Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

Jordan is deep to a degree that helps me ground out because it's obvious that there are others who think on a deeper level than me.



Honestly I can only listen for short period of time like 20-30 minutes because it's to deep. I need to lighten up. Jordan is an advocate for young men. He talks about finding meaning and value in masculinity. He is kind of a 3rd wave feminist Achilles hill in a sort of way. He believes that men and women both have values that individually complement each other and in today's society being a man is less, attractive. He also talks about the fake news of the pay gap. Pretty solid debating points from Dr. Peterson.

Anyway enjoy!

I will watch, but I've found his (and others) descriptions of how modern identity politics has roots in cultural marxism to be enlightening. There is some truth to it, in the sense that old school marxism was economic class based, and now it's monolithic identity classes. And a perceived clash of them. There are other elements described, without getting too into it.

a reply to: toysforadults

a reply to: toysforadults

While there are clearly situations where pay gaps exist, it makes almost zero sense from a business perspective to focus on which gender is getting how much of the pie. This man is right when he speaks about being careful what's wished for.

Think about it, if companies could save 9% on salary by not having to pay a woman full value, then all businesses would be filled with only women. I feel women make better employees, so if I could hire all women at a 9% savings, then my business would be a women's club only.

We live in a free market arena. If women are interviewing for jobs taking a lesser pay that they feel is owed, then the employers are going to be missing out on a lot of talent for stupid reasons. Employers offer fair market wages to all, as no employer is thinking on terms of equal pay based on which genitalia one carries.

Men are wired to travel from A to B without much concern for what's going on in the middle. Women are wired to analayze every little detail along the way from A to B. Seriously... women are just reading way too much into this fallacy of a social justice due to being dominantly wired from the other side of the melon that men are.

Geez... there's just no winning with that interviewer... she is a tough cookie. He's constantly having to stall his points to include small aspects as she beats his answers into blanket statements. I'd have a hard time in that interview, as I believe complaining about stuff without an offer of correction will never move debate forward.

a reply to: ttobban

That interviewer was impossible to listen to. I don't even think she was taking her self seriously but she has to say those things to keep her job. Just blatantly twisting everything he says in such an obvious way I don't know how you couldn't see it.

a reply to: toysforadults

I love interviewers like that... it forces people to be on their toes. For starters, when someone is abrasively firing rolling questions and accusations like that it forces the receiver of them to think from memory and not make crap up that makes a good show. He even broke her in the interview, because he had valid answers to what she thought was very tough to defend debate. My favorite part is when she stalled, not even able to find the words to utter as he broke her down.

Great addition... that man is very intelligent and I'd invest more into his works if I actually thought the gender pay gap debate had a credible foundation being built up.

Just a weird time we live in... this shift into the female age. It went from 'Not In My Backyard' to 'If I don't like it anywhere I travel I plan to eliminate it' real quick, didn't it?

a reply to: ttobban

This tyranny is coming fast. Been moving in that direction for over 100 years now.

a reply to: toysforadults

I will watch later. He is brilliant.

An academic that will not bow down to even legal threats to tell the truth.

a reply to: toysforadults

In a way it makes sense to me, so I am content to enjoy the circus. The world has been well built up to this point in time on the traits of masculinity. I guess it has served its time, and I do kind of wish for the new shift to include people using their hearts as a priority to their logic. When people were prepping for the world to end on 12/21/12, I was simply marking it as the turn of ages... where people are forced to learn a world of living through the heart.

I think all this fussing is the male side of the equation being beaten into submission, and the turmoils in between are mostly the men that prefer to keep a woman at home like a possession. The debate kind of gets put to rest quickly when men with reasonable logic enter into the debate and validate the concerns while proving points invalid at the same time.

I am thinking of opening a professional 'whistle blower' business. Where all these groups can formulate an easier battle to equality as I profit from individuals that are latching to groups to gain relevancy. That man specifically mentions that aspect, and I have a tough time honoring any group efforts of divide. Only rule is... no white male Americans are allowed to be hired. There's just no profit in staking claims of hardships for this particular group of humans... sorry.

a reply to: toysforadults

That guy would do great in a debate.

He described the interviewer in such depth that she agreed with him that she was a disagreeable person. Once she came to the realization that he was right, she sort of eased up and made the interview a little less hostile.

Great thread.

a reply to: ttobban

between are mostly the men that prefer to keep a woman at home like a possession.

Would that not raise a question?

Why would a woman choose to be kept home like a possession?

a reply to: 3daysgone

Sure that should raise questions... many of them.

I can't answer that 2nd one, I am a man... although I am a practicing lesbian.

I was just pointing out how when logical men that are middle ground and not focused on divide that the gender pay gap debate dwindles swiftly. Add a male that is more of the possessive/gender role type, and 3rd party viewers will tensity rise as the debate moves on.

Relationships are a 2 party system, so I don't offer relationship worthiness gaps much debate either. As weird as it might seem to answer why a woman would want to be kept as a possession is just as weird as a woman that is in fact being kept at home like a possession... living through the daily struggles of choosing a poor mate.

All I can think of in that interview is this scene... it's too funny that Peterson is the same name! The interviewer was definitely turned to Ed Rooney by the end!

He left her hot. Guaranteed. Hard to debate his erudite debate. Worth the watch.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: toysforadults

I will watch later. He is brilliant.

An academic that will not bow down to even legal threats to tell the truth.

We need more standing up to the more extreme end of identity politics. Plenty will tell the truth (and do) on random sub topics, or the economy, or foreign policy. But right now in academia it is dangerous to question social justice dogma surrounding race, gender, immigration etc. Just about anything else is fair game.

a reply to: toysforadults

Just to help you out in the future:

In Greek mythology, when Achilles was a baby, it was foretold that he would die young. To prevent his death, his mother Thetis took Achilles to the River Styx, which was supposed to offer powers of invulnerability, and dipped his body into the water; however, as Thetis held Achilles by the heel, his heel was not washed over by the water of the magical river. Achilles grew up to be a man of war who survived many great battles. One day, a poisonous arrow shot at him was lodged in his heel, killing him shortly afterwards.

en.wikipedia.org...

Not being a dick, just sharing to avoid confusion.

a reply to: toysforadults

I can't believe it took him 16 minutes to finally laugh.
This whole interview is him clearly stating out his thoughts, then the interviewer, either not understand him, or purposefully misrepresent what he said. Then he corrects her.
Rinse, repeat.
Until close to the end, where he uses her own logic against her. After that, she asks questions that allows him to expand on his responses, instead of defending and correcting.

@22:57 that look of complete destruction on her face is priceless. She keeps baiting and putting words into his mouth, but he won't have any of it.

That was a great video.

My first impression is that she tirelessly tried to take his thoughts and misconstrue them into somethings he never said. Fascinating. I have come across many people who will do the same thing. Not only could he back up his information, he made her look and stumble for more controversy which was not found.


I will be on the lookout for more of this.

a reply to: Konduit

That clean your room pic.

People will think thats some sort of joke.

Its not. I swear after listening to him tell me why I need to clean my room, I was inspired.

The man is a genius, and a breath of fresh air in the world of academia.

a reply to: Konduit

I was really hoping that he was going to get her back when she mentioned that pink helmets cost more than blue ones.
I was waiting for him to ask why pink had to be for girls and blue for boys.
Would have been great. His response was just as good, though.