- Joined
- Aug 26, 2014
- Messages
- 14,033
- Reaction score
- 1
Enjoy
Jordan Peterson on real time with Bill Maher
- Thread starter Der Eisbär
- Start date
Enjoy
- Joined
- May 27, 2015
- Messages
- 2,562
- Reaction score
- 660
That was awesome. Thx for sharing.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2014
- Messages
- 39,976
- Reaction score
- 7,504
I agree with Bill, everything he says is common sense to me.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2014
- Messages
- 14,033
- Reaction score
- 1
Its common sense, given power and articulation from his attachment of philosophy and psychology
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 45,543
- Reaction score
- 12,405
As soon as he walked out, I thought it was going to be a wreck because Peterson will talk for five minutes straight on a single point. The show isn't really meant for that. It wasn't awful but Bill wasn't hostile to him at all because he shares similar views on certain items. I like when he threw out the Bush death issue at a university to turn things a little bit on its head subtly.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2017
- Messages
- 39,109
- Reaction score
- 9,764
articulation? I dont care if you like him, but articulation? He so often rambles on and on while addressing points or questions....
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 7,441
- Reaction score
- 338
I think Bill deliberately sought to reach a common ground with Peterson and their stance on political correctness makes that easy to accomplish. Notice how Peterson mentions "the radical left" and Maher doesn't address it in any way.
In reality the two of them could spar on a number of topics but like you said the show isn't terribly well fit for that and most importantly, Peterson was on to promote his book. Antagonizing him in any way would derail the show and piss off the publisher who bought his spot.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2010
- Messages
- 71,987
- Reaction score
- 51,335
I thought he started out strong enough, with the points on Universities and how the snowflake culture has risen. He lost me when he started rambling about the kids and how they're raised, and psychoanalyzing the birth control shit, and just generally viewing the world as a mathematical equation, and trying to establish his superior knowledge about everything by reminding everyone he's a clinical psychologist(x2).
Also, when trying to appear to be of the supreme intellect, it's best not to stutter, ramble, and seem like you're struggling to articulate your points.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2014
- Messages
- 14,033
- Reaction score
- 1
He articulates his thoughts extremely well. If your issue is that he isnt succinct and brief in his speech, then fine. But speaking at length isnt the same as not being articulate. Hes a great orator, no one takes that away from him; even his enemies on the left
D
Deleted member 263856
Guest
He repeated himself because people started laughing. His whole point was the country is getting too polarized and a big reason for that is the rhetoric and the identity politics coming from the left and what the plan is to bring the Trump voters back in to the fold and how to make sure they aren't disenfranchised. Only one person actually somewhat answered the question. Others deflected.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 45,543
- Reaction score
- 12,405
But you did notice later on he brought up a left professor possibly getting fired over comments she made. It was subtle but he did a little jab back that this isn't always necessarily stuck to one party. I agree though he chose to keep things civil, especially because he likely agrees on that topic for the most part.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 45,543
- Reaction score
- 12,405
He dropped the ball here. He could've said that there is a difference between confronting an opposing viewpoint with impeachment vs. voting the person out next election. You can critique a person's actions of opposing a viewpoint compared to be opposed to them doing so altogether. I can be against a bernie/paul/etc support shooting a political official but also be okay with them advocating against that official and trying to get them voted out of office. There are different courses of actions less or more severe but we usually agree on the basic level of the speech itself.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 45,543
- Reaction score
- 12,405
I didn't mind him drawing some reasoning behind children being more protected compared to the past. That actually seemed to be a decent take as countries drop birthrates as they develop. Part of that drop is decision and not just birth control however because a non-developed country faces higher child mortality rates and families almost factor that in with their decisions on how many children to have.
Where it veered off was he took a larger idea and began instructing it to the one pundit on the panel who had a child. I'll give that she was using her own experience/views to counter him so it kinda forced him to reply but all it became was one person looking at a micro level and another at a macro level which was just talking past each other.
He stumbled way worse with her in that overtime clip. He doesn't seem to be a guy meant for these set ups that require short and concise replies back and forth. I would like to see how he does in a more formalized debate where each person gets about 10 minutes each back and forth then a more casual back and forth after.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2010
- Messages
- 71,987
- Reaction score
- 51,335
I'm sure he's a very intelligent guy, and I'm not going to judge him solely on this appearance, but he seemed to crumble at the least bit of resistance to his arguments. I've seen him in some other clips, where he's more than capable in a back and forth setting like this.
I don't know what happened, but he didn't seem all that confident in pushing back when he was met with a counter, and when he tried, he seemed to struggle to stay focused on the point that was presented to him and copped out a bit, like in that overtime clip.
He ain't no Christopher Hitchens, that's for sure.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,080
- Reaction score
- 226
I liked the distinction he was trying to make in how the left is talking about trump supporters. Anytime a group is pushed to far to the edge of a discussion and has their point of view nullified there are strong backlashes.
The nullification of white mens opinions and concerns by leftist groups because of a perceived sense of privilege directly led to trump becoming an electable candidate, he gave that group a voice when the democrats were actively giving every other group a voice and denouncing “white privelege” Similarly the century after slavery where whites kept blacks from entwining with “white” society leads to negative social structures.
Once some of these structures are established they are difficult to reconcile because the out group is now the “other”. Maher’s point on that phenomenon in iraq leading to the creation of isis was pertinent despite it being quickly glossed over. I have no fear of offending for the sake of coming to an honest conclusion but alienation of one group within a society is never good for the overall society. The woman not being able to see that point is the type of mentality that I find dangerous.
Other than that it seemed like a circle jerk where I could get off.
The nullification of white mens opinions and concerns by leftist groups because of a perceived sense of privilege directly led to trump becoming an electable candidate, he gave that group a voice when the democrats were actively giving every other group a voice and denouncing “white privelege” Similarly the century after slavery where whites kept blacks from entwining with “white” society leads to negative social structures.
Once some of these structures are established they are difficult to reconcile because the out group is now the “other”. Maher’s point on that phenomenon in iraq leading to the creation of isis was pertinent despite it being quickly glossed over. I have no fear of offending for the sake of coming to an honest conclusion but alienation of one group within a society is never good for the overall society. The woman not being able to see that point is the type of mentality that I find dangerous.
Other than that it seemed like a circle jerk where I could get off.
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 7,441
- Reaction score
- 338
I think this segment and his previous appearances are very very telling of how he would do in that kind of setting.
Which is funny because Peterson reached fame by debating a TV host clearly in over her head. Not to compare their stances, but in that regard he's kind of similar to Milo in how tying a know around the brain of emotional college students made him out to be a skilled debater.
He's certainly very good at delivering speeches and crafting one way narratives, but he's terrible at addressing opposing arguments and seems to get lost in his own words when asked to clarify his positions (particularly because his positions are muddy and too centered around self-evidency to begin with).
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 45,543
- Reaction score
- 12,405
His reply in the Overtime clip definitely was a deflection and a very odd one of that cause I think the reply was clear to even those who might not share his opinion. Bill's counter argument actually was one as if Peterson actually made the point he should've made.
Pundit- But didn't you say being offended is okay and this is what the democrats are now doing
Peterson- (Should've said) They can offend but I'm critiquing the actions that they are going forward with in impeachment vs. future elections and the consequences that may have in polarizing the country
Bill- Yes, but Trump's term has been different from other GOP administrations and does call for an escalation in actions like impeachment
Bill already understood the whole conversation as soon as the pundit started making it and was just waiting Peterson's reply and then his already prepared answer (because Peterson pretty much fumbled on what he should've said and tried to change the topic).
