Michael Eric Dyson/Jordan Peterson

Fun thread for Grammar-Nazis. Here's a transcript of their 'heated exchange' at a recent Munk debate. Is it really fair to judge a man's grammar as uttered a live debate? Maybe, maybe not. But, wait! There's more! I'm not a fan of JP, but as I watched, I couldn't help thinking that this guy, Michael Eric Dyson, is a vocabularyist, blowhard who talks himself into holes, loses his train of thought, and ends up leaving sentence fragments all over the place. JP is not necessarily that much better, but he at least connects his ideas, directly, and does so in an intelligible way. This is a fun thread, intended to pick apart some of the vocabularyist, cargo-cultish newspeak and incoherence of Michael Eric Dyson. I plan to post a webm, later.

MOD: Mike I want to come to you on the on Jordan’s point about how does he in a sense get an equal voice in this debate back if it is implied that his participation brings with it this baggage of "white privilege” that doesn't allow him to see clearly the issues that are before us.

MED: but that is to be complicit in the very problem itself terminologically. You’re beginning at a point there's already productive and controversial. You're saying how can he get His the equality back. Who are you talking about? Jordan Peterson? Trending number one on Twitter? Jordan Peterson an international bestseller?? I want him to tweet something out about me on my book?? Jordan Peterson?? right? this is what I’m saying to you why the rage bruh?
You’re doing well but you're a mean mad right man and you're gonna get us right, and I have never seen so much whine and snowflaking. There's enough whine in here to start a vineyard, and what I’m saying to you empirically and precisely when you ask the question about white privilege the fact that you ask it in the way you did, dismissive, pseudo-scientific, non-empirical, and without justification a) the truth is that white privilege doesn't act according to quantifiable segments. It's about the degree to which we are willing as a society to grapple with the ideals of freedom justice and equality upon which it’s based. Number two was interesting to me you're talking about not having a collective identity what do you call a nation? are you Canadian are you Canadian by yourself?? are you an individual are you part of a group?
When America formed its union, it did so in opposition to another group. So the reality is is that those who are part of group identities and politics
denied the legitimacy and validity of those groups and the fact that they have been created, thusly, and then have resentment against others. All I'm asking for is the opportunity. The quotation you talk about the difference between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. That's a staid and retried argument, hackneyed phrase derived from the halcyon days of the debate over affirmative action: “are you looking for outcomes that can be determined equally or are you looking for opportunity”?
If you free a person after a whole long time of oppression and say “now you are free to survive”. If you have no skills. if you have no quantifiable means of existence. what you have done is liberated them into oppression. And all I'm suggesting to you… Lyndon Baines Johnson one of our great presidents said “if you start a man in a race a hundred years behind it is awfully difficult to catch up.” So I don’t think Jordan Peterson is suffering from anything except an exaggerated sense of entitlement and resentment and his own privilege is invisible to him and it’s manifest with lethal intensity and ferocity right here on stage

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.fo/WS68T
archive.fo/dSqol
archive.fo/Uu329
archive.fo/fE1ln
archive.fo/PIXRF
twitter.com/AnonBabble

JP: Well what I derived from that series of rebuttals let's say is twofold: the first is that saying that the radical left goes too far when they engage in violence is not a sufficient response by any stretch of the imagination because there are sets of ideas in radical leftist thinking that led to the catastrophes of the 20th century and that was at the level of idea not at the level of violent action. It's a very straightforward thing to say you're against violence it's like being against poverty it's like you know generally speaking decent people are against poverty and violence. Doesn’t address the issue in the least. And with regards to my privilege or lack thereof, I mean, I'm not making the case that I haven't had advantages in my life and
disadvantages in my life like most people you don't know anything about my background or where it came from it doesn't matter to you because fundamentally I'm a “mean, white man”. that's a hell of a thing to say in a debate.

MED:The “mean mad white" comment was not predicated upon my historical excavation of your past its based upon the evident vitriol with which you speak and the denial of a sense of equanimity among combatants in an argument so I'm saying again "you're a mean mad white man and the viciousness is evident."

JP: well I think I'm I'm going to point out two things again. The first is
that my question about when the left goes too far still hasn't been answered. And then the second thing I’m going to point out is that you know it’s conceivable that I am a mean man. You know, I mean maybe I'm meaner than some people and not as mean as others. I think that's probably more the case. But, I would say the fact that race got dragged into that particular comment is a better exemplar of what the hell I think is wrong with the politically correct left and anything else that could have possibly happened.

MED: Imagine the hurt, the anxiety, the insult that you might genuinely feel according to what I felt was an appropriate comment of description at the moment of its expression. But imagine, now, those hurt feelings, and

JP: I’m not hurt. I’m appalled.

MED: and went okay you feel great you feel great about it.

JP:That’s really different I'm not a victim I'm not hurt, I’m appalled

MED: So you okay wouldn't be a victim so what what's interesting is that whatever non-traditional feelings of empathy you endure at this particular point. The point is imagine then the horrors that so many other others have had to put up with for so long when they are refused to acknowledge their humanity now I take your point seriously.

JP: so your group oppression justifies your racist insult to me

MED:let me finish. let me finish.
You're not my Inquisitioner. okay what I'm saying to you is that when you said you were upset that I added the element of race there right what I said mean mad white man. Well, what’s interesting is that you may have felt that you were being ascribed the group identity to which you do not subscribe. You may have felt that you were being unfairly judged according to your particular race you may have felt that your individual identity was being besmirched by my rather careless characterization of you. All of which qualifies for a legitimate, you know, response to me but also the point we’ve been trying to make about the refusal to see our individual existence, as women, as people of color as, first nation people and the like. My point simply has been: the reason I talked about race in that particular characterization because there's a particular way in which I have come to a city I don't know if there are a lot of black people out here. Not sure. But I constantly come to places and spaces that are not my natural habitat other than intellectual engagement and the love and the fury of rhetorical engagement yes. But I often go into hostile spaces where people will not vote in favor from my particular viewpoint because I'm interested as an individual of breaking down barriers so that people can understand just how complicated it is. So what I'm saying to you is that I would invite you in terms of the surrender of your privilege to give you a specific a specific response come with me to a black Baptist Church. Come with me to a historically black college. Come to me to an to an indigenous or First Nations community where we're able to engage in some of the lovely conversation, but also to listen and hear. And when I added race to that I was talking about the historically events’ inability to acknowledge others’ pains equally to the one that they are presently enduring. As a human being I love you my brother, but I stand by my comment.

JP: Well I've seen the sorts of things that you're talking about. I happen to be an honorary member of an indigenous family, so don't tell me about what I should go see with regards to oppression you don't know anything about me.

MED: You ask me a question I gave you a response.

JP: Yeah you gave me a generic response, a generic race-based response.

MED : It’s tailored toward you. Jordan Peterson I would like for you to come with me Michael Eric Dyson to a black Baptist Church you've been to one of those?
JP: I would be happy to do that, but I think that…
MED: okay all right I'm gonna hook you up i’ma hook you up.

According to Webster's
Equanimity: evenness of mind especially under stress

"Equanimity among combatants" is either a poor use of "equanimity" or "combatant". The last time I checked a list of logical fallacies, a hostile tone (if indeed JP was hostile) is not one of them. Nor is it a devious sleight of hand in a debate. Regardless, if these two are combatants, why would either of them expect equanimity? And if either is expecting equanimity, then why refer to the debate participants as combatants?

Webm

Attached: Jordan Peterson Vs. Michael Eric Dyson, Heated Exchange Munk Debate Extended Clip (1).webm (720x408, 7.99M)

Pic related is a good summary, but it would still be funny to pick apart Dyson's abuse of the English language.

Attached: good summary of MED.png (860x116, 43.97K)

Attached: Trigger_Nigger4.jpg (1280x960, 268.34K)

...

...

Attached: Particular.png (1890x896, 263.41K)

lol


Again, Webster's
Predicated: something that is affirmed or denied of the subject in a proposition in logic

The common use of the word "predicated", as he seems to intend its use here, could be phrased as "action based on (usually unverified) assumption". i.e. The war in Iraq was predicated upon Israeli "intelligence" reports of the presence of weapons of mass destruction.

MED, again, opts for a word with more syllables, a word which is a quite specific synonym for the word "based".

Was it careless, or was there a reason behind it?

...

...

I'm so disappointed in the quality of debate which these heralded 'intellectuals' took part in. I got about half way through the source video on Peterson's youtube channel before closing it in disgust. There seems to be little debate actually occurring, instead we're just sitting here watching 4 people with inflated egos go on about trivial semantics in regards to what defines identity, directing their tirades to no one in particular. Certainly their rhetoric was rarely directed to one another, outside of shameless ad hominem, and they seem more to be talking out their own independent thoughts on the matter than they were actually talking with each other.

What's else is the pathetic sham of 'right' wing which was brought out to parade in front of the masses. It reeks of bread & games for the those just smart enough to know who Marx is and who once read the introductory wiki paragraph on what constituted philosophy. We've got a centre left, Jewish, homosexual and an individualist, anti-nationalist. Somehow the latter still gets plastered as a misogynist, far right extremist and even (comically) a nazi. I'm astonished by the pathetic level of discourse which defines modern political conversation.

The CIGI Persons

There are a number of CIGI persons connected to the University of Toronto, which is the same university Jordan Peterson teaches at:

The president of CIGI, Rohinton P. Medhora, “received his doctorate in economics in 1988 from the University of Toronto, where he also subsequently taught for a number of years. In addition to his Ph.D., Rohinton earned his B.A. and M.A. at the University of Toronto, where he majored in economics.”
archive.fo/WS68T (Medhora)

Sarah Burch, a senior fellow with CIGI’s Global Economy Program, had her most recent book (entitled Understanding Climate Change: Science, Policy and Practice) published by University of Toronto Press, 2014.
archive.fo/dSqol (Burch)

Joël Blit, a CIGI senior fellow, “holds a Ph.D. in international economics from the University of Toronto, an M.A. in economics from the University of Western Ontario, an M.B.A. from INSEAD, an M.Sc. in computer engineering from the University of Waterloo and a B.Sc. in engineering science from the University of Toronto.”
archive.fo/Uu329 (Blit)

John Borrows, a senior fellow with CIGI’s International Law Research Program, was a professor in the faculty of law at the University of Toronto. “John’s publications include Recovering Canada: The Resurgence of Indigenous Law; Canada’s Indigenous Constitution; Freedom and Indigenous Constitutionalism; and Drawing Out Law: A Spirit’s Guide, all from the University of Toronto Press. He holds a B.A. in political science and history, an M.A. in geography, and a J.D. and an LL.M. from the University of Toronto.”
archive.fo/fE1ln (Borrows)

Andrew Clement, a University of Toronto professor, is also listed on the ‘person’ page; however, there is no info whatsoever about what he has to do with CIGI. This is all we’re given: Andrew Clement is professor emeritus in the Faculty of Information at the University of Toronto, where he coordinates the Information Policy Research Program and co-founded the Identity Privacy and Security Institute. With a Ph.D. in computer science, he has had long-standing research and teaching interests in the social implications of information/communication technologies and participatory design. Among his recent privacy/surveillance research projects is IXmaps.ca, an internet mapping tool that helps make more visible NSA mass internet surveillance activities and the routing of Canadian personal data through them.
archive.fo/PIXRF (Clement)

It’s highly likely that Clement and Peterson know each other quite well.

I think what he means is

God, I hate having to read shitty homework.

So, if it's controversial, then debate it. MED doesn't lay out the reasons why this is controversial. Is it controversial to argue for a white man's equal representation at their table? Is it because a significant challenge to that idea has been presented?

I felt the same no one actually wants to get to the meat and potatoes of the argument they just sit their spouting talking points at each other. The idea that JP is right wing or even a National Socialist is fucking laughable and the black idiot spouting shit off about race is just resentful of whites wanting their own self determination.

I believe at this point that it's all NWO optics propaganda to bolster Peterson's position as edgy intellectual for the young men. There's no way all his growth has been organic, at least.

Those who have accomplished something as individuals feel no need to be proud of their race.
- Jordan Peterson

Real cultural appropriation – that's when someone is proud of his culture despite having done nothing to support it, extend it or transform it: a message to the far right.
- Jordan Peterson

You shouldn't be "proud" of your culture: you should be honored by the privilege of partaking in it, and grateful for its existence, despite your inadequacy. That is not at all the same thing.
- Jordan Peterson

Q: What's the goal of the radical right? A: Unearned identity with the glories of the past.
- Jordan Peterson

Now the right-wing identitarians have their panties in a knot about what I've said about the pathology of racial pride…. Demonstrating (as if it is necessary) that the mirror reflection of malevolence is also…. malevolence.
- Jordan Peterson

Yes, Peterson's eventual indignant and defensive response to the charge that he's a "mean mad white man" (what the fuck grade is MED in, 2nd?) is that MED doesn't know his background, and that he is an honorary member of a first nations tribe. Identity politics is only ok if you're not white, right, JP??

Not a big fan of social solidarity is he the idea that you accomplish something as a group can't be that foreign to him.
So much for big brain Peterson i guess.

Jordan Peterson is not only not right-wing, he's an anti-rightwinger who occasionally pretends to be based and right-wing so the kids will listen to him. In reality, he's a fucking NWO plant and everything about him is fake: he's not Christian, he's not against globalism, and he's not against the NWO.

Another summary of the debate:
JP: the left's ideas are violent
MED: you have white privilege, so you have no place in the discussion
JP: yes I do
MED: You're a mean mad white man
JP: I'm an honorary Indian
MED: now come to my church

Michael Eric Dyson is the very definition of the Sambo Nigger that Dems love so much. A light skinned black man who "sounds white" when he talks. He was the Proto-Obama, but with more energy.

You haven't learned yet: Peterson rarely ever tells you what he actually believes. Usually, when he states x, he actually means y and y is code for x. The best example is Christianity and metaphysics. If you read 12 Rules for Life, he cryptically admits he's actually just a materialist and atheist. Never take anything he says at face value.

Webm part deux

Attached: Jordan Peterson Vs. Michael Eric Dyson, Heated Exchange Munk Debate Extended Clip (2).webm (720x408, 9.73M)

Sounds like contrived Bread and Circuses for the plebs. The exchange is 100% rhetorical but it's designed to sound deep and intellectual. In reality, it's "no, you". People are moved more by appearance than content.

MED's last response was pure gish gallop. That guy is one of the most frustrating speakers I've ever heard. He uses 10,000 words when 10 would do.

Why is he so asshurt over the concept of race then? is he some crypto Jew worried that whites will start buying shares in pizza ovens?

Attached: ZbAOA.jpg (720x534, 48.9K)