Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

[chunkylover53]

Yeah not really.

I don't generally agree with censorship but if a publishing company decides not to publish one a books because their employees hate it (and they care about their employees) that's fine. They shouldn't be forced into publishing Peterson's book any more than they should be forced into publishing my book (even though it's total sh*t).

Oh dear.

So now organisations need to get the tick of approval from their employees before releasing a product into the market, to ensure they like it?

Nobody is forcing Penguin to publish the book, did you watch the video? The point is it's their right to choose to publish the book, just like it is their employees right to dislike it. For certain employees to demand the company to not publish it because they simply don't like what the author has to say is nonsensical.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Oh dear.

So now organisations need to get the tick of approval from their employees before releasing a product into the market, to ensure they like it?

Nobody is forcing Penguin to publish the book, did you watch the video? The point is it's their right to choose to publish the book, just like it is their employees right to dislike it. For certain employees to demand the company to not publish it because they simply don't like what the author has to say is nonsensical.

Even more nonsensical is that they are employees of a publishing house, which should be promoting non-censorship

The recent SMH article I read and the quotes form the Penguin protest squad all indicate they have not listened or read Peterson in any detail or at all, instead relying on what they have read about Peterson and what others have said Peterson has said or his intent.

 

[chunkylover53]

Even more nonsensical is that they are employees of a publishing house, which should be promoting non-censorship

The recent SMH article I read and the quotes form the Penguin protest squad all indicate they have not listened or read Peterson in any detail or at all, instead relying on what they have read about Peterson and what others have said Peterson has said or his intent.

“He is an icon of hate speech and transphobia and the fact that he’s an icon of white supremacy, regardless of the content of his book, I’m not proud to work for a company that publishes him,” a junior employee who is a member of the LGBTQ community and who attended the town hall told VICE World News.
Another employee said “people were crying in the meeting about how Jordan Peterson has affected their lives.” They said one co-worker discussed how Peterson had radicalized their father and another talked about how publishing the book will negatively affect their non-binary friend.

Like, come on.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Like, come on.

Don't let adults have access to this dangerous book!

 

[chelseacarlton]

About half way through the Harris v Peterson debate/conversation.
The first thing I noticed was that Jordan referred to Hitlers Germany and Stalin’s Russia as secular states, Sam let’s him get away with it several times before toeing around the edges.
I knew he was a christian but boy oh boy he is the fully indoctrinated one, I’ve really enjoyed so far and they seem quite chummy, so I don’t know how this has affected their needs or desire for full on assault to the others position....I guess I’ll find out, it is good though!

 

[Toump Ass]

Nobody is forcing Penguin to publish the book, did you watch the video? The point is it's their right to choose to publish the book, just like it is their employees right to dislike it. For certain employees to demand the company to not publish it because they simply don't like what the author has to say is nonsensical.

Oh dear.

Nobody is stopping Penguin from publishing the book, did you watch the video? The point is it's their right to choose to publish the book, just like it is their right for their employees to dislike it.

Crying at a town hall meeting isn't the same as employees "demanding" the company not publish it. I agree that's a bit much.

It's very nice of Penguin to listen to their employee's feedback but they don't have to accept it.

 

[chunkylover53]

Oh dear.

Nobody is stopping Penguin from publishing the book, did you watch the video? The point is it's their right to choose to publish the book, just like it is their right for their employees to dislike it.

Crying at a town hall meeting isn't the same as employees "demanding" the company not publish it. I agree that's a bit much.

It's very nice of Penguin to listen to their employee's feedback but they don't have to accept it.

That's pretty much what Kyle is saying... so I'm not really sure why you initially disagreed with my initial statement of him hitting the nail on the head.

 

[Toump Ass]

That's pretty much what Kyle is saying... so I'm not really sure why you initially disagreed with my initial statement of him hitting the nail on the head.

He missed the nail. He failed to frame a compelling argument as to why Penguin having a forum for their employees is a bad thing. His answer to his own rhetorical question- "why can't Peterson just find another publisher?" was alarmist and stupid.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

What happens if you don't know Janet by name and accidentally bump into Janet and rightfully apologises with a 'sorry mate'?

Also what happens if Janet accidentally bumps into old mate apologies with a 'sorry zim or zer'?

I call women 'mate'. Some women pull me up on it. If they take exception it only takes a "I prefer to be called.." on their part. Just like some women go for a handshake off the bat while some still lean in for a peck on the cheek. Usually such interactions only have that one bit of uncertainty at the very beginning and most people would go for the polite and neutral option in any uncertain situation anyway.

If Janet bumped into old mate and there was a 'sorry zim/zer' you'd hope they'd respond with the polite "I prefer to be called.." rather than a hissy fit, but unfortunately you and I both know that some people just seem to exist to both cause offence and to be offended at every perceived insult.

 

[Toump Ass]

Why not just call everyone Trevor?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Why not just call everyone Trevor?

Our name is Robert Paulson.

 

[fishardansin]

Why aren't you using the correct pro-noun?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yeah not really.

I don't generally agree with censorship but if a publishing company decides not to publish a book because their employees hate it (and they care about their employees) that's fine. They shouldn't be forced into publishing Peterson's book any more than they should be forced into publishing my book (even though it's total sh*t).

The company is literally in the business of publishing books. If the company has decided they want to publish a particular book by a particular author, the employees don't have veto power because they think speech is violence.

 

[Lethality]

Oh dear.

Nobody is stopping Penguin from publishing the book, did you watch the video? The point is it's their right to choose to publish the book, just like it is their right for their employees to dislike it.

Crying at a town hall meeting isn't the same as employees "demanding" the company not publish it. I agree that's a bit much.

It's very nice of Penguin to listen to their employee's feedback but they don't have to accept it.

Crying is often emotional blackmail. I remember Norm MacDonald, who is a Republican, but probably the least outwardly political comedian, was cancelled from Jimmy Fallon because staff were crying after he made some controversial comments about MeToo.

 

[Scotland]

Crying is often emotional blackmail. I remember Norm MacDonald, who is a Republican, but probably the least outwardly political comedian, was cancelled from Jimmy Fallon because staff were crying after he made some controversial comments about MeToo.

He is? Norm MacDonald is Canadian.

 

[Lethality]

He is? Norm MacDonald is Canadian.

I'm sure he's a citizen of America, he lives in LA I think.

 

[RobbieK]

The company is literally in the business of publishing books. If the company has decided they want to publish a particular book by a particular author, the employees don't have veto power because they think speech is violence.

Apparently they do.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Apparently they do.

How so?

 

[utility]

Somewhat offtopic, I found this interview helpful in analyis "wokeness".

 

[Goosecat]

About half way through the Harris v Peterson debate/conversation.
The first thing I noticed was that Jordan referred to Hitlers Germany and Stalin’s Russia as secular states, Sam let’s him get away with it several times before toeing around the edges.
I knew he was a christian but boy oh boy he is the fully indoctrinated one, I’ve really enjoyed so far and they seem quite chummy, so I don’t know how this has affected their needs or desire for full on assault to the others position....I guess I’ll find out, it is good though!

The most famous biologist of all time (Charles Darwin) was a firm believer in the Abrahamic God— though later in life he became somewhat conflicted in his views on his particular strain of Christianity, particularly struggling with the “problem of evil”, but despite this he is quoted as saying in 1879 “I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.”

The most famous physicists of all time are Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.

Newton’s religious views were, at the time, very unconventional — had they been public he would probably have been deemed a heretic, but there is no doubt that he believed firmly in the idea of God, his heresy arose from questioning how he should be worshiped — he particularly disagreed with the divinity of the Trinity. He was, however, definitely a theist, albeit an unconventional and radical one.

Albert Einstein is probably the closest to an Atheist we have so far — he was raised as a Jew, but in later life he rejected the idea of a “personal god”, a benevolent, human-like entity who took an interest in human affairs. He did not describe himself as an atheist, though he did not believe in an afterlife — he believed that God existed, but that he was nebulous, universal, and not comprehensible to the human mind.

The most famous chemist of all time is probably Marie Curie (a Catholic, until her mother’s death drove her to agnosticism, but never outright atheism, similar to Einstein).

So, in all three fields, the most famous figures all have nuanced religious views, that tend towards a belief in a higher power. Some of those views (i.e. Curie) faltered over time, and the others are all somewhat unconventional beliefs, but they are theist beliefs nonetheless.

So, yes, it is possible to be a religious individual, and be a scientist, the two are not mutually exclusive.

What is mutually exclusive is religious fundamentalism. If you believe that God literally made the world in 7 days, formed mankind in his image, women from a man’s rib, and all the other ‘creation myth’ type stuff in the Bible, Torah, Qu’ran or any other religious text, that is going to be problematic.

I know many physicists who are religious — the head physics tutor at Trinity is the head of the chapel choir! However, their beliefs are, almost without exception, that the Bible is allegorical in nature, that it is meant to be a parable, a story which tells you how to live a good life, and that interpreting this story is how one gets closer to God.

Many of these religious scientists believe that investigating the nature of the universe is to scrutinize the work of God himself, to behold His creation in ever deeper glory.

These views are in no way contradictory to the tenets of scientific thought, after all, it was Galileo who said:

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

Jack Fraser; Master's Physics, University of Oxford

 

[Toump Ass]

I remember Norm MacDonald, who is a Republican, but probably the least outwardly political comedian, was cancelled from Jimmy Fallon because staff were crying after he made some controversial comments about MeToo.

See, that's not actually true. MacDonald was cancelled because he made controversial comments about MeToo. The (alleged) crying is irrelevant.

As Jordan Peterson would say: "words are important!". Use them correctly in future please.

 

[chelseacarlton]

The most famous biologist of all time (Charles Darwin) was a firm believer in the Abrahamic God— though later in life he became somewhat conflicted in his views on his particular strain of Christianity, particularly struggling with the “problem of evil”, but despite this he is quoted as saying in 1879 “I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.”

The most famous physicists of all time are Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.

Newton’s religious views were, at the time, very unconventional — had they been public he would probably have been deemed a heretic, but there is no doubt that he believed firmly in the idea of God, his heresy arose from questioning how he should be worshiped — he particularly disagreed with the divinity of the Trinity. He was, however, definitely a theist, albeit an unconventional and radical one.

Albert Einstein is probably the closest to an Atheist we have so far — he was raised as a Jew, but in later life he rejected the idea of a “personal god”, a benevolent, human-like entity who took an interest in human affairs. He did not describe himself as an atheist, though he did not believe in an afterlife — he believed that God existed, but that he was nebulous, universal, and not comprehensible to the human mind.

The most famous chemist of all time is probably Marie Curie (a Catholic, until her mother’s death drove her to agnosticism, but never outright atheism, similar to Einstein).

So, in all three fields, the most famous figures all have nuanced religious views, that tend towards a belief in a higher power. Some of those views (i.e. Curie) faltered over time, and the others are all somewhat unconventional beliefs, but they are theist beliefs nonetheless.

So, yes, it is possible to be a religious individual, and be a scientist, the two are not mutually exclusive.

What is mutually exclusive is religious fundamentalism. If you believe that God literally made the world in 7 days, formed mankind in his image, women from a man’s rib, and all the other ‘creation myth’ type stuff in the Bible, Torah, Qu’ran or any other religious text, that is going to be problematic.

I know many physicists who are religious — the head physics tutor at Trinity is the head of the chapel choir! However, their beliefs are, almost without exception, that the Bible is allegorical in nature, that it is meant to be a parable, a story which tells you how to live a good life, and that interpreting this story is how one gets closer to God.

Many of these religious scientists believe that investigating the nature of the universe is to scrutinize the work of God himself, to behold His creation in ever deeper glory.

These views are in no way contradictory to the tenets of scientific thought, after all, it was Galileo who said:

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

Jack Fraser; Master's Physics, University of Oxford

I’m not really sure why you quoted me and posted this?
It was an entertaining read although, I viewed a strawman being erected before me.
Einstein was a Deist.
Darwin and Curie, well, what else was there, even in their days, admittance of non belief was a very dangerous statement of fact, just like it was for thousands of years, preceding their lives.
To me, when we entertain the idea that the majority of the Old Worlds great architecture, Art, writing, music are religious in nature, you simply follow the money trail.
It was the only game in town, rejecting, challenging or downright attacking it would see you, burned, drowned, hung, tortured, drawn and quartered, crucified and then add repeat to all you family members, children included.
What would you do/say?
I’d be “praise Jesus bitches”!
To say otherwise, is to be delusional!

 

[Gethelred]

You mean this exchange?




Frankly, I welcome his willingness to reconsider his position on a difficult question which involves two competing impulses. I go back and forth on that issue as well. I think it would be a dick move to discriminate against a gay couple when you otherwise offer a range of services to people in general. But I'm not sure the government should legislate to enforce compliance. I'm still unsure how to weight those imperatives against one another. Nor is Peterson particularly strident in the first place. You've got an interviewer asking a series of questions on a range of issues, some of which aren't necessarily Peterson's main area of concern. Peterson answers and then is persuaded to reconsider. Is that bad?

Also, implicit within Jeffries' question is that the discrimination faced by black folks in Jim Crow USA is analogous to discrimination faced by gays generally in the 21st century. There may have been a need for government intervention to protect black folks in the 1960s during the civil rights era. That doesn't mean it's automatically and equally required on behalf of gays 60 years later, when society seems to have made the necessary adjustments on its own. There are plenty of bakers who'll make a cake for a gay couple. Is a government mandate necessary? So I'm not sure his analogy here is watertight.

Anyway, I don't see that as the devastating defeat for Peterson that some detractors claim.

I've always found that interview to be a sign that Peterson is not nearly as rigid as people make him out to be.

 

[Chief]

Crying is often emotional blackmail. I remember Norm MacDonald, who is a Republican, but probably the least outwardly political comedian, was cancelled from Jimmy Fallon because staff were crying after he made some controversial comments about MeToo.

I have better things to do but it's the off season...

Louis CK ran around doing weird sex things and then threatened people who were looking like speaking out about it. Norm defended him and said his "losing everything in a day" was worse than the trauma suffered by victims of assault.

He apologised but of course Fallon wasn't going to have him on a day later. #toosoon

There are so many dickheads running around doing the same thing that Norm - accidentally I think - lumped himself in with them. He was very apologetic and offered to talk to anyone he had upset. Unfortunate, but the producers of an entertainment show decided to drop him.

"Jimmy said come back whenever you want, but I think it’ll hurt the show tonight."

Norm has not suffered any real loss that I can see. His TV work hasn't stopped - he's been on 4 shows, including his own Netflix series.

I just find it odd that there are people that whine about celebrities giving their opinion on social and political matters, then fall over themselves to insist the celebs THEY agree with should have free reign.

 

[Chief]

What happens if you don't know Janet by name and accidentally bump into Janet and rightfully apologises with a 'sorry mate'?

Also what happens if Janet accidentally bumps into old mate apologies with a 'sorry zim or zer'?

When was the last time anything happened to someone who did that accidentally? Apart from apologising for their mistake?