patrick.net

I like Jordan Peterson A LOT. I'm a huge fan and I'm what you guys call left wing. Truth is I'm very moderate,
but liberal compared to our skewed politics today.

The lady is digging at Peterson and things he's on the record saying in a way that allows him to make his points very well. For all we know, she or her producer are fans of Peterson's, helping showcase some of his arguments. You have to have someone taking the other side. If you make them look stupid, all the better (if you actually agree with him). You really think the intent of this broadcast was to make the left point of view look good ?

Think about it. It's television. Not a demonstration of left versus right. Maybe a demonstration of silly/stupid versus smart.

You wish it was right versus left because that fits a fantasy description of "the left" which is to associate it with the most far left SJW imbecile gender studies majors on college campuses. That would be like me saying that everyone on the right is like the worst right wing trolls on this forum. Obviously not true. I know of many sane and relatively moderate republicans. Although even many of them live in a bubble to a great enough extent that they might buy into the nonsense of your assertions here - at least to some degree.

Goran_K says

This is why Leftism is going to eventually die out: Ideology vs Truth.

I see this video as evidence of the opposite. Which view do you think the typical center liberal identifies with when they watch this ? Everyone is learning about the silliness of the far left sjws, and many moderate liberals even blame them for Trumps being President.

Nice try though.

Plenty of real liberals identify with this point of view.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html

marcus says

For all we know, she or her producer are fans of Peterson's, helping showcase some of his arguments. You have to have someone taking the other side. If you make them look stupid, all the better (if you actually agree with him). You really tink the intent of this broadcast was to make the left point of vew look good ?

I'll admit that could be a possibility, but why make the debate look so one sided? btw, I've seen Jordan Peterson do this in public debates before (Shapiro as well). I've never seen a leftist publicly debate either individual and not come out looking like a moron.

Just the way Cathy Newman reacts, visible facial ticks, and the way she's emotionally responding, it tells me she was being genuine. Or Cathy Newman is actually one of the best actresses of our time and should quit her job as a news anchor. To me, it just doesn't seem realistic for someone like Cathy Newman (well known leftist personality) to "throw a debate" especially for someone she probably hates. I think this was 100% genuine.

The funny part is, Peterson isn't a right winger. He's a true LIBERAL. Cathy is a leftist. 99% of Democrats don't know the difference.
marcus says

You wish it was right versus left because that fits a fantasy description of "the left" which is to associate it with the most far left SJW imbecile gender studies majors on college campuses. That would be like me saying that everyone on the right is like the worst right wing trolls on this forum. Obviously not true. I know of many sane and relatively moderate republicans. Although even many of them live in a bubble and to varying degrees would buy into the nonsense of your assertions here.

No, I don't. I actually wish debates were more like the above video. I want ideas to be exposed to the daylight of public review and opinion instead of the indoctrination most people get from MSM, or Hollywood. Youtube and social media has made this possible. CNN and MSNBC and other lefty networks have tried to control the narrative and that's not helpful to us as a nation. If an idea is bad, it should stand the test of being reviewed and questioned, not blindly accepted.

I saw Don Lemon (CNN's favorite black parrot) attack Martin Luther King Jr's nephew of being a fame seeker, using MLK's name to get attention simply because he didn't think Trump was racist (an opinion shared by MLK's niece, Alveda King, as well). Can you believe that? Trying to tear down the MLK's family members simply because they don't agree with CNN's fantasy narrative that Trump hates people of color.

That IMO is ridiculous. The debate between Peterson and Cathy Newman is what we need, for all of these issues. I seriously want to see Chuck Schumer defend why 800,000 illegal aliens should get amnesty without border and immigration reform.

Goran_K says

saw Don Lemon (CNN's favorite black parrot) attack Martin Luther King Jr's nephew of being a fame seeker, using MLK's name to get attention simply because he didn't think Trump was racist (an opinion shared by MLK's niece, Alveda King, as well). Can you believe that? Trying to tear down the MLK's family members simply because they don't agree with CNN's fantasy narrative that Trump hates people of color.

I saw that interview, but my objective take away very different than yours. Yes, Lemon defines racism differently than the MLK nephew. But one of the points that the MLK nephew made was that some might argue that what Trump did in his campaign was WORSE THAN BEING RACIST, BECAUSE HE INTENTIONALLY MANIPULATED RACISTS. I don't think you give Don Lemon enough credit.

The MLK nephew was basically trying to show understanding by defining or focusing on what is racism to some as ignorance instead. That being his strategy as someone involved in the push for social evolution and helping us move forward and get along - rather than name calling which is obviously counter productive.

marcus says

But one of the points that the MLK nephew made was that some might argue that what Trump did in his campaign was WORSE THAN BEING RACIST, BECAUSE HE INTENTIONALLY MANIPULATED RACISTS. I don't think you give Don Lemon enough credit.

Uh no. Here's how that exchange went.

Don Lemon: "That's sort of what I just said, it makes [Trump] a racist."

Issac Newton Farris: "Uh, no no no. That, no. It maybe makes what you said or done a racist act, but it's not racist in your HEART."

They then go on to talk about a variety of subjects with Don Lemon trying to call the birther movement "racist", and talk about the Mexican border comments Trump made during his campaign.

Don Lemon: "We have a list (of Trump's racism), you can just take a look at the list."

Isaac Newton Farris: "Well well then let's take those. The Mexican comment, right after he said that, he said I'm sure there are good people. If you're a racist, you're assuming all people are not good people."

Then Don Lemon goes into a racist tirade of how white people are scared about losing the demographics battle (and advantages ... whatever those are) in the United States and Farris agrees. Now here's the part you're not taking in the correct context. Farris says after Don Lemon's race based tirade that Trump may have used that demographics fear to win the election, but he never says that ALL WHITE PEOPLE are racists like you're implying in your analysis. He says that the demographics fear means there should be a real conversation about race in America, but he never calls white people racist and Trump manipulating racists. That's ridiculous.

Here's the interview for all to see. www.jvTsDvi_F6E

I don't think I'm painting Don Lemon incorrectly here. Don Lemon is ultra focused on race, in all of his talking points and how he see's the world, he's by definition a racist.

This interview did not go well for Don Lemon, he ends up accusing Isaac of being a fame seeker trying to capitalize on his MLK name. That's how bad Lemon gets.

Two things:

1. "leftism" is one of the new designated propaganda words of 2017-2018. Before that I never heard of it, now it is being echoed everywhere in the propaganda echo chamber.

2. equating feminism with "leftism" is yet another propaganda technique. This particular thread is a perfect example. Rather than arguing against feminism, which is what it should do, it argues against "leftism" by equating it with feminism.

Goran_K says

e never calls white people racist and Trump manipulating racists. That's ridiculous.

It might not have been word for word correct, but it was my take away. Go to 6:20 or so.

Goran_K says

never calls white people racist and Trump manipulating racists. That's ridiculous.

You're right, he never calls anyone racist. But it doesn't change my take away from what he says at 6:20 or so.

Yes, Don Lemon vigorously challenges him on whether Trump is a racist. Giving him the chance to make his point about avoiding name calling.

marcus says

Goran_K says

never calls white people racist and Trump manipulating racists. That's ridiculous.

You're right, he never calls anyone racist. But it doesn't change my take away from what he says at 6:20 or so.

Yes, Don Lemon vigorously challenges him on whether Trump is a racist. Giving him the chance to make his point about avoiding name calling.

A racist used to be somebody who wanted segregation and laws barring people of other races from equal opportunity. Nowadays it is used for people that don't want laws tampering with equal opportunity by giving certain races or genders advantage by law. So the definition has pretty much been 180 degrees reversed by left. Thus any discussion with somebody like Don the Lemon or his ilk becomes useless drivel.

marcus says

Yes, Don Lemon vigorously challenges him on whether Trump is a racist. Giving him the chance to make his point about avoiding name calling.

Don Lemon was clearly trying to goad one of MLK's relatives to call Trump a racist, but doesn't get what he (or his CNN masters want). After the interview ends, and after the commercial break, why does Lemon apologize to his audience for the way the interview went and then claim "I didn't know we where going to have this man on."

That's complete BS. It seems Don Lemon and CNN were trying to use the MLK name to push their agenda and when that didn't happen, Lemon went on one of his bitch fits on live TV again.

justme says

equating feminism with "leftism" is yet another propaganda technique. This particular thread is a perfect example. Rather than arguing against feminism, which is what it should do, it argues against "leftism" by equating it with feminism.

What's the difference these days? It's part of the leftist platform.

Bernie Sanders, Pelosi, Warren, and Clinton have all made tweets about the the supposed gender "wage gap" despite numerous studies proving it's completely false.

That's the top DNC brass right there.

marcus says

Plenty of real liberals identify with this point of view.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html

Yup. I consider Peterson and Dave Rubin among the "true" liberals (not leftist).

Leftism is a dying platform and if the DNC doesn't adapt, it could mean a loss of power for a very long time. Identity leftism is being completely exposed for the political lie it's been for years.

Goran_K says

Leftism is a dying platform and if the DNC doesn't adapt

Total semantics bullshit. If you said the same about identity politics I might agree with you.

We only need a more sensible "leftism." But the right wing policies that drive inequality, that is the real economic policies, including the "starve the beast" right wing deficit spending policies which are going on again with current tax cuts. These are examples of the degree to which the country continues to slide to the right.

A "left" that figures out how to challenge these, will simply be a more effective leftism, addressing the problems that affect the majority of us. It will still be the left. You can't swing as hard to the right as we have (not talking socially) without eventually causing the existence of a strong left.

RIght wingers only wish that the future left wing would be about identity politics.

Goran_K says

Leftism is a dying platform and if the DNC doesn't adapt, it could mean a loss of power for a very long time

I hope so. leftists are like the second or third generation of wealthy parents. The first generation works hard and saves every penny and very careful and know risks, hunger etc.

The second has some memory and stories from aprents and the third think they are superman and money grows on trees. They live in an abstract world with no concept of reality.
The same for the divorced women and child support freaks who get obscene amounts for sitting on their asses with no accountability.

Today in the leftist world view-they think we are in the top of the world, never can come tumbling down and help the poor downtrodden third worlders while getting their welfare from their parents or the gubmnt or poor ex husbands.

They are the true racists, because they cannot comprehend a third worlder as an equal as a competitor who can take our place any time in the world stage. They talk about the 1%, their govt drones live off us like the soviets and they seek to beat down the talented, the hard working and take their money-like they do from their parents and govt.

They simply cannot comprehend that if we are not competitive, we can fall and become a third world shithole very quick .

The supply of stupid lefties seem infinite and I fear we may fall and become some leftie paradise like the soviet union or the former China-before they adopted capitalism.

Trump is a shot at stopping this slide and if we are to keep at No 1 with our living standards-we have to be smart and respect all other countries and realize they are just as talented and smart as us and we have to compete. We cannot be racist like the lefties who think we are oh so superior and keep helping the poor illegals-they will eat our lunch. But the deranged lefties are too third generation to even comprehend how the real world works.

marcus says

Total semantics bullshit. If you said the same about identity politics I might agree with you.

We only need a more sensible "leftism." But the right wing policies that drive inequality, that is the real economic policies, including the "starve the beast" right wing deficit spending policies which are going on again with current tax cuts. These are examples of the degree to which the country continues to slide to the right.

A "left" that figures out how to challenge these, will simply be a more effective leftism, addressing the problems that affect the majority of us. It will still be the left. You can't swing as hard to the right as we have (not talking socially) without eventually causing the existence of a strong left.

RIght wingers only wish that the future left wing would be about identity politics.

You can call it BS, but the major figure heads (Clinton, Sanders, Warren, Pelosi) of the DNC have adopted leftism. Leftism is dead because it's extreme always leads to socialism. Leftism doesn't seek to address the problems that "affect the majority of us" or the DNC wouldn't be shutting down the government over 800,000 illegal aliens.

I disagree deficit spending is a ring wing policy singularly seeing as Obama added more to the national debt than any other president in history. Deficit spending is a symptom of ALL big government. The only way to decrease deficit spending is to decrease the size of government. Voting Democrat is the opposite of that which is why I haven't voted Democrat (or GOP) in over a decade.