Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

[Snake_Baker]

Finally, libertarianism, is extremism. It's not the moderate centre of the bizarre "both sides" example you used earlier.

Agree. Libertarianism is extremism when society is an ever increasing exercise in controlling everybody else.

It's basically the primary reason that society is ****ed up.

 

[Snake_Baker]

A good mate of mine works as a HR director.

Half her day is running inductions (OHS, chains of command etc). Some yearly performance reviews. The odd conciliation. The odd firing. Flicking through resumes. The odd training sesh. The odd powerpoint meeting.

Far left radical.

Don't HR departments basically exist due to politically enforced obligations to spend X revenue on training, O.H. & S, etc.?

 

[nicky]

They are much worse than that.

You're encouraged to work out any issues with HR however they will automatically side against you (without telling you of course) to protect corporate interests. So their inclusive and diversity programs are there in case someone sues they can say "but look at our programs and corporate values, we're doing everything we are supposed to"
I have yet to work for a company that aligns to its values. The values are usually an indication of the opposite.

If you are going to automate a dept, HR will help you do it legally.

Etc

 

[Greendogg5]

They are much worse than that.

You're encouraged to work out any issues with HR however they will automatically side against you (without telling you of course) to protect corporate interests. So their inclusive and diversity programs are there in case someone sues they can say "but look at our programs and corporate values, we're doing everything we are supposed to"
I have yet to work for a company that aligns to its values. The values are usually an indication of the opposite.

If you are going to automate a dept, HR will help you do it legally.

Etc

spot on.

 

[bombersfan4000]

Don't HR departments basically exist due to politically enforced obligations to spend X revenue on training, O.H. & S, etc.?

They did, but mostly out source every thing now days

 

[fleabitten]

https://www.jns.org/the-forward-forced-to-backtrack-on-story-about-jordan-peterson/

American magazine The Forward has been at the center of a media scandal after media watchdog CAMERA discovered that the magazine fabricated racist support for University of Toronto Professor Jordan Peterson.

“We closely monitor white supremacist media,” said CAMERA analyst Dexter Van Zile, who himself has been the target of white nationalist attacks. “My colleague Jonah Cohen quickly proved that Forward journalist Ari Feldman misled readers that Peterson has support among far-right racist communities.”

“The exact opposite is the case,” said Van Zile. “Neo-Nazis and white nationalists vehemently hate Jordan Peterson. It’s a demonstrable fact.”

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[Brick Loosener]

They are much worse than that.

You're encouraged to work out any issues with HR however they will automatically side against you (without telling you of course) to protect corporate interests. So their inclusive and diversity programs are there in case someone sues they can say "but look at our programs and corporate values, we're doing everything we are supposed to"
I have yet to work for a company that aligns to its values. The values are usually an indication of the opposite.

If you are going to automate a dept, HR will help you do it legally.

Etc

Where's this?

 

[BEaston]

And diversity and inclusiveness just means "dont be racist, sexist or a bigotted at work".

This is apparently radical left. Let that sink in.

 

[Lethality]

This is apparently radical left. Let that sink in.

It's radical when diversity encompasses more than simply "dont be racist, sexist or a bigotted at work".such as quotas, or firing an engineer for writing a memo, or favouritism for minorities, or penalising certain minority groups, and so forth, all of which have happened under the banner of diversity. Diversity is basically a corporate buzzword now.

 

[Scotland]

Diversity in a corporate sense is box ticking bullshit.

https://www.cmewa.com/news-and-events/upcoming-events/women-in-resources-awards

The girl who won 'Outstanding Young Woman in Resources' was promoted 5 times by BHP in the space of two years. At the rate of inertia within a large organisation like that you can barely make a ripple in one position in two years, let alone across 5 different ones. They have a gender KPI of 50/50 by 2020 and it must be reflective across the organisation. I.e. you can't just hire 1,000 female uni graduates and claim gender parity. So instead they place women into roles they aren't qualified and/or experienced enough for, then promote them up the chain so they can claim they have female superintendents and production supervisors. Boxes ticked, KPIs met, bonuses paid. Sad. The people doing the hiring and promoting up the chain don't even give a s**t about the consequences (career development for the people promoted - which is why you want to retain people long term and groom them for seniority, potential effects on the business - which is why you have experienced people in senior positions etc.) because they are focused on doing what they need to do to toe the company line.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

It's radical when diversity encompasses more than simply "dont be racist, sexist or a bigotted at work".such as quotas, or firing an engineer for writing a memo, or favouritism for minorities, or penalising certain minority groups, and so forth, all of which have happened under the banner of diversity. Diversity is basically a corporate buzzword now.

He did more than write a memo.

Ongoing political advocacy in the workplace which alienated colleagues.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Diversity in a corporate sense is box ticking bullshit.

https://www.cmewa.com/news-and-events/upcoming-events/women-in-resources-awards

The girl who won 'Outstanding Young Woman in Resources' was promoted 5 times by BHP in the space of two years. At the rate of inertia within a large organisation like that you can barely make a ripple in one position in two years, let alone across 5 different ones. They have a gender KPI of 50/50 by 2020 and it must be reflective across the organisation. I.e. you can't just hire 1,000 female uni graduates and claim gender parity. So instead they place women into roles they aren't qualified and/or experienced enough for, then promote them up the chain so they can claim they have female superintendents and production supervisors. Boxes ticked, KPIs met, bonuses paid. Sad. The people doing the hiring and promoting up the chain don't even give a s**t about the consequences (career development for the people promoted - which is why you want to retain people long term and groom them for seniority, potential effects on the business - which is why you have experienced people in senior positions etc.) because they are focused on doing what they need to do to toe the company line.

One thing that has always bugged me about people who want to shrink the role of government, to allow private industry to fill the gap, is that most very large corporations internal operations are way more opaque, nonsensical and arbitrary than the public service.

Massive resource companies have Byzantine bureaucracies.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Where, in the Australian workforce, is there equality of outcome ?

Gender targets are about equality of outcome. I work for a large employer. Every manager has a KPI to achieve at least 50% females staff members in their department. So that's an incentive to preference women into vacant roles. In addition to that, HR has mandated a policy where every advertised role has to have at least one female shortlisted for an interview.

When you consider that there are a lot more men in the workforce than women, it's a policy that is blatantly discriminatory against men.

ABS Sep 2017. women aged 25-44 years are more than two and a half times as likely as men in this age group to be out of the labour force.​

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@....0~Sep 2017~Main Features~Economic Security~4

 

[nicky]

Where's this?

Nearly every place

Gender targets are about equality of outcome. I work for a large employer. Every manager has a KPI to achieve at least 50% females staff members in their department. So that's an incentive to preference women into vacant roles. In addition to that, HR has mandated a policy where every advertised role has to have at least one female shortlisted for an interview.

When you consider that there are a lot more men in the workforce than women, it's a policy that is blatantly discriminatory against men.

ABS Sep 2017. women aged 25-44 years are more than two and a half times as likely as men in this age group to be out of the labour force.​

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by Subject/4125.0~Sep 2017~Main Features~Economic Security~4

Which HR, the HR of Australia?
This is simply not true. My empirical experience, having over 15 years experience working in professional services, is completely inconsistent with what you are claiming.

What managers have this kpi? What is their role and where do they work?

I dont know where you are getting these stats from (gotta link?), but yeah, i have worked for a decade and half as a professional in various industries and my thinking is that you have got this completely wrong.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Diversity in a corporate sense is box ticking bullshit.

https://www.cmewa.com/news-and-events/upcoming-events/women-in-resources-awards

The girl who won 'Outstanding Young Woman in Resources' was promoted 5 times by BHP in the space of two years. At the rate of inertia within a large organisation like that you can barely make a ripple in one position in two years, let alone across 5 different ones. They have a gender KPI of 50/50 by 2020 and it must be reflective across the organisation. I.e. you can't just hire 1,000 female uni graduates and claim gender parity. So instead they place women into roles they aren't qualified and/or experienced enough for, then promote them up the chain so they can claim they have female superintendents and production supervisors. Boxes ticked, KPIs met, bonuses paid. Sad. The people doing the hiring and promoting up the chain don't even give a s**t about the consequences (career development for the people promoted - which is why you want to retain people long term and groom them for seniority, potential effects on the business - which is why you have experienced people in senior positions etc.) because they are focused on doing what they need to do to toe the company line.

My company has gender equity targets at all levels and a corporate policy to achieve gender pay equity.

Then there's also policies to promote 'diversity' - but its never defined. Do they want diversity of culture? Or religion? Political views? It's never spelt out how gender equity targets and 'diversity' helps the company do its business. All the assumptions behind the policies are never spelled out, and it would be career limiting to challenge them. As Stephen Fry said in the debate 'You can be diverse but not diverse in your opinions'.

 

[Chief]

Diversity in a corporate sense is box ticking bullshit.

https://www.cmewa.com/news-and-events/upcoming-events/women-in-resources-awards

The girl who won 'Outstanding Young Woman in Resources' was promoted 5 times by BHP in the space of two years. At the rate of inertia within a large organisation like that you can barely make a ripple in one position in two years, let alone across 5 different ones. They have a gender KPI of 50/50 by 2020 and it must be reflective across the organisation. I.e. you can't just hire 1,000 female uni graduates and claim gender parity. So instead they place women into roles they aren't qualified and/or experienced enough for, then promote them up the chain so they can claim they have female superintendents and production supervisors. Boxes ticked, KPIs met, bonuses paid. Sad. The people doing the hiring and promoting up the chain don't even give a s**t about the consequences (career development for the people promoted - which is why you want to retain people long term and groom them for seniority, potential effects on the business - which is why you have experienced people in senior positions etc.) because they are focused on doing what they need to do to toe the company line.

God just about every organisation places blokes in positions they aren’t qualified or experienced at: its just about all you hear from people in businesses across the planet “my boss is a dickhead and only got the job because he sucks up to / is mate’s with / is related to a director / head of the department / the owner’s wife.”

I defy you to find anyone with a few years of work under their belt who hasn’t had this experience or opinion at some point.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ShanDog]

God just about every organisation places blokes in positions they aren’t qualified or experienced at: its just about all you hear from people in businesses across the planet “my boss is a dickhead and only got the job because he sucks up to / is mate’s with / is related to a director / head of the department / the owner’s wife.”

I defy you to find anyone with a few years of work under their belt who hasn’t had this experience or opinion at some point.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

And clearly the answer to nepotism and unearned status is more of it...

 

[Chief]

And clearly the answer to nepotism and unearned status is more of it...

Well the people benefiting now aren’t giving up their foothold.

Greer encourages women to stop whining and get smarter about it. Play the game.

They’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

 

[fleabitten]

She is so much fun to listen to. I find all her weird tics and idiosyncratic mannerisms (coupled with her feistiness) to be really endearing, even when I don't agree with her.

 

[Frank Bunn]

God just about every organisation places blokes in positions they aren’t qualified or experienced at: its just about all you hear from people in businesses across the planet “my boss is a dickhead and only got the job because he sucks up to / is mate’s with / is related to a director / head of the department / the owner’s wife.”

I defy you to find anyone with a few years of work under their belt who hasn’t had this experience or opinion at some point.

Of course it happens. I also defy you to find anyone with a few years of work under their belt who hasn’t seen a female sleep her way into a promotion or a pay rise. One of the worst examples I saw was an extremely competent woman was denied a role because another lesser talented woman was sleeping with the boss. I've never heard of a man use sex to help get a job.

But this is something different. It's corporate policy that systematically advantages people purely on the basis of their sex rather than merit.

 

[Scotland]

Of course it happens. I also defy you to find anyone with a few years of work under their belt who hasn’t seen a female sleep her way into a promotion or a pay rise. One of the worst examples I saw was an extremely competent woman was denied a role because another lesser talented woman was sleeping with the boss. I've never heard of a man use sex to help get a job.

But this is something different. It's corporate policy that systematically advantages people purely on the basis of their sex rather than merit.

Was going to say this but you saved me the time.

 

[Chief]

Of course it happens. I also defy you to find anyone with a few years of work under their belt who hasn’t seen a female sleep her way into a promotion or a pay rise.

I have never ever seen that happen in the different workplaces I’ve been in.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Frank Bunn]

I don't think Peterson is a Nazi, but he appeals to the same cultural motifs and language as the people who became Nazi's. As do his followers.

And you criticise Peterson for dogwhistling!

Also, "Nazi" as a term was coined later. It is in no way similar to socialism, aside from the fact they tried to borrow socialist valour by stealing the name and making false promises about better conditions for workers (BTW, these limited range of promises were aligned with SDP style social democracy, not those of communists/socialists). Fascism by it's nature is neither anti-capitalist, nor is it collectivist. In fact, fascism or corporatism is a perfect vehicle for capitalism. Free markets do not exists and cannot, by nature. Fascism, is just capitalist realism taken to it's natural conclusion. Corporations still exist, there is still currency. The surplus value of wage labour is now more efficiently extracted, commodity production is optimised to it's highest extent, not abolished. It's also top down/authoritarian, so cannot possibly be collectivist.

It's an interesting subject, and I disagree, but we risk going off topic. We're only here because of your ridiculous claim that Peterson's arguments and terminology exactly mirrors that employed by the Nazis.

 

[fleabitten]

Another good response to the attacks on Peterson:

http://quillette.com/2018/05/22/jordan-peterson-failure-left/

First, it’s unconvincing to everyone who’s not some sort of true believer or faithful follower (or, more cynically, a journalist looking to please an editor demanding yet another Peterson hit piece). No doubt, I’m not the only person who’s wondered what all the fuss is about, decided to take the time to listen to one of Peterson’s YouTube lectures, and come away feeling that the Left’s commentariat is trying to sell me a fake bill of goods. The gap between Peterson’s obvious intelligence and the Left’s scathing denunciation of him as an alt-right idiot is simply too large for many of us to ignore.

Second, the Left’s attack on Peterson is so unrelenting, so superficial, and quite frequently so vicious, that many of us who work and/or live in left-leaning social environments feel scared to speak up against it. We don’t want to alienate our friends, damage our professional reputations, or attract the attention of fire-breathing activists.

The problem here is not simply that this is unpleasant for people like me. More importantly, our silence further impoverishes everyday political discourse by eliminating more nuanced left-of-center voices. This, in turn, reinforces the already powerful trend toward weaponized hashtag ideology instead of serious political thought. It also drives more people to right-of-center alternatives or away from politics altogether.

Peterson is just one example of this larger trend. Viewed as such, the situation he represents is extremely concerning, and even dangerous. We desperately need a revitalized Left that’s capable of speaking to today’s pressing issues of socio-economic inequality, environmental devastation, and spiritual malaise in informed, intelligent, and inspiring ways. Instead, we’re inundated by shallow ideological crusades dedicated to demonizing thoughtful conservatives like Peterson, who actually have some important ideas to offer—just not on the issues that properly concern the Left.