Mens Tennis Forums banner

61 - 78 of 78 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,380 Posts
I do agree with what he says after 1:12. However, to suggest that people who go through a rough time while serving return home wanting to carry out an organized and systematic genocide (going all the way to putting children into ovens) is a really ignorant thing to say.

One thing I find odd is the non-reaction from the two hosts, who are in fact jewish.

All in all, I have listened to this man talk about various subjects and it's hard to consider him anything else but an eloquent right-wing conservative.
Their "non reaction" might be rooted in the fact that, unlike the person who posted that video, they were not spending the conversation assuming the worst, acting in bad faith, and actively trying to find a way to frame him as a Nazi apologist -- even if the content of his words plainly diverges from the way they are editorialised by that Twitter communist.

He was not talking about the Shoah in that video. He was talking about the rise of the Nazi movement and the circumstances under which Hitler managed to build his support. It is not controversial to say that antisemitism was widespread in Germany, nor to point out that many people blamed Jews for Germany's woes (e.g. the "stab in the back" idea). There are also a lot of people who think that Germany was treated unfairly when the Big Four were writing up the Treaty of Versailles (John Maynard Keynes was a major contemporary critic, for instance). It's unreasonable to frame that video as Nazi apologia. Most of his comments are fairly standard fare, albeit presented through a Jungian lens: Germany was in a state of total chaos, people's lives were in ruin, resources were scarce, the currency was worthless, and people were desperate. Hitler tapped into popular prejudices and exploited the mob mentality.

Needless to say, hindsight is everything. In 1933, Hitler was viewed by many people as just another national-reactionary dictator; nastier than Salazar and Dollfuss, but not a major aberration from German or European statesmanship. It is easy in 2018 to moralise about this, but you have no idea if you would have enjoyed the foresight that everyone else lacked in 1933. For a lot of people, it was not until Kristallnacht that the real nature of the National Socialist government became apparent, which is broadly regarded by historians as the beginning of the Shoah.*The programme of mass-exterminations -- the Final Solution -- was at most a distant concept in 1933.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,257 Posts
Their "non reaction" might be rooted in the fact that, unlike the person who posted that video, they were not spending the conversation assuming the worst, acting in bad faith, and actively trying to find a way to frame him as a Nazi apologist -- even if the content of his words plainly diverges from the way they are editorialised by that Twitter communist.

He was not talking about the Shoah in that video. He was talking about the rise of the Nazi movement and the circumstances under which Hitler managed to build his support. It is not controversial to say that antisemitism was widespread in Germany, nor to point out that many people blamed Jews for Germany's woes (e.g. the "stab in the back" idea). There are also a lot of people who think that Germany was treated unfairly when the Big Four were writing up the Treaty of Versailles (John Maynard Keynes was a major contemporary critic, for instance). It's unreasonable to frame that video as Nazi apologia. Most of his comments are fairly standard fare, albeit presented through a Jungian lens: Germany was in a state of total chaos, people's lives were in ruin, resources were scarce, the currency was worthless, and people were desperate. Hitler tapped into popular prejudices and exploited the mob mentality.

Needless to say, hindsight is everything. In 1933, Hitler was viewed by many people as just another national-reactionary dictator; nastier than Salazar and Dollfuss, but not a major aberration from German or European statesmanship. It is easy in 2018 to moralise about this, but you have no idea if you would have enjoyed the foresight that everyone else lacked in 1933. For a lot of people, it was not until Kristallnacht that the real nature of the National Socialist government became apparent, which is broadly regarded by historians as the beginning of the Shoah.*The programme of mass-exterminations -- the Final Solution -- was at most a distant concept in 1933.
I'm not saying he's necessarily a nazi apologist though, and whatever the twitt states is really not of my concern.

Separating the rise of the Nazi party and the Shoa is impossible. Bot projects were deeply entangled between them, Hitler needed to create the conjuncture in which such an abomination was to be carried out (ultimately, the war) and that was a long and steady process. Even in its early stages, Hitler's coming to power finds a strong founding stone in the form of antisemitism. Well before the attacks of November 1938 a systematic campaign against jewish people had already started. By 1933-1934 jewish people were already being pushed out from certain positions (universities, civil service, law of court) and after that they were considered second-class citizens. In 1935 the Nuremberg Laws forebode marriage between jews and germans and jewish households weren't able to employ german women anymore. These laws resulted in the exclusion of Jews from German social and political life. By August, polish jews were expelled from Germany. So, by November 1938 Hitler's vision of a new Germany through jewish cleansing was well known. The structure for what was to come was already set.

This was a long thought and well planned project, which took many years to be carried out. Fear and prejudice were slowly made a part of the german people's lives and of course whoever didn't agree with the ways of the new Germany... well he wasn't going to last much (hello fascism). My critique on what Peterson says is that narrow vision about what soldiers go through on the battlefield and the long, cold and well planned genocide in the first part of the video. Which didn't only need from the people alone, but also the support of german businessmen and a wide array of social actors. Many people watch their friends die while serving and despite enemy nations/cultures but that's one huge leap towards systemic ethnical cleansing. It's a far more complex process than that and in a way I think Peterson himself realizes that he needs to broaden his own argument when he goes from what soldiers went through in the field of battle to Hitler's exploitation of Germany's fear and hatred.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,008 Posts
guys like Peterson will make liberal TV networks to stop these "diversity hires" and start looking for educated people that could stand in a debate. This is embarassing as are the attempts from some people to link him with far right ideologies. This is a standard leftish attempt when they lack argumentation (happens very often) to link almost anyone they disagree with the far right and immediately negate their arguments (even if they are factually based) because what does it matter what a nazi says...right??

The war against common sense needs eloquent people like Peterson that have the energy to deal with the PC lunatics out there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,605 Posts
I have just watched a longish interview with Peterson.

Much of what he is saying is just common sense in the western tradition. He says you learn you improve and realize your potentials. If you are ignorant you can't change yourself for the better let alone the world. If you meddle with something you don't really understand in order to 'improve' it, chance are you'll create a mess instead. If you want to really help someone tech them to fish, don't give them fish. He condemns the collectivist thinking and is clearly anti-tribal. He recognizes there are some fundamental values. In absence of the stronger influence of church and family he comes across as a sort of modern priest. Maybe his messages could be more useful for the rest of the world, but the format is obviously shaped for and appealing to the people coming from the circle of christian civilization (I don't mean religion). It also shows that the west has changed, and we know that not all changes are good, even when most of the changes are good. I was not brought up in a religious family, so maybe that is why I am not prone to the format of preachers or preaching, but I'm generally OK with his message.

What I sort of didn't like was his emotional high pitched voice. The self-deprecating sound, although it may also be a part of the western tradition, clashes with his message somehow. But then I suspect that is exactly why the left sense he is a formidable opponent. A successful and influential professor who has been learning all his life and has the capacity to cry and feel,(and nowadays emotions are weaponized and appropriated by the left) against a lazy bunch who think they can correct the world with eternal finger-pointing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,605 Posts
I have watched some more, talking with students and he was very well received, I saw no controversy there at all. I find the man himself much more interesting that his ideas (which I mostly agree with, and it is not too difficult to get where he comes from).

He is fantastic at formulating sentences, great with words, aptly doses his passion and intonation. He would probably be a very good actor too. He has the looks and a sort of charisma. And I think he enjoys his celebrity status.

He looked more comfortable when discussing things with a man than when he talked to a woman in another interview. In the latter case I thought I detected a touch of passive-aggressiveness.

I think he is a curious and complicated person, both very rational and also prone to some sort of mysticism, which is not easy to describe but you can feel it there. An interesting mix. No wonder he is into Russian writers, no doubt he is an intelligent and knowledgeable person. He also displays both characteristics that people usually designate as typically masculine or typically feminine. Along with what I would describe as sort of British eccentricity, he is definitely a strange cat and I see how difficult it would be to place him in a box.

All this reaffirms my hunch that it is why the left considers him a strong opponent, the man utilizes their weapons to a great effect. And I can understand his appeal to the young people. Pity the times of the prophets, disciples and martyrs are long gone, at least as far as I am concerned. But definitely it is not bad to have someone like him around as a sort of counterweight in today's popular culture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,008 Posts
I have watched some more, talking with students and he was very well received, I saw no controversy there at all. I find the man himself much more interesting that his ideas (which I mostly agree with, and it is not too difficult to get where he comes from).

He is fantastic at formulating sentences, great with words, aptly doses his passion and intonation. He would probably be a very good actor too. He has the looks and a sort of charisma. And I think he enjoys his celebrity status.

He looked more comfortable when discussing things with a man than when he talked to a woman in another interview. In the latter case I thought I detected a touch of passive-aggressiveness.

I think he is a curious and complicated person, both very rational and also prone to some sort of mysticism, which is not easy to describe but you can feel it there. An interesting mix. No wonder he is into Russian writers, no doubt he is an intelligent and knowledgeable person. He also displays both characteristics that people usually designate as typically masculine or typically feminine. Along with what I would describe as sort of British eccentricity, he is definitely a strange cat and I see how difficult it would be to place him in a box.

All this reaffirms my hunch that it is why the left considers him a strong opponent, the man utilizes their weapons to a great effect. And I can understand his appeal to the young people. Pity the times of the prophets, disciples and martyrs are long gone, at least as far as I am concerned. But definitely it is not bad to have someone like him around as a sort of counterweight in today's popular culture.
you have come a long way from not knowing who he is 4days ago. :)
 

·
RAVE ON
Joined
·
18,075 Posts
Is this really what passes for morning TV in Australia? So bad, it is difficult to watch.

Still, full marks for Jordan’s accent.
 

·
-Lifetime Scientist-
Joined
·
12,111 Posts
I had heard about him in passage a few times and also seen some youtube recommendations before but had never watched anything from him until now. I only saw the videos in post 3 and post 1 so far, in that order. Boy, the rigor in his speech really struck me and it seems a lot of people can't handle it, goes to show how unscientific the minds of so many are. How deep is his level of thinking, I do not yet know, but I'll watch more. From what I heard so far, he seems to be too constrained by past and present frameworks which may limit his level of creativity in finding solutions (I'm basing it mostly from the hierarchy debate), but I don't have a definitive say on that yet.

On the hierarchy debate, one of the solutions is to lift the pyramid as a whole so that even those at the bottom are well off. I would say that we have to evolve past the property system to achieve that. Once a proper management of the planet is attained, then material wealth is excluded from the pyramid, so that's one problem solved (and a major one). I agree that hierarchy forms naturally and it is counterproductive to go against it, but as he says it is important to monitor it and make sure it does not get too steep or ossified, I think long term (I'm talking centuries here) the height of the pyramid can be significantly shortened. One thing that he misses is that while capitalism is not the fundamental cause of hierarchy, the problems inherent to hierarchy are exacerbated by capitalism.


"Jordan Peterson argues Hitler and the Nazis were doing what was only normal and logical given the circumstances"

Both this part of the statement and what Jordan said is correct. Reality is logical so obviously whatever happened in the past had to be logical. Was it normal? In what sense? In the sense that it was one of the possible outcomes given the circumstances? Then ofc it was normal for it was not only one of the possible outcomes, it was the only possible outcome, for it is what happened - this is true for anything in the Past.


Anyone who actually listens to that video will be well aware that what the poster wrote beneath it is totally at odds with what Peterson actually says.
I've only started to discover him now, but seems like a recurrent pattern of behaviour from his detractors, though in this case they were inadvertently partially correct, as I have explained above.


I do agree with what he says after 1:12. However, to suggest that people who go through a rough time while serving return home wanting to carry out an organized and systematic genocide (going all the way to putting children into ovens) is a really ignorant thing to say.

One thing I find odd is the non-reaction from the two hosts, who are in fact jewish.

All in all, I have listened to this man talk about various subjects and it's hard to consider him anything else but an eloquent right-wing conservative.
Again, that's not really what he said. He was talking about Hitler and saying some of the reasons that lead him to be the way he ended up being, this is actually nothing new. Sure, it was a simplified version, a partial summary, what would you expect from a 2 min video?


I mean I can't say I know the guy, first time heard in this thread, but he seems like a clever guy and knows his stuff around his expertise (phycology), but why does everyone feel like they have to say something regarding politics? I am a political science grad, (also had MA afterwards) I really can't understand why respected intellectuals feel forced to reveal their political position about current events or say something controversial, and usually bottle it ultimately, together with their interesting looking persona or opinions
It's pretty normal for people to want to influence things to be the way they think they should be and politics is one of the ways to do that.



P.S. Almost forgot about the issue of hitting women, which was in one of the articles Chris posted and I wanted to discuss that, tomorrow I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,173 Posts
I like how you smuggle in the concept that if you are not 'progressive' (whatever that means) you might not be too bright. Typical arguments, or lack thereof. You can nit pic all you like because you don't agree with his position, but without a decent argument you are just handwaving.
'Progressive' means nothing, or rather it means 'everything outside what self-proclaimed progressives think'. And then if you're in that outter space you're not merely non-progressive but a 'fascist', an 'alt-right', a 'far right' and other similar labels. Oh and you're dumb, needless to say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,115 Posts
I mean I can't say I know the guy, first time heard in this thread, but he seems like a clever guy and knows his stuff around his expertise (phycology), but why does everyone feel like they have to say something regarding politics? I am a political science grad, (also had MA afterwards) I really can't understand why respected intellectuals feel forced to reveal their political position about current events or say something controversial, and usually bottle it ultimately, together with their interesting looking persona or opinions
If I were in his shoes right now, I would probably stay silent about politics. Why? Because it always antagonizes people and you can probably build a bigger brand if you just shut up about it. But do you even realize how sad that is? The fact that just expressing your opinions on something makes you a target for large groups of people.
Yeah it does come from both sides, but it comes way more from the so called "progressive left" who are everything but progressive or tolerant. Even in this thread you can see a few dumb fucks who couldn't hold themselves from insulting and spraying bs about this guy just because he apparently goes against their agendas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,115 Posts
It's my prejudice, I am not someone who would buy a book with such title, and maybe Peterson wouldn't either, maybe I'm more like him preferring to offer some advice. I wanted to say it was my initial reaction, and I agree such books are probably more often than not written by progressives, for progressives.

I just remembered a German novel called Perfume which was recommended to me and it turned out to be great and enjoyable despite the title that I highly doubt would have attracted me. So yeah, don't judge a book by its cover, I have found the idiom to be literally true a few times.

There is an old joke about a guy who advertised a proven and simple advice to get rich quickly for 1$. When he collected like a million requests he sent them a letter with one line: "Do something like I just did".

I have absolutely nothing against Peterson's success, on the contrary, and didn't mean to belittle someone I know next to nothing about. And I think you know what I think about all this PC rubbish. When I see who has influenced him, I think it's probably worth checking him out.
By having that prejudice and making a decision based on it rather than gathering facts first and then deciding is exactly the opposite of that openess and limitlessness that you were talking about in your previous post, just pointing that out.
 
61 - 78 of 78 Posts
Top