Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

[Kangaroos4eva]

I find it interesting that Jordan Peterson extols the virtue of individuality and castigates categorising people by their identity, while ignoring that historically, particularly in post-colonial countries, swathes of people have been institutionally oppressed and denied rights simply because they belonged to certain identity groups, while also being told that it was their individuality that mattered. There's a cruel dissonance in those ideas.

I mean, think of apartheid South Africa, women's suffrage, civil rights, etc. These things were only addressed when people collectively mobilised along identity lines and demanded cultural, political and societal change, so that it was possible for them to express their individuality, that it was possible that the individuality of the people that belonged to those identity groups could be recognised.

I find it hard to accept this idea that group identity and individuality are these two mutually exclusive intrinsically defining characteristics. When he talks about the individuality of ideas as being the most important, surely he recognises that, among a host of other things, identity is crucial in influencing the individual that formed them.

Anyway, that's the direction of my thoughts after watching Q&A tonight. It's the first time I've seen him speak for an extended period, and what's clear is that he's charismatic and a great orator. I can see why so many people have been drawn to the almost cult of personality that surrounds him.

On another note, Terri Butler is always the most impressive of the Labor politicians whenever I see her imo. I'd be willing to bet that she's a future PM. She's very considered, and I think she held her own, particularly regarding the nature of representative democracy, to which Peterson replied with lazy whataboutisms, which was intellectually disingenuous.

He's talked at length about the Soviet and Nazi exterminations at length, pretty sure he is aware of historical oppression of particular groups based on a particular tribal identity, whether it be racially or politically motivated. His argument is more about tribalism v individualism. It was identity based tribalism in the first place, that denied those suffering in post-colonial societies the basic individual rights that we all should be universally guaranteed. I would be careful in using apartheid South Africa as an example, considering that the apartheid opposition came in the form of civic individualism (which I discuss below) and identity based opposition. Consider the current situation in South Africa, we currently have white farmers arming themselves because tribal divisions have gotten so bad there.

Zimbabwe is a strong reminder of the national (ethnic/racial) identity opposition to their historical oppressors can easily result in a different form of tribalism. Most, if not all, post-colonial societies in Africa and Asia are heavily infused with tribalism and national divisions. Even South American nations have struggled after their opposition to Spanish/French/Portuguese rule and most of that was a 150+ years ago. Why, because of the ethnic/cultural/racial/violent identity origins of their opposition to their original tribal overlords, the European powers.


Civic individualism, though, has merit via a national individualized civic duty to do the right thing and fighting for everyone to have the same individual rights and privileges. For example, a lot of the Western civil rights and liberties groups of the 1950s onwards reached far across tribal differences (economic, political, ethnic/racial, etc). They were based on the desire for everyone having the same rights, the same access, the same privileges, no matter their tribal allegiances; that is what made that movement rather unique. Civic individualism and duty to the state, which protects those rights from tyranny, is a much better form of fighting for social justice than reverse engineering the identity politics that historical oppressors used.

Sadly, as human beings, we are constantly drawn back to tribal like qualities, even if we think we are doing the right thing.

 

[Val Keating]

So we’re aloud to talk about Pell now. Scumbag

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

So we’re aloud to talk about Pell now. Scumbag

Yea, I was holding off on him until the guilty verdict, but what a nasty little turd of a human.

 

[Nate7]

Pell guilty. But the way the OPP dropped two other complainants is a joke!

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Apparently up to 100 Journos facing gaol time for breaking the suppression order.

Actually hope they go through with it, need to get rid of this "First to break the story" mentality. Filters through into other areas of news where more thought is put into the story than the wellbeing of those at the center of said news (see Footy Journalism as an example).

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Apparently up to 100 Journos facing gaol time for breaking the suppression order.

Actually hope they go through with it, need to get rid of this "First to break the story" mentality. Filters through into other areas of news where more thought is put into the story than the wellbeing of those at the center of said news (see Footy Journalism as an example).

It wont happen.

If there was ever a case to blurt out the result, this was it.

Supression orders are handed out in Victoria like candy.

 

[King Corey]

He stands out because he's actually intelligent.

If last night was representative of his stay here then he'll leave this country concluding that Australians are a bunch of stupid people.

Funny they were happy to wheel out Milo of all people to do their bidding when nothing else worked during the attempted demonisation.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Funny they were happy to wheel out Milo of all people to do their bidding when nothing else worked during the attempted demonisation.

The real insult is that the ABC attempts to sell itself as highbrow intellectualism.

 

[kangaspurs]

Funny they were happy to wheel out Milo of all people to do their bidding when nothing else worked during the attempted demonisation.

Attempted demonisation?

The crowd was almost exclusively pro-Peterson, and most of the questions were for him, and all of them other than one were questions that pandered to his general message.

 

[King Corey]

Attempted demonisation?

The crowd was almost exclusively pro-Peterson, and most of the questions were for him, and all of them other than one were questions that pandered to his general message.

The audience are now the same thing as the Q&A production team?

 

[kangaspurs]

The audience are now the same thing as the Q&A production team?

Ok, but where was the attempted demonisation from them? They led with him as their guest, which is obvious given his popularity, they directed most of the questions to him, and they were in areas, as I said, which was in his general wheelhouse. Hardly demonisation. All the media in the lead up across their socials was mostly positive as well, with most of the important and weighty critiques ignored.

 

[King Corey]

Ok, but where was the attempted demonisation from them? They led with him as their guest, which is obvious given his popularity, they directed most of the questions to him, and they were in areas, as I said, which was in his general wheelhouse. Hardly demonisation. All the media in the lead up across their socials was mostly positive as well, with most of the important and weighty critiques ignored.

The inclusion of Milo Yiannopoulos was deliberately provocative. A person who was largely blackballed by any left-leaning media outlets was suddenly a credible source to include when posing questions to Peterson. Throwing out their previous values towards Milo to allow this stuck as a desperate move.

There is a level of supposition here that the generally Labor friendly show and the Labor politician guest would be in something of a collusion. She was certainly loading up and trying for easy shots at Peterson whenever an opportunity presented itself.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Terri Butler was a joke.

 

[Nate7]

LA-bound train passengers stranded for 36 hours in snow in Oregon

https://www.9news.com.au/2019/02/27/09/48/us-news-passengers-trapped-on-train-for-more-than-36-hours

And we thought Metro Rail (Melbourne) was a third world operated dump!

 

[Groin guru]

The inclusion of Milo Yiannopoulos was deliberately provocative. A person who was largely blackballed by any left-leaning media outlets was suddenly a credible source to include when posing questions to Peterson. Throwing out their previous values towards Milo to allow this stuck as a desperate move.

There is a level of supposition here that the generally Labor friendly show and the Labor politician guest would be in something of a collusion. She was certainly loading up and trying for easy shots at Peterson whenever an opportunity presented itself.

Pure desperation. He has made countless journalists look second-rate. So they rolled out the "big guns" for the British GQ interview. That failed, despite their attempt to rattle him before entering the studio. Now they just resort to trying to make him angry/agitated. As if that somehow = a win. Look at Clementine Ford's desperation on twitter during the broadcast. "notice me, notice me, notice me" - if people actually read books instead of fluff opinion pieces they might have important stuff to say.

Imagine discussing key issues with "twitter personalities", Australian politicians , and glorified journalists. That'd be enough to agitate anyone.

Milo came across like a jaded ex-lover if anything. "why didn't you save me???" Like he has some moral obligation to save everyone.

The reality is that everyone on that stage had an agenda except Peterson. That poor kid that asked the question about male suicide rates - straight off the bat the twitter personality dodged the question and deviated from the topic. Highlighting his point perfectly - it's not broached because it doesn't fit the agenda most on the panel were pushing.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

The inclusion of Milo Yiannopoulos was deliberately provocative. A person who was largely blackballed by any left-leaning media outlets was suddenly a credible source to include when posing questions to Peterson. Throwing out their previous values towards Milo to allow this stuck as a desperate move.

There is a level of supposition here that the generally Labor friendly show and the Labor politician guest would be in something of a collusion. She was certainly loading up and trying for easy shots at Peterson whenever an opportunity presented itself.

Her brick layer gag was a pure cheap shot and intellectually fraudulent as she didn’t want to continue the argument. Want her nowhere near the pm’s office.

 

[kangaspurs]

The inclusion of Milo Yiannopoulos was deliberately provocative. A person who was largely blackballed by any left-leaning media outlets was suddenly a credible source to include when posing questions to Peterson. Throwing out their previous values towards Milo to allow this stuck as a desperate move.

There is a level of supposition here that the generally Labor friendly show and the Labor politician guest would be in something of a collusion. She was certainly loading up and trying for easy shots at Peterson whenever an opportunity presented itself.

Provocative sure, but the question was an interesting one because it went to his relationship with some of the questionable sections of his fandom. What was more telling about that question was that he completely ignored the central thesis of Yiannopoulos' question about said relationship. I would have liked to see that expanded upon, and have him address his tendency to use those fringe elements as a money spinner, but then disassociate himself from them when they cite his work or his teachings when they do or say bat shit crazy things.

And sorry, KC, I couldn't disagree with that last paragraph more. On a general level, the left-bias thrown at Q&A is laughable and perpetuated by bona fide morons like Chris Kenny. They almost always have a balanced panel when it comes to the political spectrum, and they always field questions from both sides of the divide on whatever is on the agenda at the time.

As for Butler, I strongly disagree with Snake (haha and who's surprised?). If anything, it was Peterson that was unnecessarily condescending and aggressive to her when she offered a differing opinion. And I'm not the only one to think that. A quick look at he qanda hashtag will see plenty of people, even some who say they're fans, surprised at his unnecessary provocation. Is Peterson so exempt from criticism that offering a challenging opinion is considered a cheap shot?

And he was the intellectually dishonest one, which I found surprising (or perhaps not so when I've learnt since that it's a common tactic of his), when he responded with genuinely pathetic whataboutism and borderline strawman to Butler's cogent point about representative democracy. I was staggered that he was incapable of following the conversation at that point.

 

[kangaspurs]

Her brick layer gag was a pure cheap shot and intellectually fraudulent as she didn’t want to continue the argument. Want her nowhere near the pm’s office.

You'll find that Peterson brought up the bricklayers as a dishonest whataboutism to her point about representative democracy. It had nothing to do with what was being discussed at the time, and so no wonder that so many people were incredulous that he brought it up.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

You'll find that Peterson brought up the bricklayers as a dishonest whataboutism to her point about representative democracy. It had nothing to do with what was being discussed at the time, and so no wonder that so many people were incredulous that he brought it up.

I have only watched that clip, so I'll just focus on that. He was talking about issues related to group identity versus individualism, she interjected about something related to representative democracy. She basically stated that to have a representative democracy (i.e. recongnising the interests of different groups) that women should be represented at the same percentage as men. Her entire argument is about equality of outcome at this point in regards to political power. Peterson assumes that is her argument as he then goes into quotas (the basis of the equality of outcome argument) leading to his example of bricklayers and how stupid equality of outcome is as a concept, something she quickly moved on from as he pointed out how some feminists ignore the other side of the equality of outcome coin. Thus, he was perfectly entitled to do what he did, although a political example would have been more appropriate than the bricklayer one. In saying that, he was a bit of a rude sod about it all, but I am not sure if I missed something earlier about each party insulting each other.

She deliberately interjected to challenge Peterson's views on identity tribalism versus individualism, by making a weak point between representative democracy and direct democracies. She changed the tangent to make it about women supposedly not having equal political power due to outcome and consequently, their interests are not being representative. This is directly related to feminist conceptions of power structures, aka patriarchy.

God, here I go again. I should be like RZ and just stay out of it...

 

[kangaspurs]

I have only watched that clip, so I'll just focus on that. He was talking about equality of outcome v opportunity, she interjected about something related to representative democracy. She basically stated that to have a representative democracy (i.e. recongnising the interests of different groups) that women should be represented at the same percentage as men. Her entire argument is about equality of outcome at this point in regards to political power. Peterson assumes that is her argument as he then goes into quotas (equality of outcome) leading to his example of bricklayers and how stupid equality of outcome is as a concept. Thus, he was perfectly entitled to do what he did. In saying that, he was a bit of a rude sod about it all, but I am not sure if I missed something earlier about each party insulting each other.

She deliberately interjected and changed the tangent to make it about women supposedly not having equal political power due to outcome and consequently, their interests are not being representative. This is directly related to feminist conceptions of power structures, aka patriarchy.

The context of the previous discussion earlier in the show was quotas in politics, which Jones then raised. He asked if there were quotas in different groups that were more concerning than others, then raised the earlier point about representation in politics. Peterson said in response that there was a problem in believing that you should categorise people in regards to their groups, to which Butler replied, when given the go ahead by Jones, so not out of turn, that maybe politics should be representative. Peterson then said that he didn't understand, to which Butler just said that that was a clear, and then Peterson got all snowflakey and said that was insulting. He then brought up the nonsense whataboutism with regards to bricklayers, and then when he realised it had nothing to do with the question, he tried to move the goalposts to make it about positions of power, to which Badham made the point that, actually, there are groups that do exactly that in encouraging women into the trades, etc.

Butler make the point that the bricklayers thing is completely irrelevant because the point was about politics. Bricklayers are not representative, they're not elected. It was a strawman argument from Peterson, and Butler was correct in pointing it out. Maybe they just get their wires crossed, but if Peterson is the great intellectual of our time, then surely he should have been able to follow the conversation.

42:59 of the video in the link below is from the very start, when the first question was asked. Tony makes the point about political groups after Peterson's initial answer.

https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/2019-25-02/10811138

 

[kangaspurs]

Oh, and while we're on it, one thing I did like from Peterson on Monday was his point about needing to get your own shit in order before you worry about broader, more collective issues. I thought there was a lot of sense to take out of that response, and it was something that I found resonated with me a fair bit, which is probably to be expected because it's more in the psychological space, which is obviously his area of expertise. It's when he strays from that that he can tie himself in knots.

 

[RobZombie]

The real insult is that the ABC attempts to sell itself as highbrow intellectualism.

Muting the hashtag for The Bad Show was the best thing I have done for my sanity this decade.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

The context of the previous discussion earlier in the show was quotas in politics, which Jones then raised. He asked if there were quotas in different groups that were more concerning than others, then raised the earlier point about representation in politics. Peterson said in response that there was a problem in believing that you should categorise people in regards to their groups, to which Butler replied, when given the go ahead by Jones, so not out of turn, that maybe politics should be representative. Peterson then said that he didn't understand, to which Butler just said that that was a clear, and then Peterson got all snowflakey and said that was insulting. He then brought up the nonsense whataboutism with regards to bricklayers, and then when he realised it had nothing to do with the question, he tried to move the goalposts to make it about positions of power, to which Badham made the point that, actually, there are groups that do exactly that in encouraging women into the trades, etc.

Butler make the point that the bricklayers thing is completely irrelevant because the point was about politics. Bricklayers are not representative, they're not elected. It was a strawman argument from Peterson, and Butler was correct in pointing it out. Maybe they just get their wires crossed, but if Peterson is the great intellectual of our time, then surely he should have been able to follow the conversation.

But politics are representative, i.e. the current representative democracy we have today, so she was making more of a point of extending the concept of representative democracies and applying it to quotas to ensure her version of 'equality'. He didn't understand the question she was asking because she wasn't really asking a question; she was going on about a tangent about equality and how to ensure that via representative (percentages). He was talking about the concept of representation as a whole in regards to outcome v opportunity; she made it about power in line with feminist rhetoric.

I have got to take a shot everytime I read whataboutism on the internet...

And what groups are they. Most of the promotion goes towards STEM or positions of power in businesses or politics away from traditional roles. And this is besides the point anyway, as it comes back to representation. Advocates that form these attraction groups for females, which encourages females to work in dangerous fields (not necessarily power based structures), are mostly those that believe in equality of opportunity. Feminists like her could not give two iotas about female representation in dangerous fields, its all about power structures with her as she kept coming back to it.

Her entire argument is predicated on the assumption that since there is not 50-50 at the political level, that women are not equal to men and that their views are not being represented. That is an absurd argument. While using an economic versus a political example was not great on Peterson's part (I do agree with you on that part), the fundamental argumentative roots remain the same. 50-50 political power for women will not magically improve equality. The fact that western women have the exact same rights, access and privileges as men, despite men's supposed domination in political representation, is a strong example of the fact that women's views are being represented, as are the views of other major groups.


I am happy to leave the debate here if you like spurs, I feel like we are repeating ourselves a bit.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Oh, and while we're on it, one thing I did like from Peterson on Monday was his point about needing to get your own shit in order before you worry about broader, more collective issues. I thought there was a lot of sense to take out of that response, and it was something that I found resonated with me a fair bit, which is probably to be expected because it's more in the psychological space, which is obviously his area of expertise. It's when he strays from that that he can tie himself in knots.

Agreed, to a lesser extent. His history stuff is a bit hit and miss.

 

[Groin guru]

Oh, and while we're on it, one thing I did like from Peterson on Monday was his point about needing to get your own shit in order before you worry about broader, more collective issues. I thought there was a lot of sense to take out of that response, and it was something that I found resonated with me a fair bit, which is probably to be expected because it's more in the psychological space, which is obviously his area of expertise. It's when he strays from that that he can tie himself in knots.

That comes down to a mix between him wanting to learn more / journalists trying to catch him out on an issue that isn't his main area / him not being afraid to give his opinion on other issues. Again, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you give your opinion it can get misinterpreted or used against you. If you don't give an opinion you end up sounding like Andrew Swallow.

It's why he has mentioned the IDW having a debate-like format where they discuss topics and swap roles. This will help them see various viewpoints and try to generate intellectual discussion rather than ending up in the same circle.

Getting your shit in order is the central theme which is common sense I would have thought. 'Clean your room' is the message because knowledge translation is hugely important. The problem with that is the DarwinRoo types attempt (and fail) to use it against him. Or go against the grain because they don't want to be "part of his cult".