man as a bete noire, viewing him with a modicum of animosity due to the recondite privilege of which you yourself are not au courant.

Exactly

 

[SBJJ]

I'll never understand the popularity of Peterson. But Dyson is levels below him

 

[ultramanhyata]

If you think Peterson is a faux-intellecutal you need to go back to watching cartoons. They are much more your speed.

It's interesting how I referred to both Dyson and Peterson as "faux-intellectual" but only got blowback for painting Peterson with that brush.

If being a university prof with a PhD automatically renders one an "intellectual" (as some would assert) then Dyson is as much an "intellectual" as Peterson. So you should be white-knighting big Mike, too, m52nickelback.

To use an MMA analogy, watching Dyson vs. Peterson was like watching Kimbo Slice vs. Seth Petruzelli. One of the two cans was clearly more dominant on the night.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Shall we address the elephant in the room? The Left didn't fail. Following the election of Barack Obama, low education, older, white male voters left the Democrats for the GOP for no discernible reason except racial animus.

Did you consider the GFC as a source of shifting attitudes? It's not hard to believe that older white guys would view austerity as a better option than increased spending. And while that may not have been the correct course of action, and while the republicans might not actually be fiscally conservative, an ignorant voter going by party reputation might be inclined to shift their vote in the face of economic collapse.

 

[m52nickerson]

It's interesting how I referred to both Dyson and Peterson as "faux-intellectual" but only got blowback for painting Peterson with that brush.

If being a university prof with a PhD automatically renders one an "intellectual" (as some would assert) then Dyson is as much an "intellectual" as Peterson. So you should be white-knighting big Mike, too, m52nickelback.

To use an MMA analogy, watching Dyson vs. Peterson was like watching Kimbo Slice vs. Seth Petruzelli. One of the two cans was clearly more dominant on the night.

You got blowback regarding Peterson because of and not Dyson because it has nothing to do with them having PhD's, genius. It has to do with the arguments they make and how much they make sense or not in Dyson's case. Of course you might have picked up on that if you had any clue to what you were talking about, but as normal, you don't.

The pure irony of you calling anyone a faux-intellectual should not be lost on most people.

 

[dontsnitch]

Some fun at Dyson's expense.

 

[Gunny]

Some fun at Dyson's expense.

This is great! My only complaint is that the reliance on alliteration isn’t quite Dyson’s style. I think my own post earlier on this page would make a pretty good entry for Saad’s contest. The only thing I think it was lacking was a really drippy dose of Ebonics for punctuation.

 

[dontsnitch]

This is great! My only complaint is that the reliance on alliteration isn’t quite Dyson’s style. I think my own post earlier on this page would make a pretty good entry for Saad’s contest. The only thing I think it was lacking was a really drippy dose of Ebonics for punctuation.

Yeah, not quite on point, but funny.

I like this one, but it does make me think she wasn't trying to be deceptive, but that she assumed that's what he meant because she took someone's word for it:

 

[ultramanhyata]

You got blowback regarding Peterson because of and not Dyson because it has nothing to do with them having PhD's, genius. It has to do with the arguments they make and how much they make sense or not in Dyson's case. Of course you might have picked up on that if you had any clue to what you were talking about, but as normal, you don't.

The pure irony of you calling anyone a faux-intellectual should not be lost on most people.

I don't recall embarrassing you in a thread recently. But it must have left a pretty deep wound. Holding grudges in a place like the WR isn't worth the emotional effort involved.

 

[m52nickerson]

I don't recall embarrassing you in a thread recently. But it must have left a pretty deep wound. Holding grudges in a place like the WR isn't worth the emotional effort involved.

You don't recall embarrassing me because you never have. Nothing I said was based on emotion, just your post history.

 

[IDL]

Yeah, not quite on point, but funny.

I like this one, but it does make me think she wasn't trying to be deceptive, but that she assumed that's what he meant because she took someone's word for it:

lol. We had a thread in the war room insisting that Peterson said that too

 

[Gunny]

Yeah, not quite on point, but funny.

I like this one, but it does make me think she wasn't trying to be deceptive, but that she assumed that's what he meant because she took someone's word for it:

I have a separate thought on that Vice quote Goldberg attempted. Having listened to a fair bit of Jordan Peterson I know that one of his favorite devices is to throw out an idea for his audience to chew on with no particular advocacy of said idea. The point is just to make people think. This is a habit typical of competent educators and that’s what he was doing in the Vice piece. In this Munk debate he employed the same tactic when he proposed a 75% tax on whites to atone for their privilege.

So which of these do you suppose Goldberg took as a literal prescription, rather than a hypothetical supposition for teaching purposes, and which do you think she just ignored entirely? It’s telling, no?

 

[dontsnitch]

I have a separate thought on that Vice quote Goldberg attempted. Having listened to a fair bit of Jordan Peterson I know that one of his favorite devices is to throw out an idea for his audience to chew on with no particular advocacy of said idea. The point is just to make people think. This is a habit typical of competent educators and that’s what he was doing in the Vice piece. In this Munk debate he employed the same tactic when he proposed a 75% tax on whites to atone for their privilege.

So which of these do you suppose Goldberg took as a literal prescription, rather than a hypothetical supposition for teaching purposes, and which do you think she just ignored entirely? It’s telling, no?

I hear ya, I just find it hard to believe that she thought she could get away with that on the internet. Makes more sense she believed that was his position, but then again, we've seen this type of thing before.

 

[Gunny]

I hear ya, I just find it hard to believe that she thought she could get away with that on the internet. Makes more sense she believed that was his position, but then again, we've seen this type of thing before.

It’s why the closing comments poll was something like 91% to 9% in favor of Peterson/Fry. I’m literally amazed at how people on Goldberg/Dyson’s side continue to say the spectacularly off-putting things they say then run to pat each other’s backs while they lose the entire audience. I actually spend a fair bit of mental energy trying to convince liberals to recalibrate their message (probably because I’m a disillusioned liberal at heart) but to no avail.

 

[dontsnitch]

It’s why the closing comments poll was something like 91% to 9% in favor of Peterson/Fry. I’m literally amazed at how people on Goldberg/Dyson’s side continue to say the spectacularly off-putting things they say then run to pat each other’s backs while they lose the entire audience. I actually spend a fair bit of mental energy trying to convince liberals to recalibrate their message (probably because I’m a disillusioned liberal at heart) but to no avail.

Yeah, I don't understand it myself, you'd think they'd see it. Part of it must have something to do with the lack of political diversity in the circles they run in.