Australian Current Affairs Thread (not a Politics Thread) lol

[wendybr]

4 minutes ago, marron said:

I've no doubt he's got nuance to his arguments and proposals. A stab;e environment is good yes. But the stable environment of yesterday  - married couple, mum at home - is not the reality of today, or the solution to today either, necessarily.

 

Hmmmm….I'm not sure I've heard him talking about women saying at home - but he may well have said so?

He certainly does talk about young women abandoning high status careers to pursue motherhood. Or at least he refers to them as re-prioritising away from climbing the corporate ladder, in exchange for finding a more meaningful life in parenthood.

I doubt many people would dispute that. No matter how much a person might value their career, it is not more valued that having a  family.

So he's pretty right about that, I think.

[ManfredSchaefer]

13 minutes ago, marron said:

He might tell them that stuff in his self help books Wendy but he also tells them via his other channels that itss the SJWs running a cultural marxist plot that are to blame for their problems.

The combination of those two things is very problematic. Like, a lot. Clean yourself up, and ready yourself for battle with [insert] who deserve it.

I've no doubt he's got nuance to his arguments and proposals. A stab;e environment is good yes. But the stable environment of yesterday  - married couple, mum at home - is not the reality of today, or the solution to today either, necessarily.

 

 

You can throw in his position on global climate change (i.e. “First of all, it’s very difficult to separate the science from the politics, and, second, even if the more radical claims are true we have no idea what to do about it.,” https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/08/jordan-peterson-global-warming-hype/)

Well yes, a psych academic is the first person who would not know what to do about it. However those scientists who have identified that carbon emissions need to be cut so as to help address the problem do have an idea, and they're the ones I'd trust instead of a guy who think boys should harden up. 

Edited March 9, 2019 by ManfredSchaefer

[Cynth]

You are in fine form Manny! 

[wendybr]

 

7 minutes ago, marron said:

And I'm sorry Wendy and Goat too, because I can't do youtube, it just doesn't work for me absorbption wise or just life wise, with stuff like this.

 

I certainly get the "life wise" restrictions, Marron.

You have a demanding job and young kids.

Re absorption wise - you are not an auditory learner? 

[marron]

Re: the women at home thing, pretty sure I've read stuff from him on the way that more women being in the workforce after women's lib is an issue on a number of levels. maybe i got it wrong. but in any case - that is the "traditional" thing, isn't it.

Learning wise - i'm pretty balanced, abut I'm often on here when i'm doing other stuff. been marking practice essays in between. heh.

 

 

Edited March 9, 2019 by marron

[ManfredSchaefer]

Just now, Cynth said:

You are in fine form Manny! 

Cranks and dickheads who are in the self-help game, who strut and preen as if they have the answer to the world's problems through their programs that are available in hardback, paperback, DVD, CD and audio-book piss me off no end. They attract the kind of people who are sadly gullible and insecure, and with a bit of sweet and sour pop psych next thing you know they are spouting their shaman's words as if its the fooking gospel.

Seen it before with the likes of Ron Blanchard, Deepak Chopra, Tony Robbins...even Dale Carnegie. Then there's the anti-vaxxers, the keto diet loons, the rabid PETA folk.

There might...just might...be a nub or kernel of a good idea at the heart of some of these folk & their self-help cottage industry. And a few of these folk are in some respects relatively harmless. The problem with Petersen is that he is enabling the kind of RWFW ideas, behaviours, attitudes and (ironically) not taking any responsibility for it.

Whether it's JP, Hitler, Jim Jones, Pete Evans or that guy who led the Branch Davidians...for all their BS about self-reliance, think for yourself, be an individual an their utopian visions of how to have a better life, the only ones who seem to really profit out of it are them.

[wendybr]

7 minutes ago, ManfredSchaefer said:

You can throw in his position on global climate change (i.e. “First of all, it’s very difficult to separate the science from the politics, and, second, even if the more radical claims are true we have no idea what to do about it.,” https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/08/jordan-peterson-global-warming-hype/)

Well yes, a psych academic is the first person who would not know what to do about it. However those scientists who have identified that carbon emissions need to be cut so as to help address the problem do have an idea, and they're the ones I'd trust instead of a guy who think boys should harden up. 

Totally agree with you on this - and I've said as much elsewhere.

He isn't at all inspiring, or in any way helpful on climate change.

Most recently, I heard him say he didn't think humanity has what it takes to unify on the issue of CC.

And pessimistic as it is, I don't see much evidence that he's wrong on that, tbh. Just look at our leaders.

But yeah - he's not exactly dismissive - but too negative and offers nothing but pessimism on CC from what I've heard. 

[wendybr]

5 minutes ago, marron said:

Re: the women at home thing, pretty sure I've read stuff from him on the way that more women being in the workforce after women's lib is an issue on a number of levels. maybe i got it wrong. but in any case - that is the "traditional" thing, isn't it.

Yeah - maybe.

He's obsessed with doing the right thing by children - and that's fair enough too.

And he sees marriage (and monogamous marriages) as best for kids - as is discussed in the long interview above. But don't recall that the mum's role is to be home rather than have a job/career.

[wendybr]

16 minutes ago, marron said:

Learning wise - i'm pretty balanced, abut I'm often on here when i'm doing other stuff. been marking practice essays in between. heh.

I'm often multitasking on the forums too - and take breaks from marking to read and post.

You can't (well I can't) mark kids' work and listen to You Tube clips.

 

BUT you can take time out from work to browse on the forums AND listen to You tube clips when you take a break!  

[ManfredSchaefer]

7 minutes ago, wendybr said:

Totally agree with you on this - and I've said as much elsewhere.

He isn't at all inspiring, or in any way helpful on climate change.

Most recently, I heard him say he didn't think humanity has what it takes to unify on the issue of CC.

And pessimistic as it is, I don't see much evidence that he's wrong on that, tbh. Just look at our leaders.

But yeah - he's not exactly dismissive - but too negative and offers nothing but pessimism on CC from what I've heard. 

The problem is Wendy, and this goes to the very heart of it, he has set himself up (either willingly or grudgingly) as an expert on anything and everything, with the resultant impact on his broad base of frightened, angry, right wing devotees (who would, I believe but happy to be proven wrong, be mostly young white men). 

[wendybr]

9 minutes ago, ManfredSchaefer said:

The problem is Wendy, and this goes to the very heart of it, he has set himself up (either willingly or grudgingly) as an expert on anything and everything, with the resultant impact on his broad base of frightened, angry, right wing devotees (who would, I believe but happy to be proven wrong, be mostly young white men). 

Re setting himself up as an expert...Don't think it's as simple as that Manny.

On the one hand.... there have been plenty of journalists who have wanted to get at him/goad him, and portray him as far Right. And they will ask about all sorts of issues to portray him one way or another. Not his fault...although he might be better off flicking those questions off and acknowledging that they aren't questions he is qualified to answer.

And then he is very confident in his own opinions and has a pretty extensive general knowledge (although he does say off the cuff things he later realises were not given consideration, and that he didn't respond to well) So he might say something on the spur of the moment, which isn't thought through. And he CERTAINLY can react emotionally on occasions.

Then there are also plenty out there whose toes he has trodden on, and who are out to portray him in an unfavorable light, and who go at him - as did Terri Butler and that girl in the audience on Q&A.

Re young white men as his audience... could well be...but it could also be that they are the most likely demographic to be spending a lot of time on the internet...or on You Tube?? Many seem to relate to him as a father figure...and I guess that would make sense that he might appeal to that demographic.

Don't know that having a primarily young male audience should be seen as anything sinister.....or a young "white" (ugh) male audience for that matter.

[marron]

Not sinister, but instructive. 

[Zelinsky]

"Truth is made rather than found." - Richard Rorty.

Guys like JP are truth makers, in a different age and space they'd be meaningless. Currently we are listening to them.

We are living in a postmodern world, the grand narratives of the Enlightenment area do not hold any longer. In the past there was conflict between belief systems, now we have conflict within belief systems. Everything that once seemed certain is now uncertain, the believes and trust in authorities like churches, politicians, democratic institutions, the powerful mature white male, police, media, the law, banks etc has been shattered.

Walter Truett Anderson (1995) wrote that "psychologists such as Kenneth Gergen focus on postmodern experience - on how it "feels" to live amid such, often contradictory barrage of cultural stimuli; what it does to us and what kind of people we become." When the young Caucasian man in QandA looks for reassurance from JP, you get a sense that it ain't fun for many, and quite confusing.

Trump, Brexit, the rise of nationalism, Muslim bashing, conservatives in politics and media  backing a convicted churchy pedophile - they are expressions of a counter revolution, an attempt to stop the Tsunami, to go back to the good old days, or at least to hold on to what there still is. As if we can turn back the clock! JP is caught up in that movement, apparently quite unable to reflect on it. To me he seems like someone who doesn't understand where the message is coming from that he is amplifying. But what would I know. he is the professor, and I am not.

[wendybr]

55 minutes ago, FCB said:

"Truth is made rather than found." - Richard Rorty.

Guys like JP are truth makers, in a different age and space they'd be meaningless. Currently we are listening to them.

We are living in a postmodern world, the grand narratives of the Enlightenment area do not hold any longer. In the past there was conflict between belief systems, now we have conflict within belief systems. Everything that once seemed certain is now uncertain, the believes and trust in authorities like churches, politicians, democratic institutions, the powerful mature white male, police, media, the law, banks etc has been shattered.

Walter Truett Anderson (1995) wrote that "psychologists such as Kenneth Gergen focus on postmodern experience - on how it "feels" to live amid such, often contradictory barrage of cultural stimuli; what it does to us and what kind of people we become." When the young Caucasian man in QandA looks for reassurance from JP, you get a sense that it ain't fun for many, and quite confusing.

Trump, Brexit, the rise of nationalism, Muslim bashing, conservatives in politics and media  backing a convicted churchy pedophile - they are expressions of a counter revolution, an attempt to stop the Tsunami, to go back to the good old days, or at least to hold on to what there still is. As if we can turn back the clock! JP is caught up in that movement, apparently quite unable to reflect on it. To me he seems like someone who doesn't understand where the message is coming from that he is amplifying. But what would I know. he is the professor, and I am not.

That's an interesting post, my friend.

There sort of is a counter revolution going on...well at least, a definite push back.

That's often been the way things go - although I agree we are in dramatically unchartered territory now.

So I agree with much of what you say there...but I really don't understand how JP can be seen as "unable to reflect on" what's happening. If anything, my reading of him is that he is thinking/reflecting on modern issues all the time. Deeply reflecting on them.

To suggest he doesn't understand what's going on around him is odd. To suggest that he is somehow an unknowing pawn is quite wrong imo. He had some very undesirable elements latch onto him for a while - but that was transitory.

How much of his stuff  have you listened to, to base your observations on? 

More than Manny's two minutes on Q&A...plus a few Guardian articles telling readers why he's dangerous?  

 

 

 

PS This is unfamiliar territory for me - arguing with you two...three including Marron!   

[wendybr]

56 minutes ago, marron said:

Not sinister, but instructive. 

Instructive...of what?

[Edinburgh]

A lot of interesting discussion going on here. Pity I understand less than 10% of it.

[marron]

22 minutes ago, wendybr said:

Instructive...of what?

If you want to understand the impact of a message, look to the receiver. If the ones lapping it up are from a certain demographic, then it tells you something. Basically, that this isn't universal.  Why is it that it hits a certain demographic? What is it about that group thst makes it receptive? Access to the message is one part, but not the only part. And what is it about the message? It must appeal.

And the message is - Don't lose control..... take it back..... 

If that's of your own life,,yeah, good.

If that's of others people's lives, you know what, **** you.  

 

[wendybr]

7 minutes ago, marron said:

If you want to understand the impact of a message, look to the receiver. If the ones lapping it up are from a certain demographic, then it tells you something. Basically, that this isn't universal.  Why is it that it hits a certain demographic? What is it about that group thst makes it receptive? Access to the message is one part, but not the only part. And what is it about the message? It must appeal.

And the message is - Don't lose control..... take it back..... 

If that's of your own life,,yeah, good.

If that's of others people's lives, you know what, **** you.  

 

You guys keep talking in riddles...

You're implying his audience is ...these young white guys?? ...with a tendency towards ….ummm…. white supremacy??

Otherwise...taking back control from whom?
 

 

[marron]

Taking back control From the SJWs ruining the world with their pronouns and #metoos. Who are stopping them from achieving the dream they had been promised - wealth, women, etc.  

 

[mack]

https://www.longviewoneducation.org/why-does-jordan-peterson-resonate-with-white-supremacists/

http://www.cracked.com/blog/how-jordan-peterson-repackages-alt-right-ideas-as-self-help/

[StringerBellend]

4 hours ago, wendybr said:

Your loss Stringer.

I assume you mean JP...rather than JR.

 

To a degree both but more JP

[Neverbloom]

2 hours ago, mack said:

https://www.longviewoneducation.org/why-does-jordan-peterson-resonate-with-white-supremacists/

http://www.cracked.com/blog/how-jordan-peterson-repackages-alt-right-ideas-as-self-help/

i dont know anything about the first link but i am not going to click on a cracked article when it comes to politics(or anything really)

 

[btron3000]

I'm with Wendy on this.

I think there's a lot of misinformation about JP, not helped by the fact that people always ask him the same questions. I've watched quite a bit of him, and find him genuinely interested and interesting, especially when the questions are thoughtful. He is often the only person on a show, or one of the only ones, genuinely listening to the other people and growing and learning.

I don't agree with his religious views, or his self-help stuff. Clean your room. **** off dad. But his political commentary I find enthralling, namely because I think that he is genuinely trying to find good answers and not just pushing an agenda. Sure, he's got his views, but he is always expanding them.

I couldn't care less if the alt right likes him, they suffer from as much misinformation as anyone. And anyway, if we dismiss the messenger because of who they are, aren't we falling into the trap of politics. Yeah his "marxist coming to take over the world" stuff is a bit over the top, but that doesn't mean you can't agree with many other things he says.

To clarify some of his views:

• He believes that society needs a certain level of inequality as that breeds innovation, invention, desire, hard work etc. But he also believes - no, he states as fact - that too much inequality breeds social issues. So he thinks the right and left should agree that some level of inequality is needed, the debate should be about how much.
• He has never said that women should stay home. In fact, his belief is that the workforce needs more people with a high level of skill and ability and no right-thinking individual would want to deny 50% of the population adding to the level of skill and ability. That is why he is a strong advocate of equality of opportunity, but not of outcomes. He doesn't believe that there should be any quotas because that arbitrarily forces people into certain jobs, and that leads to a drop in quality.  Yes he has said that women should not be told that they will get satisfaction from being successful in their jobs rather than their home life, but he also thinks that for males. He's not pining for something that was the case 30 years ago, he actually thinks everyone should get the same opportunity to choose their occupation (reasonably, I assume he recognises that the inequality he thinks is necessary will impact some opportunity). Of course, he believes that men will choose "traditionally" male jobs, but he also provides research in very equal countries like the Nordic ones to support that belief.
• When asked about the legalisation of pot in Canada, I thought we were gonna get a conservative answer. Instead, he said "about time". Then he went on to say that if enough people think a law should change, then it should.

Yeah his political messages are like a politician on the campaign trail, in that they never get tested. But as a theorist I like him. Yeah he answers about topics he's not an expert on, and yeah sometimes he goes off a bit, but hey, if you put the greatest minds in history on tape every second day they'd say some stupid stuff too.

On the whole, I usually find myself learning something, or at least thinking about things differently, after watching him. And there are plenty of lefties on his videos saying they think he talks sense. I agree with them. But then again, I think that the left has lost the ability to determine which things are actually discriminatory, and have mixed up "the same" with equality (i.e. equality is good, but that doesn't mean everyone is the same) and so the SJWs do bug me, so maybe I'm a good candidate to drink his kool-aid.

[Neverbloom]

[wendybr]

9 hours ago, btron3000 said:

I'm with Wendy on this.

I think there's a lot of misinformation about JP, not helped by the fact that people always ask him the same questions. I've watched quite a bit of him, and find him genuinely interested and interesting, especially when the questions are thoughtful. He is often the only person on a show, or one of the only ones, genuinely listening to the other people and growing and learning.

I don't agree with his religious views, or his self-help stuff. Clean your room. **** off dad. But his political commentary I find enthralling, namely because I think that he is genuinely trying to find good answers and not just pushing an agenda. Sure, he's got his views, but he is always expanding them.

I couldn't care less if the alt right likes him, they suffer from as much misinformation as anyone. And anyway, if we dismiss the messenger because of who they are, aren't we falling into the trap of politics. Yeah his "marxist coming to take over the world" stuff is a bit over the top, but that doesn't mean you can't agree with many other things he says.

To clarify some of his views:

• He believes that society needs a certain level of inequality as that breeds innovation, invention, desire, hard work etc. But he also believes - no, he states as fact - that too much inequality breeds social issues. So he thinks the right and left should agree that some level of inequality is needed, the debate should be about how much.
• He has never said that women should stay home. In fact, his belief is that the workforce needs more people with a high level of skill and ability and no right-thinking individual would want to deny 50% of the population adding to the level of skill and ability. That is why he is a strong advocate of equality of opportunity, but not of outcomes. He doesn't believe that there should be any quotas because that arbitrarily forces people into certain jobs, and that leads to a drop in quality.  Yes he has said that women should not be told that they will get satisfaction from being successful in their jobs rather than their home life, but he also thinks that for males. He's not pining for something that was the case 30 years ago, he actually thinks everyone should get the same opportunity to choose their occupation (reasonably, I assume he recognises that the inequality he thinks is necessary will impact some opportunity). Of course, he believes that men will choose "traditionally" male jobs, but he also provides research in very equal countries like the Nordic ones to support that belief.
• When asked about the legalisation of pot in Canada, I thought we were gonna get a conservative answer. Instead, he said "about time". Then he went on to say that if enough people think a law should change, then it should.

Yeah his political messages are like a politician on the campaign trail, in that they never get tested. But as a theorist I like him. Yeah he answers about topics he's not an expert on, and yeah sometimes he goes off a bit, but hey, if you put the greatest minds in history on tape every second day they'd say some stupid stuff too.

On the whole, I usually find myself learning something, or at least thinking about things differently, after watching him. And there are plenty of lefties on his videos saying they think he talks sense. I agree with them. But then again, I think that the left has lost the ability to determine which things are actually discriminatory, and have mixed up "the same" with equality (i.e. equality is good, but that doesn't mean everyone is the same) and so the SJWs do bug me, so maybe I'm a good candidate to drink his kool-aid.

A thousand times THANK YOU, Btron!

Thank you for the time and thought you put into articulating your views there!

Goat and I were feeling a bit lonely here! 

I cannot think of another public figure who has been so publicly vilified....and it's either out of malice, or most likely, ignorance of what he's on about.

You used the word "enthralling" to describe his talks - and I couldn't agree more. And you referred to "thinking about things differently after listening to him" - and that's true too.

I mean it when I say it's peoples' loss if they write him off on the basis of misinformation that has been circulated about him. It's sad, and it solidifies one of the criticisms of what goes on these days- of people refusing to listen to the other side - except that in his case, he's somewhere in the middle politically...and not at all "other side" in ways that he is portrayed.

More and more reasonable people are realising this - and paying attention to someone who does think deeply and intelligently about serious issues, and is brave enough to voice his views - despite really ugly attacks on him.

[marron]

9 hours ago, btron3000 said:

I'm with Wendy on this.

I think there's a lot of misinformation about JP, not helped by the fact that people always ask him the same questions. I've watched quite a bit of him, and find him genuinely interested and interesting, especially when the questions are thoughtful. He is often the only person on a show, or one of the only ones, genuinely listening to the other people and growing and learning.

I don't agree with his religious views, or his self-help stuff. Clean your room. **** off dad. But his political commentary I find enthralling, namely because I think that he is genuinely trying to find good answers and not just pushing an agenda. Sure, he's got his views, but he is always expanding them.

I couldn't care less if the alt right likes him, they suffer from as much misinformation as anyone. And anyway, if we dismiss the messenger because of who they are, aren't we falling into the trap of politics. Yeah his "marxist coming to take over the world" stuff is a bit over the top, but that doesn't mean you can't agree with many other things he says.

To clarify some of his views:

• He believes that society needs a certain level of inequality as that breeds innovation, invention, desire, hard work etc. But he also believes - no, he states as fact - that too much inequality breeds social issues. So he thinks the right and left should agree that some level of inequality is needed, the debate should be about how much.
• He has never said that women should stay home. In fact, his belief is that the workforce needs more people with a high level of skill and ability and no right-thinking individual would want to deny 50% of the population adding to the level of skill and ability. That is why he is a strong advocate of equality of opportunity, but not of outcomes. He doesn't believe that there should be any quotas because that arbitrarily forces people into certain jobs, and that leads to a drop in quality.  Yes he has said that women should not be told that they will get satisfaction from being successful in their jobs rather than their home life, but he also thinks that for males. He's not pining for something that was the case 30 years ago, he actually thinks everyone should get the same opportunity to choose their occupation (reasonably, I assume he recognises that the inequality he thinks is necessary will impact some opportunity). Of course, he believes that men will choose "traditionally" male jobs, but he also provides research in very equal countries like the Nordic ones to support that belief.
• When asked about the legalisation of pot in Canada, I thought we were gonna get a conservative answer. Instead, he said "about time". Then he went on to say that if enough people think a law should change, then it should.

Yeah his political messages are like a politician on the campaign trail, in that they never get tested. But as a theorist I like him. Yeah he answers about topics he's not an expert on, and yeah sometimes he goes off a bit, but hey, if you put the greatest minds in history on tape every second day they'd say some stupid stuff too.

On the whole, I usually find myself learning something, or at least thinking about things differently, after watching him. And there are plenty of lefties on his videos saying they think he talks sense. I agree with them. But then again, I think that the left has lost the ability to determine which things are actually discriminatory, and have mixed up "the same" with equality (i.e. equality is good, but that doesn't mean everyone is the same) and so the SJWs do bug me, so maybe I'm a good candidate to drink his kool-aid.

Except he kinda sorta does. Maybe not directly. But through his other statements.  I guess this is part of the problem. He might talk about not denying 50% of the population  anything, but then he says 

- people should get married 

- women should have babies, and all want to eventually 

- you can't have a career and go off an have a baby.

A mischaracterisation no doubt. But a smaller one than saying marxists run the world in order to create a totalitarian thought police state in which we will all be slaves. Or even that the left want equality of outcome more than opportunity. 

And it's the same with the inequality stuff and his denial of privilege. There are all sorts of advantages and disadvantages  people get ftom context and circumstance (in turm affecyed by entrenched privelige) which affect opportunity directly. Denying that is denying equality of opportunity. 

Edited March 9, 2019 by marron

[wendybr]

10 hours ago, btron3000 said:

But then again, I think that the left has lost the ability to determine which things are actually discriminatory, and have mixed up "the same" with equality (i.e. equality is good, but that doesn't mean everyone is the same)

And sadly, this is true - and is driving intelligent people away from traditional positions held by the Left - and it's making it easy for the Right to lure people away, particularly younger people.

There need to be more people on the Left calling out what you refer to...the nonsense coming from the loud fringe elements of the Left.

Like this guy.

Sorry - posted at least once before....but these are  spot on in terms of the idiocy.

 

[wendybr]

22 minutes ago, marron said:

Except he kinda sorta does. Maybe not directly. But through his other statements.  I guess this is part of the problem. He might talk about not denying 50% of the population  anything, but then he says 

- people should get married 

- women should have babies, and all want to eventually 

- you can't have a career and go off an have a baby.

Really don't think he says all women should have babies and then can't carry on with a career.

But yes - he says (mainly referring to young women lawyers he has worked with) that successful young women who have prioritised a high status career often will feel cheated if they don't have a family. 

How do we know he isn't 100% spot on? 

This has never happened to the extent that it does happen now  - that women will choose careers over family.

I do know a number of women in their thirties who are extremely dissatisfied in being without a family.

One I know well, in a well paid career, has spent a fortune on trying to go it alone with IVF.....sadly so far unsuccessfully.

As with many things, I think his point is that we have gone too far into new territory for the human species...and it's hard to know the future consequences....

 

[StringerBellend]

25 minutes ago, wendybr said:

And sadly, this is true - and is driving intelligent people away from traditional positions held by the Left - and it's making it easy for the Right to lure people away, particularly younger people.

There need to be more people on the Left calling out what you refer to...the nonsense coming from the loud fringe elements of the Left.

Like this guy.

Sorry - posted at least once before....but these are  spot on in terms of the idiocy.

 

I can’t stand this guy either 

[marron]

Yes I know he doesn't say that they shouldn't have a career - he is saying that society doesnt let them. Fine on its own. But then you couple thst with his assertions that people need to get married and have kids and the implication is there.

I