Political Correctness

[Spurgy 777]

I got the feeling she was just trying to pin down what his own stance and opinion was, something which he constantly (and very competently) avoided.

I agree with @Whitestar, he was incredibly clear about his views for every question she had as well as providing his justification for them. Cathy on the other hand was either not listening or was intentionally strawmanning everything he said due to her own bias and emotions, he made her look like a fool and I lost count of the number of times she came out with nonsense that clearly wasn't true, she even tripped over herself a few times trying to justify it. Based on how consistent and blatantly wrong she was with her responses I suspect it's the latter.

 

[mustafur]

Focusing purely on outcome is anti logic, then giving simple made up reasons why that can be without looking into detail just makes you look like you should be doing something else with your time.

Gender pay gap exists we should fix it!

Ok why?, that assumes everyone who works ever only cares about pay at the expense of everything else, because let's be honest here, that everything else we are talking about effects your pay.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I got the feeling she was just trying to pin down what his own stance and opinion was, something which he constantly (and very competently) avoided.

We must have been watching a different video.

 

[twitcher]

C4 is a standalone public broadcasting corporation under the Department of Digital Culture, Media and Sport, not part of the BBC although it's owned by the same public.

What is the Department of Digital Culture, Media, and Sport? Is that a government thing?

I got the feeling she was just trying to pin down what his own stance and opinion was, something which he constantly (and very competently) avoided.

She, along with anyone else actually interested in his "stance" on these topics could very easily spend some hours watching his YouTube channel, where he gives very detailed and explicit explanations of his positions, and reasons for them.

She even went as far as throwing the Alt Right label at him. Again, something he has talked about in detail on his channel. Before he even became YouTube famous, the first series of videos he uploaded is his course lectures relating to his first book, Maps of Meaning, which is a detailed analysis of human belief and motivation, aimed specifically at answer the question of, "what in the actual 🤬 happened in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany that could cause regular, average human beings to commit such atrocious acts". What led him to ask these questions to begin with was the guards at Auschwitz, regular people who did some of the most aweful things imaginable. He spent over 20 years trying to figure this out. He is as much against far right ideology as he is against far left. Again, all evident in his content on YouTube, if people would watch it.



My favourite quote has got to be,
"But what about their right to not be offended."

Which countries Bill of Rights has that one jotted down?

 

[nobuffalo]

I got the feeling she was just trying to pin down what his own stance and opinion was, something which he constantly (and very competently) avoided.

I too would like for you to elaborate on this if you could.

Even in her twitter post sharing the video she misconstrued his words.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I too would like for you to elaborate on this if you could.

Even in her twitter post sharing the video she misconstrued his words.

This interview could be a case study in how some people just don't listen and can't have a reasoned discussion as a result. She wasn't intent on actually probing him for his views and getting to the heart of what he believes, right or wrong, agree or disagree, she spent 30 minutes trying to find a gotcha moment so it could go viral and she failed. The good Dr., of course, handled it like a champ like he always does.

 

[mustafur]

To me it looks like her disagreeableness is how she got into her position in the first place because she lacks talent on how to hold any kind of reasonable debate, her tweet afterwards is just embarrassing.

 

[twitcher]

Just a follow up to the CH4 interview.

On YouTube alone, the full interview has been watched 3.25 million times in 7 days.

The comments section of the YouTube video, along with Cathy's twitter feed, are roughly 80:1 critizing her. Some comments are vulgar and immature, but the overwhelming majority are just harsh criticism.

Because response to this interview has been so strong, CH4 had to "call in security experts to handle the misogynist abuse." Nearly every British mainstream medi outlet has run a story condemning the interview and condemning Peterson for "sicking his gang of internet trolls on poor helpless Cathy". They've thrown every label possible at him.

Edit: forgot to add, re the security thjreat. Orginially, Newman posted a video of her sitting in what is presumably a cop car, with a friend, watching a tablet, and laughing at the comments people were making. She since took the tweet down, but people screen shorted it and archived it already lol.

Peterson has reached out to Cathy Newman and CH4, propposing a second conversation. He does not consider what happened to be a "victory", or at least not a good one.

Here's something I've come across since the CH4 interview. It's an actual breakdown of how the mainstream media goes about controlling the narrative. Eric Weinstein is the brother of Bret Weinstein, the Prof who caused all the controversy at Evergreen College. He's an incredibly intellegent man.











https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/955128183816253440

https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/955129704385662976

https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/955131952377442304

https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/955134621078835200

https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/955136753454624768

https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/955138512214306816

https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/955140105034809344


There was another person, I can't find the tweet right now, who on the very first day that this video went up, he laid out the road map of exactly what mainstream media would do to JPB, and they're following it to a T.

 

[nobuffalo]

Even in her twitter post sharing the video she misconstrued his words.

I might be wrong about this. I was watching the video again and around 16:40 it sounds like she says "what does that make me, a _____ man or something" and he said "yeah to some degree". So technically he did say it but I don't know if he really meant it literally.

 

[x3ra]

And for those SJWs https://www.dailywire.com/news/2638...ged-abusing-3-girls-says-amanda-prestigiacomo.

Identifies as a 9-year old child , so that gives a P to the LGTZ, and no I don't really think that he does, I think it's a defence strategy.

 

[TexRex]

And for those SJWs

How's that?

 

[BobK]

that gives a P to the LGTZ

What, pray tell, does that alphabet soup mean?

 

[Spurgy 777]

What, pray tell, does that alphabet soup mean?

My guess is pedophile, lesbian, gay, transgender zombie.

 

[Dennisch]

It does make you wonder what all those who see more than 2 genders will do with this.

 

[PeterJB]

My guess is pedophile, lesbian, gay, transgender zombie.

Being un-dead (presumably caused by straight white men), that's the ultimate oppression.

 

[TexRex]

It does make you wonder what all those who see more than 2 genders will do with this.

Does it, though?

 

[Imari]

I mean, claiming to be gay or trans doesn't get you out of rape, I don't see why claiming to be a 9 year old trapped in a fat bastard's body would. Even if it wasn't clearly insane.

If he's claiming to have the mental capacity of a 9 year old they actually have a description for that. But I don't think I'm allowed to say it, last time it got edited by a mod. It's funny because I'm pretty sure the use of the word in that context started as a euphemism, and now it's flat out insulting.

 

[Dennisch]

Spoiler: Extremely racist ad. Careful.

....

 

[UKMikey]

Spoiler: Extremely racist ad. Careful.

....

Some 24-year old rapper and a few (not all) of his Twitter followers throwing their dummies out of the pram doesn't strike me as widespread social condemnation, but hey.

 

[Dennisch]

Some 24-year old rapper and a few )not all) of his Twitter followers throwing their dummies out of the pram doesn't strike me as widespread societal condemnation, but hey.

It was enough for Heineken to pull the ad.

Also, who said it was wide spread? The fact that it's seen as racist is stupid enough and shows what people will do for a bit of attention.

 

[UKMikey]

It was enough for Heineken to pull the ad.

Also, who said it was wide spread? The fact that it's seen as racist is stupid enough and shows what people will do for a bit of attention.

If it isn't widespread then what does it have to do with PC? It just becomes a "look at this stupid person on Twitter" post. If Heineken want to get jumpy and pull their ad it's up to them but not even all the rapper's followers agreed with him, let alone anyone else.

 

[Mr Tree]

Just a follow up to the CH4 interview.

On YouTube alone, the full interview has been watched 3.25 million times in 7 days.

The comments section of the YouTube video, along with Cathy's twitter feed, are roughly 80:1 critizing her. Some comments are vulgar and immature, but the overwhelming majority are just harsh criticism.

Because response to this interview has been so strong, CH4 had to "call in security experts to handle the misogynist abuse." Nearly every British mainstream medi outlet has run a story condemning the interview and condemning Peterson for "sicking his gang of internet trolls on poor helpless Cathy". They've thrown every label possible at him.

Edit: forgot to add, re the security thjreat. Orginially, Newman posted a video of her sitting in what is presumably a cop car, with a friend, watching a tablet, and laughing at the comments people were making. She since took the tweet down, but people screen shorted it and archived it already lol.

Peterson has reached out to Cathy Newman and CH4, propposing a second conversation. He does not consider what happened to be a "victory", or at least not a good one.

Here's something I've come across since the CH4 interview. It's an actual breakdown of how the mainstream media goes about controlling the narrative. Eric Weinstein is the brother of Bret Weinstein, the Prof who caused all the controversy at Evergreen College. He's an incredibly intellegent man.











https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/955128183816253440

https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/955129704385662976

https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/955131952377442304

https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/955134621078835200

https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/955136753454624768

https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/955138512214306816

https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/955140105034809344


There was another person, I can't find the tweet right now, who on the very first day that this video went up, he laid out the road map of exactly what mainstream media would do to JPB, and they're following it to a T.

I'm sorry isn't it a bit snowflaky to cry about what adjective they use?

Doctor Peterson for example is someone who questions my biases continuesly, this is largely due to his controversial points of view. But this doesn't stop me from watching him. On the contrary!

It also comes accross as slightly hypocritical to be 'advocates for free speech' and then complain about the adjectives the media uses.
This imo is the same as making people use euphimisms because of PC and imo is PC itself.

If it isn't widespread then what does it have to do with PC? It just becomes a "look at this stupid person on Twitter" post. If Heineken want to get jumpy and pull their ad it's up to them but not even all the rapper's followers agreed with him, let alone anyone else.

Is something only PC when a huge group of SJW's starts boycotting it?
Or can an action of an individual be PC?

 

[UKMikey]

Is something only PC when a huge group of SJW's starts boycotting it?
Or can an action of an individual be PC?

It depends on what your definition of political correctness is. Condemning the opinion of a particular individual just because it disagrees with your own seems like the complete opposite of what a PC-watch thread seems to me to be set up to do.

If on the other hand "PC" is simply code for "spot the wacky left-winger" then carry on.

 

[Dolph Drago]

I had to laugh when I read the headline of this one. Then I just shook my head at the stupidity of everything...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mount-ho...ls-professors-avoid-word-women-020618924.html

 

[TexRex]

*looks at calendar*

Yep, still three full days to go. If one doesn't identify as a woman, what is one doing at a women's college?

Wiki says it was the first member of the Seven Sisters colleges and served as a model for the others. Why did it have to be a model? Can't it be an engineer? A pharmaceutical researcher? A firefighter? It's not right to impose certain occupations based on gender, you know.

Edit: I have a joke about the name, but...you know...totes inappropes.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If it isn't widespread then what does it have to do with PC? It just becomes a "look at this stupid person on Twitter" post. If Heineken want to get jumpy and pull their ad it's up to them but not even all the rapper's followers agreed with him, let alone anyone else.

This is the inevitable path that political correctness leads to. In an attempt to not be seen as politically incorrect, at the least little hint of being associated with an SJW smear campaign and, in spite of the ridiculousness of the allegation to begin with, Heinkeen pulls the ad. McCarthyism in the digital age.

 

[UKMikey]

This is the inevitable path that political correctness leads to. In an attempt to not be seen as politically incorrect, at the least little hint of being associated with an SJW smear campaign and, in spite of the ridiculousness of the allegation to begin with, Heinkeen pulls the ad. McCarthyism in the digital age.

You're welcome to petition Heineken to reinstate the ad but I don't think your slippery slope argument answers my question. Ad companies are more concerned with who they're going to reach and nobody's rights are infringed by them changing their approach to their own campaign. It's not going to make the sky fall in.

I'm fine with wacky institutions being used as examples of political correctness but if you think individuals shouldn't voice their concerns about racism, no matter how misguided, then that's hardly championing free speech. Let the idiot open his mouth, it's easy enough to provide a counterargument as many people did on Twitter.

 

[UnkaD]

My niece told me that her professor wrote her a warning about using the offensive word "revolting" in an essay, even though she was quoting the author that was assigned to the students. The professor also said to message back if she needed more help about what is appropriate.

Where in the hell is "revolting" ever an offensive term? This is some scary stuff.

 

[TenEightyOne]

My niece told me that her professor wrote her a warning about using the offensive word "revolting" in an essay, even though she was quoting the author that was assigned to the students. The professor also said to message back if she needed more help about what is appropriate.

Where in the hell is "revolting" ever an offensive term? This is some scary stuff.

If she quoted it correctly (according to the institution's citation guide) then she should seek clarification from the Professor and be prepared to take the enquiry higher - a set text is a set text.

If the word was her own thought or feeling then maybe it fell outside the brief of a third-person non-descriptive work? Otherwise it's hard to imagine how a tertiary quote of a set work is unacceptable. There must be more to it than that.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You're welcome to petition Heineken to reinstate the ad but I don't think your slippery slope argument answers my question. Ad companies are more concerned with who they're going to reach and nobody's rights are infringed by them changing their approach to their own campaign. It's not going to make the sky fall in.

I'm fine with wacky institutions being used as examples of political correctness but if you think individuals shouldn't voice their concerns about racism, no matter how misguided, then that's hardly championing free speech. Let the idiot open his mouth, it's easy enough to provide a counterargument as many people did on Twitter.

It's only the pc police that makes "changing their approach" a thing to begin with. If everyone in the ad were white it would be "racist". If it were for a dark beer and any word even remotely connected in the most innocent way with people of colour it's "racist". Using another culture to sell your beer? Cultural appropriation. There's no pleasing the pc police.