Originally posted by ESB -1138
He was mentioning an interview that Peterson gave and was merely given an explanation of what transpired during. He was just explaining the Vice interview. The interview is interesting and you should go listen to it as DMB didn't explain it well. The full interview even opens up with Peterson asking the question if men and women can work together.
Originally posted by BackFire
I watched most of the debate last night. I agree, I think Fry had the best showing. I think Michelle Goldberg had a decent showing as well. I think Peterson and Dyson weren't very effective. Though they're both cut from the same cloth - two people who obviously love to hear themselves speak, often to their own detriment - the more they speak, the less effective and more muddied and less concise their arguments become.But this is Peterson's MO for the most part, he's a very clumsy speaker who in his desire to come off as smart, vomits out a bunch of needless words to try and make his point seem more complex than it actually is - the Witch comment being a perfect example of this. He could have made his point with a few words. Instead he rambled on to the point where his point became lost.
Dyson was just horrible. He devolved completely into identity politics while arguing from authority and throwing around ad hominems. He was arrogant and (it looks to me) was just there for self-promotion at the expense of Peterson. He brought his whole team down. Even so much as making a hypocrite of himself ("If I get shut down for being black" but then goes "but you're an angry white man"😉.
Goldberg lost major points to me when she just goes and attacks Peterson (w/c seemed to be the basis of her opening). Her "This is JP's point but Trump" and even mis-characterized one of JP's quotes and said "google it" comment was especially egregious. And I didn't find her logic all that too convincing.
Peterson wasn't effective IMO, his closing was basically just him disassociating himself from the views they were trying to paint him as having and then just ending it saying basically that "I disagree with PC". They attempted to render him ineffectual by attacking him directly and he fell into the trap. But IMO his points were still the most agreeable to me (but it is nothing new or deep IMO) in the intellectual level (individuality should be valued primarily and that the danger of PC culture tries to force collectivism at the cost of the individual). Essentially, solid logic. Mediocre presentation.
Fry was the only good thing in this debate. He was intelligent, relevant, witty, funny but to the point. I felt that he stole the show. Although his points were nothing new (but needed to be said).
It comes out as Fry > JP >> Goldberg >>>> Dyson to me.
True. Goldberg did concentrate too much on Peterson's prior words. I was a little put off when she targetted him almost immediately in her opening statements when Peterson hadn't even yet spoken. But I thought aside from that aspect, her points were more coherently made and concise than Peterson's, so I give her the nod ahead of him.
I think Peterson's best point of the whole night came when he rebutted her for her vague and generic "draw the line at violence" thing. Other than that, he was entirely forgettable.
Also, Peterson very clearly got flustered and upset at a few points, like it was very obvious, which, aesthetically, isn't the best look.
Originally posted by BackFire
True. Goldberg did concentrate too much on Peterson's prior words. I was a little put off when she targetted him almost immediately in her opening statements when Peterson hadn't even yet spoken. But I thought aside from that aspect, her points were more coherently made and concise than Peterson's, so I give her the nod ahead of him.I think Peterson's best point of the whole night came when he rebutted her for her vague and generic "draw the line at violence" thing. Other than that, he was entirely forgettable.
Also, Peterson very clearly got flustered and upset at a few points, like it was very obvious, which, aesthetically, isn't the best look.
I dunno. Maybe I concetrate too hard on debating improprieties but her saying that "JP said women should not wear makeup, google it" was a HUGE fail on her part (he never said that, he was simply throwing out extremes to define where the line is on what constitutes sexualization in the workplace). Very fake-news-y of her. Which kinds gets my goat. She definitely sounded better but had little rebuttals that addressed JP's or Fry's points.
JP actually tried to address the opposing points by asking them to define their position quantitatively (w/c they avoided to answer). I think the failing was in the format, given time he could have further pursued this line of debating (or maybe he got flustered and lost this line of thought?).
Anyway, why was Dyson even there? Couldn't they have gotten some better debaters? Why not John Stewart (I hear he's good)? He brought the debate down. As his namesake implies, he sucked.
I think a problem was with the topic itself. As soon as I saw that the topic was political correctness I knew that it would be problematic because everyone has different definitions of what that actually is. It ranges from anywhere from "Just try not to be an ******* to people" to "Literally jailing people for thinking the wrong thing". The concerns vary so much from person to person that there was bound to be some confusion and a lot of talking past your opponent because their definition is different than yours. And at no point did they successfully come to a conclusive definition that they all agreed on. Like Dyson was talking almost exclusively through a racial prism, Peterson on the more extreme thought policing end, Goldberg somewhere in the middle, and Fry on the more innocent part of the spectrum.
Originally posted by BackFire
I think a problem was with the topic itself. As soon as I saw that the topic was political correctness I knew that it would be problematic because everyone has different definitions of what that actually is. It ranges from anywhere from "Just try not to be an ******* to people" to "Literally jailing people for thinking the wrong thing". The concerns vary so much from person to person that there was bound to be some confusion and a lot of talking past your opponent because their definition is different than yours. And at no point did they successfully come to a conclusive definition that they all agreed on. Like Dyson was talking almost exclusively through a racial prism, Peterson on the more extreme thought policing end, Goldberg somewhere in the middle, and Fry on the more innocent part of the spectrum.
Which is why I felt that JP's strategy for the debate was good (ask them to quantitatively define their position before attempting to rebut it) exactly because the definition of PC falls within such a spectrum. He just either: didn't have time to pursue this line of debating (failure of the format) or allowed himself to be flustered by personal attacks making him fall back into self-defense rather than pursuing his original approach of attacking their points once they have either quantified or refused to quantify.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Which is why I felt that JP's strategy for the debate was good (ask them to quantitatively define their position before attempting to rebut it) exactly because the definition of PC falls within such a spectrum. He just either: didn't have time to pursue this line of debating (failure of the format) or allowed himself to be flustered by personal attacks making him fall back into self-defense rather than pursuing his original approach of attacking their points once they have either quantified or refused to quantify.
Hmm, I think it was both. Though I think it's unfair to say it was a failure of the format. I think it's a failure of strategy on his part for him to have planned to do something that the format, which they surely made him aware of beforehand, wouldn't really allow.
Originally posted by BackFire
Hmm, I think it was both. Though I think it's unfair to say it was a failure of the format. I think it's a failure of strategy on his part for him to have planned to do something that the format, which they surely made him aware of beforehand, wouldn't really allow.
It was a gamble, I guess. Had they answered him then and there, I felt like he could have executed it. But they danced around it and focused on attacking him directly which kinda ran the time down. Idunno. I do agree that in either case he did fail to execute his strategy.
Originally posted by BackFire
Which is maybe a reason why relying on asking your opponents questions in a formal debate like that is not a great strategy. The strategy only works if they answer in a way that allows you to execute the follow up, and you will have no control over how they answer, or if they answer at all.
But may well be the only way to clearly address a topic where the position of the opponents are not clearly defined or could shift mid-debate. Making assumptions on your opponent's position can easily make you fall into a trap where it would look like you were stawmanning in your effort to speed up the debate. Especially when your opponents have made it clear that they are willing to basically stick like glue to everything you say. Which would make JP look like he's lost once the debate gets deconstructed in the post.
I guess in not trying to lose the war, he ended up not winning the battle?
Fry had it easy IMO as he adopted a non-contentional semi-neutral universally-friendly everyone-could-agree-to position (although his snake-oil huckster burn was brutal LOL).
Well he could have just spoken about his own concerns and made arguments based on his own viewpoints, not really concentrating or really taking into account his opponents viewpoint. That's more or less what Fry did, and he had the most successful showing.
I guess it may be a failure of the format in that the moderator maybe should have made a more concentrated effort to define the term and how they were talking about it. But that may not really be possible with something as vague as political correctness. I dunno.
Either way, we both agree, Peterson didn't have a good night.
Originally posted by BackFire
Well he could have just spoken about his own concerns and made arguments based on his own viewpoints, not really concentrating or really taking into account his opponents viewpoint. That's more or less what Fry did, and he had the most successful showing.I guess it may be a failure of the format in that the moderator maybe should have made a more concentrated effort to define the term and how they were talking about it. But that may not really be possible with something as vague as political correctness. I dunno.
Either way, we both agree, Peterson didn't have a good night.
I'll agree to that. He had a poor showing. And I left kinda disappointed. Anyway, good talk. Gonna sleep.
Well, here's an end to the enforced monogamy argument from Jordan Peterson himself
"So, let’s summarize. Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.
That’s all.
No recommendation of police-state assignation of woman to man (or, for that matter, man to woman).
No arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels.
Nothing scandalous (all innuendo and suggestive editing to the contrary)
Just the plain, bare, common-sense facts: socially-enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence. In addition (and not trivially) they also help provide mothers with comparatively reliable male partners, and increase the probability that stable, father-intact homes will exist for children."
You. Were. Wrong. Peterson was obviously not arguing for the government to control people's sexual behavior or enforce the distribution of women to men as sexual partners. This shitty slanderous argument against him is at it's end.
The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially.
This part is still potentially troubling. What does that mean? How do you socially regulate that? What does it entail? Does that mean society making women feel ashamed or embarrassed for wanting to have multiple partners? Or looked down on? If so, should men also be looked down on if they want multiple sexual partners? He implies also that our society already has these regulations in place, so if that's the case, it's an argument against itself, as these losers, despite the social regulations promoting monogamy existing, are still violent, and still unable to get themselves laid.
I don't agree with any kind of social regulation on monogamy. I think our experiences in life shape us and our search for a partner (more like a roulette actually) and success/failures in this endeavor is a big part of what builds our character.
Sadly, some men will fall to the wayside and they may well react strongly and negatively to this. But this is just nature.
Perhaps the solution to this is already here. In the absence of actual partners the artificial may suffice. /shrug
Originally posted by BackFirePolyamorous relationships are fairly uncommon too, the vast majority of people are monogamous by default anyway. 😐
This part is still potentially troubling. What does that mean? How do you socially regulate that? What does it entail? Does that mean society making women feel ashamed or embarrassed for wanting to have multiple partners? Or looked down on? If so, should men also be looked down on if they want multiple sexual partners? He implies also that our society already has these regulations in place, so if that's the case, it's an argument against itself, as these losers, despite the social regulations promoting monogamy existing, are still violent, and still unable to get themselves laid.