Gender Equality Action Plan

[ferball]

You lost me at socialism is a useful thing. Conflating the worthwhile economic aspects of contemporary social democracy with socialism itself being branded as useful is a fallacy.

While it is true that the original social democratic parties were heavily influenced by Marxist theories and works, they were generally not the parties that brought about the creation of social democratic institutions and long-lasting government welfare policies. More capitalist liberal and centrist leaning governments instituted social democratic measures to guard against poverty and the conditions necessary for a Marxist like revolution. Even then, social democrats have long abandoned Marxist theory since 1945 and have increasingly adopted a more capitalist approach to their mixed market theoretical framework. The infusion of capitalism and socialism via contemporary social democracy would have made Marx roll around in his shallow grave. The post-war efforts of social democrats and people like Whitlam were far removed from achieving socialism by peaceful means and more concerned about general social justice/welfare.


You can cite Peterson's work on the Pareto principle and argue about inequality all you like, but I give you this stat about world poverty:

In 1820, 94% of the world's population lived in extreme poverty. In 1990, 34.8%, and in 2015, just 9.6%. What has happened in this period, higher industrialisation, urbanisation, more capitalist societies and the demise of most collectivist left-wing states after 1989-1990. Peterson is right on this point.

This is not to mention that people in the 1% of top earners go in and out of that bracket each year. Furthermore, if you are born into poverty or low economic standards in the west, you are more than likely to be in the high economic range by the end of your life, generally-speaking of course.

The welfare state and stuff like medicare didn't exist because of Marx, sure he supported social welfare massively, but the concept of the welfare state and even unionism/worker rights were around long before Marx. Pre-Bismark's Germanic states were instituting social welfare programs years before Marx started writing. Ancient China had alternative systems in place. Over 17 million Germans accessed social welfare via the Nazi state in line with their national comradely and projecting an image of a national collective coming together to support each other.

British right-wing anti-laisse faire liberalism, excessive poverty in the early 1900s, strong traditional unions (who were concerned about socialist infiltration) and fear of Marx-like socialism or a communist revolution drove the creation of the British welfare state under the Asquith government. Rowntree and Booth were the influences here, not Marx. It was traditional capitalists who were fearful of communism/Marxism/hardline socialism and varying degrees of political and economic anxiety as well as wartime demand that generated the western welfare state, not Marx.

Socialism is probably going to need more of a definition but if it includes social ownership then it is useful in driving equality of opportunity across a nation. There is a correlation between less socialism in Australia (ie the privatisation of stuff since the 80s specifically) and an increase in inequality of wealth, and the consequences of this inequality are debated daily wrt to housing prices, lack of real wage increases etc etc.

I'm just going to point some things out tho ...

The reason the welfare state and things like medicare exist is because of Marx and because he was right - unregulated capitalism leads to revolutions. (me)
=
British right-wing anti-laisse faire liberalism, excessive poverty in the early 1900s, strong traditional unions (who were concerned about socialist infiltration) and fear of Marx-like socialism or a communist revolution drove the creation of the British welfare state under the Asquith government. Rowntree and Booth were the influences here, not Marx. It was traditional capitalists who were fearful of communism/Marxism/hardline socialism and varying degrees of political and economic anxiety as well as wartime demand that generated the western welfare state, not Marx.

That is essentially the same thing. Marx created a theoretical framework to frame these debates and made predictions that appeared to be accurate - that is what drove all that stuff in your paragraph. Hence he is so influential and even I know so much about that influence despite never having read anything he wrote.

In 1820 the world was essentially run by purely capitalist economies and 94% of the population was living in extreme poverty.

Between then and 1990 when 34% of the worlds population was living in extreme poverty Marx was one of the most influential social theorists if not the most if you consider he inspired a superpower. Given the huge increase in population over that period compared to the period post 1990 I don't see how you can say that his theories had no influence in the way that change took place. You don't have to agree with him. He inspired what you call traditional unions as much as radical ones.

More capitalist liberal and centrist leaning governments instituted social democratic measures to guard against poverty and the conditions necessary for a Marxist like revolution. Even then, social democrats have long abandoned Marxist theory since 1945 and have increasingly adopted a more capitalist approach to their mixed market theoretical framework. The infusion of capitalism and socialism via contemporary social democracy would have made Marx roll around in his shallow grave.

You're missing the point. Once he'd written his ideas down and circulated them he framed the issues and gave people the option of bringing the whole thing down (they always had it obviously - the French revolution had already happened) but it became a more powerful intellectual idea that was abstract and could be applied across the board. To any country or any social system, revolutions were no longer dependent on specific despots or the specific population's reaction to them. The world is very different today and was even in 1945 compared to when he wrote The Communist Manifesto. Marx's writing helped force capital to compromise with labour in a way it didn't previously because international capital saw what happened to Russian capital and everyone in the conversation then framed their discussion in those terms. It was empowering for labour.

Capitalism as it existed in Marx's time denied a class of people access to the markets in a way that everything since 1945 hasn't (at least in the west). Capitalism and Democracy aren't synonymous. Look at China. He probably wouldn't like it but Marx did democratise capitalism in a way that most likely wouldn't have happened otherwise or without him.

Anyway since socialism has been removed from the Australian economy in response to Modern (post pinochet) Neo-Liberalism - ie as ownership moved from public to private hands since the 80s specifically wealth equality in Australia has declined.

It might just be a coincidence hey...

 

[ferball]

The original point was that it is not worth discussing certain issues with people as they repeat the same tired rhetoric without trying to understand both sides. It often turns into an emotionally charged shit show rather than a civil discussion. That wasn't a dig at you hence why I used stupid examples you often see written on social media.

You should have typed in green... (That is sometimes a font used for sarcasm and irony and things.) Both sides of most debates, especially modern "political" (ie identity political) debates do that. I had a go at you and reacted like that because I felt like I'd actually made the effort to not do that once someone had a sook about it.

I agree with the abortion thing. It should always be an option and the 'pro life' view point falls down when they act like there is a never ending supply of money willing to support unwanted children. I also agree with people when they say taxes shouldn't be used to fund an abortion.

Its a medical process. We have medicare and its bloody good compared to some places. Ever heard the joke about Breaking Bad in Australia? Teacher gets lung cancer. Teacher gets treatment, end of show. But I guess there could be some debate about the extent of taxpayer funding of medical procedures, especially potentially "unneccessary" ones.

There is probably a point where abortions become cheaper than the cost of another child tho, both in Australia where it may cost us in welfare costs or the US where it can cost in so many ways - usually associated with poverty and crime. It might be cheaper to fund an abortion than take a young woman out of the workforce and end her paying taxes then put her into a dependent situation - dependent on taxes or living somewhere things are so bad that to much of what is now less tax (without her or all the other young mums in a similar situation working and pumping ntheir incomes back into the economy and gov coffers) gets spent policing and incarcerating her kids and all her neighbours kids.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about Trump. A good friend and work colleague is from the states and it's all I've heard about for 3 years. Unless you are studying US politics I don't know how anyone keeps up with it and I completely understand how it consumes people.

Oops. I won't mention how dangerous I think his pandering to white supremacists is again. Well to you anyway. But have you noticed his hands?

I've got some seppo friends who are a bit political and radical and the stuff they come out with is interesting. There is a lot wrong with the US anyway even without Trump added to the mix.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Socialism is probably going to need more of a definition but if it includes social ownership then it is useful in driving equality of opportunity across a nation. There is a correlation between less socialism in Australia (ie the privatisation of stuff since the 80s specifically) and an increase in inequality of wealth, and the consequences of this inequality are debated daily wrt to housing prices, lack of real wage increases etc etc.

I'm just going to point some things out tho ...

The reason the welfare state and things like medicare exist is because of Marx and because he was right - unregulated capitalism leads to revolutions. (me)
=
British right-wing anti-laisse faire liberalism, excessive poverty in the early 1900s, strong traditional unions (who were concerned about socialist infiltration) and fear of Marx-like socialism or a communist revolution drove the creation of the British welfare state under the Asquith government. Rowntree and Booth were the influences here, not Marx. It was traditional capitalists who were fearful of communism/Marxism/hardline socialism and varying degrees of political and economic anxiety as well as wartime demand that generated the western welfare state, not Marx.

That is essentially the same thing. Marx created a theoretical framework to frame these debates and made predictions that appeared to be accurate - that is what drove all that stuff in your paragraph. Hence he is so influential and even I know so much about that influence despite never having read anything he wrote.

In 1820 the world was essentially run by purely capitalist economies and 94% of the population was living in extreme poverty.

Between then and 1990 when 34% of the worlds population was living in extreme poverty Marx was one of the most influential social theorists if not the most if you consider he inspired a superpower. Given the huge increase in population over that period compared to the period post 1990 I don't see how you can say that his theories had no influence in the way that change took place. You don't have to agree with him. He inspired what you call traditional unions as much as radical ones.

More capitalist liberal and centrist leaning governments instituted social democratic measures to guard against poverty and the conditions necessary for a Marxist like revolution. Even then, social democrats have long abandoned Marxist theory since 1945 and have increasingly adopted a more capitalist approach to their mixed market theoretical framework. The infusion of capitalism and socialism via contemporary social democracy would have made Marx roll around in his shallow grave.

You're missing the point. Once he'd written his ideas down and circulated them he framed the issues and gave people the option of bringing the whole thing down (they always had it obviously - the French revolution had already happened) but it became a more powerful intellectual idea that was abstract and could be applied across the board. To any country or any social system, revolutions were no longer dependent on specific despots or the specific population's reaction to them. The world is very different today and was even in 1945 compared to when he wrote The Communist Manifesto. Marx's writing helped force capital to compromise with labour in a way it didn't previously because international capital saw what happened to Russian capital and everyone in the conversation then framed their discussion in those terms. It was empowering for labour.

Capitalism as it existed in Marx's time denied a class of people access to the markets in a way that everything since 1945 hasn't (at least in the west). Capitalism and Democracy aren't synonymous. Look at China. He probably wouldn't like it but Marx did democratise capitalism in a way that most likely wouldn't have happened otherwise or without him.

Anyway since socialism has been removed from the Australian economy in response to Modern (post pinochet) Neo-Liberalism - ie as ownership moved from public to private hands since the 80s specifically wealth equality in Australia has declined.

It might just be a coincidence hey...

There is a correlation between less socialism in Australia (ie the privatisation of stuff since the 80s specifically) and an increase in inequality of wealth, and the consequences of this inequality are debated daily wrt to housing prices, lack of real wage increases etc etc.

The old inequality argument, I'll leave old Thatcher to explain this one:

Standards of living and all that.

Do you want to know about the correlation between Soviet economic stagnation/issues/decline, the decline of living standards and their socialist policies. I get mixed markets is your thing and it is obvious that it has been the way to go since the late 1800s, but there's a reason that socialism is not the perfect utopia.

That is essentially the same thing. Marx created a theoretical framework to frame these debates and made predictions that appeared to be accurate - that is what drove all that stuff in your paragraph. Hence he is so influential and even I know so much about that influence despite never having read anything he wrote.

It's not though, again we are coming back to the gradual separation of social democrats from wider socialism/communism and general Marxist theories. Sure he was right, as were others around his time like Mill, as were others instituting social democratic policies, but Marx went a whole further than let's keep the capitalist system and infuse it with social democratic elements. He did not want to reform or merely check the excesses of capitalism, he wanted it completely gone, replaced in its entirety. You are giving Marx a tad too much credit. While he did come up with the original theoretical framework for social democracy, his system is much different to what we have today in terms of social welfare. Furthermore, the fact that social democratic-like policies had been around before Marx really diminishes his value. Take for example the emphasis on social welfare in early Islam that has continued to this day.

One final point, while you are correct to cite the influence of Marx's socialist thinking, you are forgetting the other side of the coin, liberalism itself. Social liberalism was nearly as influential in the West as social democracy on the rise of the welfare state in the West, particularly after 1945. By laying the credit at Marx's feet is doing a dis-service to guys like John Mill, Carlye, etc.

I have not read Marx either, Locke, Mill, Foucault and Burke are the only four major political philosophers that I have specifically read.

In 1820 the world was essentially run by purely capitalist economies and 94% of the population was living in extreme poverty.

Between then and 1990 when 34% of the worlds population was living in extreme poverty Marx was one of the most influential social theorists if not the most if you consider he inspired a superpower. Given the huge increase in population over that period compared to the period post 1990 I don't see how you can say that his theories had no influence in the way that change took place. You don't have to agree with him. He inspired what you call traditional unions as much as radical ones.

True, but you are ignoring that most of the world's population was agrarian and still not highly urbanised and industrialised. You are conflating the West (which was still highly agrarian in 1820) and the rest of the world when you are laying the blame of extreme poverty at the hands of extreme capitalism. The percentage of extreme poverty was probably higher under more pure feudal and monarchical systems of governance, liberal democracies had only just started around this time, hell, it really took until the end of the First World War for democracy to properly flourish. Russia wasn't a superpower when it fell to the communists and that was driven more by luck, political tact on Lenin's part, the political incompetence of guys like Kerensky and the Tsar and the Soviets controlling the main industrial centres against the Russian Whites and over nationalist movements in the former Russian Empire during the Russian Civil War. The communists were popular in 1918, but not as popular as many at the time and now think. Marx was influential, but so were a whole lot of people.

Sure, his theories have inspired the killing of a 100 million people and are still killing people today, a lot more than Nazism and unlike Nazism, still holds meaningful political power. Now which flags are banned, o, just the Nazi ones, very interesting. But I do digress.

I am not saying he has not had an influence over social democratic changes, that's just silly on my part if I stated as such, but what has funded ever single Western social democratic venture, economic liberalism and capitalism. Capitalism has funded the economic growth that ensures that the social democratic system works, i.e. Look at what happened to Greece when the economic growth stopped, their massive social welfare and pension system crippled their economy. Agree to disagree about unions, associations like them were around before Marx and you can even look at things like merchant guilds in medieval times.



You're missing the point. Once he'd written his ideas down and circulated them he framed the issues and gave people the option of bringing the whole thing down (they always had it obviously - the French revolution had already happened) but it became a more powerful intellectual idea that was abstract and could be applied across the board. To any country or any social system, revolutions were no longer dependent on specific despots or the specific population's reaction to them. The world is very different today and was even in 1945 compared to when he wrote The Communist Manifesto. Marx's writing helped force capital to compromise with labour in a way it didn't previously because international capital saw what happened to Russian capital and everyone in the conversation then framed their discussion in those terms. It was empowering for labour.

Sure socialism was influential, for socialists. While Marx's theories gave many liberals and centrists pause to think in terms of social democracy, what I am arguing is that social welfare is something that has long existed and liberalism was grappling with the issues of pure capitalism during the time of Marx. The threats of his writings were influential in the generation of the modern welfare state, I do agree on this point, but that was happening before the events of 1917. Agree to disagree again, labour were not always a big fan of socialism or Marx, partially due to Marx's opposition to the traditional nation state, these guys just wanted better rights, not violent revolutions or overthrow their own nation, their concerns were more individualistically driven. Ultimately, humans are quite selfish in nature more often than not, something the left has not quite learned yet.


Capitalism as it existed in Marx's time denied a class of people access to the markets in a way that everything since 1945 hasn't (at least in the west). Capitalism and Democracy aren't synonymous. Look at China. He probably wouldn't like it but Marx did democratise capitalism in a way that most likely wouldn't have happened otherwise or without him.

Anyway since socialism has been removed from the Australian economy in response to Modern (post pinochet) Neo-Liberalism - ie as ownership moved from public to private hands since the 80s specifically wealth equality in Australia has declined.

It might just be a coincidence hey...

Capitalism and democracy are not synonymous, but they are pretty damn close. Marx would have hated most of it. Again, I disagree with "He probably wouldn't l in a way that most likely wouldn't have happened otherwise or without him." The fact that social welfare, unions and social liberalism existed before and during Marx's time meant that something would have eventuated, not the exact same models, but something.

Look at the influence of conflicts or times of great crisis (French Revolution, First World War, Second World War) on the rights of women, men and workers; these conflicts drove the massive extension of rights and privileges as necessity dictated a response, just as it did with Mill, Carlye and Marx. Remember, they were a products of their times and their times dictated change. If there was no Marx, there would have been, a slightly different, person to Marx. You would be surprised what political leaders have been willing to give up to protect the nation state, i.e. the notion of the national citizen during the French Revolution, etc, only then do guys like Locke, Burke, Marx, etc, rise to greater political influence.

Again, I cite Thatcher and living standards, but I am not an economist and people like Tas would know a lot more than me, I am a historian with a basic grasp on politics and strategy.

O god, I posted in this thread again:

 

[ferball]

Honestly I don't think we're that far apart on this. There seems to me plenty of things that are more semantic arguments than really fundamental ones but...

Marx didn't invent socialism, it had been around for ages - see the Diggers of the 1600s for example. (But communism and the idea of a "dictatorship of the proles" is an appalling idea. Any form of dictatorship is imo.)

He invented revolutionary socialism as an international position and brought about a world view that challenged the status quo and equipped people mentally to get their heads around destroying it and building something else in place - possibly without the chaos and bloodshed that accompanied the french revolution. Sure you say someone else may have shown up to do it but what he wrote and then what happened in Russia in response provided the stick to the carrots all those other reformers were dangling. He was the one if you like - the historical circumstances demanded someone fill that position and he was it. And yes i'm aware those times were very complex and there was alot in the air in terms of competing ideologies.

One more point - While humans are selfish they are altruistic and unselfish in equal measure. We'd have been an evolutionary dead end hundreds of millenia ago without that side to our personalities.

Capitalism and democracy are not synonymous, but they are pretty damn close.

I think markets are but capitalism isn't. But anyway we can leave it there it you like. I could go on about Thatcher and living standards but I accept you want a break.

Maybe in a week or two...

 

[Groin guru]

You should have typed in green... (That is sometimes a font used for sarcasm and irony and things.) Both sides of most debates, especially modern "political" (ie identity political) debates do that. I had a go at you and reacted like that because I felt like I'd actually made the effort to not do that once someone had a sook about it.

Its a medical process. We have medicare and its bloody good compared to some places. Ever heard the joke about Breaking Bad in Australia? Teacher gets lung cancer. Teacher gets treatment, end of show. But I guess there could be some debate about the extent of taxpayer funding of medical procedures, especially potentially "unneccessary" ones.

There is probably a point where abortions become cheaper than the cost of another child tho, both in Australia where it may cost us in welfare costs or the US where it can cost in so many ways - usually associated with poverty and crime. It might be cheaper to fund an abortion than take a young woman out of the workforce and end her paying taxes then put her into a dependent situation - dependent on taxes or living somewhere things are so bad that to much of what is now less tax (without her or all the other young mums in a similar situation working and pumping ntheir incomes back into the economy and gov coffers) gets spent policing and incarcerating her kids and all her neighbours kids.

Oops. I won't mention how dangerous I think his pandering to white supremacists is again. Well to you anyway. But have you noticed his hands?

I've got some seppo friends who are a bit political and radical and the stuff they come out with is interesting. There is a lot wrong with the US anyway even without Trump added to the mix.

Green text. noted.

That is true. I like our medicare but I also don't like the idea of teens not having safe sex and then having an abortion like it's nothing. A number of girls at my high school would almost carry it like a badge of honour. If they had to pay maybe they'd think twice or just use a condom for crying out loud. Maybe just an age cap or something. I've listened to a number of people debate the 'pro life' stance (ben shapiro mostly) and I get their points but I still think they are wrong. Might just be because I'm not religious or because I'm more cynical to the funding and love people have for other people's unwanted children - yes there are plenty of loving people but nowhere near enough. Just seems more like a debate around how many weeks before it's not okay to terminate etc.

No I haven't noticed his hands. Haha what is it about them? That is true, there is a lot wrong there. I enjoy watching it at times and then shake my head the some of the other stuff. It worries me because it always seems like countries like Australia and the UK are not far behind from a cultural standpoint. Things like universities cutting professors and dramatically increasing admin roles etc. worries me.

 

[The Other Dean]

Which is exactly what I've said from the beginning. It has struck a chord and it is helping people. That's why I struggle to understand the reasoning behind people trying to tear him down.

And as I think I responded last time, he doesn’t operate in a vacuum, and it isn’t all one-way traffic. While the self-help stuff may well resonate with some people, Peterson spends a lot of time talking about topics that don’t strictly fall under the heading of ‘self-help’. It’s at these times that he tends to polarise opinion. The evidence abounds. When some areas of his work are as divisive as Peterson’s have proven to be, it becomes necessary to view his work in a more holistic fashion. It seems a little blinkered or disingenuous to only reference the positive effect that his self-help words have, without at least making some attempt to weigh that against the negative effect that his words on other topics may also have.

Coming at him at a gender angle in an attempt to sway public opinion about him. Or label those that enjoy his stuff as fanboys - it appears that the self-help stuff has really helped a lot of people and I'm all for that.

Man, I gotta say, I think you may have me confused with someone else on the “fanboy” thing. It’s not a term I tend to use, and I don’t recall ever using it in this thread in reference to the ‘pro-Peterson-ites’.

I agree and I'm sure he would take it as both. I personally would take it as a compliment because I feel like you have to make hay while the sun shines. I would go full blown Joel Osteen with my own television network if I was in Jordan's position.

The horror.

The circle jerk stuff is what I don't understand. You acknowledge that he has done some good stuff but it seems any positive discussion around that = circle-jerking. I'm not putting that completely on you as quite a number of people appear to do it.

Yeah nah, I’m not sure that’s the right read. Well, not in my case anyway. Again it comes back to the first paragraph of this post.

While some posters have been a little more forthright in their disdain for Peterson’s work, (as you've subsequently noted) both myself and ferball have both spent time acknowledging and discussing some of the things that we feel he gets right. We’ve likewise watched the vids and commented. However, I haven’t noticed much in the way of the pro-Peterson-ites making reference to what they perceive to be the flaws in his work.

(To be fair, there is a chance that some of those people don’t believe there are any flaws in his work. A slim chance, but a chance all the same.)

But yeah, EXCLUSIVELY discussing the positives of Peterson’s work = circle-jerk, and that was kind of the vibe I was getting up to this point.

It ties into the for or against thing. Far left or far right without acknowledging the different levels in between.

While Peterson tends to save most of his venom for criticising the Left, he is also frequently critical of the Right, too. Which in some respects makes it considerably easier to appraise his work free from the oppressive, thought-clouding tyranny of the (cue sinister music) "Left/Right paradigm".

(Although I have to say, his apparent willingness to be photographed with the very same Far-Right nutjobs that he claims to denounce is a veritable masterclass in muddying the above waters.)

It’s not as if Peterson avoids the terms himself either. (Or lacks a capacity for binary supposition on occasion.)

Of course, and I don't know enough about those issues - I'm nowhere near the level I need to be to understand some of those topics let alone comment on them critically. BUT I am critical of those that tow the line and don't want to give an opinion on something. I've done media training and one of the first things I was told was to shut my mouth and don't comment on anything other than your field of work. I don't like it but I understand given it can impact your workplace. Jordan doesn't have those concerns and freely gives his opinion on certain areas. It falls down when he himself acknowledges that he doesn't know enough about certain areas he discusses. Everyone in the video acknowledge's that and admits it.

While I’m sure there are some people who wish he’d cast the net a little further on that particular brand of honesty, I do give him kudos for, on occasion, admitting to those gaps in his knowledge.

I know that Islam is, by his own admission, one key area where he still has a fair bit of work to do.

But as they all say at least it is being discussed and it can continue from there. In the video I timestamped it and he says "you should arm yourself against your weaknesses. I think it's better to take that risk because it is better developmentally".

Which is great because he's coming out with it and other intellectuals are offering counterpoints and it's being discussed. I'd much prefer that than no one discussing anything or thinking they need to shut up out of fear of being shut down completely.

Sure.

The new york book review issue: It was a personal attack and Peterson took offence to it. He's only human and I don't think I'd take too kindly to being called a misogynist, Islamophobe, or anti-Semite. Comes back to my first point of people wanting their 5 mins of fame in return by making it personal and trying to tear him down. That I don't understand.

Yes, he’s only human. But there’s a line of thought that says if you’re a human who instructs other humans how to live their life – and you operate at the level (of exposure) that Peterson does – then you have to be beyond reproach when it comes to setting an example. You have to walk the talk, so to speak. Those deviations/anomalies/lapses, no matter how understandable, only serve to undermine his message.

tldr: I agree with you but I just wish you had this reasoned approach every time rather than lowering yourself to fan boy jabs.

As mentioned, innocent as charged.

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[Groin guru]

And as I think I responded last time, he doesn’t operate in a vacuum, and it isn’t all one-way traffic. While the self-help stuff may well resonate with some people, Peterson spends a lot of time talking about topics that don’t strictly fall under the heading of ‘self-help’. It’s at these times that he tends to polarise opinion. The evidence abounds. When some areas of his work are as divisive as Peterson’s have proven to be, it becomes necessary to view his work in a more holistic fashion. It seems a little blinkered or disingenuous to only reference the positive effect that his self-help words have, without at least making some attempt to weigh that against the negative effect that his words on other topics may also have.

Because as I've said before, his opinion clearly carries weight otherwise he wouldn't be invited to universities or shows to engage in various topics. If he didn't get asked these questions we'd be still stuck at gender pronouns and feminism - two topics the media failed to pin him down over. If he sticks to self-help he's no better than some motivational speaker. He is worth listening to whether you think so or not. That's not an opinion because it's clearly backed up by everything that is happening in his life at the moment.

Man, I gotta say, I think you may have me confused with someone else on the “fanboy” thing. It’s not a term I tend to use, and I don’t recall ever using it in this thread in reference to the ‘pro-Peterson-ites’

Correct, you didn't say that in those words but "drinking from the Peterson fountain" is exactly that but just worded more eloquently.

Yes, he’s only human. But there’s a line of thought that says if you’re a human who instructs other humans how to live their life – and you operate at the level (of exposure) that Peterson does – then you have to be beyond reproach when it comes to setting an example. You have to walk the talk, so to speak. Those deviations/anomalies/lapses, no matter how understandable, only serve to undermine his message.

In your opinion. In my opinion if you are being critiqued by a journalist that is painting you as something you're not you make a strong point that it is incorrect and that they are a piece of shit. Stand up straight with your shoulders back is something he discusses and I see no issue with it. There was no violence so it's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Groin guru]

I'm not surprised at all. I saw that western Universities have decreased the amount of Professors working on campus by 2-6% and increased social workers/admins by 25%. Universities are slowly dying. I have several colleagues that work for universities and the amount of students that get exceptions for social anxiety related issues is concerning. They don't have to attend, get extensions on assignments, and challenge grades just because they can and departments side with them. I'd hate to be working at a university in the States - one word taken out of context could end a career - just look at what happened with Lindsay Sheppard as a perfect example.

A big concern is that slowly but surely less professionals are speaking about it out of fear of being targeted too. Academics and professionals are resorting to anon emails or siding with the trend because that has favourable outcomes.

To say that I am concerned about this rapidly evolving trend is an understatement. Twitter has become a cesspool now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...witter_impression=true&utm_term=.b95aa0b92428

Female nearly ruins a life. Cops think about pressing charges against the female. That fact that they are only thinking about it...

The liars in the Kavanaugh trial. His career is nearly ruined. These people need to be made an example of. Rape and sexual assault is terrible but lying should carry heavy penalties too.

 

[ferball]

GG - Lindsay Shepherd won a political battle in her office/place of work cos she was better prepared than the opposition and will probably end up millions of dollars richer because of it and I dunno, its not good what happened but she kept her job and will be well compensated for any shit she copped as well as being stronger for the experience and coming with an enhanced reputation. If anything her case proves that the system works, she kept her job, got public apologies from her superiors who put her thru it and has legal remedies available to address the treatment she received.

And i suggest you become familiar with Brett Kavanaugh's several decade long career at the highest levels of the US establishment before getting too worried about it.

Then you might realise how piss funnily ironic and instant karma-ish all that stuff was.

Anyway he's a piece of human excrement, based on the years 1996 - 2006 alone, save your sympathy for someone who deserves it. Not that he needs it anyway - he's an Inner Scrotus Associate Justice. There is one position higher in the world in his profession - Chief Justice of the Big Scrote and he's in line for it.

If that is having your career ruined where's the queue?

 

[StiffArm]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...witter_impression=true&utm_term=.b95aa0b92428

Female nearly ruins a life. Cops think about pressing charges against the female. That fact that they are only thinking about it...

The liars in the Kavanaugh trial. His career is nearly ruined. These people need to be made an example of. Rape and sexual assault is terrible but lying should carry heavy penalties too.

I encourage you to have a listen to this podcast some time. It will give you some food for thought about punishing liars.
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/581/anatomy-of-doubt

There are some cases of false reporting, and lines are not always black and white, two people can have very different take aways from the same situation. That said, the balance of power, and the balance of consequences are very firmly still against those making reports.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I'm not surprised at all. I saw that western Universities have decreased the amount of Professors working on campus by 2-6% and increased social workers/admins by 25%. Universities are slowly dying. I have several colleagues that work for universities and the amount of students that get exceptions for social anxiety related issues is concerning. They don't have to attend, get extensions on assignments, and challenge grades just because they can and departments side with them. I'd hate to be working at a university in the States - one word taken out of context could end a career - just look at what happened with Lindsay Sheppard as a perfect example.

A big concern is that slowly but surely less professionals are speaking about it out of fear of being targeted too. Academics and professionals are resorting to anon emails or siding with the trend because that has favourable outcomes.

To say that I am concerned about this rapidly evolving trend is an understatement. Twitter has become a cesspool now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...witter_impression=true&utm_term=.b95aa0b92428

Female nearly ruins a life. Cops think about pressing charges against the female. That fact that they are only thinking about it...

The liars in the Kavanaugh trial. His career is nearly ruined. These people need to be made an example of. Rape and sexual assault is terrible but lying should carry heavy penalties too.

This insidious stupidity has set up shop inside our football club.

To say that I am concerned about this rapidly evolving trend is an understatement. Twitter has become a cesspool now.

Forget about twitter, this is seeping in to government. It's now dangerous.

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[Groin guru]

GG - Lindsay Shepherd won a political battle in her office/place of work cos she was better prepared than the opposition and will probably end up millions of dollars richer because of it and I dunno, its not good what happened but she kept her job and will be well compensated for any shit she copped as well as being stronger for the experience and coming with an enhanced reputation. If anything her case proves that the system works, she kept her job, got public apologies from her superiors who put her thru it and has legal remedies available to address the treatment she received.

And i suggest you become familiar with Brett Kavanaugh's several decade long career at the highest levels of the US establishment before getting too worried about it.

Then you might realise how piss funnily ironic and instant karma-ish all that stuff was.

Anyway he's a piece of human excrement, based on the years 1996 - 2006 alone, save your sympathy for someone who deserves it. Not that he needs it anyway - he's an Inner Scrotus Associate Justice. There is one position higher in the world in his profession - Chief Justice of the Big Scrote and he's in line for it.

If that is having your career ruined where's the queue?

I know the Lindsay Shepherd story well. The fact that it took her recording an interview as well as the support of people like Jordan Peterson shows you just how bad the situation is for people. What happens to the next person that doesn't record it or the people that check to see if they are recording? Or those that can't get the attention of notable individuals?! Her career was almost over before it begun. She deserves the compensation and hates off to her for staying strong through it all when most would have caved. The world needs more people like her. She was still painted as a white supremacists, those apologies were shallow and they still managed to criticise her on facebook and at the university made it hard on her (making fellow students put pressure on her and spread lies like school children). They apologised because they were caught out.

Sorry I don't believe in karma and I take it on a case by case basis. Being accused of rape is probably the second worst thing you could be accused of in life. If people accuse someone and are found to be lying then they should be locked up and made an example of. Simple as that. Regardless of what he's done to get where he is today it's a life long battle to get there. To think that can come crashing down based on some lies is terrifying.

 

[Groin guru]

I encourage you to have a listen to this podcast some time. It will give you some food for thought about punishing liars.
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/581/anatomy-of-doubt

There are some cases of false reporting, and lines are not always black and white, two people can have very different take aways from the same situation. That said, the balance of power, and the balance of consequences are very firmly still against those making reports.

And I'm only talking about the cases that involve proven false reporting. If they are black and white like the news report I posted there should be consequences. Let's not move the goal posts here and talk about different issues. If a male rapes a women they should have terrible things done to them - no one is doubting that. But there should be iron clad punishments going the other way if it was proven black and white that they lied.

The man in that story didn't even get explanations. What have I done wrong? was met with "you know what you've done!"
Who knows what would have happened to him had his mum not wanted a selfie with him...

 

[Chadwiko]

Because as I've said before, his opinion clearly carries weight otherwise he wouldn't be invited to universities or shows to engage in various topics.

Milo Yioannopolous also gets invited to universities and shows. Does his opinion "carry weight" too?

 

[Groin guru]

Milo Yioannopolous also gets invited to universities and shows. Does his opinion "carry weight" too?

Clearly it does. If it didn't he wouldn't be invited, he wouldn't get book deals from publishers, and he wouldn't be invited onto talk shows. Just because people don't agree with him doesn't mean that others don't think he's worth listening to. I don't know much about him but I did see his interview on the Rubin report - I think his opinion on the wage gap myth is worth listening to.

 

[ferball]

Is he talking about, for example, how a company like Starbucks used anti bias training?

Seriously he is whinging about that?

This is more about his bitterness from his experiences in academia than reality.

#Jordyslivesmatter

Also all that whinging about equity ...

He is whinging about the fact that white men no longer get to do that exclusively, which is what used to happen. FFS - get over it. Other people have power as well and are trying to ghet it!!! What a surprise.

And he needs to get his facts right and apply more precision to his use of language if he's gonna claim some scientific validity to what he bangs on about:

1/ He doesn't even get the definitions for words he uses right - equity being a case in point.

2/ Anti bias training does work and has been shown to work here:

We developed a multi-faceted prejudice habit-breaking intervention to produce long-term reductions in implicit race bias. The intervention is based on the premise that implicit bias is like a habit that can be reduced through a combination of awareness of implicit bias, concern about the effects of that bias, and the application of strategies to reduce bias. In a 12-week longitudinal study, people who received the intervention showed dramatic reductions in implicit race bias. People who were concerned about discrimination or who reported using the strategies showed the greatest reductions. The intervention also led to increases in concern about discrimination and personal awareness of bias over the duration of the study. People in the control group showed none of the above effects. Our results raise the hope of reducing persistent and unintentional forms of discrimination that arise from implicit bias.

3/ In cases where it doesn't work (and this does happens alot) there are very specific reasons associated with the implementation of the programs:

The deleterious effects of stereotyping on individual and group outcomes have prompted a search for solutions. One approach has been to increase awareness of the prevalence of stereotyping in the hope of motivating individuals to resist natural inclinations. However, it could be that this strategy creates a norm for stereotyping, which paradoxically undermines desired effects. The present research demonstrates that individuals who received a high prevalence of stereotyping message expressed more stereotypes than those who received a low prevalence of stereotyping message (Studies 1a, 1b, 1c, and 2) or no message (Study 2). Furthermore, working professionals who received a high prevalence of stereotyping message were less willing to work with an individual who violated stereotypical norms than those who received no message, a low prevalence of stereotyping message, or a high prevalence of counter-stereotyping effort message (Study 3). Also, in a competitive task, individuals who received a high prevalence of stereotyping message treated their opponents in more stereotype-consistent ways than those who received a low prevalence of stereotyping message or those who received a high prevalence of counter-stereotyping effort message (Study 4).

This is Peterson's field of expertise. Its all psychology and he should be familiar with it.

If he wanted to criticique the process properly he would point this out and also admit the fact that when its done right it does work but this process requires more time and effort than any company is prepared to put in cost the cost benefit isn't worth it for what is ultimately "optics". (IE "Capitalism" will not engage in effective action to counter unconscious bias because its not financially viable.)


BTW - Environment is as or more important than genetics.

Yet he claims this idea has been "Dead since the 60s".

The guy is literally as full of shit as everyone he whines about. Maybe more so.

Normally you have good critical thinking skills Tef. Do switch them off when this guy starts talking?

Maybe its cos he's using a form of stimulus modality to entrain his listeners - its called auditory driving and is the basis for music as therapy and The Orb's music. Its got to do with the way he uses his voice. Its why his voice is so irritating to me. Heaps of people talk like that but only a few do it while practising try-hard NLP.

 

[Chadwiko]

...If it didn't he wouldn't be invited, he wouldn't get book deals from publishers...

 

[Groin guru]

View attachment 585327

2557 reviews on Amazon, 90% of them 5 stars. I guess some think his opinion carries weight...

Publishers pulling out is no surprise given the controversy he created in that instance. Context matters and I'd prefer to go to the source over the media which selectively edit and like to paint their own picture.

“I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That’s perfectly true and every gay man knows it. But I was not talking about anything illegal and I was not referring to prepubescent boys.

“I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16.”

Not like the media to go overboard...

 

[Snake_Baker]

Is he talking about, for example, how a company like Starbucks used anti bias training?

Seriously he is whinging about that?

This is more about his bitterness from his experiences in academia than reality.

#Jordyslivesmatter

Also all that whinging about equity ...

He is whinging about the fact that white men no longer get to do that exclusively, which is what used to happen. FFS - get over it. Other people have power as well and are trying to ghet it!!! What a surprise.

And he needs to get his facts right and apply more precision to his use of language if he's gonna claim some scientific validity to what he bangs on about:

1/ He doesn't even get the definitions for words he uses right - equity being a case in point.

2/ Anti bias training does work and has been shown to work here:

We developed a multi-faceted prejudice habit-breaking intervention to produce long-term reductions in implicit race bias. The intervention is based on the premise that implicit bias is like a habit that can be reduced through a combination of awareness of implicit bias, concern about the effects of that bias, and the application of strategies to reduce bias. In a 12-week longitudinal study, people who received the intervention showed dramatic reductions in implicit race bias. People who were concerned about discrimination or who reported using the strategies showed the greatest reductions. The intervention also led to increases in concern about discrimination and personal awareness of bias over the duration of the study. People in the control group showed none of the above effects. Our results raise the hope of reducing persistent and unintentional forms of discrimination that arise from implicit bias.

3/ In cases where it doesn't work (and this does happens alot) there are very specific reasons associated with the implementation of the programs:

The deleterious effects of stereotyping on individual and group outcomes have prompted a search for solutions. One approach has been to increase awareness of the prevalence of stereotyping in the hope of motivating individuals to resist natural inclinations. However, it could be that this strategy creates a norm for stereotyping, which paradoxically undermines desired effects. The present research demonstrates that individuals who received a high prevalence of stereotyping message expressed more stereotypes than those who received a low prevalence of stereotyping message (Studies 1a, 1b, 1c, and 2) or no message (Study 2). Furthermore, working professionals who received a high prevalence of stereotyping message were less willing to work with an individual who violated stereotypical norms than those who received no message, a low prevalence of stereotyping message, or a high prevalence of counter-stereotyping effort message (Study 3). Also, in a competitive task, individuals who received a high prevalence of stereotyping message treated their opponents in more stereotype-consistent ways than those who received a low prevalence of stereotyping message or those who received a high prevalence of counter-stereotyping effort message (Study 4).

This is Peterson's field of expertise. Its all psychology and he should be familiar with it.

If he wanted to criticique the process properly he would point this out and also admit the fact that when its done right it does work but this process requires more time and effort than any company is prepared to put in cost the cost benefit isn't worth it for what is ultimately "optics". (IE "Capitalism" will not engage in effective action to counter unconscious bias because its not financially viable.)


BTW - Environment is as or more important than genetics.

Yet he claims this idea has been "Dead since the 60s".

The guy is literally as full of shit as everyone he whines about. Maybe more so.

Normally you have good critical thinking skills Tef. Do switch them off when this guy starts talking?

Maybe its cos he's using a form of stimulus modality to entrain his listeners - its called auditory driving and is the basis for music as therapy and The Orb's music. Its got to do with the way he uses his voice. Its why his voice is so irritating to me. Heaps of people talk like that but only a few do it while practising try-hard NLP.

Watch the clip again if you can't figure it out.

 

[Snake_Baker]

2557 reviews on Amazon, 90% of them 5 stars. I guess some think his opinion carries weight...

Publishers pulling out is no surprise given the controversy he created in that instance. Context matters and I'd prefer to go to the source over the media which selectively edit and like to paint their own picture.

“I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That’s perfectly true and every gay man knows it. But I was not talking about anything illegal and I was not referring to prepubescent boys.

“I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16.”

Not like the media to go overboard...

What else do you expect the purveyors of cultivated outrage to respond with other than......................cultivated outrage.

Ironically, these people are children themselves. Intellectual children.

 

[ferball]

2557 reviews on Amazon, 90% of them 5 stars. I guess some think his opinion carries weight...

Publishers pulling out is no surprise given the controversy he created in that instance. Context matters and I'd prefer to go to the source over the media which selectively edit and like to paint their own picture.

“I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That’s perfectly true and every gay man knows it. But I was not talking about anything illegal and I was not referring to prepubescent boys.

“I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16.”

Not like the media to go overboard...

He actually mentions being 13 years of age and with a 25 - 28 year old in this video and calls it "perfectly consensual." FWIW.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azC1nm85btY

The specific conversation starts around 58 minutes.

To be clear he is talking about his experiences as a gay 13 year old with men in their 20s.

He seems cool with it but its sus as imo.

 

[Chadwiko]

Yeah, we're done here.

Move the goalposts and twist the facts all you want. Write as many paragraphs as you want.

If you need to go to these lengths to justify supporting horrible people, I would say that you should reflect on that, but I know it's probably "just the fault of outraged leftists" anyway, am I right?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Where? (time stamp please)