Public Intellectuals

Bobby Summa

Senior Member
Sep 7, 2022
918 Posts
687 Thanked
Age
47
Brighton UK
Website
soundcloud.app.goo.gl
‘Ancient Philosophers Life Lessons people wish they knew earlier‘

Couldn’t help but think of this thread when this came up on my youtube suggestions.

Public Intellectuals from the ancient times perhaps.

Its a live youtube video and wont playback imbedded externally but you should be able to click it and get to youtube.

 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: Jetflag

Jetflag

Elite Member
Jul 17, 2020
2,717 Posts
2,180 Thanked
Total dismantling of Jordan Peterson
Hardly, I've seen plenty of stuff from Some More News and he is basically the Steven Crowder equivalent of the American Left. Both in tone, tenure and quote mining, and this is no exception.

example: the man claims to be as "fair and balanced as he can" in this so called "dismanteling".... and then goes on to claim that JP somehow confuses weather with climate. 😄 no he didn't/ doesn't. He claims that every weather forecast/prediction by IFCC climate models (so thats not him mixing the two up) have been wrong. which they have been.... So right of the bat he's already being willfully dishonest.

This isn't a dismantling.. this is its internet shout-blood-sport for clicks.
 

Nerio

Member
Aug 2, 2020
140 Posts
86 Thanked
Hardly, I've seen plenty of stuff from Some More News and he is basically the Steven Crowder equivalent of the American Left. Both in tone, tenure and quote mining, and this is no exception.

example: the man claims to be as "fair and balanced as he can" in this so called "dismanteling".... and then goes on to claim that JP somehow confuses weather with climate. 😄 no he didn't/doesn't. He claims that every weather forecast/prediction by IFCC climate models (so thats not him mixing the two up) have been wrong. which they have been.... So right off the bat he's already being willfully dishonest.

This isn't a dismantling.. this is its internet shout-blood-sport for clicks.


Even if he did, you have to admit that he made some interesting points.

I don't understand why two such camps of opinion can't meet face to face and discuss this directly in a 5 Hour debate.
Because whether you want to or not I see good opinions from either side, but mostly people don't want that and just get confirmed in their opinions or seek out people with similar opinions.
And that doesn't just apply to this video, but I dare say to most of the opinions that people have.

The only "journalist" I know of who examines things from both camps of opinion is John Stossel.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Jetflag and dmgtz96

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Jul 13, 2020
2,640 Posts
1,499 Thanked
Even if he did, you have to admit that he made some interesting points.

I don't understand why two such camps of opinion can't meet face to face and discuss this directly in a 5 Hour debate.
Because whether you want to or not I see good opinions from either side, but mostly people don't want that and just get confirmed in their opinions or seek out people with similar opinions.
And that doesn't just apply to this video, but I dare say to most of the opinions that people have.

The only "journalist" I know of who examines things from both camps of opinion is John Stossel.
Idk anything about the dude of the video you linked. But for the most part, liberal/progressive-minded people are not interested in "meeting in the middle" with someone like Peterson. There is no benefit from saying that you're fair and balanced if you truly have liberal views, since there's no way to be fair and balanced vs. conservative views.
 

Jetflag

Elite Member
Jul 17, 2020
2,717 Posts
2,180 Thanked
Even if he did, you have to admit that he made some interesting points.

I don't understand why two such camps of opinion can't meet face to face and discuss this directly in a 5 Hour debate.
Because whether you want to or not I see good opinions from either side, but mostly people don't want that and just get confirmed in their opinions or seek out people with similar opinions.
And that doesn't just apply to this video, but I dare say to most of the opinions that people have.

The only "journalist" I know of who examines things from both camps of opinion is John Stossel.
I blame the current media landscape for it honestly…. With the continued decline of relevancy in legacy media the gap is not only filled by partisan rage-click-for-cash ideological ponderers on YouTube or twitch, but in order to stay afloat legacy media channels from both camps resort more and more to clickbait and “opinion pieces”

that said, if you want a good back & forth between JP and one the opposite camp I highly recommend the conversations between him and Sam Harris, as they’re not only cordial and fair, but truly get to the bottom of things (in this case religion and the human. Condition)
 

Bobby Summa

Senior Member
Sep 7, 2022
918 Posts
687 Thanked
Age
47
Brighton UK
Website
soundcloud.app.goo.gl
Ive been considering for a while the intention of people who express their opinions or philosophies or facts (as they see it) and basically answers about the way we live and should live plus people who have a spiritual background and message. Recently im just wandering if such people or public intellectuals or those who address big spiritual subjects just do it to make money on YouTube so they don’t actually have to have a day job. But given theres so many, it would be good to research what they did before YouTube was around.

Weird coincidence i just experienced: Because the word ‘Takeaway’ is slightly funny to me (although perfectly good description none the less) I didn’t fancy watching the whole 3 hour video of the guy slating Jordan Peterson so searched for a takeaway fast forwarding the video, trying to get to the end. It stopped accidentally about 3/4 of the way through and the bearded chap doing the vid said ‘takeaway’ in reference to what ever quote or information of Peterson he was slating. It actually stopped on the word ‘Takeaway’. Hang on pass me a Joe Dispenza video !!!! I need to manifest something.

Im just gonna phone for a curry.

🙄

🙃
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmgtz96

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Jul 13, 2020
2,640 Posts
1,499 Thanked
Ive been considering for a while the intention of people who express their opinions or philosophies or facts (as they see it) and basically answers about the way we live and should live plus people who have a spiritual background and message. Recently im just wandering if such people or public intellectuals or those who address big spiritual subjects just do it to make money on YouTube so they don’t actually have to have a day job. But given theres so many, it would be good to research what they did before YouTube was around.

Weird coincidence i just experienced: Because the word ‘Takeaway’ is slightly funny to me (although perfectly good description none the less) I didn’t fancy watching the whole 3 hour video of the guy slating Jordan Peterson so searched for a takeaway fast forwarding the video, trying to get to the end. It stopped accidentally about 3/4 of the way through and the bearded chap doing the vid said ‘takeaway’ in reference to what ever quote or information of Peterson he was slating. It actually stopped on the word ‘Takeaway’. Hang on pass me a Joe Dispenza video !!!! I need to manifest something.

Im just gonna phone for a curry.

🙄

🙃
Well, we can start with Jordan Peterson himself. He used to be a prestigious professor in psychology, but then his mind went bonkers when Canada presented Bill C-16. With Bill C-16, gender expression and gender identity would be considered as human rights under Canadian law and Canada's criminal code. Jordan Peterson rallied ardently against this bill, drawing the attention of the right wing around the world. He probably realized he could make much, much more money and gain more fame by catering to the right, so that is exactly what he did. He's also become an advocate for men's rights, which taken literally sounds good and noble, but in reality he's eerily close to red pill and what liberals would consider "toxic masculinity."
Tl;Dr you're right, for Jordan Peterson it's much easier to do all of what he's doing instead of a proper day job. His psychology license is at risk of being revoked, so in the near future he might not have the credentials to return to his field.



Here's an article from when Bill C-16 was being discussed. Jordan opposed it because "support for the legislation was ideologically-driven," which is.... well, yes exactly, it's an ideology. The bill is supposed to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society (transgender).

 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: Bobby Summa

Bobby Summa

Senior Member
Sep 7, 2022
918 Posts
687 Thanked
Age
47
Brighton UK
Website
soundcloud.app.goo.gl
Well, we can start with Jordan Peterson himself. He used to be a prestigious professor in psychology, but then his mind went bonkers when Canada presented Bill C-16. With Bill C-16, gender expression and gender identity would be considered as human rights under Canadian law and Canada's criminal code. Jordan Peterson rallied ardently against this bill, drawing the attention of the right wing around the world. He probably realized he could make much, much more money and gain more fame by catering to the right, so that is exactly what he did. He's also become an advocate for men's rights, which taken literally sounds good and noble, but in reality he's eerily close to red pill and what liberals would consider "toxic masculinity."
Tl;Dr you're right, for Jordan Peterson it's much easier to do all of what he's doing instead of a proper day job. His psychology license is at risk of being revoked, so in the near future he might not have the credentials to return to his field.



Here's an article from when Bill C-16 was being discussed. Jordan opposed it because "support for the legislation was ideologically-driven," which is.... well, yes exactly, it's an ideology. The bill is supposed to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society (transgender).


Thank you DMG, interesting stuff. 👍
 

Jetflag

Elite Member
Jul 17, 2020
2,717 Posts
2,180 Thanked
There is no benefit from saying that you're fair and balanced
Correct. to the current day liberal, (progressive) liberalism has become nothing more then a crusade. It doesn't matter if the opposing ideology is bringing up fair/balanced points, it doesn't matter if it holds the moral highground on x subject, or is just simply, factually right. ...

The Holy Quest for the Utopia must continue, at any and all cost. And this is precisely why (world wide speaking) liberalism is in constant decline. And will keep doing so, untill its proponents realize in sufficient numbers that continually breaking with reality to justify its own (ultimate) fantasies of a "perfect world to be" simply isn't viable.

case in point:
Well, we can start with Jordan Peterson himself. He used to be a prestigious professor in psychology, but then his mind went bonkers when Canada presented Bill C-16. With Bill C-16, gender expression and gender identity would be considered as human rights under Canadian law and Canada's criminal code. Jordan Peterson rallied ardently against this bill, drawing the attention of the right wing around the world. He probably realized he could make much, much more money and gain more fame by catering to the right, so that is exactly what he did. He's also become an advocate for men's rights, which taken literally sounds good and noble, but in reality he's eerily close to red pill and what liberals would consider "toxic masculinity."
Tl;Dr you're right, for Jordan Peterson it's much easier to do all of what he's doing instead of a proper day job. His psychology license is at risk of being revoked, so in the near future he might not have the credentials to return to his field.

to @Bobby Summa 's (valid) question of:
Recently im just wandering if such people or public intellectuals or those who address big spiritual subjects just do it to make money on YouTube so they don’t actually have to have a day job

So here we have a man,
-who had a prestigious position as a professor at a top university,
- who's well renowned and cited scientist with multible publications, both scientific papers and books,
- and who has a (profitable) clinical practice next to that,
- a family with a (then) chronically ill daughter to take care off.

who risked all that including his reputation to adress 1 compelled speech issue, (see: explanation below) in 1 overarching bill. This is the antithesis of a man trying to make a living on youtube with rage-clicks because "he doesn't want a daytime job" this is a man of principle over quick and easy comfort.

yet you, and sorry to say so @dmgtz96 but its the gods-honest truth and everyone can see it by the way.., rather then acknowleding that just lists of things that you ideologicaly hate the man for. So Feminist concepts like "toxic masculinity" etc. rather then honestly answering the question of JP just being a money grabber, given his earlier wealthy and secure financial position, status and the risks he took/ motivations for it 🤷‍♂️

You're not honestly answering Bobby's question with a proper example... You just spew propaganda.


Here's an article from when Bill C-16 was being discussed. Jordan opposed it because "support for the legislation was ideologically-driven," which is.... well, yes exactly, it's an ideology. The bill is supposed to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society (transgender).

wrong. JP opposed it because it compelled speech/thought, not because it allegedly sought to protect transgenders.

Bill c_16 does 2 things:


1: it forbids people from not hiring, denying housing and any sort of other discrimination of a transitioned individual based on gender. -> JP is fine with this and has said on numerous occasions that he, in fact, would hire and even address a trans-person by their preferred pronouns, depending on the personal relationship.

2: It, In addition, also make it a (fine-able and further down the line jail-able) offence to promote “hatred” based on gender expression.
^
And this is where the problem lies. “hatred” and “promote” are two incredibly loose and ill defined terms, and in the context of bill C_16 primarily defined by the accuser, rather than the accused. This is where JP takes issue with and has spoken against. As that^part is the compelled speech/dispel wrong think part.
 
Last edited:

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Jul 13, 2020
2,640 Posts
1,499 Thanked
Correct. to the current day liberal, (progressive) liberalism has become nothing more then a crusade. It doesn't matter if the opposing ideology is bringing up fair/balanced points, it doesn't matter if it holds the moral highground on x subject, or is just simply, factually right. ...

The Holy Quest for the Utopia must continue, at any and all cost. And this is precisely why (world wide speaking) liberalism is in constant decline. And will keep doing so, untill its proponents realize in sufficient numbers that continually breaking with reality to justify its own (ultimate) fantasies of a "perfect world to be" simply isn't viable.

case in point:

to @Bobby Summa 's (valid) question of:


So here we have a man,
-who had a prestigious position as a professor at a top university,
- who's well renowned and cited scientist with multible publications, both scientific papers and books,
- and who has a (profitable) clinical practice next to that,
- a family with a (then) chronically ill daughter to take care off.

who risked all that including his reputation to adress 1 compelled speech issue, (see: explanation below) in 1 overarching bill. This is the antithesis of a man trying to make a living on youtube with rage-clicks because "he doesn't want a daytime job" this is a man of principle over quick and easy comfort.
Fame and money do weird things. After all, the right has deep coffers, and they'll be open to you if you spew their same rhetoric to a wide audience and get them riled up.

And yes, everyone is susceptible to the allure of fame and money. Jordan was probably well-off but not "wealthy". I don't know how much a tenured U of T professor makes, but it surely is nowhere near the millions that the right offers.
yet you, and sorry to say so @dmgtz96 but its the gods-honest truth and everyone can see it by the way.., rather then acknowleding that just lists of things that you ideologicaly hate the man for. So Feminist concepts like "toxic masculinity" etc. rather then honestly answering the question of JP just being a money grabber, given his earlier wealthy and secure financial position, status and the risks he took/ motivations for it 🤷‍♂️

You're not honestly answering Bobby's question with a proper example... You just spew propaganda.
It's not propaganda, it's literally what happened lol.
wrong. JP opposed it because it compelled speech/thought, not because it allegedly sought to protect transgenders.

Bill c_16 does 2 things:


1: it forbids people from not hiring, denying housing and any sort of other discrimination of a transitioned individual based on gender. -> JP is fine with this and has said on numerous occasions that he, in fact, would hire and even address a trans-person by their preferred pronouns, depending on the personal relationship.

2: It, In addition, also make it a (fine-able and further down the line jail-able) offence to promote “hatred” based on gender expression.
^
And this is where the problem lies. “hatred” and “promote” are two incredibly loose and ill defined terms, and in the context of bill C_16 primarily defined by the accuser, rather than the accused. This is where JP takes issue with and has spoken against. As that^part is the compelled speech/dispel wrong think part.
It's still slimy to oppose ardently a bill that would advance the human rights of a vulnerable group that has been discriminated against.
 

Jetflag

Elite Member
Jul 17, 2020
2,717 Posts
2,180 Thanked
Fame and money fo weird things. After all, the right has deep coffers, and they'll be open to you if you spew their same rhetoric to a wide audience and get them riled up.
sure, but its not as if he did it to acquire said fame and money when he rose to fame after his attempt at cancellation became viral/the newman interview, since, the later especially, he already had (and well in abundance) as well as security (which now he doesn't)

It's not propaganda, it's literally what happened lol.
And the meteor impact that killed the dinosaurs also happened, but that equally isn't honestly answering @Bobby Summa 's question now is it 😄

did JP stirr a fuzz for alleged money fame and quiting his job that he loved? ofcourse not..

It's still slimy to oppose ardently a bill that would advance the human rights of a vulnerable group that has been discriminated against.
no, its prudent to point out its blatently obvious flaws so adjustments can be made (which they obviously didn't, imagen my shock..) and you would have a better law to protect said group from discrimination..one that isn't so easy mis-usable and has such a slippery slope.

You might be familiar with the concept "legal precedent" ..Do you honestly want to end up with a future autoritarian (conservative) government who, on the basis of said precedent, will take away your (or your canadian brethren's) rights to free speech, free thought and compell you to think and talk as they demand under threat of fine and imprisonment?

You've repeatidly stated you have mexican heritage. I don't need to inform you of the repressive conquistatores regime from Portugal and the compelled catholic canon they inforced there back in the day now do I?

Like, even a stounch Crusader of Holy Progressive Liberalism like yourself can see the logic/ problem in that can you? 😄
 

Nerio

Member
Aug 2, 2020
140 Posts
86 Thanked
After a long time I remembered these two videos :-D




The whole channel is great.
This is what I mean, finding different points of view on certain issues and talking about them.
 
Last edited:

LostLegend

Senior Member
Dec 5, 2020
863 Posts
985 Thanked
Liverpool, UK
Website
www.beatport.com

Watched this last night. It is somewhat concerning the amount of people who’s area of expertise is humanity and technology are sounding so many alarm bells right now.

This seemingly never-ending spiral of proxy conflicts, the continued advancement of AI and foreign powers interfering with the elections of other countries. There’s a lot to digest.
 

Nerio

Member
Aug 2, 2020
140 Posts
86 Thanked
One of the best intelecual arguments from boths sides of camp i heard, both sides has great points, this is how debate should look like: