Jordan Peterson | Cambridge Union

(Andrew Downing) #21

We had this discussion over here: Transparency over nuclear energy

Please may we have some fusion.

(Alex Jago) #22

I agree with all but your last point, which seems to be special pleading for perfection when we can only have ‘better than existing fossil fuels’.

@AndrewDowning - I shall now cease derailment.

(Andrew Downing) #23

It is a special pleading. We don’t have practical working fusion power generation. I wish we did.

This looks promisingly practical:

MIT being very cool.

(Steven) #24

It’s not just you. We’re all in this. When I personally see the slightest repulsion to the subject, I feel endangered, and we all should. IMHO anything that helps stopping the 12year deadline on greenhouse gases and atmosphere destruction - is my thing. And I mean it: anything
I suggest you, as I suggest all my fellow pirates & greens: don’t stop now. We need to make sure that everything goes on the table, and stop that shit from happening.

There are 70 companies at max, that are doing the big wave of greenhouse gases. We need to make that f*cking list, and make them public more than ever, and start shouting about it. Or else, we die. There are only two options.


I personally find Jordan Peterson to be execrable, a gushing fountain of kool-aid, and this video sums him up for me.

He just has a wanky way of espousing traditional values. Classic liberal my arse! He’s kind of the opposite of pirate.

The only way of “understanding” him, it so allow yourself to be hypnotised by hours of his waffle, a bit like David Koresh’s long lectures to brainwash his Branch Davidians.


It’s disappointing how few people understand it and understand the repercussions. People think that it’s just warming and that’s it. But what we are looking at also, is massive loss of biodiversity and collapse of a lot of the oceans food chains once we get to around 450ppm.

This is what has really ramped up my rhetoric of late. I’ve felt the IPCC has always been overly conservative to try not to appear too alarmist, but as we have seen in the past month, that tactic hasn’t served us well. Then again, even if they did convey detrimental effects more accurately, we would still have a divide along political lines in countries where the fossil fuel reserves reside. The fossil fuel propagandists have successfully imo leveraged tribalism. They have used dog whistling terms on conservatives like tax and regulation and stayed clear of others like conserve.

And the scary thing about this 12 year deadline is. The Coalition and Labor locked in far more than 12 years with Adarni. And on top of that, most of the world is fighting to control the oil and gas in the Middle East and deals already signed there have fossil fuels locked in for decades to come.

(Andrew Downing) #27

Well, I suppose haters are going to hate, and identity politics is the politics of hate.
Prof. Peterson has been suggesting that’s not a real useful way for anybody to operate, left or right.

I watched your whole video. It was funny.
It’s like he just cherry picked all the things he disagrees with, and then found a short snippet of Jordan talking briefly about each thing, totally out of context, from parts of deep conversations that in reality were often hours long.

Like for example, a snip of him telling some conservatives to “Stop apologising for being conservative.” is supposed to inform us that he must be conservative. No. Actually, he’s also telling progressives about the vitally important role that the left has to play, and it’s the classic liberal view - that the bulk of the population stack up at the bottom of hierarchies, and they need representation (that’s what Hillary forgot, leaving us with Trump). What Jordan really wants is that the non-hating true representatives of the progressives and conservatives should be reaching out and having really deep conversations to figure out how to work together. He’s just clearly stated this sooo many times.

The rest of the video is the same silly pattern. Jordan clip where he talks about the side of an issue the author doesn’t like, ignore the rest of the discussion, sound smug and pretend like you just exposed something meaningful.

That video’s author is also confused about the cause and effect relationship of violence and religion. He points out correctly, that the most atheist countries also have the lowest levels of violence and crime. That’s a correlation, but he ignores the causation. Countries that achieve and maintain stability become less religious because after a generation or two, the people don’t feel like they need it anymore. People turn to religions in their local community as a way to form local collective groups of people united by common asserted beliefs, mostly when life is hard and dangerous - they look for meaning and support. Just look what happens when countries fail economically or fall into war - suddenly they got religion everywhere. Sweden hasn’t had a war for over 200 years, so now they’re mostly all atheists, and they wonder why anybody would think otherwise. It’s an easy mistake to make, because it can operate the other way around at the other extreme. Hyper-religious countries can be abused by dictators who manipulate the masses using religious direction, but it’s kind of obvious when you see that happen and it’s not the case in western democracies - we mostly separated church and state.

Jordan wants to connect people.
If the “You’re either with us or against us” outlook is allowed to dominate, there will be no winners, just losers.
Many western nations now have widespread “Antifa” movements. They think they’re fighting fascism, as they front up with face masks and weapons to do violence against anybody they disagree with, attacking people in restaurants, in their homes or just randomly in the street. They carry hammer and sickle flags, calling for revolution, without for a moment recognising the irony; they are the fascists.
Just look at this shit:

That’s where this politically correct, identity politics bullshit leads.
Do you really want to go there?

Do you want the Pirate Party to be a part of the movement that rips our countries apart or would you rather that it be a part of the movement that reconnects us all to FIX things?

Most regular people are getting sick of all this adversarial bullshit in politics.
They’re looking for someone to pull it together. That’s why they’re listening to Jordan.
Why not the Pirates?

(Geoff Rogers) #28

Peterson’s a gibbering arsehat who’s discovered the power of the Gish Gallop and a following of dogmatic fucking idiots. He lives on beef, salt, and hero-worship from the scared legions of white boys who watched Fight Club and identified with the space monkeys. “His name is Robert Paulsen. His name is Robert Paulsen.”

Unable to formulate a coherent thought of their own, they regurgitate mindlessly what they feebly perceive to be rebuttals against criticisms of his guff, most commonly either, “If you haven’t read/watched everything he’s ever said/written, you aren’t able to criticise,” or, “You just don’t understand the profundity of what he’s saying.”

The former is literally and simply a fucking idiotic defense of the premise of the Gish Gallop; the latter is a mere, unreasoned dismissal unworthy of consideration, being religious in nature and hence fucking stupid.

(Andrew Downing) #29

Don’t hold back there man, tell us what you really think.
I don’t think there was anything worth responding to there, but I really enjoyed reading it.
How strange. I just love your writing style.

(Geoff Rogers) #30

You’re welcome.

(Andrew Downing) #31

Actually, there was one thing.
Thanks for introducing me to the phrase

Gish Gallop is a technique, named after the creationist Duane Gish who employed it, whereby someone argues a cause by hurling as many different half-truths and no-truths into a very short space of time so that their opponent cannot hope to combat each point in real time

Funny thing, but that was the experience I had watching that “Cult of Dusty” video above.
It might also be similar when watching some MSM interviewer trying desperately to expose Jordan.
The things where he just gets to talk though, it’s like he’s weaving a tapestry.
Utterly replete with connections, and it’s not like I hadn’t already spent most of a life thinking about many related topics. He just connected a lot of gaps for me.

I am getting bored with him lately.
He needs to say something new to keep my attention.
Maybe he will. Maybe he won’t.

(Steven) #32

Rofl, dismissing a person because of his personal idiotic non-harmful-to-others ideas. If he’s that kind of person that doesn’t want to have sex before marriage or shits like that, it’s his way of life, not ours.
Of course he’s not a pirate, but that doesn’t mean his ideas of political peace between Left & Right are wrong.
Pirates are not radical on social and economic ideas, we’re just democratic radicals and open technology radicals ( to be read as direct democrats or participative democrats )

(Steven) #33

He’s being too conservative, for example he didn’t say a word about different political systems like the more participative democratic systems, he didn’t say a word about helping out fight climate destruction ( not change, we’re way passed that ). He’s only talking about a few things, like you suggested you’re bored of quite above.

He’s good to have where he stands currently, but I rather feel he’s not in our political area. He feels like a monarchist, while most pirates are not. He has some personal traditionalist ideas that should not really influence pirates.

(Andrew Downing) #34

I harvest ideas where I find them, then integrate them into my own model of the world.
I don’t know that he’s a monarchist per-se. He seems to like common law as a system.
Evolving precedents etc. Makes enough sense to me. Got to adapt rather than locking in a norm that your children will hate.

The traditionalist thing?
Maybe I’m just getting old, but the way I look at it, before you change something, especially the seriously complex shit like how we run the country, you should at least understand how the current system really works.
Sometimes even the corruption is functional and needs replacement, and when it comes to big long term projects you either commit and stay the distance, or just be a total bunch of wasters (witness our NBN debacle). Fuck, the deeper you look into policy, the harder it looks, and the less likely the general public would appreciate the rationale.

Some of the traditionalist concepts he espouses should be bleeding obvious, but somehow we forgot to pass them on. Like, a lot of people shit on Peterson for the number of young men who follow him, but we kind of forgot to tell a lot of them what a valuable future direction for them might look like. That’s a huge mistake. HUGE.

(Laura) #35

please stop. phrases like that are utterly unnuanced and as such don’t help anyone.

(Laura) #36

I beg to differ. Pirates are radical on social and economic ideas. Our UBI policy is a perfect example of that.

(Steven) #37

Which? The ones regarding not to have sex before marriage? That’s a big LOL :smiley:
I mean, a lot of the things he believes in are total nonsense, and not really a good example. The only good thing I can see is his ideas of peace between Left & Right, and the elimination of radical ideas.

He’s not really talking about too much about himself and what he believes as political ideals, we don’t really know too much about him, so we can only presume stuff. I really don’t feel we have too much to learn from him unless he’s talking about social debate and free speech. That’s kinda about it on how he’s useful to the world.

Totally agree, but that’s not traditionalist thinking. That’s reality and realistic thinking. We still need to know a lot of the things how this world goes, especially leadership.

(Steven) #38

I don’t consider social equality as radical, though. Some do.
Or the economical side of the things - to be anti-capitalist and anti-communist is not really radical imho

Meanwhile show me your UBI policy

(Andrew Downing) #39

(Laura) #40

if you ask me, radical is any policy that addresses the root of a problem.

As Hannah Arendt said:

It is indeed my opinion now that evil is never “radical,” that it is only extreme, and that it possess neither depth nor any demonic dimension. It can overgrow and lay waste the whole world precisely because it spreads like fungus on the surface. It is “thought-defying,” as I said, because thought tries to reach some depth, to go to the roots, and the moment it concerns itself with evil, it is frustrated because there is nothing. That is its “banality.” Only the good has depth and can be radical.