Joe Rogan Experience #877 - Jordan Peterson

[adwinistrator]

I am probably going to listen to all of these eventually, thanks everyone.

Got my friend to listen to the Peterson 'cast, he really liked it too.

Listening to the Dan Carlin one yesterday, was astonished to find that Dan's wildly erratic and jarring volume levels clearly aren't caused by his own recording equipment like I thought, but it comes from within. Joe's volume is consistent, Dan sounds like two different people.

Dan made the critical mistake of drinking Joe's coffee, but didn't balance it out with the herb. Rogan's got a method...

[SuburbanFarmer]

I am probably going to listen to all of these eventually, thanks everyone.

Got my friend to listen to the Peterson 'cast, he really liked it too.

Listening to the Dan Carlin one yesterday, was astonished to find that Dan's wildly erratic and jarring volume levels clearly aren't caused by his own recording equipment like I thought, but it comes from within. Joe's volume is consistent, Dan sounds like two different people.

He seemed a little frantic in the latest CS show, too. One has to wonder why he's the first to be so detail-oriented and comprehensive in podcasting...

Paging DrY.

[doc_loliday]

[DrYouth]

He seemed a little frantic in the latest CS show, too....

Paging DrY.

I noticed that too...

That's vintage Carlin... he's mellowed over the years but it shows up when he gets excited and Dan obviously has a man-crush on Burke...

That and sinking the DCF was probably still on his mind.

[Martin Hash]

I'm going to listen to this Jordan Peterson interview again, it's exceptional, but I recognize that Peterson is speaking from the hot core of his expertise; I doubt he could be as verbally facile in this forum, for example.

[Speaker to Animals]

I'm going to listen to this Jordan Peterson interview again, it's exceptional, but I recognize that Peterson is speaking from the hot core of his expertise; I doubt he could be as verbally facile in this forum, for example.

I thought you would like it.

[adwinistrator]

I'm going to listen to this Jordan Peterson interview again, it's exceptional, but I recognize that Peterson is speaking from the hot core of his expertise; I doubt he could be as verbally facile in this forum, for example.

He certainly has a unique (to me) way of breaking down and describing ideas that to me was quite thought provoking... Had me contemplating ideas I had settled opinions about in a new way, reevaluating my conclusions.

[de officiis]

https://jonathanturley.org/2016/12/14/z ... she-or-he/

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

https://jonathanturley.org/2016/12/14/z ... she-or-he/

I find this whole thing fascinating, and wonder if it is peculiar to English.

This is second hand, because I neither speak Japanese, nor have read much Japanese literature, but according to a friend, Japanese doesn't have gender specific pronouns, but their pronouns often signify status. Because of that, their literature often plays with gender ambiguity in relation to status or power. And, gender ambiguity has always been a part of how they describe people.

On the other hand, there are romance languages where every inanimate object carries a gender signifier. I wonder if they have they same 'problems' we are having, because the gender of pronouns doesn't seem like it would carry any meaningful weight when it comes to personal identity since it is rather arbitrarily assigned to unthinking objects.

In English though, we have specific non-gendered pronouns already for objects, so referring to people as 'it' or 'that' sounds cruel, since it sounds like they aren't people. And, since pronouns with gender exclusively refer to sentient things, there is a push to create special new words that carry person-hood, but not gender.

Gender specificity isn't inherent to communication, or even to objects with sex organs when it comes to language, so I guess having the word 'ze' doesn't exactly bother me, but making it the required term seems idiotic. (Especially since, in conjugation [zer, zis], it carries with it an artifact of our current pronouns, making it basically useless.) If people start using it, and it catches on because it is useful in a descriptive way, fine by me, but forcing it on people is way too authoritarian for my taste.

Getting bent out of shape over the fact that the language you speak doesn't conform to your personal identity strikes me as arrogant, solipsistic, and stupid; but I am curious if any other posters have any insights to how this is playing out with different languages, or if it is simply not an issue.

[Mercury]

Epistemological argument between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris, if anyone is interested; Harris is trying really hard to be condescending:

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-is-true