jordan peterson phenomena - Page 19

I suspected it was but I pre-emptivly replied to loco or whoever was going to use that argument

So I guess we're whining about bigoted youtubers being banned* in two different threads. I didn't know Crowder, so I had to load up the wiki to see who this "respected journalist" is.

Steven Blake Crowder (/?kra?d?r/) is a conservative Canadian-American commentator, actor, and comedian.[1][2] He is the host of Louder with Crowder,[3] a late-night style comedic television show covering news, pop culture, and politics on his own site.

In June 2019, YouTube investigated Crowder for using racist and homophobic slurs targeting Carlos Maza in multiple comedic videos reacting to the Vox series Strikethrough, which Maza hosts. Crowder referred to Maza as "Mr. Lispy queer", an "angry little queer", and a "gay Mexican", and mocked him with a stereotypical gay voice, sometimes while wearing a t-shirt that said "Socialism is for f*gs [sic]".

But look! He said 'f*gs' not 'fags' with a picture of the fruit. Hilarious! Nothing to see here everything's fine. As long as you turn your slurs into a joke, its just no longer a slur, its comedy!

And yes YouTube is a private company. Funny how libertarian ideals instantly dissipate at the chance to side against political correctness. If anything YouTube's response was weak. You have thousands of basement dwelling incels regularly sharing racist, bigoted garbage, and youtube's response is just 'we're temporarily not going to give you money'. Apparently, YouTube has some sort of obligation to not only host but share profit with anyone that posts content merely because .. its large? And any argument in that direction is preemptively countered by pointing out how obviously beneficial it would be to have privatized fire departments???

On June 07 2019 14:35 NMcNasty wrote: So I guess we're whining about bigoted youtubers being banned* in two different threads. I didn't know Crowder, so I had to load up the wiki to see who this "respected journalist" is.

people who I don't know exist have no value

On June 07 2019 14:35 NMcNasty wrote: But look! He said 'f*gs' not 'fags' with a picture of the fruit. Hilarious! Nothing to see here everything's fine. As long as you turn your slurs into a joke, its just no longer a slur, its comedy!

he's not political because you don't like his views and he's not a comedian because you don't think he's funny?

On June 07 2019 14:35 NMcNasty wrote: And yes YouTube is a private company. Funny how libertarian ideals instantly dissipate at the chance to side against political correctness. If anything YouTube's response was weak. You have thousands of basement dwelling incels regularly sharing racist, bigoted garbage, and youtube's response is just 'we're temporarily not going to give you money'.

I hope LiquidPoker demonetizes you for virgin shaming

On June 07 2019 14:35 NMcNasty wrote: Apparently, YouTube has some sort of obligation to not only host but share profit with anyone that posts content merely because .. its large? And any argument in that direction is preemptively countered by pointing out how obviously beneficial it would be to have privatized fire departments???

not because it's large. because it's a monopoly. my wife is large but she's not 75% of women.

https://www.theguardian.com/technolog...rs-uploading-archive-videos-of-hitler
solid move IMO, this just goes to show youtube is in good solid capable hands. don't want my pure adbux going to support the third reich. this hitler guy can go * himself if you ask me

On June 07 2019 14:35 NMcNasty wrote: So I guess we're whining about bigoted youtubers being banned* in two different threads. I didn't know Crowder, so I had to load up the wiki to see who this "respected journalist" is. Show nested quote + Steven Blake Crowder (/?kra?d?r/) is a conservative Canadian-American commentator, actor, and comedian.[1][2] He is the host of Louder with Crowder,[3] a late-night style comedic television show covering news, pop culture, and politics on his own site.   In June 2019, YouTube investigated Crowder for using racist and homophobic slurs targeting Carlos Maza in multiple comedic videos reacting to the Vox series Strikethrough, which Maza hosts. Crowder referred to Maza as "Mr. Lispy queer", an "angry little queer", and a "gay Mexican", and mocked him with a stereotypical gay voice, sometimes while wearing a t-shirt that said "Socialism is for f*gs [sic]". But look! He said 'f*gs' not 'fags' with a picture of the fruit. Hilarious! Nothing to see here everything's fine. As long as you turn your slurs into a joke, its just no longer a slur, its comedy! And yes YouTube is a private company. Funny how libertarian ideals instantly dissipate at the chance to side against political correctness. If anything YouTube's response was weak. You have thousands of basement dwelling incels regularly sharing racist, bigoted garbage, and youtube's response is just 'we're temporarily not going to give you money'. Apparently, YouTube has some sort of obligation to not only host but share profit with anyone that posts content merely because .. its large? And any argument in that direction is preemptively countered by pointing out how obviously beneficial it would be to have privatized fire departments???

I think you are wrong on multiple accounts:

First: Crowder is a fucking comedian who you can like or not, but he got de monetized for being a right winger. This is a general trend across platforms where "hate speech" remains undefined, new rules are created and enforced retro actively while current rules are not enforced for some people, etc. Youtube own TOS are routinely changed and violated by the same company (which private companies can't do).
An example of this if this very case, Carlos Maza openly called for physical harrasment of conservatives which is very clearly against all this platform rules, yet he gets a pass.

Second, nor facebook nor google are fully private companies, they get massive government help and tax breaks
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/20...in-subsidies-in-five-years-tax-breaks

Third, private companies (which they fully aren't) are either open platforms NOT LIABLE FOR THEIR CONTENT (think you phone company) or publishers WHO ARE LIABLE FOR THEIR CONTENT (think any newspaper)
This companies have called themselves platforms for a decade at this point, allowing them to grow, receive money from the government and not face a single lawsuit for their content, and now they want to have their cake and eat too by selectively targeting people for their political views.

On a more philosophical context regarding the first amendment, currently all these giant tech companies are the sort of new public square and there should be some sort of internet bill of rights.
I'm somewhat conflicted on this, but given they all seem to act together, get tax payer money and at the same time not face legal liabilty for their content saying "mUh FreE MaRkEt" does not seem correct.

I like the following analogy: if a car company doesn't want to sell to conservatives or christians or w/e I would think it's acceptable, because there are shit tons of car companies. But if the only phone company available in the area does, and it also gets tax payers money and other government support, it is clearly not acceptable.

It also brings up that the internet is just the start; certain banks and other payment processor companies have already started denying their payment services to some people. What's next?

On June 07 2019 16:35 Santafairy wrote: https://www.theguardian.com/technolog...rs-uploading-archive-videos-of-hitler solid move IMO, this just goes to show youtube is in good solid capable hands. don't want my pure adbux going to support the third reich. this hitler guy can go * himself if you ask me

Yeah wearing a 'socialism is for fags' T-Shirt isn't teaching someone about bigotry, IT IS bigotry! Its not remotely close to anything else. Yes, well meaning history professors being caught in the crossfire and getting their content removed is wrong, but if you read the article you'll see that they appealed and YouTube ultimately made the decision. They also make it pretty clear they're for removing hate speech in principle.

Both men said they had sympathy with what the site was trying to achieve and acknowledged that sometimes the archive fascist material they uploaded to YouTube was viewed by the modern-day far right. “I have for a long time been unhappy with how my films have often been hijacked by neo-fascists through the comments section, but YouTube’s actions are far too indiscriminate,” said Jones-Nerzic. Allsop suggested the site needed to take educational context into account rather than rely on automated processes: “I fully support YouTube’s increased efforts to curb hate speech, but also feel that silencing the very people who seek to teach about its dangers could be counter-productive to YouTube’s intended goal.”

On June 07 2019 16:55 GoTuNk wrote: First: Crowder is a fucking comedian who you can like or not, but he got de monetized for being a right winger.

No, fag is a slur, and it wasn't even just an angry slip-up, he wore a T-shirt with it. You can either be completely disconnected with reality and not think its a slur, extremely gullible to buy into the 'its just comedy!' angle, or worst case you actually support that type of bigotry.

This is a general trend across platforms where "hate speech" remains undefined, new rules are created and enforced retro actively while current rules are not enforced for some people, etc. Youtube own TOS are routinely changed and violated by the same company (which private companies can't do).

And I'm sure there are plenty of gray areas with hate speech, but this isn't one of them. If his T-shirt said 'socialism is for niggers' is that also perfectly fine? Completely fine if he asterisks one letter?

Second, nor facebook nor google are fully private companies, they get massive government help and tax breaks

No, they are fully private companies the government has no managerial power. Subsidies and tax breaks occur for basically all large companies, and yes that's a problem, glad people are reading guardian articles about it.

I like the following analogy: if a car company doesn't want to sell to conservatives or christians or w/e I would think it's acceptable, because there are shit tons of car companies.

I don't think its acceptable at all, its pretty clearly bigotry IMO, just as you can't discriminate in your business based on race. But this case is more akin to the car company not hiring someone because he's yelling racial slurs at potential customers. Saying 'no you don't have the job' is pretty obvious regardless of how much monopoly power that company has.

well if he was a black socialist what would you say

On May 31 2019 23:37 Loco wrote: Doing the Lord's work, fighting dragons side by side with George W. Bush. "PHP Agency is a multilevel marketing company, meaning that it makes money when people recruit lower-ranking members, who then funnel their sales commissions upwards. Agents move up through the ranks based on their recruitment rates, according to a 2016 PHP fact sheet on “compensations and promotional guidelines.” But much of PHP’s income appears to come from fees paid by the recruits themselves, according to complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau. Its PHP page is littered with complaints. Multiple people complained that someone had persuaded them to join their insurance team and pay $150 for “training material,” plus a monthly recurring fee of $14.95. A Reddit forum devoted to discussions of multilevel marketing companies is filled with similar horror stories about the company, with tales of PHP agents pressuring friends and family members to pay initiation fees to join the company and savings squandered on PHP Agency trainings." https://www.thedailybeast.com/george-...ltilevel-marketing-company-php-agency

"Side by side" means he is in total agreement with G.W.Bush ?

On June 07 2019 02:04 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 06 2019 07:45 Spitfiree wrote: Steven Crowder is a piece of shit tbh, a college student completely demolished him with legitimate arguments of why his views are retarded and he started going after him with personal attacks, getting into his personal space and politely making him leave the "platform" Can't really care much for the guy So you also don't care for freedom of speech if you disagree with the message or dont like the person speaking?

The guy is a dumbass crybaby he wasn't banned but demonetized if you're watching different famous YouTubers you'd know that shittons of their videos are getting demonetized for a variety of stupid reasons, its a problem of the platform itself

Also, YouTube is a private platform open to the public. They have the full right to delete someone's videos if they want to, regardless of what my view on censorship is.

Also, no Steven Crowder is not a comedian, he's going around telling people his weak opinions trying to trigger people and sometimes it works and pretty unknowledgable people try to respond to him and of course he s going to make them looks like fools. His idiocy was shown best when he interviewed a transgender woman in the city council of Austin and posting it as if he had legitimate arguments there.

Sure his videos in colleges are funny cause of dumbass students, but that doesn't make him a politician, it just makes him a bad reporter.

I don't know that this qualifies as his most idiotic moment. His climate change content is notoriously stupid:

In 2017, Crowder argued with British science journalist Peter Hadfield (aka Potholer54) over a Louder with Crowder episode titled "Top 5 'Climate Change' Myths". Crowder's arguments were hilariously bad:

- Crowder argued that climate scientists encourage support for Big Government by lying about AGW to guilt liberals.
- Crowder argued that all climate scientists believe "gender to be a figment of the imagination", as if this were unscientific or discredited their work in climate science.
- Crowder argued that NASA confirmed a global net gain of ice of 82bn tons and that this is evidence of cooling when in fact this figure was only for (parts of) Antarctica and that Greenland had lost 269bn tons in the same period.
- Crowder argued that an increase of polar bear numbers (which followed a ban on hunting) as proof that climate change is not harming polar bears.
- Crowder argued that climate change models are worthless because the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was unable to predict an exact number of hurricanes per year.
- Crowder also cited Christopher Monckton's and Tim Ball's claims that NOAA is fraudulent as evidence that climate change is itself bogus.

Following this, Crowder challenged Hadfield to a debate. Haldfield agreed to participate in a livestream debate scheduled for April 27, but Crowder failed to appear.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/ep...out-jordan-petersons-benzo-dependence





Makes this so much better

The Petersons and their die-hard followers make it so easy to criticize and mock them that it's not even fun anymore. Who wants to beat up on people who are such messes? Even if it's someone like Peterson who made a series of videos about how empathy is dangerous and bad, I don't have it in me to kick him while he's down. Whole thing with Russia is so ridiculous, it's almost like it's out of a surrealist fantasy when you take it all in.

Some interesting thoughts

This is good too.

"Worse still, Myers argues, there is an ideological motive for all this: "Peterson is distorting the evidence to fit an agenda... It's appalling the degree to which this man is asserting nonsense with such smug confidence. This man is lying to you.""

The Fundamental Errors of Jordan Peterson

A lot of his ideas are great

I'd agree with that take on 12 Rules though - didn't seem like a good book
He doesn't believe in god etc. AFAIK but kept using passages from the Bible just to shock people that do

I mean it seemed like a waste of my time I went into Laws of Human Nature from Greene that's fucking awesome and I expected 12 rules to be the way it was hyped, wasn't in the 3 ish chapters I read. He lead me to Laws of Human nature that change my life so I'm going to be forever grateful to Patersont in a way having said that

EDIT: article seems really biased and fitting author's own agenda one sidedly as well
Pretty hilariously stupid since that's exactly what it's criticising about Paterson

On February 19 2020 08:58 LemOn[5thF] wrote: A lot of his ideas are great I'd agree with that take on 12 Rules though - didn't seem like a good book He doesn't believe in god etc. AFAIK but kept using passages from the Bible just to shock people that do I mean it seemed like a waste of my time I went into Laws of Human Nature from Greene that's fucking awesome and I expected 12 rules to be the way it was hyped, wasn't in the 3 ish chapters I read. He lead me to Laws of Human nature that change my life so I'm going to be forever grateful to Patersont in a way having said that EDIT: article seems really biased and fitting author's own agenda one sidedly as well Pretty hilariously stupid since that's exactly what it's criticising about Paterson

What ideas of his are great?

Oh God, Robert Greene. I remember when I was into reading 48 Laws of Power, Prince by Machiavelli, and the like. I didn't even give those books to the library I buried them deep in the trash bag and cheerfully tossed them in the dumpster. I am trying to change a rigged game not exploit the current game. Fuck Jordan Peterson, Fuck Robert Greene, Fuck Machiavelli.

I read passages from seduction, mastery, 50th law but they don't compare to Laws of Human Nature, I don't know maybe it's because he matured but the book feels well balanced nd researched

Seduction felt shallow especially

And yeah I had the same feeling you have from those books you mention - just playing the system and Fakeness. I mean it still is in a couple chapters, and the one one jealousy felt pointless

But chapters on death, empathy, reasoning, femininity / masculinity, financial bubbles and long term thinking were really eye opening

Edit: oh and facing your dark side where he talks about Nixon naturally flows into clinical studies and act therapy. Seriously I listened to the good chapters 10+ times, believe me you're wrong In writing him off. And even if you don't get life lessons out of it you do get a history lesson you can talk about with friends later

For Patterson I like his take on parents and taking responsibility for your actions and life

And it was fun when he talked about the origins of makeup with a feminist. I think him and e.g. Deepak Chopra you just don't take seriously, take their stuff as fairy tales and entertainment they play up for attention and money and hey - if they have a couple usable ideas even better, I wouldn't call the couple hours I listened to and read Patterson as wasted

His main narrative is "set your house straight before you criticize others" I won't point how retarded that is on many levels, but its even funnier cause he was an addict while preaching that shit, the irony is so ridiculous, its almost too good to be true.

I agree with Peterson on many topics, and so do a lot of people, simply because he points out absolutely banal stuff like the ones you mentioned e.g. taking responsibility for your actions. No shit you should be doing that...

I read books for 2 purposes - entertainment e.g. fantasy, classic novels etc which still hold a shitton of value apart from entertainment and second - for knowledge. I don't see how Peterson falls into either category