Support NeoGAF

[TTOOLL]

Starting it now, join me.

Edit: Maajid should use the fucking mic ffs

 

[TrainedRage]

I will definitely give it a watch after work.

 

[pr0cs]

It was okay, topic changed so much and so fast that there wasn't enough time to get more than a cursory blurb on it.

Always enjoy listening to Peterson tho

 

[Mohonky]

Always enjoy listening to Peterson tho

He really does sound like Kermit the Frog

 

[pr0cs]

He really does sound like Kermit the Frog

No lies spoken lol.
But I do love it when he gets serious about a topic, you can almost see his brain gears spinning frantically

 

[KarneeKarnay]

6mins in and JP lost the plot.

He's claiming that no oppression existed, because instead we were all oppressed by life... So the slave trade, the inability for women to vote, all that was some part of life's oppression?

He then follows it up with a terrific strawman that people are arguing that history, was just men against women and men won. It's completely daft.

 

[BANGS]

6mins in and JP lost the plot.

He's claiming that no oppression existed, because instead we were all oppressed by life... So the slave trade, the inability for women to vote, all that was some part of life's oppression?

He then follows it up with a terrific strawman that people are arguing that history, was just men against women and men won. It's completely daft.

Yeah I gotta say JP definitely seems to be influenced by his newfound fame with his new cult audience, and he's been saying some really dumb shit lately. That's what happens when you put an otherwise normal guy on a pedestal, he's gonna lose balance eventually...

 

[Dontero]

6mins in and JP lost the plot.

He's claiming that no oppression existed, because instead we were all oppressed by life... So the slave trade, the inability for women to vote, all that was some part of life's oppression?

He then follows it up with a terrific strawman that people are arguing that history, was just men against women and men won. It's completely daft.

He doesn't claim that at all. He says that throughout history people tackled life as best as they could because it was very very hard. History is mostly written by wealthy people and their deeds while 99,999% of people who lived throughout history had almost nothing and the only hope in their life was finding a partner and having kids. Women had no choice but to get married because women couldn't live single, it was literally impossible for them to live alone. On other hand men constantly fighting being killed in millions just because some 00.000001 % decided he is his peasant and you are desalinated to die on battlefield somewhere.

His point is that EVERYBODY had rough and saying that it was history of oppression is completely pointless and frankly speaking false view on history of humans as most of humans in history (the 99.9999% i mentioned) had nothing to do with with history you read in books.

edit:

To further drive my thought. We tend to look at history through lens of important people not the common people. If you read history it is all written like that. Just because in for example Germany you have few rapes per 100 000 does that means modern history of Germany is rape history ? Obviously not. So same logic adheres to history. I don't say history events were not important, they were but scale of their weight is completely ridicolous compared to amount of people who never had anything to do with it and they were the ones that moved world forward just by existing and living their simple lives.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

He doesn't claim that at all. He says that throughout history people tackled life as best as they could because it was very very hard. History is mostly written by wealthy people and their deeds while 99,999% of people who lived throughout history had almost nothing and the only hope in their life was finding a partner and having kids. Women had no choice but to get married because women couldn't live single, it was literally impossible for them to live alone. On other hand men constantly fighting being killed in millions just because some 00.000001 % decided he is his peasant and you are desalinated to die on battlefield somewhere.

His point is that EVERYBODY had rough and saying that it was history of oppression is completely pointless and frankly speaking false view on history of humans as most of humans in history (the 99.9999% i mentioned) had nothing to do with with history you read in books.

edit:

To further drive my thought. We tend to look at history through lens of important people not the common people. If you read history it is all written like that. Just because in for example Germany you have few rapes per 100 000 does that means modern history of Germany is rape history ? Obviously not. So same logic adheres to history. I don't say history events were not important, they were but scale of their weight is completely ridicolous compared to amount of people who never had anything to do with it and they were the ones that moved world forward just by existing and living their simple lives.

Except you’re writing this from now looking back and you are also reading a lot into what he said. If you’ve got a point to make, make it, but if his point was shit, don’t try to defend it by reading into it.

In hindsight even the rich back then were fucked in comparison to the middle class today, but back then they weren’t. They considered themselves well off. Yet they still enacted slavery and other forms of oppression. They weren’t victims of “life”. The very idea of it could be used to justify anything.

Did you know the Armenian Genocide happened? Well you can’t blame any party of that, because they are absolved of it, because that was life at the time.

Do you under that your edit makes no sense. The worst things in Human history have always been led by an elite, at at best the ignorance of others.

Fuck man. Defend this shit opinion. Remember this is yours now, because at the point in the video I commented all had had said I took issue with. The rest of this is all you

 

[strange headache]

He's claiming that no oppression existed, because instead we were all oppressed by life... So the slave trade, the inability for women to vote, all that was some part of life's oppression?

He then follows it up with a terrific strawman that people are arguing that history, was just men against women and men won. It's completely daft.

It's funny that you use the exact same strawman in order to discredit Peterson's claims. For every instance of some social group being oppressed (females, black people), I can give you an example of another social group (men, white people) being equally oppressed. You cherry picked a few historical examples in order to make your point, but conveniently neglect the fact that serfdom under absolutist monarchical regimes was common reality for most people not even 200 years ago. You also forget that the right to vote was not only denied to women, but an exclusive right of rich aristocratic landowners not too long ago.

But doing so would not make for a fruitful discussion, because it would be engaging in the same futile identitarian approach that would only degrade into the same kind of pointless oppression Olympics of the far left. It's exactly what Peterson was criticizing with his argument in the first place. You could argue that it was unfair that men got universal suffrage before women did, but contrary to technological paradigm shifts, social progress happens in small steps.

We simply cannot apply the same modern standards to our collective past if we truly seek to understand where we are coming from. The problems of the modern era are not the same as the problems of the past. Hence why we cannot explain history through a narrow-minded approach of power dynamics between different groups that were posthumously defined by our modern times. That kind of approach leads to absurdist conclusions, as was recently evidenced by another topic here. Human existence was, for the most part, a struggle for survival and reciprocal oppression through which the vast majority of people (no matter their identity) had to suffer through. It took a long time until humans figured out that cooperation is a better way to prosperity than enmity, which is what the modern social contract is all about.

Not to mention that people like to point fingers at others, when their own comfortable middle-class consumerist western lifestyle is indirectly responsible for other inequalities outside their own society. The child laborer, who is forced by money hungry African warlords to mine Coltan with his bare hands under inhuman conditions in some mine liable to collapse in Africa, doesn't care whether the affordable smartphone it is produced with goes to a woke western feminist, a genderfluid tumblr user fighting for his pronouns or a far-right Trump supporter.

It's sad how most people only ever care about inequalities and such power dynamics, when it serves their self-serving interests, but such is human nature and nobody, absolutely nobody, is exempt from it.

 

[Dontero]

Except you’re writing this from now looking back and you are also reading a lot into what he said. If you’ve got a point to make, make it, but if his point was shit, don’t try to defend it by reading into it.

Because YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND what he said. He said XXX you say he said YYYY. Sorry mate it doesn't work like that.

In hindsight even the rich back then were fucked in comparison to the middle class today, but back then they weren’t. They considered themselves well off. Yet they still enacted slavery and other forms of oppression. They weren’t victims of “life”. The very idea of it could be used to justify anything.

Your argument now in context of his words is this: Slavery of black people in US is ALL THERE IS TO BLACK HISTORY.
Like i said before he doesn't negate oppression, he says opression isn't EVERYTHING about history.

Did you know the Armenian Genocide happened? Well you can’t blame any party of that, because they are absolved of it, because that was life at the time.

Do you know that malaria killed about 70% of ALL PEOPLE that EVER LIVED ON THIS PLANET ? How do you put up life of someone killed by beyonet on higher ground that life of someone killed by disease ?

Is history or armenians only genocide that happened ? No. Which is his point.

Do you under that your edit makes no sense. The worst things in Human history have always been led by an elite, at at best the ignorance of others.

Your argument make no sense because you apperently don't understrand what his words mean. Currently you claim opression is ALL THE IS about history. There exist NOTHING outside of oppression.

He used argument about women and men relationship in history because argument is made that only thing that happened between men and women in history was oppression.

Fuck man. Defend this shit opinion. Remember this is yours now, because at the point in the video I commented all had had said I took issue with. The rest of this is all you

Yes it is my view as i share it. Your argument doesn't make sense.

 

[BLAUcopter]

It's funny that you use the exact same strawman in order to discredit Peterson's claims. For every instance of some social group being oppressed (females, black people), I can give you an example of another social group (men, white people) being equally oppressed. You cherry picked a few historical examples in order to make your point, but conveniently neglect the fact that serfdom under absolutist monarchical regimes was common reality for most people not even 200 years ago. You also forget that the right to vote was not only denied to women, but an exclusive right of rich aristocratic landowners not too long ago.

But doing so would not make for a fruitful discussion, because it would be engaging in the same futile identitarian approach that would only degrade into the same kind of pointless oppression Olympics of the far left. It's exactly what Peterson was criticizing with his argument in the first place. You could argue that it was unfair that men got universal suffrage before women did, but contrary to technological paradigm shifts, social progress happens in small steps.

We simply cannot apply the same modern standards to our collective past if we truly seek to understand where we are coming from. The problems of the modern era are not the same as the problems of the past. Hence why we cannot explain history through a narrow-minded approach of power dynamics between different groups that were posthumously defined by our modern times. That kind of approach leads to absurdist conclusions, as was recently evidenced by another topic here. Human existence was, for the most part, a struggle for survival and reciprocal oppression through which the vast majority of people (no matter their identity) had to suffer through. It took a long time until humans figured out that cooperation is a better way to prosperity than enmity, which is what the modern social contract is all about.

Not to mention that people like to point fingers at others, when their own comfortable middle-class consumerist western lifestyle is indirectly responsible for other inequalities outside their own society. The child laborer, who is forced by money hungry African warlords to mine Coltan with his bare hands under inhuman conditions in some mine liable to collapse in Africa, doesn't care whether the affordable smartphone it is produced with goes to a woke western feminist, a genderfluid tumblr user fighting for his pronouns or a far-right Trump supporter.

It's sad how most people only ever care about inequalities and such power dynamics, when it serves their self-serving interests, but such is human nature and nobody, absolutely nobody, is exempt from it.

Well said.

 

[LordOfChaos]

I like Maajid, but obviously he's more used to being the interviewed than the interview giver, mic issues as well as jumping around. Someone should have been live sound checking at any rate as in any professional interview.

I thought Peterson was ok here but I've generally felt he needs a break from this onslaught of appearances. Not this time, but occasionally he's seemed frayed, and that's when he says things that make it hard to publicly admit to liking his work (i.e enforced monogamy, which is a very specific anthropological term that includes marriage, as in what we already do, but he shouldn't have expected most people to know that) without people assuming a lot about me or going down a whole conversation hole.


He does a lot better when the interviewer is amicable, like Maajid and Brand, probably getting real tired of shit like Dyson threw at him.

 

[Breakage]

I used to tune in to Maajid's LBC weekend radio show frequently, but these days, I rarely put the radio on when his show his on. It's as if the guy is always in combat mode. He (at least on his radio show) seems to have developed a habit of trapping callers into saying something he finds disagreeable and then launching at them. It just got to the point where it became too frustrating to listen to.

 

[Freeman76]

Edit: posted wrong link

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Yet they still enacted slavery and other forms of oppression.

The ancient belief in abrahamic faith, justifies slavery, it is in the bible. Islam also practiced slavery. Real slaves still exist today, most tragic of all sexual slaves.

That said in my eyes the wealthy who live off of investment dividends are the only free people, they work when they choose in what they choose, everyone else has to beg for scraps or foodstamps with constant paper work and risk landing on the streets if they not up to par with their paperwork for scraps.

Most working pointless busywork menial labour that should be done by machines, touch screens, or self serve. Amazon fully automated ai driven stores a look at how things could be.

Used to be like 90% worked in the farms, now most farm work is done by machines and a few by cheap migrant labour. But rumor is before cheap migrant labor the fruit picking paid 15+$ an hour, or so some sources claim.

In my eyes work is just a rebranding or rewording of slavery. Only this time you can choose between masters, mcdonalds or walmarts. Remember high pay jobs like doctors and engineers, have two requirements one for personality traits like conscientiousness that will drive you to fulfill the course work, extrovertedness that will allow you to do the oral presentations, and a minimum level of intelligence need like 110+ IQ minimum to get into many of these, and most people are below the minimum IQ requirements to enter a high intelligence position.

There are even people with IQs in the low 80 range, millions, barely able to even do a mcdonald cashier job, due to their low level of intelligence. In fact military found no amount of training could make them suitable for any function within military, so it was made illegal to inscribe them, iirc.