Jordan Peterson on Q&A

For those interested, Jordan Peterson is on Q&A right now.

TV (or live stream here https://iview.abc.net.au/show/abc-live-stream because I am deal monitors and not getting up)

1 Like

Watching psudo-intellectual feminists debate psychology with an actual professor of psychology.

oh-my

It burns so much, I can feel it from here.

Jordan Peterson is cool as a cucumber. Some people in the audience clearly out to get him.

Oh, undoubtedly, it’s just awesome demonstration of stupidity. You have 40 minutes of internet research trying to ‘get’ a dude who’s built a career on this over decades.

It’s like trying to stop an oncoming train with your head. Worth watching, but you know how it’s going to end.

I don’t know who that lady in blue jacket is, but daaaamn she is outclassed, to sink so low to start mocking people as her ‘debating approach’. Ouch.

I’m waiting for the fireworks between Peterson and Van Badham.

Van Badham (uh! That’s the bird in blue jacket) - she is severely outclassed, in both intellect and approach. She’s mocking people… That’s pretty much over for her. Fireworks is more like, he’s setting her on fire and roasting marshmallows with a smile, while singing ‘stuck in the middle with you’.

1 Like

Vanessa “Van” Badham is an Australian writer and social commentator. A playwright and novelist, she writes dramas and comedies.

Bwahahahahahahaha

She’s spewing thingly veiled communist rhetoric. Dumb thing didn’t do her research, because he kinda wrote a book arguing her entire opinion (Maps of Meaning).

OMFG personal responsibility, OWNED, did you pick that up ?

1 Like

Who the fuck is that guy…

I turned away for 10 minutes - what happened?

Oh entire panel is now ganging up on Badham. Made her answer first.

1 Like

All that quota stuff really irks me though - even if 50% of your candidates were women, and assuming blind selection, doesn’t necessarily mean that there will be 50% selected. Binomial distributions and mathematical variance are still there.

There’s a good talk somewhere on that. Something to do with STEM graduates vs hiring, albeit in USA. Something to do with 1:4 female graduates, but companies going for 50:50 hiring, meaning that it’s actually less men and more women.

@Tempestman
found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCrQ3EU8_PM

Actually something that I’ve seen to effect in my engineering course. women are something like 10% of my engineering cohort, yet they get employed at roughly 50% of Eng grad program roles.

I wanna preface my next statement with this - they are just as competent and able as the male students.

But it really annoys loads of the dudes in the course that they get a $5,000 one off scholarship for being a woman, they have exclusive women only network programs, which run almost as frequently as as the normal ones, and they’re pretty much guaranteed jobs after graduation.

I get that there is the whole historical thing, and it’s the encourage women into industries they were classically excluded from, but it really feels like a sins of the father thing that they effectively punish men for the decisions that past men made.

Mmmmmmmmm. There is light at the end of that tunnel.

*** update ***

Watch the link above.