What does an Interview with Dr. Jordan Peterson Really Tell Us about the left.

Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 5 months, 3 weeks ago to Video
26 comments | Share | Flag

Some don't appreciate "Intellectual take out" but this Is a current event and I think they have presented it reasonable well. However, I really don't think, nor have I observed, that these behaviors/idiotologies are as pervasive as they have been portrayed. They do effect the younger generations...and that's scary. Lets hope that the vast majority of Jordan's viewers are, the young.

The crux of the article below:
"But with the decline of marriage, and with it the influence on public policy of the shared interests of husbands and wives, we see the fruits of this tainted philosophy in growing numbers of single men and women imbued with hostility, mutual suspicion and grievance." "The small family system looks set to be replaced by the no-family system; but such an anti-social “society” will be ripe for a Marxist take-over, in which no one will have a family but everyone will have a Big Brother. All will be equal, but some will be more equal than others – the ones who are most zealous for “equality”." "Whether they will be men or women is a moot point; but they will certainly not be human."
SOURCE URL: http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/what-cathy-newmans-interview-jordan-peterson-really-tells-us


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by CaptainKirk 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    What was amazing was how disengaged he became, as he played chess with her SCRABBLE like ability to try to put words into his mouth. He was really listening, and choosing his words VERY carefully.

    She, however, was not.

    I see this a lot. I just talked to someone who BLAMED Bush Jr. that NOBODY went to jail after the Bankster Market Crash. She would NOT ACCEPT that it happened in 2008, and Obama took over in 2009, and had 7 years to prosecute people. Funny how Eric Holder only stuck around until the Statute of Limitations expired, and then went back to work PROTECTING CitiBank for millions per year!

    Simple math... Beyond them. Then of course, they JUMP to "Well Bush CAUSED it", and did nothing about it. Again, last half of last year in last term in office. Why didn't Obama go after them? Because BOTH parties drink from that well!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 3 weeks ago
    Just read this from Milton Friedman: "It is not the individual, but the family which is the basic unit of society." Leftists have been waging war on the family in myriad ways:

    Feminism: the notion that women are oppressed by men and should be granted special privileges all the while denigrating men.
    Homosexuality: denies the notion that both biological parents are necessary for proper development of children. Also encourages deviant lifestyles and sexual exploration before sexual maturity to desensitize children to the privacy of sexual intimacy.
    Nanny state: advocates for public schooling for children even as young as three. Entire purpose is to get children away from parents and indoctrinate them with leftist ideology, but also denies the critical bonding time necessary for small children to develop positive bonds with parents which enable them to take on family roles later in life.

    Individuals make decisions. Families make societies.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by gharkness 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      "Nanny state: advocates for public schooling for children even as young as three. Entire purpose is to get children away from parents and indoctrinate them with leftist ideology, but also denies the critical bonding time necessary for small children to develop positive bonds with parents which enable them to take on family roles later in life."

      THIS is exactly what the nuns were teaching me as young as first grade. Not that "liberals" or "leftists" - words I didn't hear until many years later - were doing this, but that the Communists - our uber-enemy of the cold war back then, would eventually make this happen. In our country.

      I realize that the good ole School Sisters of Notre Dame weren't exactly leading in independent thought back in the 50s, but it's all I had to work with at the ripe old age of 8 :-)

      And you know what? I think they were right. I have observed this in the 60 years since, and they actually arrived at this goal back about 20 years ago, if not sooner. Thank goodness my youngest child is mid-forties. We managed to raise both of ours without day care and all the other trappings of a liberal society.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        I see a huge difference between the children raised at home and the children raised in daycare. I see it in my own nieces. Children need their mother - and I would argue that those who care about moral values in society would do well to promote the true role of motherhood.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LibertyBelle 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      The individual literally exists. Not the state, not the race, and not the family. A family is made of its individual members.--However, this does not mean that the state should take over the family. (The family is closer to the individual than the state).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        "The individual literally exists. Not the state, not the race, and not the family."

        Not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain?

        "However, this does not mean that the state should take over the family."

        Agreed. As Friedman points out: the family is the basic unit of government in society. Attempts to replace the family with big government is part of the Progressive agenda.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by LibertyBelle 5 months, 2 weeks ago
          You don't understand what I mean by the statement
          "The individual literally exists. Not the state, not the
          race, and not the family."? I should think it would be
          pretty self-explanatory; If you look at what is before
          your eyes, you can see individual human bodies;
          these are the entities that literally exist, and these are the entities with rights. As I told my father before, I did not have any duty to get married and carry on the line, as some duty to the race, or the family; I had a right to live my own life. (Speaking in the past tense, as the issue is now moot anyhow; I am now too old to conceive any children anyway). Parents, having
          brought their children into the world, have the primary responsibility to take care of them; however, they have no right to violate their rights by murdering them, neglecting them, refusing them medical treatment which they can afford and which is necessary to save their lives because they get irrational notions that blood transfusion is a sin, etc.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 2 weeks ago
            Starting a sentence with "Not" and using neither subject nor verb was what confused me. I couldn't tell if it was supposed to be a continuation of the previous sentence or not, which was why I asked for clarification. As to whether or not each of these exist, they all do. If you are trying to establish a hierarchy or order, you'll have to be more explicit.

            "If you look at what is before your eyes, you can see individual human bodies; these are the entities that literally exist, and these are the entities with rights."

            I agree that families do not have "rights" as they are groups of people and rights only apply to individuals. Families are the first social arrangement, however, and therefore the first situation in which rights have any meaning. (Rights only exist within a societal context; if there is no one else, there is no one to violate your rights.)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  5 months, 2 weeks ago
        Also, the family of individuals have stronger ties to each other, perhaps, like a quantum entanglement, than any individual or family of individuals have with governments.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      "...both biological parents are necessary for proper development of children.", would indicate that children without both biological parents would not have proper development from foster parents, single parents, adoptive parents, or same sex parents. No wonder society is in a somewhat messy state with all those poorly developed children without biological parents.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        I don't know if you've noticed, but society IS in a messy state and we do have a lot of poorly developed children.

        Statistics continue to show that children raised in a home by both their biological parents perform better in school, are less likely to end up in jail, and are more likely to end up as contributors to society than those who don't. It is not saying that those who aren't raised by their biological parents can't do well, only that statistically they are at a significant disadvantage. Thus we should be striving for the best as the ideals and compensating should be the exception - not the rule.

        It is also worthy to note that the single biggest indicator of future incarceration is the lack of a father in the home.

        References:
        https://thefatherlessgeneration.wordp...
        http://unitedfamilies.org/child-devel...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  5 months, 3 weeks ago
      The way I understand the "Individual" and "Family" issue is that the Individual is the basic unit of property, (unto himself), and Family is the basic unit of Government. (like the Anglo Saxons practiced it). But yes!...a large family must be managed like a society within itself.

      To me, that makes a lot more sense. However, whether the individual or the family unit...the left has managed to dismiss both in one felt swoop.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by gharkness 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    I have listened to this interview four times now...and enjoyed it immensely. Almost as much as ARs writings...there's something new to hear/read in it every time.

    She (stupid interviewer) just doesn't seem to be able to accept the crux of his premise, which, boiled down, is: "Men and women are different."

    And (IMO) thank goodness they are! It's a very simple message! But that just tears her (and many like her) up.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  5 months, 3 weeks ago
    We should all listen to his debates...it will help us to get our language right when we speak to others...however, you can see here, that the left does not listen but to only pick out things they might use against you. Even if it's not relevant to what you said.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      The best tactic to use is to restate their erroneous restatements and address the fundamental assumption they build their fallacious arguments on. You can not allow a progressive to frame the debate, because they will just twist your words to suit their own narrative. You have to restate in your own words your own arguments and restate their arguments to expose the underlying fallacy.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CaptainKirk 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    When I was in Australia, I learned that young divorce men where the high risk suicides. They are being stripped of family wealth/homes so the wives and children live well. Then forced into a lifetime of slavery to pay for the family they can't be part of, living in a tiny apartment.

    And the women get free lawyers and just keep going after them for more. The news tries to hide all of this. But it is destroying the family and the country.

    Many a notes are found by their bodies that read the same thing: "It's one thing to be separated from your family and support them... But now that I cannot even see my children because of you, why go on supporting you?"

    The pendulum has swung WAY Too far for the women. Consider this, the courts hold BOTH of these things as true (Typical Liberal Move)
    1) Women are EQUAL Partners (ie, get 1/2)
    2) Women NEED Alimony and the man needs to work to pay it.

    I'm sorry... Rule 1 implies that she is JUST as capable of supporting me, and she EARNED 1/2 of everything (somehow).

    But (typically) only the guy is enslaved to paying Alimony. Rarely is palimony ever paid, unless it's a female star...

    Imagine having to pay Alimony for life to your wife, who just got 1/2 of the retirement you earned.

    Finally, they estimate that about 20% of children in marriages might not be the spouses child. and current law is written so that even if you can prove it, and get a divorce, you owe child support!

    it's crazy. The decline of marriage has a LOT to do with the TONS of laws that are held against the man once he signs on the dotted lines.

    I have a friend who got his wife a lawyer to review the prenup she agreed to. The lawyer said "You may not want these things now, but if you change your mind, this prevents that. Because of that I cannot recommend you sign this!"
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    I call it the FSA, free shit army. Those who work and support themselves and their family are being overtaken by those who suck off the government teats. Working couples can't afford to pump out child after child while those who work the system can and do have very large families. In the eyes of a true Democrat that equates to more democratic voters in the future. The question remains, What to do when they run out of other peoples money?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo