:aweshum
What are you talking a boat benjii cannot PRO CESS this
If any of this thread in Englishtry using a information gain/understanding pro-cess
If any of this thread in Englishtry using a information gain/understanding pro-cess
Is there really a crisis among men? I look around and men still act like men.
Is there really a crisis among men? I look around and men still act like men.
Okay, so here's the thing, after he was mentioned in the depression thread and I saw it in the related of that crying video, but after I saw the kermit one, I watched one of his normal class lectures (I'm assuming) regarding actual clinical psychology topics. From like 2011 or 2010 or something.
And he should grow that beard back, and join me in gaining a few pounds.
But also my endless rage at listening to him. It's just those vile Canadians and their normal soundingness then they suddenly break and are Yoopers times ten. Exposing their inner selves of evil they work so hard to suppress. Good people don't do what Canadians do.
Your mom should have swallowed it down.
You know, I walked into that one and it's my fault. When he says that, it's clear he's talking about the people he directly touches with a message about intentional life, not making a general statement about all or most men in society.
Is there really a crisis among men? I look around and men still act like men.
White males accounted for 7 of 10 suicides in 2016. (https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/)
Yes, I'm sure we just need more context on the discussion about how women who wear lipstick are hypocrites for not wanting to be sexually harassed. Vice is clearly holding the full interview back because they don't want to be embarrassed by Peterson's hyperintellectual truths.
Peterson's basically saying that if a woman is sexually harassed for trying to make herself look more attractive, then they brought it on themselves.
ok to contribute to this makeup in the work place malarky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL-1kHxsavI
If I had to choose between a clinical psychologist with an average of 50 citations per paper on 120 research papers and one salty boi on the bore about human behavior.
Fuck man, hard choice.
If I had to choose between a clinical psychologist with an average of 50 citations per paper on 120 research papers and one salty boi on the bore about human behavior.
Fuck man, hard choice.
I too, get all my information on Cultural Marxism from a clinical psychologist.
If I had to choose between a clinical psychologist with an average of 50 citations per paper on 120 research papers and one salty boi on the bore about human behavior.
Fuck man, hard choice.
If I had to choose between a clinical psychologist with an average of 50 citations per paper on 120 research papers and one salty boi on the bore about human behavior.
Fuck man, hard choice.
I too, get all my information on Cultural Marxism from a clinical psychologist.
you know he also has a ba in political science aswell right?
I like how you cropped out the rest of my post that basically articulated the joke video.
I like how you cropped out the rest of my post that basically articulated the joke video.
So you were posting a video in a post that was completely unrelated to what you were trying to say?
If I had to choose between a clinical psychologist with an average of 50 citations per paper on 120 research papers and one salty boi on the bore about human behavior.
Fuck man, hard choice.
I too, get all my information on Cultural Marxism from a clinical psychologist.
you know he also has a ba in political science aswell right?
like i don't understand what lipstick is for and why women are wearing it except as a tool for attraction, it's certainly not functional
lmao a ba
they should expect to be harassed.
I like how you cropped out the rest of my post that basically articulated the joke video.
So you were posting a video in a post that was completely unrelated to what you were trying to say?
im not even sure how to address this.
It's grooming?Yes, I agree that women have been groomed to do this!
like i don't understand what lipstick is for and why women are wearing it except as a tool for attraction, it's certainly not functionalHis claim wasn't that it was merely because of attraction, but because it mimicked what happened when a woman is sexually aroused which implies a causation that isn't scientifically verifiable (like most evopsych theories) and ignores the possibility that it is an aesthetic decision, a way of projecting professionalism, cultural expectation, self-image, etc
and i would also stipulate that obviously management or men etc. strongly encourage (read: force) women to wear makeup in professional environments (by not acknowledging them or devaluing their opinions when they don't) precisely because those men attribute a lot of a woman's value to her sexual worth.
It's grooming?Yes, I agree that women have been groomed to do this!
Quotethey should expect to be harassed.
Again, that is not what he said.
Make-up and high heels sends sexual messages to brains. May iliciit chemical reactions in others, even if those others aren't making the choice to see it as sexual. It's something underneath the surface. That element may lead to a random man thinking the woman is open to his own sexual expression.
Quotethey should expect to be harassed.
Again, that is not what he said.
Make-up and high heels sends sexual messages to brains. May iliciit chemical reactions in others, even if those others aren't making the choice to see it as sexual. It's something underneath the surface. That element may lead to a random man thinking the woman is open to his own sexual expression.
Again, can you guys give me something concrete here? What's an example of a sexual expression from a man that you think would not be an issue, but would be made out to be?
We've all had awkward boners.N
like i don't understand what lipstick is for and why women are wearing it except as a tool for attraction, it's certainly not functionalHis claim wasn't that it was merely because of attraction, but because it mimicked what happened when a woman is sexually aroused which implies a causation that isn't scientifically verifiable (like most evopsych theories) and ignores the possibility that it is an aesthetic decision, a way of projecting professionalism, cultural expectation, self-image, etc
and i would also stipulate that obviously management or men etc. strongly encourage (read: force) women to wear makeup in professional environments (by not acknowledging them or devaluing their opinions when they don't) precisely because those men attribute a lot of a woman's value to her sexual worth.
Why did men in the 50s pay so much attention to their dress? Was it just because they wanted to bang the secretaries, or were they doing it out of a desire to impress other men? Peterson's argument is so simplistic it collapses immediately.
where is benji
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jordan-peterson-clinical-psychologist-canada-popularity-convincing-why-left-wing-alt-right-cathy-a8208301.html
http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-reply-to-my-critics-concerning-an-engagement-with-jordan-peterson/
like i don't understand what lipstick is for and why women are wearing it except as a tool for attraction, it's certainly not functionalHis claim wasn't that it was merely because of attraction, but because it mimicked what happened when a woman is sexually aroused which implies a causation that isn't scientifically verifiable (like most evopsych theories) and ignores the possibility that it is an aesthetic decision, a way of projecting professionalism, cultural expectation, self-image, etc
and i would also stipulate that obviously management or men etc. strongly encourage (read: force) women to wear makeup in professional environments (by not acknowledging them or devaluing their opinions when they don't) precisely because those men attribute a lot of a woman's value to her sexual worth.
Why did men in the 50s pay so much attention to their dress? Was it just because they wanted to bang the secretaries, or were they doing it out of a desire to impress other men? Peterson's argument is so simplistic it collapses immediately.
You don't get to choose how the signals are received. You are not following along. You are not even applying any real world personal experience or else your own experience is completely out of whack with general trends.
Read my other reply. They send sexual signals on a biological level. That doesn't negate their status signal or the person's intent. The point is that you are still replicating sexual displays and that can be recognized by others.
Claims about women’s oppression cannot be dismissed by referring to Fifty Shades of Grey, the story of a woman who enjoys being dominated (as one of my critics claims), the suffering of transgender people is all too real, etc.
like i don't understand what lipstick is for and why women are wearing it except as a tool for attraction, it's certainly not functionalHis claim wasn't that it was merely because of attraction, but because it mimicked what happened when a woman is sexually aroused which implies a causation that isn't scientifically verifiable (like most evopsych theories) and ignores the possibility that it is an aesthetic decision, a way of projecting professionalism, cultural expectation, self-image, etc
and i would also stipulate that obviously management or men etc. strongly encourage (read: force) women to wear makeup in professional environments (by not acknowledging them or devaluing their opinions when they don't) precisely because those men attribute a lot of a woman's value to her sexual worth.
Why did men in the 50s pay so much attention to their dress? Was it just because they wanted to bang the secretaries, or were they doing it out of a desire to impress other men? Peterson's argument is so simplistic it collapses immediately.
You don't get to choose how the signals are received. You are not following along. You are not even applying any real world personal experience or else your own experience is completely out of whack with general trends.
Read my other reply. They send sexual signals on a biological level. That doesn't negate their status signal or the person's intent. The point is that you are still replicating sexual displays and that can be recognized by others.
uh no you're not following along? The statement was about why women wear lipstick. I never said it couldn't be interpreted sexually by men. My entire complaint was that he reduces the decision on the women's part to wear lipstick to simply a need to replicate sexual arousal (he literally says that is the purpose of lipstick). Which makes no fucking sense in the workplace! Women in the workplace are probably not trying to come across as in heat!
I find Zizek amusing, but not always on point.Pretty on point about "cultural marxism" there, though. But then you've moved on to critical theory now, so whatever.
Do you know how i know were on completely different pages, because everytime you post that I feel like youre not the one following along.
E: to respond to your edit, then answer why successful and powerful women do not wear makeup the same way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS6R2Q7eRdg&feature=youtu.be
Edit: also, re: makeup. If you’re married, you realize quick that women wear makeup for each other and not for men. They are far harsher critics of each other than men are to them.
hey buddy, some of us threw good money after bad to get a masters or twoOkay, ill bite, what do you devote your life to?you know he also has a ba in political science aswell right?lmao a ba
where is benjithese are obvious fakes, or Zizek "paid" a TA to write them for him
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jordan-peterson-clinical-psychologist-canada-popularity-convincing-why-left-wing-alt-right-cathy-a8208301.html
http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-reply-to-my-critics-concerning-an-engagement-with-jordan-peterson/
Jacques Lacan wrote that, even if what a jealous husband claims about his wife (that she sleeps around with other men) is all true, his jealousy is still pathological: the pathological element is the husband's need for jealousy as the only way to retain his dignity, identity even.
hey buddy, some of us threw good money after bad to get a masters or twoOkay, ill bite, what do you devote your life to?you know he also has a ba in political science aswell right?lmao a ba
QuoteJacques Lacan wrote that, even if what a jealous husband claims about his wife (that she sleeps around with other men) is all true, his jealousy is still pathological: the pathological element is the husband's need for jealousy as the only way to retain his dignity, identity even.
Zizek calling Peterson a cuck :lawd
that's only like most of an American PhD and 95 American research papers thoughhey buddy, some of us threw good money after bad to get a masters or twoOkay, ill bite, what do you devote your life to?you know he also has a ba in political science aswell right?lmao a ba
i think a phd and and 120 research papers has a pretty harsh demand on time .
that's only like most of an American PhD and 95 American research papers thoughhey buddy, some of us threw good money after bad to get a masters or twoOkay, ill bite, what do you devote your life to?you know he also has a ba in political science aswell right?lmao a ba
i think a phd and and 120 research papers has a pretty harsh demand on time .
that's only like most of an American PhD and 95 American research papers thoughhey buddy, some of us threw good money after bad to get a masters or twoOkay, ill bite, what do you devote your life to?you know he also has a ba in political science aswell right?lmao a ba
i think a phd and and 120 research papers has a pretty harsh demand on time .
does that include both your masters?
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/965848084008726528Conversely
This is the kind of rigorous academic research you'd expect from the leading right-wing intellectual in the western hemisphere (tm).
Sweet Jebus
Jay Kang can not follow along with the conversation at all. They did really cut up the interview. Kang also lied about the length of the make-up conversation on twitter. He made it seem like the original clip was the total length of the topic and it was Peterson's fault for not expanding upon it when the truth is they did talk a lot more about it and VICE cut that longer discussion out. Jay could have just admitted the expanded upon it and didn't have space in the time budget rather than blame JBP.
I'd say if you think this makes it worse then you're not understanding the conversation. I'm tired of explaining it though. hungrynoob is right, it's rather futile in effort. People should not still be hung up on the make-up bit at this point.7
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/965848084008726528Conversely
This is the kind of rigorous academic research you'd expect from the leading right-wing intellectual in the western hemisphere (tm).
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/965848267232718848
Mind the comments. Suddenly, scrutiny abounds. :doge
Hes posing the idea that we dont know exactly what the limits are about what is acceptable sexualisation in the workplace, and that he feels that is an important conversation to have if we are to eliminate it. And that denying the purpose of makeup is an example of hypocrisy because you cant deny that and have an important conversation about sexual harassment in the workplace, you cant have it both ways, and thats his stance on it.
Hes posing the idea that we dont know exactly what the limits are about what is acceptable sexualisation in the workplace, and that he feels that is an important conversation to have if we are to eliminate it. And that denying the purpose of makeup is an example of hypocrisy because you cant deny that and have an important conversation about sexual harassment in the workplace, you cant have it both ways, and thats his stance on it.
I'm not watching the video, but that sounds dumb as shit.
I'm not watching the video, but that sounds dumb as shit.One of the interesting ramifications of the nordic gender equality paradox is that human behavior has a way of manifesting itself in ways you don't expect. So with sexual behavior, we already know what happens when you artificially limit it in some extreme cases. Priests molest boys and boys in Indian villages become gang rapists. So making the explicit requirement that there should be no flirtation in workplaces could have unknown effects on human behavior in and out of the workplace and it could even increase harassment or sexual misconduct. One of the things he talked about in the video actually was that men and women tend to underscore a conversation with the opposite sex with a little bit of sexual tension, which is readily apparent to anyone who's talked to anyone else and is fun and enjoyable and totally consensual by the way if you're not a moron and can pick up on social cues. So his point is "we don't know what will happen" and also that we should have a dialogue about it to figure out where the right lines are with the right trade-offs.
Hes posing the idea that we dont know exactly what the limits are about what is acceptable sexualisation in the workplace, and that he feels that is an important conversation to have if we are to eliminate it. And that denying the purpose of makeup is an example of hypocrisy because you cant deny that and have an important conversation about sexual harassment in the workplace, you cant have it both ways, and thats his stance on it.
I'm not watching the video, but that sounds dumb as shit.
One of the interesting ramifications of the nordic gender equality paradox is that human behavior has a way of manifesting itself in ways you don't expect. So with sexual behavior, we already know what happens when you artificially limit it in some extreme cases. Priests molest boys and boys in Indian villages become gang rapists. So making the explicit requirement that there should be no flirtation in workplaces could have unknown effects on human behavior in and out of the workplace and it could even increase harassment or sexual misconduct. One of the things he talked about in the video actually was that men and women tend to underscore a conversation with the opposite sex with a little bit of sexual tension, which is readily apparent to anyone who's talked to anyone else and is fun and enjoyable and totally consensual by the way if you're not a moron and can pick up on social cues. So his point is "we don't know what will happen" and also that we should have a dialogue about it to figure out where the right lines are with the right trade-offs.
on an evolutionary scale.
In both links, America is an outlier, which (my assumption) leads to the question of what makes America an outlier in both? Because "guns" doesn't asnwer the outlier question in the first link.
In my opinion, American culture has to do with being an outlier in both situations, and it's not modern culture but something deeper than that. Modern media probably does have something to do with it in regards to the fame seeking, but a people develop a way of being over time and that becomes a part of culture. American culture is a bit on the paranoid side. In Sweden, the people are pretty placid and unquestioning. In America, it's a culture of rebellion. Both have their good and bad sides to that collective personality.
Also, Jordan Peterson, right wing. :sabu
Not right wing, just no. 1 with right wingers.Dunno where you live but where I'm from, the right wingers don't believe in climate change or evolution, don't think inequality is a serious problem, and don't think the nation-state is a dangerous idea if it's the end goal or highest ideal. They also hate literature and psychology.
The mysteries of life.
It's a silly argument because it's clear that Peterson himself doesn't actually believe evo-psych is a valid approach. He keeps up the act because it's the best strategy to get money and attention, thus moving him up the dominance hierarchy.That's a surprising conclusion to me. What makes you think evolution isn't at the immutable core of everything Peterson believes in?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqJeb29lkNY
So Vice posted the full interview, and shock and awe, the "context" seems to somehow make Peterson sound even worse than the edited version.
no, they're both fully Americanthat's only like most of an American PhD and 95 American research papers thoughhey buddy, some of us threw good money after bad to get a masters or twoOkay, ill bite, what do you devote your life to?you know he also has a ba in political science aswell right?lmao a ba
i think a phd and and 120 research papers has a pretty harsh demand on time .
does that include both your masters?
Not right wing, just no. 1 with right wingers.Dunno where you live but where I'm from, the right wingers don't believe in climate change or evolution, don't think inequality is a serious problem, and don't think the nation-state is a dangerous idea if it's the end goal or highest ideal. They also hate literature and psychology.
The mysteries of life.
[
It's a silly argument because it's clear that Peterson himself doesn't actually believe evo-psych is a valid approach. He keeps up the act because it's the best strategy to get money and attention, thus moving him up the dominance hierarchy.That's a surprising conclusion to me. What makes you think evolution isn't at the immutable core of everything Peterson believes in?
It's a silly argument because it's clear that Peterson himself doesn't actually believe evo-psych is a valid approach. He keeps up the act because it's the best strategy to get money and attention, thus moving him up the dominance hierarchy.
Yes, because those are the things Jordan fucking Peterson is known for.They're not, but look: you were mocking the claim that Jordan Peterson isn't right wing. Besides the fact that collapsing people into one of two ideologies along a single political spectrum is totally inadequate, I was pointing out that even if you tried to you'd get a lot of contradictions. People on the right love him because he criticizes the political left but that's a temporary alignment on social issues, not an accurate or by any means complete characterization. So when you say "but no. 1 with right wingers, go figure," well, that's on you to go figure that out, actually.
You seem to defend a lot of these types of people (Peterson, Damore, etc)for some reason...You're going to have to help me figure out what "these types of people" means. I mean that, and I hope you don't find that tedious. The last time I "defended" Damore, I was just pointing out that I thought the ruling's verbiage was inane. I don't think he made a good argument though and I also don't think he did a good or socially smart thing. In short I support his firing or at least some kind of punishment.
Peterson is different because I find myself enamored with him intellectually. I remember reading hungrynoob posting something that read close to a religious experience some time ago and it seemed rather stupid and silly. And then I tried looking him up and my first exposure to him was this video where he said ideology leads to genocide and I immediately dismissed him because it was such a reductive and uninteresting argument. And boring, too! But his name kept popping up and then this interview thing happened so of course I had to figure out why the fuck this guy had a fucking religious cult that seemed to be entirely composed of right wing manchildren and red pilled losers. Well, the short story is that I haven't been so invigorated philosophically and intellectually since I first read Dostoyevsky's Notes From Underground when I was 14, or George Orwell's Politics and the English Language.
Jesus you have the worst taste.Dostoyevsky is bad taste?
If I really had to enumerate the writers that really shaped me (in my younger years, lifelong learning is real!) or that I'm enamored with, that would include Franz Kafka, Miguel de Cervantes, Carlos Fuentes, William Faulkner, and my favorite author ever Samuel Beckett.
(flawless Wallace Shawn impersonation) Morons!lol this made me so insecure for a second, you have no idea.
edit: Shosta, are you really going to make me explain that joke from upthread?The public choice theory one? Didn't you already explain it? :P
Dostoyevsky is great, Orwell is trash. My personal #hottake is that any Kafka story has more relevance to the present day than the entirety of 1984my personal favorite comparison is that we live in Brave New World now. But anyway, 1984 wasn't written for the present day, it was a long form refutation of James Burnham and the academic left which was composed almost entirely of Stalin apologists.
my personal favorite comparison is that we live in Brave New World now. But anyway, 1984 wasn't written for the present dayobligatory comic i'm surprised doesn't get posted more often considering how many do:
My personal #hottake is that any Kafka story has more relevance to the present day than the entirety of 1984watch out, this is a common sentiment among libertarian, anarchist circles...i don't want to have to report you
My personal #hottake is that any Kafka story has more relevance to the present day than the entirety of 1984watch out, this is a common sentiment among libertarian, anarchist circles...i don't want to have to report you
I love this book by Postman (and I've even quoted it on this forum a couple of times). I also love the idea that the television was the last technological innovation that should come without a surgeon general's warning. Although I don't remember him saying "Orwell was wrong", because Orwell was not predicting a future everywhere, just predicting what the future was like in certain places under certain regimes or if their supporters succeeded in already free places... And that really did happen in the Soviet Union, then in China, then in Iraq and North Korea, and so on it will happen wherever power is the end and not just the means.my personal favorite comparison is that we live in Brave New World now. But anyway, 1984 wasn't written for the present dayobligatory comic i'm surprised doesn't get posted more often considering how many do:
(https://i.imgur.com/vRBtL.jpg)
looks like etiolate's goal in creating a controversial thread was extremely successfulYes, because those are the things Jordan fucking Peterson is known for.They're not, but look: you were mocking the claim that Jordan Peterson isn't right wing. Besides the fact that collapsing people into one of two ideologies along a single political spectrum is totally inadequate, I was pointing out that even if you tried to you'd get a lot of contradictions. People on the right love him because he criticizes the political left but that's a temporary alignment on social issues, not an accurate or by any means complete characterization. So when you say "but no. 1 with right wingers, go figure," well, that's on you to go figure that out, actually.
Do you understand this?wow man chill out, your anima possession is out of control ey
QuoteDo you understand this?wow man chill out, your anima possession is out of control ey
Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, it's just that this particular type of discussion has been triggering me more than any other in the past few months. Mainly cause the people I've spoken to have had an incredible degree of disingenuousness when they bring it up.Which type? From me or other people? And it's all good, everyone has something that makes them fly off the handle. If it makes you feel better, I'm open to saying that as far as he's as a political commentator (since he's chosen to step out of his wheelhouse and do that now) he's a right leaning libertarian type who's chosen to make his cause be anti social justice stuff and biologically based skepticism. Really limited scope but still fair.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, it's just that this particular type of discussion has been triggering me more than any other in the past few months. Mainly cause the people I've spoken to have had an incredible degree of disingenuousness when they bring it up.Which type? From me or other people?
Here is the shocking news. If humans had not begun to unlock some of the carbon stored as fossil fuels, all of which had been in the atmosphere as CO2 before sequestration by plants and animals, life on Earth would have soon been starved of this essential nutrient and would begin to die. Given the present trends of glaciations and interglacial periods this would likely have occurred less than 2 million years from today, a blink in nature’s eye, 0.05% of the 3.5 billion-year history of life.
being ranked #12 in the world for psychology
being ranked #12 in the world for psychology
Is that in his weight class or pound-for-pound?
Oblivion was saying nothing. He was just playing a game of gotchaGiven your response to Toku's links, it's fair game. Besides, we can have more than one conversation at a time. Or 'conversation', as it were.
I am not sure how much Zizek's misunderstandings impact his view.You keep doing that. Stop doing that. It's nothing more than a pre-emptive "gotcha", if you will. If you're vexed at people dismissing Peterson for easily mockable tweets, you should be vexed at this, too, as the end result isn't substantially different.
In comparison to Pinker:Any particular work you'd point to? Extending this to Shosta as well. I wanna see what it was that blew your mind, if you don't mind me boiling the pathos down to something so pithy. :doge
Peterson gets far more into the metaphysical and how the nature aspect relates to human history and mythology. He has a whole lecture series on the book of Genesis. He has lectures that often delve into his study of Nazi and Communist atrocities. He's much more concerned with concepts of good and evil, and fact, truth, meaning and wisdom. He's also a clinical psych who is still practicing to some degree and his point of view seems much more aligned with life outside of the academics. Pinker tends to sound very much like someone who spends a lot of time in research and university circles.
Hey someone should call UoT and tell them his views on climate change invalidate his research and knowledge in psychology.
Oblivion was saying nothing. He was just playing a game of gotcha because he doesn't understand the conversation and some form of media told him he should be angry at and scared of the conversation.
Here's the thing, if thats what you truly believe, you must think his time at the university of toronto to be some fluke, despite being ranked #12 in the world for psychology, but no, he must be talking out his arse because you dont like the things he says because it doesnt fit your view of people.
I am not sure how much Zizek's misunderstandings impact his view.You keep doing that. Stop doing that. It's nothing more than a pre-emptive "gotcha", if you will. If you're vexed at people dismissing Peterson for easily mockable tweets, you should be vexed at this, too, as the end result isn't substantially different.In comparison to Pinker:Any particular work you'd point to? Extending this to Shosta as well. I wanna see what it was that blew your mind, if you don't mind me boiling the pathos down to something so pithy. :doge
Peterson gets far more into the metaphysical and how the nature aspect relates to human history and mythology. He has a whole lecture series on the book of Genesis. He has lectures that often delve into his study of Nazi and Communist atrocities. He's much more concerned with concepts of good and evil, and fact, truth, meaning and wisdom. He's also a clinical psych who is still practicing to some degree and his point of view seems much more aligned with life outside of the academics. Pinker tends to sound very much like someone who spends a lot of time in research and university circles.
No hour(s)-long videos, please. Not unless there's a transcript.
or that Frozen is feminist propaganda and propaganda itself can never be art
Oblivion: Why have there been several right-wing and Christian Conservatism politicians and speakers who have publicly argued against or condemned homosexuality and gay marriage who end up being outed as living a secret homosexual lifestyle? Why do you think they live this conflicted life? Why were they so outspoken against what they secretly practiced?
Oblivion: Why have there been several right-wing and Christian Conservatism politicians and speakers who have publicly argued against or condemned homosexuality and gay marriage who end up being outed as living a secret homosexual lifestyle? Why do you think they live this conflicted life? Why were they so outspoken against what they secretly practiced?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYJFgyqs0sMThis is a really good interview.
The whole pod, more than two hours long, but chuck full of info.
Oblivion
I am tired of misrepresentation, lying and dumbassery.
So I don't know why you're here.
The 50 Shades comment was in response to the question of the dissonance between Western Feminist ideals and their support/blind eye to Islamists and women's suffering abroad. I am pretty sure I explained this already, but he said there can be several reasons and offered that one may be repressed feelings in the subconscious leaking out. He mentioned the face of feminism and yet the popularity of a dominatrix erotica book. This isn't shocking, unless you misrepresent it as him saying Western Feminists like Islamists because they want to be dominated.
the dissonance between Western Feminist ideals and their support/blind eye to Islamists and women's suffering abroad
there can be several reasons and offered that one may be repressed feelings in the subconscious leaking out
him saying Western Feminists like Islamists because they want to be dominated.
I watched this last night while half asleep and didnt hear 2% of what was said, worth re-listening to?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYJFgyqs0sMThis is a really good interview.
The whole pod, more than two hours long, but chuck full of info.
Also that guy was such a loser, no sense of humor.
If you find human evolution/evolutionary biology fascinating like I do it’s worth a listen. If not then you can pass on it.I watched this last night while half asleep and didnt hear 2% of what was said, worth re-listening to?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYJFgyqs0sMThis is a really good interview.
The whole pod, more than two hours long, but chuck full of info.
don't tell me what to do you're not my real dad
Seriously. If you can't handle me then log out Rumbler.
It's amazing how often you guys are ready to burn the forum down just to attack me. You keep this up and we get another ban etiolate thread. You guys turn into everything you made the forum not to be just because one poster doesn't put up with the bullshit from the worst here.
Eric Weinstein looks like a late 80s wrestler at the end of a long career
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/810165492522455040bonus: his daughter got pregnant before she was married
makes u think
Because it's about more than a threat title. People have been dogpiling Cindi tonight. Mandark is losing it because I called him out. Rumbler is messing witht he thread title as some sort of sad wolf pack behavior.
Everyone else is fine having fun except for a few people who are taking it personal and asking people to change their name so they can mock them more or change thread titles to mock those that threaten them.
Sometimes the bullying stuff here goes too far and people need to realize where the line is. Tonight, the bully mentality juiced up. Not sure if this is from cream posting or just the usual vile nature seeping out. I think you should ponder why anyone giving pushback to the behavior makes you think they need to chill.
???
I get that you get butthurt, but that one didn't make sense.
Because it's about more than a threat title. People have been dogpiling Cindi tonight. Mandark is losing it because I called him out. Rumbler is messing witht he thread title as some sort of sad wolf pack behavior.
Everyone else is fine having fun except for a few people who are taking it personal and asking people to change their name so they can mock them more or change thread titles to mock those that threaten them.
Sometimes the bullying stuff here goes too far and people need to realize where the line is. Tonight, the bully mentality juiced up. Not sure if this is from cream posting or just the usual vile nature seeping out. I think you should ponder why anyone giving pushback to the behavior makes you think they need to chill.
I'm such an angry tyrant that I left in place etiolate's edit changing the title to "Great Rumbler's Child Porn Stash." :lolLMAO I didn't even notice that. It's like when a little kid gets put in time out and starts scribbling on the walls cuz it's the only power he has
I take more shit than anyone. I only say chill when its becoming pathological with some of you.Oh please you're a condescending prick all the time you don't get to complain about others being mean
I take more shit than anyone. I only say chill when its becoming pathological with some of you.Oh please you're a condescending prick all the time
I'm such an angry tyrant that I left in place etiolate's edit changing the title to "Great Rumbler's Child Porn Stash." :lol
Any particular work you'd point to? Extending this to Shosta as well. I wanna see what it was that blew your mind, if you don't mind me boiling the pathos down to something so pithy. :dogepls read this whole thing. I hate boring people and like to keep things short but I'm opening up quite a bit here.
No hour(s)-long videos, please. Not unless there's a transcript.
[snip]this obv wasn’t directed at me but if y’all don’t mind I’d like to try to give a thoughtful response because this is an honest post, and I feel like I could add something to the conversation.
conservatism is like a sociological immune system which would literally keep people safe from diseaseThis is functionalism, specifically the kind that treats in organic metaphors. It has all the attendant pitfalls of functionalism, viz. struggles to explain change; deliberate between external and internal causation; and, since society is essentially just the name we give the large aggregation of means-end relationships, where culture (among other things) is the means, we’ve assumed the ends as given (which i assume for Peterson is going to be simple perpetuation of the ‘organism’). I don’t mean to give an overwhelmingly negative picture of this as a schema, functionalism has its proponents in the social sciences (although its organic variety is definitely passé), but it is one among several lenses to view ‘the social’.
And in the psychological lectures, you know, the idea that liberals and conservatives are just people of different biologically pre-determined psychological temperaments that serve important sociological purpose blows my mind too. It's one thing to respect other (common) political views because you're "nice" and "empathetic", which is arbitrary and takes some training, it's another thing entirely when the entire success of your society has been predicated on the interdependence of the full diversity of the personality spectrum and everyone needs everyone else or else society falls apart and dies.
And he'll do this while also integrating moral philosophy (as it arises from basic psychological study)could you elaborate on this? Point out where he talks about this?
So in this way he really is the stupid man's smart mani agree, in both a) the non-pejorative sense that it’s important to have gateways, so to speak, into academic discussions, especially ones which impinge on deeply felt needs in everyday, lived experience (more on that below) and b) the pejorative sense that we should be demanding a better gateway.
he's exposed me to stuff I never would have discovered otherwise.this is great! It’s exactly what you want out of a gateway, provided you keep reading. Just with respect to philosophy, if you took Peterson at his word, you’d come away with a gross misunderstanding or eclipsed view of: Newton, Nietzsche, the American Pragmatists, Heidegger, and French poststructuralism. Ditto any contemporary work done in phil of sci, phil of the social sciences or history of phil because he largely doesn’t engage with any of it. Again, this isn’t absolutely damning. Selective readings, or even outright misreadings, can still be philosophically productive (and happen fairly frequently)*, but, at least in my estimation, they shouldn’t determine our stances towards the sources in question.
What was it in this for me that blew my mind?...I'm a materialist, atheist, hedonist, moral relativist. I don't care about religion. Knowledge for me is hard empirical science. I'd never considered before that mythology or literature of all things could be a source of knowledge, or that truth could be encoded in every single one of us literally in our DNA or reflected through society, which is some crazy Spinoza-level monism. Just saying something like "artists are mystics" is straight up new age nonsense I would have never said before but here I am saying it. And never had I considered there to be a universal human morality because, you know, that's not self evident at all, especially when you don't believe in God, it's everything goes, man, but here I am now believing in a universal morality determined and discovered by evolution itself and baked right into our social structures and laws. And I never considered that ideologies of all kinds, like political ones especially but even stuff as simple as environmentalism and veganism, were primitive unsophisticated religions and rituals that replaced Christianity as a sophisticated value system, because we are hardwired to codify and act out and ahdere to value systems by virtue of being social creatures. Here I am saying I'm not religious and yet I'm revering Mother Earth just like a Wiccan would.theres a lot here, but where I’d like to start is the descriptors you outline initially. What follows is supposed to be ideal typical, I’m not saying this is what you experienced exactly. We start with a worldview that takes a (at the risk of sounding blunt) bastardized view of Newtonian mechanics as an exhaustive ontological description of the world. The world is at bottom a physical process of things bouncing off each other in predictable patterns; if we knew the sum total of things and their causes at any initial point of origin, we’d successfully be able to predict every resulting thing and cause from that point, including human activity. What’s more, there is no transcendent end or good towards which we should be orienting ourselves. Life doesn’t have any objective meaning beyond which we give it; and we experience this process of meaning-defining as rational deliberation but as we already know, this is just another thing that can be reduced to collisions between physical objects happening at some microscopic level (which level? tbd; it’s pretty much causal factors all the way down). So what we’re left with is self-interested eudaemonic accumulation until we die and return to nothing.
People are so hungry for this stuff, in our cold, dead, rational world. And they want answers for who they are and what they should do, because nobody's telling them, and there's so much power in a positive and human centric philosophy that doesn't require a tyrant living in the sky. And I can honestly say I felt the exact same thing.i think the fact that the person who has been one of the most successful at speaking to and capitalizing on this very real felt need did so publicly, freely, and accessibly speaks volumes.
Everyone else is fine having fun except for a few people who are taking it personal and asking people to change their name so they can mock them more or change thread titles to mock those that threaten them.
https://twitter.com/PrettyBadLefty/status/969341599086936065Takes like 5 minutes of looking at this guy's twitter to know he is an idiot himself.
it's so sad to see slavoj like this, regularly being coherent and on-topic
i just hope whatever terminal illness he's coming to the end of is painless for him
Yet here you are posting.
I'm not exactly sure what a soyboi is, but if I had to describe one, I'd say "Jordan Peterson". I can't believe anyone can get riled up by a guy who sounds and comes off as such a gigantic pussy.
Blyth talk is worth checking out, but I don't see the link between heirarchy or gender norms and authoritarianism that he uses in his Trumpetism reasons. Neither are authoritarian by default. They need a lot of things associated with them to be authoritarian.After an hour and a half of nuclear truth bombs your take away is to single out a sentence on a slide by pondering the questionable correlation between authoritarianism and misogynists?
I'm just laughing that he's a god damn professor who gets paid to speak for a living yet he was speaking like a valley girl with Kermit The Frog's voice.
I think Jordan Petersen says interesting stuff, I also think he's a loon for believing the bible is a series of transcendent metaphorical wisdom. These books were written by people who fuck goats.
The Cain and Able lecture is really good.
I bet it's not.does anyone like you
Women sometimes wear lipstick around me, so at least I know I'm the object of their sexual desire.I bet it's not.does anyone like you
Why does Peterson threaten y'all? I made this thread about the general group of discussion, but the whiners focus on Peterson. I know why I threaten some of you. I don't get why you'd care to be threatened by Jordan.
speculation about genetic memory
Peterson goes around and speaks to groups of mostly young people who are mostly young men to encourage them to focus on their lives and responsibilities, not get caught up in collectivism and not end up the psycho who shoots up schools.
I attack him because he is popular and makes money.Oh damn, inserting two more premises and insisting on them being correct is gonna do it.
But it's not out of jealousy, I swear.
I attack him because he is popular and makes money.
But it's not out of jealousy, I swear.
Of the youtube "intellectuals" this is the only guy I know
I don't think it's any deeper than Mandark doesn't think it's worth his time or a dignified response but can still milk some snark out for self satisfaction.
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/971195232703406081
https://twitter.com/craigsilverman/status/971378991331409920?s=21
Glad to see Peterson applies as much academic rigor into confirming whether or not that's a real twitter account, as he did with the C-16 bill.
I don't think it's any deeper than Mandark doesn't think it's worth his time or a dignified response but can still milk some snark out for self satisfaction.
I'd critique what they get wrong. If someone asked me why I did so, my response wouldn't be "they're making money off you and they are big right now!"
Because that reeks of immature jealousy.
(https://i.imgur.com/vIC09cp.jpg)He always looks like he is coked out of his mind. Yet he is fat :-\ maybe its just how a naturally dysfunctional commie brain is wired :-*
Zizek's headshot :dead He really does look like a raccoon
I would recommend critiquing something he's said rather than spending so much effort to portray him as some unworthy thing. I would start with understanding the lipstick discussion since it sparks the most response with little understanding.
Y'know this is something my wife has pointed out too, but this is the problem, I know how to stand up to a man that's unfairly trespassing against me. I know this because the parameters, the parameters for my resistance are quite well defined, we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical. If we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse we know what the next step is.
That's FORBIDDEN in, in discourse with women. And so I don't think men can control crazy women, i don't think, i really don't believe it (high pitched kermit sound). I think that they have to throw their hands up in, in, in. in, in. what. in. in. It's not even disbelief, it's that the cultural. There's no step forward that you can take under those circumstances because if the man is offensive enough and crazy enough they, they, the reaction becomes physical right away, or at least the threat is there. And when men are talking to each-other in any serious manner that threat of physicality is always there. Especially if it's a real conversation, and it keeps the thing civilised to some degree.
Y'know if you're talking to a man who wouldn't fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you're talking to someone to whom you have absolutely no respect. Por ejemplo; there's a women in Toronto who's been uh, organising this movement, let's say against me and some other people who are going to do a free speech uh, uh, event and she managed to organise quite effectively, and she's quite um offensive you might say. She compared us to NAZIS for example, which y'know, publicly, using the Swastika which isn't really something I was all that fond of. But i, i, i'm defenseless against that kind of FEMALE insanity. Because the, techniques that I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me.
So I don't know, it seems to me that it isn't men that have to stand up and say enough of this, even though that's what they should do. It seems to me it's sane WOMEN who have to stand up against their crazy sisters, and say look, enough of that, enough MAN HATING, enough PATHOLOGY, enough bringing disgrace on us as a, as a, gender. But, the problem there, and I'll stop my little tirade, is that most of the women I know who are SANE, are busy doing SANE THINGS. Right? They're off, they have their career, they have their family, they're quite occupied, they don't seem to have the time, or maybe even the interest to go after their CRAZY HARPY SISTERS, and so I don't see any regulating force without that terrible femininity. And it seems to me to be (*pause* jazz hands) invading the culture, and undermining the masculine POWER of the culture in a way that's... I think... FATAL."
The premise here, and the necessity for control, does infer some fascistic tendencies. Conversations are a literal arms race in every male interaction for Peterson,
^^This obnoxious, bad faith way of arguing is why everybody here is mean to youHow dare you criticize his wider world view when the man is preventing school shootings!? You scum!
an intellectual discussion is a vastly different beast than a conversation with an average person. Pretty sure that's obvious
I misread your post, pls edit to help me save facean intellectual discussion is a vastly different beast than a conversation with an average person. Pretty sure that's obvious
The point still stands though. Where are you guys meeting these women irl that are openly threatening your physical being?
I mean how do you even talk to other guys online if the threat of violence is so fundamental? Meet up in Temecula to fight irl?This is actually something I agree with Peterson on and it's easily observable. He's just saying keyboard warriors that post dumb shit online wont do that to your face cause they'd not want to get their neck cranked.
It's so stupid. Jordan Peterson is a college professor. No male professors are going to pop each other in the mouth for being a dick, because that's not how professors behave. If you aren't some dumbass kid or a chud that threat of violence in social circles doesn't exist.
I mean how do you even talk to other guys online if the threat of violence is so fundamental? Meet up in Temecula to fight irl?This is actually something I agree with Peterson on and it's easily observable. He's just saying keyboard warriors that post dumb shit online wont do that to your face cause they'd not want to get their neck cranked.
You're right, this isn't a controversial opinion, but again, can you connect this back to the whole "crazy women" thing? Cause that's where I lost the thread.Talk shit, get hit. Wear lipstick, 'don't be surprised about unintended consequences, maybe re-think dress codes or mixed gender work environments entirely'.
I mean how do you even talk to other guys online if the threat of violence is so fundamental? Meet up in Temecula to fight irl?This is actually something I agree with Peterson on and it's easily observable. He's just saying keyboard warriors that post dumb shit online wont do that to your face cause they'd not want to get their neck cranked.
You're right, this isn't a controversial opinion, but again, can you connect this back to the whole "crazy women" thing? Cause that's where I lost the thread.
Men are mostly lost without that violence boundary.
formula for this thread:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyhOTvC1v-A
- someone posts 3 minute JP clip
- ridicule
- et explains
- debate ensues over how this tiny statement, isolated from all other parts of the argument , is both 1) facile and 2) proof that JP is a discreditable quack
- et becomes uncivil
- et loses argument because of attrition of his sanity
- thread dies for a couple of days
- repeat
It's amazing what an outsized role Antifa plays in the right-wing imagination as compared to their actual real world presence. I'm sure Zizek would have something to say about that.Oh, this reminded me of a "new" book I passed by today...
The explosive new book from Dinesh D'Souza, author of the #1 New York Times bestsellers Hillary's America, America, and Obama's America.:american :american :american
They go back to a life where they are ostracized but lack the tools to recognize this. They come back to this online space where they don't get ostracized because ostracization and repercussion is removed by the nature of the format. Mistake the forum for reaffirmation of their rightness. This is essentially an argument about the dangers of social media. Boundaries cannot exist in the same way so they aren't developed.ban etoliate
Correction: I don't lose arguments. I lose patience. The argument rarely exists and only briefly exists when it does.
I got naff to actually respond to something said. I explain it. Explaining it reveals how much of the forum doesn't understand social norms. (The argument started and ended right there. "It's over." -Vince Carter) Most conversations don't even get that far.
The forum thinks due to its lack of self awareness that its someone like Peterson who is the social abnormality. They go back to a life where they are ostracized but lack the tools to recognize this. They come back to this online space where they don't get ostracized because ostracization and repercussion is removed by the nature of the format. Mistake the forum for reaffirmation of their rightness. This is essentially an argument about the dangers of social media. Boundaries cannot exist in the same way so they aren't developed. Cruelty becomes more common.
A certain part of the forum I have enough experience with to not even offer the initial civility. I do this on purpose as to mark them as bad. This is self preservation and social messaging. I waste less of my thoughts on the worst and I inform in a public way who to avoid.
When I say it's bad to constantly exist in the peanut gallery, that's not just some wild random thought. To participate in certain discussions you need to be able to recognize those discussions and know how to change gears. We develop boundaries to have various levels of engagement. It is important to have these different gears. If you can only exist n mockery then you get left behind.
formula for this thread:
- someone posts 3 minute JP clip
- ridicule
- et explains
- debate ensues over how this tiny statement, isolated from all other parts of the argument , is both 1) facile and 2) proof that JP is a discreditable quack
- et becomes uncivil
- et loses argument because of attrition of his sanity
- thread dies for a couple of days
- repeat
formula for this thread:If you want a serious critique of Peterson's intellectual fraudulence, jakefromstatefarm did a good job of this itt and the Shuja Haider piece does it well as well. Etoilet is frankly too dishonest to engage with seriously imo but your mileage may vary. Every time I've tried he's replies with something irrelevant or nonsensical, it's just aggravating after a certain point and it's more fun to hap abuse on him.
- someone posts 3 minute JP clip
- ridicule
- et explains
- debate ensues over how this tiny statement, isolated from all other parts of the argument , is both 1) facile and 2) proof that JP is a discreditable quack
- et becomes uncivil
- et loses argument because of attrition of his sanity
- thread dies for a couple of days
- repeat
He is talking about parameters of civility in discussion. He is making the argument that men are used to that civility being established by the mutually understood possibility of violence. In order to avoid violence, which neither side wants, we do not trespass certain boundaries in our discussions.
If you've seen how women actu towards each other, you'll notice that they are more willing to tresspass into cruelty. (Hang around some high school girls. Perhaps the most verbally cruel group of people you'll find.) And if women want to improve discussions across genders then they have to face that behavior among other women. Unfortunately, in his experience, the women who can converse civilly and respectfully are also too busy with their jobs or daily lives to spend time dealing with those who cannot control themselves and act cruelly towards others.
I know how to stand up to a man that's unfairly trespassing against me. I know this because the parameters, the parameters for my resistance are quite well defined, we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical. If we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse we know what the next step is.
This is the problem, I know how to stand up to a man that's unfairly trespassing against me. I know this because the parameters, the parameters for my resistance are quite well defined, we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical. If we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse we know what the next step is.
That's forbidden in, in discourse with women. And so I don't think men can control crazy women, i don't think, i really don't believe it (high pitched kermit sound). I think that they have to throw their hands up in, in, in. in, in. what. in. in. It's not even disbelief, it's that the cultural. There's no step forward that you can take under those circumstances because if the man is offensive enough and crazy enough they, they, the reaction becomes physical right away, or at least the threat is there. And when men are talking to each-other in any serious manner that threat of physicality is always there. Especially if it's a real conversation, and it keeps the thing civilised to some degree.
Y'know if you're talking to a man who wouldn't fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you're talking to someone to whom you have absolutely no respect. Por ejemplo; there's a women in Toronto who's been uh, organising this movement, let's say against me and some other people who are going to do a free speech uh, uh, event and she managed to organise quite effectively, and she's quite um offensive you might say. She compared us to NAZIS for example, which y'know, publicly, using the Swastika which isn't really something I was all that fond of. But i, i, i'm defenseless against that kind of FEMALE insanity. Because the, techniques that I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me.
So I don't know, it seems to me that it isn't men that have to stand up and say enough of this, even though that's what they should do. It seems to me it's sane WOMEN who have to stand up against their crazy sisters, and say look, enough of that, enough MAN HATING, enough PATHOLOGY, enough bringing disgrace on us as a, as a, gender. But, the problem there, and I'll stop my little tirade, is that most of the women I know who are SANE, are busy doing SANE THINGS. Right? They're off, they have their career, they have their family, they're quite occupied, they don't seem to have the time, or maybe even the interest to go after their CRAZY HARPY SISTERS, and so I don't see any regulating force without that terrible femininity. And it seems to me to be (*pause* jazz hands) invading the culture, and undermining the masculine POWER of the culture in a way that's... I think... FATAL."
Well thanks for the personal insult, that let me know not to read a single word after
Well thanks for the personal insult, that let me know not to read a single word after
This ignores the fact that women are far and away the victims of violent assault, not perpetrators.
there is no societal taboo against physically defending yourself against women
I really think you should figure out why you're struggling with it.
You're not actually 16, right?Would that skirrp your purrp?
You're not actually 16, right?Would that skirrp your purrp?
a/s/l bitch.16 f cali <3
a/s/l bitch.16 f cali <3
I mean how do you even talk to other guys online if the threat of violence is so fundamental? Meet up in Temecula to fight irl?This is actually something I agree with Peterson on and it's easily observable. He's just saying keyboard warriors that post dumb shit online wont do that to your face cause they'd not want to get their neck cranked.
Look, man, if you want to know how old I am, just ask.
As for another bit:Yeah, in their interactions with men.
Do you think that women work with a threat of violence in how they learn to navigate discussion?
Very much so, it's something women from all spheres are feeding back to us. It's hard though to fix though, overwhelmingly most interactions wont get physical in any way, but the fear of violence is always there so how as a guy do you combat this?As for another bit:Yeah, in their interactions with men.
Do you think that women work with a threat of violence in how they learn to navigate discussion?
You're going to have to show how we know how to handle these things. How do you deal with a woman who spreads lies about you, fills your neighborhood with flyers calling you a white supremacist and whose aim is to basically create a hate mob against you? You report her? Is she violating a law? Because when he pointed out the woman doing this, he got attacked for doxxing her. Strangely, there does seem to be double standards at play, where one side can hunt down a guy's home and call him a monster, and the other side cant' even point out the girl doing it. Maybe there is no actual clear pathway on what is right in dealing with abusive "harpies".
Very much so, it's something women from all spheres are feeding back to us. It's hard though to fix though, overwhelmingly most interactions wont get physical in any way, but the fear of violence is always there so how as a guy do you combat this?Take said feedback into consideration, I guess.
Lol why does that seem like he's in a hostage video? He looks and sounds so miserable. I supposed he is speaking with Tucker, after all."from a secret bunker somewhere in Totalitarian Toronto"
You're going to have to show how we know how to handle these things. How do you deal with a woman who spreads lies about you, fills your neighborhood with flyers calling you a white supremacist and whose aim is to basically create a hate mob against you? You report her? Is she violating a law? Because when he pointed out the woman doing this, he got attacked for doxxing her. Strangely, there does seem to be double standards at play, where one side can hunt down a guy's home and call him a monster, and the other side cant' even point out the girl doing it. Maybe there is no actual clear pathway on what is right in dealing with abusive "harpies".
Doesn't sound like a criminal case, defamation case maybe idk. The difference in the double standard is the power dynamic. To take a leaf out of Peterson's book, I'd consider the individuals involved in this situation, the sides they may fall on aren't really important. JP is relatively powerful, old and influential, it is a little tyrannical for him to direct an outraged fanbase towards relatively un-influential individuals. He, I doubt unwittingly, incited at least the threat of violence through his influence on these young women who understandably pissed him off. The context makes it seem a fairly lopsided punishment. It is irresponsible behaviour given his position and influence.
Correction: I don't lose arguments. I lose patience. The argument rarely exists and only briefly exists when it does.
I got naff to actually respond to something said. I explain it. Explaining it reveals how much of the forum doesn't understand social norms. (The argument started and ended right there. "It's over." -Vince Carter) Most conversations don't even get that far.
The forum thinks due to its lack of self awareness that its someone like Peterson who is the social abnormality. They go back to a life where they are ostracized but lack the tools to recognize this. They come back to this online space where they don't get ostracized because ostracization and repercussion is removed by the nature of the format. Mistake the forum for reaffirmation of their rightness. This is essentially an argument about the dangers of social media. Boundaries cannot exist in the same way so they aren't developed. Cruelty becomes more common.
A certain part of the forum I have enough experience with to not even offer the initial civility. I do this on purpose as to mark them as bad. This is self preservation and social messaging. I waste less of my thoughts on the worst and I inform in a public way who to avoid.
When I say it's bad to constantly exist in the peanut gallery, that's not just some wild random thought. To participate in certain discussions you need to be able to recognize those discussions and know how to change gears. We develop boundaries to have various levels of engagement. It is important to have these different gears. If you can only exist n mockery then you get left behind.
But as Enlightenment Now clearly shows, Steven Pinker is no philosophe. The great writers of the Enlightenment, contrary to the way they are often caricatured, were mostly skeptics at heart. They had a taste for irony, an appreciation of paradox, and took delight in wit. They appreciated complexity, rarely shied away from difficulty, and generally had a deep respect for the learning of those who had preceded them.
Enlightenment Now has few of these qualities. It is a dogmatic book that offers an oversimplified, excessively optimistic vision of human history and a starkly technocratic prescription for the human future. It also gives readers the spectacle of a professor at one of the world’s great universities treating serious thinkers with populist contempt. The genre it most closely resembles, with its breezy style, bite-size chapters, and impressive visuals, is not 18th-century philosophie so much as a genre in which Pinker has had copious experience: the TED Talk (although in this case, judging by the book’s audio version, a TED Talk that lasts 20 hours).
It is the critics of science who most greatly annoy Pinker, and they drive him to the sort of populist anti-intellectualism more usually found on Fox News than at Harvard University. “Intellectuals hate progress,” he declares, apparently forgetting about the many generations of socialist and liberal intellectuals who could more easily be accused of fetishizing it. “A loathing of industry has been a sacred value of…literary intellectuals,” he continues, disregarding those many writers and artists whose hearts leapt at the sight of Soviet smokestacks. And he repeatedly accuses “intellectuals” of treating the ideals of the Enlightenment “with indifference, skepticism, and sometimes contempt,” as if a long, long tradition of intellectuals, from the 18th century to figures like Jürgen Habermas, had not devoted their careers to defending those ideals.
But Pinker is not exactly reliable when it comes to the intellectuals and their ideas. He takes as his guide to intellectual pessimism a book titled The Idea of Decline in Western History by Arthur Herman, a far-right author whose most well-known book is a rapturously favorable biography of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Pinker credits Friedrich Nietzsche with the idea that “all statements are paradoxical” and that “works of art are tools of oppression,” raising the question of whether he has actually read Nietzsche or just relied on the summaries by Herman and others. (He also dismisses Nietzsche as “repellent and incoherent.”) Pinker rightly criticizes those who issue blanket condemnations of modern science without bothering to understand it. But he himself has not taken the trouble to understand serious and difficult writers like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, since he lumps them together into the “disaster of postmodernism” and seems to think that their work can simply be reduced to a “relativist” denial of truth.
A certain part of the forum I have enough experience with to not even offer the initial civility. I do this on purpose as to mark them as bad. This is self preservation and social messaging. I waste less of my thoughts on the worst and I inform in a public way who to avoid.
is he still on about that frozen thing? lol
Be a 55 year old man waxing poetically on the propaganda of cartoons meant to sell dolls to little girls, brehsLeave star wars fans alone
So tying it back I like Peterson's ultimate sentiment: dispense with old fairy tales at your own risk. There's thousands of years of incremental knowledge in there. Trying to recreate it is, demonstrably, a hard task.
Eh, I think it's pretty clear from his own words that the "ultimate sentiment" is him being bothered by the message of female independence.No I don't think that's it at all. He said he likes Mulan a lot and that that does female independence really well because it's a "balanced story", although I forget what he means by it. If I were being uncharitable to him I'd say he's really just miffed that it was her sister who "awakened" her, not the prince, because that was the archetype he recognizes. Aka a little male fragility :lol
Or maybe it's just a cartoon
Eh, I think it's pretty clear from his own words that the "ultimate sentiment" is him being bothered by the message of female independence.He said he likes Mulan a lot
Uh, source?Oops, I misheard. It was Moana.
Propaganda ages poorly as art. It insta-ages, in my opinon. It's always stuck in its time period. It can't traverse a single human lifespan.
Nah it's pretty obvious.Eh, I think it's pretty clear from his own words that the "ultimate sentiment" is him being bothered by the message of female independence.No I don't think that's it at all.
Time: Aren’t we allowed to make up new stories?
JP: Not for political reasons.
Eh, I think it's pretty clear from his own words that the "ultimate sentiment" is him being bothered by the message of female independence.No I don't think that's it at all. He said he likesMulanMoana a lot and that that does female independence really well because it's a "balanced story", although I forget what he means by it. If I were being uncharitable to him I'd say he's really just miffed that it was her sister who "awakened" her, not the prince, because that was the archetype he recognizes. Aka a little male fragility :lol
JP made a speech at some The Queen's Universitywas listening to this while working then I heard the commotion at 10 mins, I laughed at these dumb fucking neckbeards :lol
https://youtu.be/MwdYpMS8s28
How can protestors stand to bang on windows for thirty minutes (at around 22:00)? How can anyone have such complete dedication to incivility?
its actually kind of frightening that his fan club is larger than eti and shos.JP made a speech at some The Queen's Universitywas listening to this while working then I heard the commotion at 10 mins, I laughed at these dumb fucking neckbeards :lol
https://youtu.be/MwdYpMS8s28
How can protestors stand to bang on windows for thirty minutes (at around 22:00)? How can anyone have such complete dedication to incivility?
, if it was me I'd be falling over myself to get the Sam Harris' and Jordan Peterson's of the world on my shows so I can debate them and show how they are wrong,
It's like you didnt read my entire two sentence comment :thinking, if it was me I'd be falling over myself to get the Sam Harris' and Jordan Peterson's of the world on my shows so I can debate them and show how they are wrong,
This comment has thrown me through a loop, my mind swimming in a paradox here, because. Outwith the fact that I agree with a lot of what JP says, there are other factors at play that feed into my bias vs JPs views and everyone else's view in this thread. When I listen to JP he reinforces the idea that society will only get better when both sides of an argument enter said discussion with the mutual understanding that, i know some things, you know some things, and there are things we dont know, and we can learn together with our conversation. On top of that, the advice he gives in his book "assume the person you are listening to knows something you dont". And I think thats pretty solid advice. Yet, when I hear/read things like ive just quoted, my brain just switches off. Theres no reciprocity, right off the bat, and it causes me to decline further into my own perceptions.
I'm not directing this next part solely at you, but honestly, if the left could stop being a bunch of cunts for awhile, maybe people would listen. Instead of, "im right, youre wrong, accept that" and majority of the time, these arguments delve solely into "well hes wrong about that, haha" without any substantial reasoning as to why, and without substantial frameworks for what the actual answer is ( i know theres some WOTs in here havent read yet, but im talking larger scale in premise). The left constantly claim that, they are driven on empathy, morality and reciprocity yet most of the time im seeing emotional dissonance where their actions do not match with the words they speak. And honestly, I have no idea how to change that - from the way i see it, the worlds about to get a shit ton more divided than ever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChcUMvo1x_A
, if it was me I'd be falling over myself to get the Sam Harris' and Jordan Peterson's of the world on my shows so I can debate them and show how they are wrong,
This comment has thrown me through a loop, my mind swimming in a paradox here, because. Outwith the fact that I agree with a lot of what JP says, there are other factors at play that feed into my bias vs JPs views and everyone else's view in this thread. When I listen to JP he reinforces the idea that society will only get better when both sides of an argument enter said discussion with the mutual understanding that, i know some things, you know some things, and there are things we dont know, and we can learn together with our conversation. On top of that, the advice he gives in his book "assume the person you are listening to knows something you dont". And I think thats pretty solid advice. Yet, when I hear/read things like ive just quoted, my brain just switches off. Theres no reciprocity, right off the bat, and it causes me to decline further into my own perceptions.
I'm not directing this next part solely at you, but honestly, if the left could stop being a bunch of cunts for awhile, maybe people would listen. Instead of, "im right, youre wrong, accept that" and majority of the time, these arguments delve solely into "well hes wrong about that, haha" without any substantial reasoning as to why, and without substantial frameworks for what the actual answer is ( i know theres some WOTs in here havent read yet, but im talking larger scale in premise). The left constantly claim that, they are driven on empathy, morality and reciprocity yet most of the time im seeing emotional dissonance where their actions do not match with the words they speak. And honestly, I have no idea how to change that - from the way i see it, the worlds about to get a shit ton more divided than ever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChcUMvo1x_A
, if it was me I'd be falling over myself to get the Sam Harris' and Jordan Peterson's of the world on my shows so I can debate them and show how they are wrong,
This comment has thrown me through a loop, my mind swimming in a paradox here, because. Outwith the fact that I agree with a lot of what JP says, there are other factors at play that feed into my bias vs JPs views and everyone else's view in this thread. When I listen to JP he reinforces the idea that society will only get better when both sides of an argument enter said discussion with the mutual understanding that, i know some things, you know some things, and there are things we dont know, and we can learn together with our conversation. On top of that, the advice he gives in his book "assume the person you are listening to knows something you dont". And I think thats pretty solid advice. Yet, when I hear/read things like ive just quoted, my brain just switches off. Theres no reciprocity, right off the bat, and it causes me to decline further into my own perceptions.
I'm not directing this next part solely at you, but honestly, if the left could stop being a bunch of cunts for awhile, maybe people would listen. Instead of, "im right, youre wrong, accept that" and majority of the time, these arguments delve solely into "well hes wrong about that, haha" without any substantial reasoning as to why, and without substantial frameworks for what the actual answer is ( i know theres some WOTs in here havent read yet, but im talking larger scale in premise). The left constantly claim that, they are driven on empathy, morality and reciprocity yet most of the time im seeing emotional dissonance where their actions do not match with the words they speak. And honestly, I have no idea how to change that - from the way i see it, the worlds about to get a shit ton more divided than ever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChcUMvo1x_A
Could u change your name to warcock pl...oh nvm
, if it was me I'd be falling over myself to get the Sam Harris' and Jordan Peterson's of the world on my shows so I can debate them and show how they are wrong,
This comment has thrown me through a loop, my mind swimming in a paradox here, because. Outwith the fact that I agree with a lot of what JP says, there are other factors at play that feed into my bias vs JPs views and everyone else's view in this thread. When I listen to JP he reinforces the idea that society will only get better when both sides of an argument enter said discussion with the mutual understanding that, i know some things, you know some things, and there are things we dont know, and we can learn together with our conversation. On top of that, the advice he gives in his book "assume the person you are listening to knows something you dont". And I think thats pretty solid advice. Yet, when I hear/read things like ive just quoted, my brain just switches off. Theres no reciprocity, right off the bat, and it causes me to decline further into my own perceptions.
I'm not directing this next part solely at you, but honestly, if the left could stop being a bunch of cunts for awhile, maybe people would listen. Instead of, "im right, youre wrong, accept that" and majority of the time, these arguments delve solely into "well hes wrong about that, haha" without any substantial reasoning as to why, and without substantial frameworks for what the actual answer is ( i know theres some WOTs in here havent read yet, but im talking larger scale in premise). The left constantly claim that, they are driven on empathy, morality and reciprocity yet most of the time im seeing emotional dissonance where their actions do not match with the words they speak. And honestly, I have no idea how to change that - from the way i see it, the worlds about to get a shit ton more divided than ever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChcUMvo1x_A
:noah
No. This kind of stupid ass reduction makes it seem that the left appeals to the humanity and emotions of detractors to forge a narrative. No our disagreement is based on technical, statistical, historical and philsophical principles.. I couldnt care less if you feel bad or not that poor people are suffering. My contention is that your view is irresponsible and if it were replicated past a certain point would be detrimental to me as well as the group, therefore my unpleasant delivery and demeanor. Now we can argue the effectiveness about this kind of aggression and demeanor in convincing said detractors. Our understanding and expectations of the social contract are at odds, if not irreconcilable.
https://twitter.com/InnerPartisan/status/973637640846233601How very postmodern. :hitler
pretty sure that started as a liberal meme
The Blyth videos are making me want to find a good Taleb video. He's not a great speaker, so it's tough to find a vid where he flows well and the audio is good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3REdLZ8Xis
You've seriously never seen this before?Notice that under the "equity" regime that not only is there a new hole in the side of the fence but they "fix" the damage on top of the fence by hiding it behind a child. (Or boxes, assuming the man took one down for the larger child.)
(http://i2.wp.com/interactioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IISC_EqualityEquity.png?zoom=2&resize=730%2C547)
Pretty sure I first saw this like a decade ago when I started highschool.
Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say. This should be obvious to anyone who has spent even a few moments critically examining his writings and speeches, which are comically befuddled, pompous, and ignorant. They are half nonsense, half banality. In a reasonable world, Peterson would be seen as the kind of tedious crackpot that one hopes not to get seated next to on a train.
But we do not live in a reasonable world. In fact, Peterson’s reach is astounding. His 12 Rules for Life is the #1 most-read book on Amazon, where it has a perfect 5-star rating. One person said that when he came across a physical copy of Peterson’s first book, “I wanted to hold it in my hands and contemplate its significance for a few minutes, as if it was one of Shakespeare’s pens or a Gutenberg Bible.” The world’s leading newspapers have declared him one of the most important living thinkers. The Times says his “message is overwhelmingly vital,” and a Guardian columnist grudgingly admits that Peterson “deserves to be taken seriously.” David Brooks thinks Peterson might be “the most influential public intellectual in the Western world right now.” He has been called “the deepest, clearest voice of conservative thought in the world today” a man whose work “should make him famous for the ages.” Malcolm Gladwell calls him “a wonderful psychologist.” And it’s not just members of the popular press that have conceded Peterson’s importance: the chair of the Harvard psychology department praised his magnum opus Maps of Meaning as “brilliant” and “beautiful.” Zachary Slayback of the Foundation for Economic Education wonders how any serious person could possibly write off Peterson, saying that “even the most anti-Peterson intellectual should be able to admit that his project is a net-good.” We are therefore presented with a puzzle: if Jordan Peterson has nothing to say, how has he attracted this much recognition? If it’s so “obvious” that he can be written off as a charlatan, why do so many people respect his intellect?
This column has resisted comment so far on the biggest self-help sensation in years – the subject of approximately a gazillion media profiles – because I don’t know what to think. Clearly, he’s got some obnoxious followers, including those who spat misogynistic venom at Channel 4’s Cathy Newman, after she subjected their hero to an ordinarily aggressive British TV interview. He’s also too fond of explaining differences between men and women in terms of evolution, no matter how flimsy the evidence. (And who knows what else lurks on the hours of YouTube videos I haven’t watched?) On the other hand, it’s equally clear that many of his detractors have barely opened his bestseller, 12 Rules for Life, a sprawling, often brilliant, sometimes infuriating book built around the core message that life works best if you take responsibility instead of blaming others, tell the truth, pursue meaning over fleeting pleasure, give your day some structure and tidy your room. If rudderless young men are flocking to him in droves, that’s hardly a bad thing. I hope they follow his advice: we’d all be better off.
But lately, my wishy-washy ambivalence about Peterson has hardened into defiance: why the hell should I be obliged to decide, as seemingly every writer who encounters his work thinks they are, whether Canada’s most controversial professor is A Good Thing or A Bad Thing?
it's such a waste of time.how so?
His reading comprehension skills are… limited. Here is Peterson describing an important political awakening he experienced from reading George Orwell, who he says finally convinced him not to be a socialist:
"My college roommate, an insightful cynic, expressed skepticism regarding my ideological beliefs. He told me that the world could not be completely encapsulated within the boundaries of socialist philosophy. I had more or less come to this conclusion on my own, but had not admitted so much in words. Soon afterward, however, I read George Orwell’s Road to Wigan Pier. This book finally undermined me—not only my socialist ideology, but my faith in ideological stances themselves. In the famous essay concluding that book (written for—and much to the dismay of—the British Left Book Club) Orwell described the great flaw of socialism, and the reason for its frequent failure to attract and maintain democratic power (at least in Britain). Orwell said, essentially, that socialists did not really like the poor. They merely hated the rich. His idea struck home instantly. Socialist ideology served to mask resentment and hatred, bred by failure. Many of the party activists I had encountered were using the ideals of social justice to rationalize their pursuit of personal revenge. "
And here is George Orwell, in The Road To Wigan Pier, which Peterson says convinced him that socialism was folly because socialists were resentful:
"Please notice that I am arguing for Socialism, not against it. […] The job of the thinking person, therefore, is not to reject Socialism but to make up his mind to humanize it…For the moment, the only possible course of any decent person, however much of a Tory or an anarchist by temperament, is to work for the establishment of Socialism. Nothing else can save us from the misery of the present or the nightmare of the future […] Indeed, from one point of view, Socialism is such elementary common sense that I am sometimes amazed it has not established itself already. The world is a raft sailing through space with, potentially, plenty of provisions for everybody; the idea that we must all co-operate and see to it that everyone does his fair share of the work and gets his fair share of the provisions, seems so blatantly obvious that one would say that nobody could possibly fail to accept it unless he had some corrupt motive for clinging to the present system. […] To recoil from Socialism because so many socialists are inferior people is as absurd as refusing to travel by train because you dislike the ticket-collector’s face."
Orwell flat-out says that anybody who evaluates the merits of socialist policies by the personal qualities of socialists themselves is an idiot. Peterson concludes that Orwell thought socialist policies was flawed because socialists themselves were bad people. I don’t think there is a way of reading Peterson other than as extremely stupid or extremely dishonest, but one can be charitable and assume he simply didn’t read the book that supposedly gave him his grand revelation about socialism.
Oblivion
do you think its perhaps relevant to examine the passage in Wigan Pier that Peterson references and compare that rather than another random passage? Actually, it probably requires reading the whole book and placing in the passage within the overall work. That's a part of reading comprehension.
You are taking a troll piece seriously btw.
(As did Peterson, as he did not like the article at all.)
Count on it being filed as misinterpetation if he does decide to read it.Oblivion
do you think its perhaps relevant to examine the passage in Wigan Pier that Peterson references and compare that rather than another random passage? Actually, it probably requires reading the whole book and placing in the passage within the overall work. That's a part of reading comprehension.
Holy shit, are you for real.
Shos, I gotta say, I'm a bit disappointed with you. I totally expect someone like etiloiate to dismiss such an article, but not you.Then you've misread me completely. I side with etiolate most of the time he posts. I certainly appreciate his perspective much more often than others here do.
I suggest checking it out, cause there's some real gold there. Like Peterson "reading" one of Orwell's books and coming to the exact opposite fucking conclusion that Orwell tried to get across:This is precisely one of the things I came across that made me dismiss the rest of it out of hand.
that the activation of resentment through politics was a dangerous path
:hitlerIf you think I wrote something ironic, please elaborate.
jp and his fans clearly resent feminists and maybe just womenI understand why you'd make the association but I think the set of people who have found themselves rejecting social justice and militant third wave feminism is actually a fair deal larger than the set of right wing resentfuls invested in their own hate (and delusions about life caused by their failures). It's a really shallow misinterpretation of his philosophy.
In any case, I'm a really orthodox Democrat and would (recently) consider myself a vocal fan. Reconcile that if you can.
I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Try again.
The most memorable part of that video for me was that he was worried traditional marriage had taken too much of a hit and that the value of the sacred ritual was being forgotten (that it's a bond of mutual refinement for the noble aim of raising children in a stable environment). I don't think that's a good enough reason because people disrespect marriage all on their own without any help from The Gays, not to mention there are serious civic rights and privileges afforded to wedded individuals, but I'm not unsympathetic to his reasoning.
I know what the quote's from, I'm responding to the underlying accusation.
No partisan stuff from me, I just find it amazing how often this brilliant guy says the dumbest shit. Even more amazing when etiolet can find a way to back him up and correct someone laughing at him and make what he said sound even dumber/worse.Yeah, he's clearly an intelligent guy with some value to add, but then he talks about the bible stuff and I wish someone could lean in and whisper in his ear 'Jordan, no. Clean your room'
then you should see how "i voted for hillary" reinforces rather than rebuts it"I would vote for Obama a third time" was hilarious because before it was in that movie, it was a cultural meme about white people who were going to vote for Trump and denied they were racist by saying they voted for a black person twice, an action that wasn't irreconcilable with being racist. It's not just about the irrelevance of political preference with underlying resentment politics. Anyway, resorting to a subtle accusation of deplorability is laziness.
by saying they voted for a black person twice, an action that wasn't irreconcilable with being racist
Ok, Mandark. You caught me. I hate women.
The majority of people can't stand them, which includes a lot of women.Is this just a gut feeling?
What? Who other than radical feminists call people misogynist for making fun of radical feminists? Radical feminists have been the butt of jokes on all sides and all sexes/genders for decades.
The majority of people can't stand them, which includes a lot of women.Is this just a gut feeling?
you keep bringing in stuff that i haven't saidI'm contesting that Jordan is actively trying to create resentment in people for political ends. I'm saying I'm a person who doesn't fit your mental model of the average fan. Bringing up that my political preference isn't necessarily proof that I don't hold certain views is an accusation that I belong in the set of people who belong to that political inclination but hold those sorts of views. You can backtrack from it now if you want but I was a bit incensed by it.
i do think you resent feminists (and this was established outside this thread) tho
I'm saying I'm a person who doesn't fit your mental model of the average fan. Bringing up that my political preference isn't necessarily proof that I don't hold certain views is an accusation that I belong in the set of people who belong to that political inclination but hold those sorts of views. You can backtrack from it now if you want but I was a bit incensed by it.
Defaults to traditionalism too much.honest question, has he ever provided a criterion for judging the ethical/correct choice between competing alternatives? I mean one beyond either the pragmatic ‘it works’ (why does it work?) or the simple perpetuation of the relevant agent -be it individual, society, species, whatever. Why do student protest groups need to be chided at rather than viewed as an instrument of introducing a chaotic* element into X so that X can reach a further, more sophisticated state of equilibrium (or just a state of equilibrium)?
Defaults to traditionalism too much.honest question, has he ever provided a criterion for judging the ethical/correct choice between competing alternatives? I mean one beyond either the pragmatic ‘it works’ (why does it work?) or the simple perpetuation of the relevant agent -be it individual, society, species, whatever. Why do student protest groups need to be chided at rather than viewed as an instrument of introducing a chaotic* element into X so that X can reach a further, more sophisticated state of equilibrium (or just a state of equilibrium)?
If he doesn’t have one, then the conclusions he draws are ad hoc and we might as well be drawing contradictory ones that are nevertheless equally consistent with his methodological priors.
I don’t think that’s the case though because he needs a criterion in order for his project to have any normative punch. If his normative prescriptions are primarily informed by his work on myth, what do they amount to? The virgin birth tells us something important morally, great. How do we convert this into a proposition and how do we operationalize it in our daily lives in a way that isn’t ad hoc? How universalizable are these principles (assuming much of the appeal of Peterson is his moral realism, one would hope: very) and are they all supposed to be saying something univocally? If the answer to the latter is “No, myths/customs/traditions can contradict each other,” then, again, what criterion do we use to privledge the myths/customs/traditions that are more correct (this is the exact point brought up by Harris, quoted in that currentaffairs piece)?
I bring this up because evolution-as-metaphysics has been tried before, and it largely resulted in the parading of the given author’s favorite just-so story. It’s exactly what Darwin was reacting against; he shed evolutionary theory of any ethical purport in order to give it scientific purchase (http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/04/evolution-as-pseudoscience.html?m=1). Peterson is committed to a Darwinian (his words) understanding of culture and truth, and he has been for the better part of 20 years now. In order to justify that, he needs to do the legwork of answering the tensions I just raised, and I haven’t seen him definitively do that anywhere.
*or orderly, it really doesn’t matter
So the protesting isn't doing much or isn't "working" because its not accomplishing anything.but why can’t protesting be construed as having its own functional role to play, e.g. in affecting policy?And why is it mutually exclusive to coming up with technological solutions to problems?
So overall, it is a matter of functional, viable and workable. Hopefully you can see the vast difference between holding a sign about "save the oceans" and actually building a manta ray bot to remove plastic from the ocean.
What it does accomplish, if anything,is shut down the speaker and that's not a good accomplishment. If you're against nazis then don't shut down the guy saying don't join the nazisthis seems understandable, but I think Peterson’s stance on free speech is stronger than this. He thinks you should defend the nazis right to speak as well, but it isn’t clear to me how he justifies this based on his own understanding of truth. The nazi wants to kill people, if we give them a political platform, this furthers their plan to kill people. Going off of purely self-perservatory principles, barring his right to speak and beating him in debate “accomplishes” the same thing, we’ve stopped his agenda. How do we know that the latter is morally right and the former is morally wrong if they both have the same consequence? Additionally, if we give him a chance to state his case this opens up a chance at him furthering his plan, provided we don’t beat him in debate. If this leads him to actually kill people, then it’s not only morally wrong, according to Peterson, it’s also untrue. Why would we put ourselves in that position to begin with? Where did this inviolable freedom of speech come from and how does it follow from Peterson’s thought?
So the protesting isn't doing much or isn't "working" because its not accomplishing anything.but why can’t protesting be construed as having its own functional role to play, e.g. in affecting policy?And why is it mutually exclusive to coming up with technological solutions to problems?
So overall, it is a matter of functional, viable and workable. Hopefully you can see the vast difference between holding a sign about "save the oceans" and actually building a manta ray bot to remove plastic from the ocean.QuoteWhat it does accomplish, if anything,is shut down the speaker and that's not a good accomplishment. If you're against nazis then don't shut down the guy saying don't join the nazisthis seems understandable, but I think Peterson’s stance on free speech is stronger than this. He thinks you should defend the nazis right to speak as well, but it isn’t clear to me how he justifies this based on his own understanding of truth. The nazi wants to kill people, if we give them a political platform, this furthers their plan to kill people. Going off of purely self-perservatory principles, barring his right to speak and beating him in debate “accomplishes” the same thing, we’ve stopped his agenda. How do we know that the latter is morally right and the former is morally wrong if they both have the same consequence? Additionally, if we give him a chance to state his case this opens up a chance at him furthering his plan, provided we don’t beat him in debate. If this leads him to actually kill people, then it’s not only morally wrong, according to Peterson, it’s also untrue. Why would we put ourselves in that position to begin with? Where did this inviolable freedom of speech come from and how does it follow from Peterson’s thought?
A reoccuring theme is the difference between an act that is giving and productive versus an act that is self-serving and loud.The same could be said of debating Nazis and attendant ideologies. Deflating their arguments sounds nice in isolation, but these are hollow victories, as they don't actually care about and arguably despise the rules by which you win your moral high ground (one of the reasons I unequivocally support their marginalization). What they crave most of all in their position right now is legitimacy. The opportunity to present their ideas. The more mainstream the forum, the better.
A reoccuring theme is the difference between an act that is giving and productive versus an act that is self-serving and loud.my ears prick up because there’s some sort of altruism at work here. Do you know of anywhere where he elaborates or justifies this? I’d be really interested.
You say it can affect policy. It could. It could be very terrible policy. I live in California. We put forth policy that's terribly written and needlessly expensive all the time. We think we're doing good, but we're largely incompetent.i take away: writing policy is hard, we should be cautious about it; political activism/discourse is often turgid and also has the potential to do harm; people should be competent at their jobs. Which, cool, I agree with all of that, but it doesn’t tell me shit about any of the questions I initially raised. This is why I followed up about the nazi example because free speech is one of his big sticking points and so one of the best opportunities, it seems to me, of finding out how he’s deriving his normative prescriptions.
I've been to some protests. I don't find them to often be the most intelligible things. I have similar doubts about the response to a school shooting. A lot of politically motivated posturing on both sides.
So even when you protest, you do a better job protesting when you're competent.
And of course you're not really debating the alt-righter. You're telling the audience "this is dumb" and not caring if the alt-righter changes their mind at all.If debates are held for the purpose of changing the mind of a dedicated and willing advocate of an arguments mind then the nature of debate seems inherently doomed.
What does the alt-right talk about? Do you even know?Apparently irrational fears about race and ethnicity centered around an unhealthy obsession with white power*:
You'll be debating alt-righters on the idea of white genocide and the idea that white isn't full of a multitiude of genetic backgrounds and white culture is isolated rather than heavily influenced by other cultures like almost all cultures happen to be. The idea of a peaceful ethno-state being a joke.
A reoccuring theme is the difference between an act that is giving and productive versus an act that is self-serving and loud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkmXwByGmjc(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/574/293/c22.png)
I may be overly threading the needle here and reflecting my own free speech absolutist views but I'm not sure anyone (in here, or anything by Peterson that I've seen) is arguing that Nazi's or anyone else should be given a platform. Just that it's not ideal to deny them one they already have through force.
For example, Richard Spencer wants to come talk, if there's enough outrage that the school says no, that's okay. But once he's already invited, the event scheduled and so on, protesting him by disrupting his event, etc. is uncouth at minimum, for Peterson and many others it's authoritarian. Instead he should be allowed to speak, and then refuted in other ways than shutting down his event.
Its only a Jordan Peterson thread to certain people.
No. What Peterson is talking about are boundaries that the threat of physical violence sets. He is talking about parameters of civility in discussion. He is making the argument that men are used to that civility being established by the mutually understood possibility of violence. In order to avoid violence, which neither side wants, we do not trespass certain boundaries in our discussions.
It's not about dominance. It's the basic understanding of "if I say something cruel or act maniacally, the other man may punch me in response, so I shouldn't be cruel or act maniacally."
It's sort of: Men are mostly lost without that violence boundary.
You can protest Spencer. It's the idea of shutting down his right to speak and punching him that backfires.
See, what may be boundaries between you and I
Because it popularizes Spencer. It popularizes the alt-right. That Onion joke about White Supremacist struggling to meet all those press appointments? That's because you've made alt-right a selling point.Has this borne out?
And also because eventually they'll punch back and it'll escalate. Like Charlotesville.
What sort of bullshit have you swallowed to think it's not a bad idea?
Well I don't really find your question to be anything other than a shitpost.Well yeah, low-effort is my middle name, but it's a fair question regardless. Given that you've clarified what you meant with 'popularize', we don't actually have a strong disagreement on this point. I agree, it gives him publicity (because d'uh), but it doesn't seem to have amounted to a whole lot, neither do I think that it will.
When you have several websites writing articles about a guy and advertising his speaking events then you are popularizing him. (and the alt right) Note, I don't mean popularize as into make liked, but as in to make a topic of interest and fashion it as interesting.
In philosophy and in robotics, this is called the frame problem. This is where Peterson gets into functionality and may be the principle you're trying to dig out....this is part of what I want to get at. This pruning process in decision making where we determine what’s relevant and what’s not is definitely a question that I want to see answered by Peterson. The answers that I’ve typically seen from him are of the sort of just simple self preservation (of an individual, of a group, of society, whatever).
Frame problem:
http://groups.umd.umich.edu/cis/course.des/cis479/projects/frame/welcome.html
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frame-problem/
The water bot is more functional towards the accomplishment. However, maybe the protest is really more about feeling like you're doing something. The protest is functional towards that. (Even though it really may not be helping the ocean.)right, this is exactly my point. Protesting could really be about something else. Or it could be about saving the ocean but it gets at it indirectly in a cunning of reason type of way. But given Peterson’s hostility to it here, it seems that he doesn’t think either of those to be the case. So, if we want to be consistent functionalists here, then we explain this by saying that not all social phenomena serve roles that realize society’s end/goal/telos. This is perfectly fine. But it raises the question how we can know which movements/events/whatever have functions in this organism we call society and which don’t.
only watched the first 6 mins (not going to watch more, grew bored) but a few observations
- This dude has a pretty neat intro
- Lindsay Shepherd has weird mannerisms, especially facially, like she speaks with disdain, or maybe she doesn't feel comfortable or something
- The host seems to stutter and fall over his words
i mostly like mark steyn
I dont get why relations with Muslims became such a clusterfuck up north, I live in a city where Muslims are a huge number of us, sunni some ahmadi and everyone flocks to districts populated by Muslims as they have the best food. Sure there's the occasional outbreak of salt by three bloggers because Burger King is Halal, but like no one cares after a day.
also, his frettting about the rise of Islam and the multiculturalism of the Left was that it would(hopefully) lead to the rise of a new fascism in Yurop and the West as a backlash, so you better get another L from etoliate buddy :ufupspoiler (click to show/hide):doge[close]
Momo, you rock spider!LOL dont tell any of these nonces what that means!
Momo, you rock spider!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUMkRa6lBAQ
tbf I think we'd already established that we look for different shit in our political commentators. But your super high tolerance for racism from personalities you find entertaining always trips me up when I'm reminded of it.
Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world.
On the latest adventure of Mandy exposes himself..
Mandark defaults to racism because he has the depth of a bottle cap. Insert skin-in-the-game here.
I don't have much of an opinion on Steyn. I don't get into the pundits too much and I've only seen him via two interviews he's done, and apparently that's not his best stuff.
According to the Census, in 1970 the "Non-Hispanic White" population of California was 78%. By the 2010 census, it was 40%. Over the same period, the 10% Hispanic population quadrupled and caught up with whites.
That doesn't sound terribly "natural" does it? If one were informed that, say, the population of Nigeria had gone from 80% black in 1970 to 40% black today, one would suspect something rather odd and unnatural had been going on.
Twenty years ago, Rwanda was about 14% Tutsi. Now it's just under 10%. So it takes a bunch of Hutu butchers getting out their machetes and engaging in seven-figure genocide to lower the Tutsi population by a third.
But, when the white population of California falls by half, that's "natural," just the way it is, one of those things, could happen to anyone.
...
The short history of the Western Hemisphere is as follows: North America was colonized by Anglo-Celts, Central and South America by "Hispanics." Up north, two centuries of constitutional evolution and economic growth; down south, coups, corruption, generalissimos and presidents-for-life.
None of us can know the future. It may be that Charles Krauthammer is correct that Hispanics are natural Republicans merely pining for amnesty, a Hallmark Cinco de Mayo card and a mariachi band at the inaugural ball.
Or it may be that, in defiance of Dr. Krauthammer, Grover Norquist and Little Mary Sunshine, demographics is destiny and, absent assimilationist incentives this country no longer imposes, a Latin-American population will wind up living in a Latin-American society.
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/975590984212889605
JP calling out another fan account.
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/975580116905443328
Literally so much for the tolerant left
Of course it is, but etiolate made a bunch of care posts about the slippery slope of punching Nazis for hate speech a year ago.Because it popularizes Spencer. It popularizes the alt-right. That Onion joke about White Supremacist struggling to meet all those press appointments? That's because you've made alt-right a selling point.
And also because eventually they'll punch back and it'll escalate. Like Charlotesville.
What sort of bullshit have you swallowed to think it's not a bad idea?
But isn't it a prime example of the violence boundary you were talking about. That's like the perfect example of "Talk shit, get hit".
He's an older man that cant even work a webcam to record himself, obviously he doesnt have Donald Trump levels of twitter skills :trumpshttps://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/975590984212889605 (https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/975590984212889605)
JP calling out another fan account.
This is at least the third time this has happened. :doge
This is hotep shit for white people.i meant to respond to this somehow, waiting for a moment where I could fit into the discussion itt but no opportunity really presented itself. Anyway...
As emergent properties, moral structures are real. It is on real ground, deeply historical, emergent—even evolutionarily-determined—that our world rests, not on the comparatively shallow ground of rationality (as established in Europe, a mere 400 years ago). What we have in our culture is much more profound and solid and deep than any mere rational construction. We have a form of government, an equilibrated state, which is an emergent consequence of an ancient process. The process undergirding the development of this governmental form stems much farther back even than the Egyptians, even than the Mesopotamians—stems back to behavioral ritual and oral tradition. It is very old, this process, and it produces very reliable results (even if we do not always under stand them; even if they can be variably interpreted).
Completely dishonest, down to the format.
Peterson diagnoses this crisis as a loss of faith in old verities. “In the West,” he writes, “we have been withdrawing from our tradition-, religion- and even nation-centred cultures.” Peterson offers to alleviate the resulting “desperation of meaninglessness,” with a return to “ancient wisdom.” It is possible to avoid “nihilism,” he asserts, and “to find sufficient meaning in individual consciousness and experience” with the help of “the great myths and religious stories of the past.”i've read Fathers and Sons along with Pat Buchanan's 1992 GOP convention speech too buddy :doge
Peterson himself credits his intellectual awakening to the Cold War, when he began to ponder deeply such “evils associated with belief” as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, and became a close reader of Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago.lol when was this
his claim that divorce laws should not have been liberalized in the 1960s .... his speculation that “feminists avoid criticizing Islam because they unconsciously long for masculine dominance.”this deal keeps getting worse all the time
1. Stand up straight with your shoulders backwait...are these the actual twelve?
2. Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
3. Make friends with people who want the best for you
4. Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today
5. Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
6. Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world
7. Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
8. Tell the truth – or, at least, don’t lie
9. Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t
10. Be precise in your speech
11. Do not bother children when they are skateboarding
12. Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street
Quote1. Stand up straight with your shoulders backwait...are these the actual twelve?
2. Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
3. Make friends with people who want the best for you
4. Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today
5. Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
6. Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world
7. Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
8. Tell the truth – or, at least, don’t lie
9. Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t
10. Be precise in your speech
11. Do not bother children when they are skateboarding
12. Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street
eight and eleven are amazing
benji, after going back through some old Steyn pieces, it might be more troubling that you think he's funny than being okay with his racism.well far cop unless we get a sample size of what i remember and what you're looking at, but since this is mildly off topic imma spoiler my desperate steyn spin:
Late last month the Canadian author sued conservative media startup CRTV for breach of contract following the network’s abrupt cancellation of The Mark Steyn Show after just two months on the air. Steyn demanded the court issue a restraining order keeping his show running while it adjudicated his breach-of-contract allegations, saying his “employees will suffer irreparable harm because they will lose their health insurance coverage as a result of [CRTV’s] actions,” in the judge’s summation.
Steyn was there, he said, to protect their interests, claims he reiterated on his website: “I didn’t feel the cameramen and production assistants and musicians and audio engineers should have to suffer because I was stupid enough to get into bed with CRTV.”
His employees tell a different story: They say Steyn ran the show into the ground. He generally wouldn’t even speak to crew members, they claim, and when he did, he verbally abused them. In one case Steyn referred to members of the northern Vermont-based crew, a former employee claimed under oath, as “a bunch of meth-heads.”
CRTV financed the construction of a television studio in Williston, Vermont, near Steyn’s home in New Hampshire, that crew members described as expensive and sophisticated. “It is absolutely beautiful. Imagine walking into The Tonight Show,” said Paul Kullman, who ran camera operations on the set.
Steyn’s deal with CRTV called for five episodes per week, each running one “television hour”—or about 45 minutes to allow for commercial breaks if CRTV opted to sell the rights to the show to a cable provider down the line.
From Dec. 21 through Feb. 8, CRTV claims, Steyn produced just 11 episodes longer than 40 minutes
When cameras weren’t rolling, crew members say Steyn was almost entirely inaccessible. His offices were on the second floor of the studio facility, and they say Howes, who is Steyn’s publisher in addition to being his spokesperson and an executive on the show, instructed crew members not to approach him there—and, when he entered the studio, not to make eye contact.
“People that worked downstairs weren’t allowed to go to the upstairs offices because it was too distracting for Mark. It was bizarre,” Kullman said. According to one crew member’s sworn statement, staff were even instructed not to enter the second-floor restrooms and instead told to use ones by the studio facility’s loading dock.
benji, after going back through some old Steyn pieces, it might be more troubling that you think he's funny than being okay with his racism.
People thought Scalia was witty too :idontwas it the New Yorker that wrote like a 20,000 word article based on this premise?
People thought Scalia was witty too :idontwas it the New Yorker that wrote like a 20,000 word article based on this premise?
i'd slap the article writer too because of its lack of COMMENTShttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQpKb0U800I
Scalia could get jiggery-pokery
At Humble Bundle, we are always working to improve our products and better understand our customers. We'd like to hear feedback via an online survey.
If you qualify for and complete the survey we will send you $5 in Humble Store credit* as a thank you for your time. The survey will take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete.
not to pull rank or anything but as one of the boritos most familiar with the industry, a jordan peterson style "career take off" is the last thing i would want and i imagine most others who are actually interested in their field and not ranging miles outside it to become youtube famous for a little while, though i'm sure the short term income bump will be nice
Anti Parasite
6 months ago
Jordan Peterson redefines the word "inspiration", he himself probably just saved western civilization from catastrophic collapse by educating hundreds of thousands of individuals. RESCUE YOUR FATHER
Gregory Craig
11 months ago
Jordan Peterson is fighting the most important battle for western civilization. The bravest man I've seen.
bpm990d
11 months ago
Dr. Peterson is one tough SOB and I like it; he reminds me of Churchill.
Pray Unceasingly
11 months ago (edited)
+TheLifesentence2278
Satan is in power. That's the true influence behind these nefarious plots that are simultaneously coming to fruition in western governments and nations. We need prayer and we need God. I dont see much else that can counter this situation. The bible says God is a real help in time of need. This is a great time of need not just in our nations but in our own hearts and minds. I believe God helps those who truthfully call on him for help.
Im reading Libido Dominandi. Its quite interesting.
It seems one of the main basis for our current society is the promotion of the sexual vices as a part of our "freedom". A good majority of young people watch pornography and are loose sexually. And this is never warned against by our own leaders probably due to fear of offending that majority and thereby losing votes. Instead it is accepted as normal and almost as a good thing.
We have perpetual revolution going on to free the masses from injustice - feminism, transgenderism, multiculturalism as strength, etc. These cause division, not unity.
The homosexual revolution is no different, it will not rest until everyone bows to it as a moral act as well as lifestyle.
"Whatever makes you happy as long as no one gets hurt" is the morality of today. But people do get hurt by sexual vices. No matter how moral they try to make it, it is a monster that keeps growing when it gets fed. And it is used by political groups to perpetuate constant revolution in our nations - revolution without weapons but a dangerous movement to society nonetheless which keeps moving to more extreme levels. When we threw out sexual morality we threw out the order and peace of our nation too. Our nations governments and institutions are now behind this perpetual revolution and are punishing anyone who visually and publically is against it. Western society is just as sick now as any censoring communist nation even though we are not communist, our politically correct system works in the same way - to control speech and control the people.
Cleaning bowling balls is not a career.
There’s also a strong irrational bent:QuoteAs emergent properties, moral structures are real. It is on real ground, deeply historical, emergent—even evolutionarily-determined—that our world rests, not on the comparatively shallow ground of rationality (as established in Europe, a mere 400 years ago). What we have in our culture is much more profound and solid and deep than any mere rational construction. We have a form of government, an equilibrated state, which is an emergent consequence of an ancient process. The process undergirding the development of this governmental form stems much farther back even than the Egyptians, even than the Mesopotamians—stems back to behavioral ritual and oral tradition. It is very old, this process, and it produces very reliable results (even if we do not always under stand them; even if they can be variably interpreted).
You guys really make an ass of yourself for all to see.
As with so many breakthroughs in personality research, the person who initiated scientific explorations of this topic was Hans Eysenck. Eysenck’s interest in the personality predictors of political extremism was perhaps forged by his experience of growing up in pre-war Germany2. It was, therefore, a central irony of Eysenck’s life that he fled from Germany to escape fascism in the 1930’s, only to fall foul of communism once in Britain3.
In a convergence of life and science, this irony did not escape Eysenck’s attention and he began researching the personality correlates of political extremism4.The crucial insight stemming from Eysenck’s work is that the specific flavour of extremism that people with highly authoritarian personalities support is immaterial. They merely gravitate towards whatever regime will give them a flag of convenience to act out their oppressive urges.
lolThere’s also a strong irrational bent:QuoteAs emergent properties, moral structures are real. It is on real ground, deeply historical, emergent—even evolutionarily-determined—that our world rests, not on the comparatively shallow ground of rationality (as established in Europe, a mere 400 years ago). What we have in our culture is much more profound and solid and deep than any mere rational construction. We have a form of government, an equilibrated state, which is an emergent consequence of an ancient process. The process undergirding the development of this governmental form stems much farther back even than the Egyptians, even than the Mesopotamians—stems back to behavioral ritual and oral tradition. It is very old, this process, and it produces very reliable results (even if we do not always under stand them; even if they can be variably interpreted).
Lord help me but I actually read this paper cause I wanted to see how he'd argue that "our government" was inevitably determined by something ancient and intrinsic in humanity. Like, how would he explain the much longer history of feudalism?
Most of it is just myth interpretation and then suddenly "by the way natural rights are real" shows up in the conclusion. AFAICT "our government" = "natural rights" and those rights are rooted in an idea of "sovereignty" which used to apply to a divine ruler but was gradually expanded to other classes until Christianity showed everyone that they each have an individual relationship with the divine. So feudalism, absolute monarchy, etc. become evidence in favor of natural rights being "real" which is pretty wild.
Most of it is just myth interpretation and then suddenly "by the way natural rights are real" shows up in the conclusion.the obvious issue to raise here is that it’s just an excerice in reading lockean ‘natural rights’ (or more accurately, what he takes to be lockean ‘natural rights’) into myths/traditions he’s cherry picking from. I have a hunch that any historicist response to this would effortlessly blow it up but I don’t know enough about Locke/17th-18th century property rights to say for sure. One of the fun things about this paper is: if he thinks the ‘rational constructions’ from 400 years ago (which, NB for the dear reader, he never engages with) are inferior to received implicit ancient knowledge, doesn’t that make him unequivocally anti-Enlightenment? Not married to that view, but i do think it’s a funny way to read the text.
AFAICT "our government" = "natural rights" and those rights are rooted in an idea of "sovereignty" which used to apply to a divine ruler but was gradually expanded to other classes until Christianity showed everyone that they each have an individual relationship with the divine. So feudalism, absolute monarchy, etc. become evidence in favor of natural rights being "real" which is pretty wild.yeah, soverignty is a theological principle for him in that paper, and I think you can draw some affinities to divine command theory. Like neo-Thomism but with less god and more Darwin (but still plenty of god).
He's busy fighting two year olds.
This tells us there is something special about democracy that prevents extremists gaining power. My guess is that because political extremism appeals to a minority whose personality attributes mean that they enjoy oppressing other people, it doesn’t appeal to the majority, who possess average personality profiles and thus are not especially attracted to oppressive behaviour.
Because democracy reflects the will of the majority, extremists will never win a fair election.
Therefore I suggest that the take home message from the recent atrocities in Paris is that we must do more to encourage the spread of democracy around the world, starving extremists of their authoritarian power base.
Considering the amount of slander and shit thrown his way, the boundary was passed a long time ago. I think it is the "lock them in and burn them down" chants at Queens University speech that got him on edge, but it seems its the particular lie about celebrating the noble savage in the NYBooks piece that upset him, with it coupled in with a shot at the native tribe he works with. The Current Affairs piece upset him as well. The hit pieces are getting worse and more verbose.There continues to be an incredible irony in criticizing critics of Peterson for being verbose. :neogaf
At a certain point you must respond.
"peddler of junk psychology"No one denies he has legitimate work, the things he actually submitted for peer review for instance.
His writings have been cited over 9000 times.
Like I said, this is only a Jordan Peterson thread to some.
I think Peterson is tougher to take down which is why he generates all this extra anger from people.In the same way a pudding is difficult to nail to a wall.
I was exchanging with jake until he revealed that his intent was not honest.
"peddler of junk psychology"
His writings have been cited over 9000 times.
Nola: maybe just maybe it's probably not junk psych if he's interested in it. Perhaps entertain the idea that you don't get it. Jake, too.The assumption here being that Peterson is a relatively perfect arbiter of what is and is not factually reputable. So defer to his judgement. To counter I may point you to his reactive peddling of a Sandusky truther article(I mentioned last night ), or his struggles to understand basic statistical findings about the gender breakdown of physicians then use that to buffer his arguments, his fondness for Google conspiracies, or his complete misunderstanding of the very bill that brought him some of his fame and notoriety.
Stro: Weinstein and Peterson are in line in various ways. They have different speaking habits. That Peterson is the lightning rod is because of the shit you read and the broken parts of your mind. There's not a really nice way to say that.
I think Peterson is tougher to take down which is why he generates all this extra anger from people. You should realize Bret is talking about the conditioned behavior and social control in that interview you're playing out.
I was exchanging with jake until he revealed that his intent was not honest.
Have you considered that your obsession with Peterson is a bit much?
Well two lawyers signed off on his misunderstanding of the lack of a criminal statute of the law, I guess that settles that. Time to close up shop. But before I go, care to point to the exact line that proves that?
Do you realize that when people call those that enjoy his talks words such as "loyal followers" or "disciples" or whatever that they're purposefully poisoning the well? Have you considered how much bullshit you have passively consumed in regards to Peterson?
Have you considered the odd amount of digging done to try tear him down? As though he is saying anything dangerous?
Hell, have you actually said anything worth responding to? I don't think so. Peterson is influenced by Jung. He uses Jung's ideas in ways that are relevant to what he's discussing. I do believe that he's said that Jung and Freud are both due more respect for what they found.
Outside of the little circle of the bore, the way you all behave is off the charts. You're freaks. You are lucky that anyone of any sanity level interacts with you. So I suggest to stop being cunts over Peterson, because it screams jealousy no matter how hard you try to hide it. If you don't have an interest in the discussion then just go. SO many fucking twats complained about the topic in other threads, so I make a different thread and those same twats come here.
You expect way more patience from people than you're worth.
He didn't misunderstand the bill. Two lawyers even signed off on his explanation and gave testimony of how the bill would work. I have no idea what you mean by Sandusky truther article. The "google conspiracy" was stuff outed by google employees, unless you mean the google bikini results which is just hitpicking.Oh, well two lawyers signed off on it, I guess that settles it. Time to wrap it up, but before you go, can you point me to the exact line that unequivocally codifies that mispronouncing a pronoun is subject to criminal prosecution under hate-crime laws?
I don't think Peterson misunderstood C-16, but he definitely mis-characterized the level of enforcement e.g. he could potentially be fined for misgendering someone intentionally, say while lecturing at the University of Toronto which falls under the OHRCs protected grounds, after they have gone through due process to inform the institution and Peterson of their preference, but it is not a criminal act. He could not be jailed.
Nola: maybe just maybe it's probably not junk psych if he's interested in it. Perhaps entertain the idea that you don't get it. Jake, too.fwiw, I have no dog in the fight of determining either the scientific validity of (certain branches of) psychology or Peterson’s competence as a clinical psychologist. I don’t know dick about either. But, in Peterson’s project to construct a theory of everything, his work does impinge on some topics I do know dick about, like philosophy of science, philosophy of the social sciences, history of philosophy, and religious history. As mandarks pointed out, his claims/arguments/premises and especially his normative prescriptions -the whole reason why anyone is talking about him- can’t all be reduced to simple psychological work or a handful of psychological mechanisms/taxonomies, the big five or otherwise. What I’ve been trying to show, carefully and at length to you and anyone else who might care, are the metaphysical and epistemological commitments that Peterson depends on in order to arrive at truth claims like “conservatism insulates society in times of crisis” and “these particular protestors ought not to be protesting” and whether or not they can be reconciled with each other as Peterson’s explained them.
I was exchanging with jake until he revealed that his intent was not honest.ive stated from the first (http://www.thebore.com/forum/index.php?topic=44608.msg2342230#msg2342230) that I think Peterson’s project is riddled with inconsistencies, incoherences, and falsehoods to the point where it’s essentially bankrupt. This follows from the particular points I’ve brought up, mostly quotes/passages from his own hand, that are inconsistent, incoherent, or false. If you disagree with my take on these particulars, great, demonstrate that I’m wrong on them and we both benefit. If you don’t want to, that’s cool too, but you haven’t provided a reason beyond “he might be right” for me to reconsider my position.
I don't think Peterson misunderstood C-16, but he definitely mis-characterized the level of enforcement e.g. he could potentially be fined for misgendering someone intentionally, say while lecturing at the University of Toronto which falls under the OHRCs protected grounds, after they have gone through due process to inform the institution and Peterson of their preference, but it is not a criminal act. He could not be jailed.
You guys really make an ass of yourself for all to see.
I don't think Peterson misunderstood C-16, but he definitely mis-characterized the level of enforcement e.g. he could potentially be fined for misgendering someone intentionally, say while lecturing at the University of Toronto which falls under the OHRCs protected grounds, after they have gone through due process to inform the institution and Peterson of their preference, but it is not a criminal act. He could not be jailed.
His statement was that he would not pay the fine because he found the law unjust and this refusal to pay the fine would lead to jail time.
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/975580116905443328
Literally so much for the tolerant left
Jake still gets this work when the topic is metal, being a filthy Pantera stan doesn't help.
Has anyone actually been fined or arrested in Canada for whatever it was Peterson made his big stand on that normal people would just roll their eyes and continue with life as normal?As far as I understand it the argument so far is that the university Peterson works for told him to knock it off under the advice of lawyers who told them he might be breaking the law. That's all I think.
No one complained, the university thought he was putting them at risk of litigation/being in violation of the law if he continued. I'm not a JP expert but this is how I remember it when I listened to Jordan Peterson talk with Joe Rogan. Also keep in mind this comes from JP so he may be inferring some stuff about the university's intent.Has anyone actually been fined or arrested in Canada for whatever it was Peterson made his big stand on that normal people would just roll their eyes and continue with life as normal?As far as I understand it the argument so far is that the university Peterson works for told him to knock it off under the advice of lawyers who told them he might be breaking the law. That's all I think.
Were there complaints from students or was it him being vocal to the public about it
But the university only knew about it because he made it a point to make sure everyone knew he wasn't going to follow that law rightIt occurs to me I cant actually remember how this whole JP thing started, but he did go on TV and say he would never follow the law. Not sure how deep in the timeline this is but probably relatively early, yet after whatever sparked his popularity since he was on TV already.
I don't think Peterson misunderstood C-16, but he definitely mis-characterized the level of enforcement e.g. he could potentially be fined for misgendering someone intentionally, say while lecturing at the University of Toronto which falls under the OHRCs protected grounds, after they have gone through due process to inform the institution and Peterson of their preference, but it is not a criminal act. He could not be jailed.
His statement was that he would not pay the fine because he found the law unjust and this refusal to pay the fine would lead to jail time.
]
Nicholas says
BASICALLY
IT'S NOT CORRECT THAT THERE IS
SUCH A THING AS BIOLOGICAL SEX.
Jordan says THEY'RE
NOT MINOR.
THEY PUT IT INTO THE HATE SPEECH
CATEGORY.
THEY'RE NOT MINOR AT ALL.
THAT'S A MISSTATEMENT.
DON'T TELL ME THEY'RE MINOR.
THAT'S NOT RIGHT.
Kyle says SO SECTION...
PARDON ME.
SO SECTION 318 SETS OUT A SERIES
OF IDENTIFIABLE GROUPS, AND
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CLEAREST
OF CASES.
THE CASES OF ADVOCATING
GENOCIDE.
WE HAVE A SERIES OF GROUPS THAT
ARE ALREADY IDENTIFIED IN THE
CODE, AND ALL THIS DOES IS ADD
GENDER IDENTITY AND GENDER
EXPRESSION TO THE CATEGORIES
THAT ARE ALREADY IDENTIFIED.
AND SO I THINK WE REALLY HAVE TO
ADD SOME REASONABLENESS TO THIS
DISCUSSION.
ACTUALLY CLEARLY ARTICULATE WHAT
THE PROVISION DOES.
Steve says LET ME BE A LITTLE
CLEARER ABOUT WHAT SOME OF THE
PROBLEMS... WHAT YOU MIGHT BE
ASKING FOR IF YOU WANT TO DO
THIS.
FOR EXAMPLE, AND, SHELDON,
BOTTOM OF PAGE 3 HERE.
LET'S PUT THIS GRAPHIC UP.
Another quote appears on screen, under the title "No jail!" The quote reads "Pronoun misuse may become actionable, through the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures). Jail time is not one of them."
Quoted from Brenda Crossman, sds.utoronto.ca, October 2016.
Steve says JORDAN, YOU'RE NOT
GOING TO GO TO JAIL IF YOU KEEP
THIS UP.
DO YOU FIND THAT REASSURING?
Jordan says WHAT IF I
DON'T PAY THE FINE?
Steve says THEN WHAT?
I really hate zie, zim, zur etc, and think these laws should be a little clearer as to what pronouns are to be used rather than pick your own pronoun.Honestly don't think this should be in law at all. Would be better to have something like crimen injuria.
But in the end he brought it all on himself by acting like a 13 year old getting told to take out the trashYou're freaks. You are lucky that anyone of any sanity level interacts with you.
Yes, Jordan Peterson Really Is That Smart
The New York Review of Books sneered at him, but he’s for real. To have David Brooks and the Trumpists in his corner, he has to be.
So would he have voted for Donald Trump? You might think this question would have elicited a slam dunk “Yes!” coming from a man who has become something of a regular guest on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight.
“Jesus,” says Peterson, “that’s a hard question.”
“I think what I would have done was walk into the voting booth with the intention of voting for Clinton, and then, at the last minute, gone, ‘To hell with it. I’m not doing it,’ and voted for Trump,” he said.
Like many on the right, this is a question he struggles with.
“For the entire election, virtually, I thought, well, Clinton has the experience necessary to at least keep the status quo in motion. So, in some sense, she was a conservative choice,” he continued. “Because she’d been in politics so long.”
Ultimately, though, Peterson became concerned about Clinton’s ideological direction. Likewise, he believes that Americans concluded they liked “the unscripted, impulsive lies of Trump better than the conniving, scripted lies of Clinton.”
“I think I would have impulsively voted for Trump at the last moment,” Peterson concedes. “But it wouldn’t have been with a sense of delight—I can tell you that.”
This was an academic exercise for a Canadian, but the fact that he reasoned through this hypothetical question, and answered with a sort of intellectual honesty is why Jordan Peterson matters
I don't see any of you postmodernist marxist pieces of shit reasoning through hypotheticals. It screams jealousy no matter how hard you try to hide it.How did reverse Jack Remington get your password benji?
Go gargle with battery acid and broken glass until you understand the discussion being had past you and prove you're worth being responded to.
Reverse Jack Remington
Dimebag was awful dawg. He was a pretty mediocre guitarist technically speaking, but his tone was just unbearable. Pantera isn't even Phils best band
U of T professor and clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson is engaging with the College of Psychologists of Ontario, the province’s governing body for psychologists, to address an allegation of professional misconduct.
Peterson’s undertaking includes two steps: the “formulation of a plan to prioritize clinical work with clients above other competing interests, including appropriate client communications” and a self-report on the development and implementation of that plan.
Needless to say, I knew that having a friendly conversation with Murray might draw some fire my way. But that was, in part, the point. Given the viciousness with which he continues to be scapegoated—and, indeed, my own careful avoidance of him up to that moment—I felt a moral imperative to provide him some cover.
In the aftermath of our conversation, many people have sought to paint me as a racist—but few have tried quite so hard as Ezra Klein, editor in chief of Vox. In response to my podcast, Klein published a disingenuous hit piece that pretended to represent the scientific consensus on human intelligence while vilifying me as, at best, Murray’s dupe. More likely, readers unfamiliar with my work came away believing that I’m a racist pseudoscientist in my own right.
After Klein published that article, and amplified its effects on social media, I reached out to him in the hope of appealing to his editorial conscience. I found none. The ethic that governs Klein’s brand of journalism appears to be: Accuse a person with a large platform of something terrible, and then monetize the resulting controversy. If he complains, invite him to respond in your magazine so that he will drive his audience your way and you can further profit from his doomed effort to undo the damage you’ve done to his reputation.
Since then, Klein has kept at it, and he delivered another volley today. I told him that if he continued in this way, I would publish our private email correspondence so that our readers could judge him for themselves. His latest effort has convinced me that I should make good on that promise.
Below is our unedited email exchange. I believe patient readers will learn the following from it: (1) I can still get angry; (2) Klein gave me very good reason to be angry.
The list of prominent people on the Left who are willing to behave unethically in order to silence others continues to grow. If nothing else, readers of this exchange will understand how much harm these people are doing to honest conversation, both in public and in private.
Oblivion did you actually read that? It's basically telling him to spend more time with his clients. He's said the recent celebrity has taken away his time for working with clients and he needed to stop seeing them. (Ethical responsibility to be there for clients at moment's notice.) Maybe he still has a client or maybe it's just the board wanting him to go back to clinical work.
It's not about harassment.
Celebrity psychology professor Jordan Peterson was the subject of a professional misconduct complaint for his work as a clinical psychologist, resulting in a written promise that he respects his patients’ boundaries and will address how he communicates with them.
resulting in a written promise that he respects his patients’ boundaries
Ezra is a real piece of shit and Vox is trash.A lot of these places should get their asses Hulk Hogan'd
Vox uses rhetoric to imply nasty things and then act awe-shucks when people complain.
Ezra is a real piece of shit and Vox is trash.A lot of these places should get their asses Hulk Hogan'd
Vox uses rhetoric to imply nasty things and then act awe-shucks when people complain.
harris did the "publish the secret e-mails that EXPOSE you" thing with Chomsky tooFuck are you on about curly, this has nothing to do with freeze peach, you're free to say whatever you will, but if you are willfully playing stupid games with truth and interpretation thereof like 'depends what is is' shit that traditional news media is doing daily at this point you deserve to get got, get fucked for trying to make this partisan bullshit.Ezra is a real piece of shit and Vox is trash.A lot of these places should get their asses Hulk Hogan'd
Vox uses rhetoric to imply nasty things and then act awe-shucks when people complain.
dat commitment to free speech
a billionaire abusing his wealth and the legal system to shut down outlets he doesn't likeThat's not at all my interpretation of what happened.
what are you on aboutIf you guys are so deep up your own asses you're going to defend gawker style jurnalism and vox hit pieces, you can just go back to posting in the US politics thread :yeshrug
partisan bullshit
::)Tip to help with reading comprehension, at no stage did I defend anything about Charles Murray, I attacked the style of media Vox engages in, something I would hope all people with sense can agree upon. You immediately trying to attribute my post as a defence of Charles Murray is exactly what I consider to be the most cancerous style of argument on the internet, I understand you're used to people being disingenuous because of the partisan bubble you live in, but when it comes to anything I post you can be assured it's about exactly what I'm saying and nothing else. I have no dog in your dumb fight.
You sound like Harris, whining about silencing or dishonesty or partisanship because somebody disagrees with you. All over Charles "I Didn't Know Cross Burning Was Racist" Murray.
momo you keep saying "partisan" when nobody else brought up a political partyYou're being intentionally dense, my premise is obvious. I'm saying there is no way a sane logical person could defend gawker/vox style media unless it's because they are fine with it because the person is on 'the other side'. And then you're being even more dense if you're going to deny that the split in the way people are treated online in heavily US spaces isnt along party lines or perceived party lines.
so if you wanna talk reading comprehension
::)Tip to help with reading comprehension, at no stage did I defend anything about Charles Murray, I attacked the style of media Vox engages in, something I would hope all people with sense can agree upon. You immediately trying to attribute my post as a defence of Charles Murray is exactly what I consider to be the most cancerous style of argument on the internet, I understand you're used to people being disingenuous because of the partisan bubble you live in, but when it comes to anything I post you can be assured it's about exactly what I'm saying and nothing else. I have no dog in your dumb fight.
You sound like Harris, whining about silencing or dishonesty or partisanship because somebody disagrees with you. All over Charles "I Didn't Know Cross Burning Was Racist" Murray.
i don't read vox but they seem pretty milquetoast tbh
"The style of media Vox engages in," what is that? Wonky milquetoast center-leftism?
The aim of poisoning the well against someone is to silence that someone. You isolate them, encourage others to disassociate from them and label them as untouchable.
It's a weird mix of classism and high school girl bullying.
vox IS partisan trash
Ezra is a real piece of shit and Vox is trash.
mislead others upon his character to say so.
Who knew, the intellectual dank wad is just etoilet slinging poo at everyone.:rejoice :rejoice :rejoice
https://samharris.org/ezra-klein-editor-chief/Before I even think about reading the exchange, has anyone else? Is it as good as the Chomsky one?QuoteNeedless to say, I knew that having a friendly conversation with Murray might draw some fire my way. But that was, in part, the point. Given the viciousness with which he continues to be scapegoated—and, indeed, my own careful avoidance of him up to that moment—I felt a moral imperative to provide him some cover.
In the aftermath of our conversation, many people have sought to paint me as a racist—but few have tried quite so hard as Ezra Klein, editor in chief of Vox. In response to my podcast, Klein published a disingenuous hit piece that pretended to represent the scientific consensus on human intelligence while vilifying me as, at best, Murray’s dupe. More likely, readers unfamiliar with my work came away believing that I’m a racist pseudoscientist in my own right.
After Klein published that article, and amplified its effects on social media, I reached out to him in the hope of appealing to his editorial conscience. I found none. The ethic that governs Klein’s brand of journalism appears to be: Accuse a person with a large platform of something terrible, and then monetize the resulting controversy. If he complains, invite him to respond in your magazine so that he will drive his audience your way and you can further profit from his doomed effort to undo the damage you’ve done to his reputation.
Since then, Klein has kept at it, and he delivered another volley today. I told him that if he continued in this way, I would publish our private email correspondence so that our readers could judge him for themselves. His latest effort has convinced me that I should make good on that promise.
Below is our unedited email exchange. I believe patient readers will learn the following from it: (1) I can still get angry; (2) Klein gave me very good reason to be angry.
The list of prominent people on the Left who are willing to behave unethically in order to silence others continues to grow. If nothing else, readers of this exchange will understand how much harm these people are doing to honest conversation, both in public and in private.
And now an old Taleb bitIt's a good polemic.
https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577
https://samharris.org/ezra-klein-editor-chief/Before I even think about reading the exchange, has anyone else? Is it as good as the Chomsky one?QuoteNeedless to say, I knew that having a friendly conversation with Murray might draw some fire my way. But that was, in part, the point. Given the viciousness with which he continues to be scapegoated—and, indeed, my own careful avoidance of him up to that moment—I felt a moral imperative to provide him some cover.
In the aftermath of our conversation, many people have sought to paint me as a racist—but few have tried quite so hard as Ezra Klein, editor in chief of Vox. In response to my podcast, Klein published a disingenuous hit piece that pretended to represent the scientific consensus on human intelligence while vilifying me as, at best, Murray’s dupe. More likely, readers unfamiliar with my work came away believing that I’m a racist pseudoscientist in my own right.
After Klein published that article, and amplified its effects on social media, I reached out to him in the hope of appealing to his editorial conscience. I found none. The ethic that governs Klein’s brand of journalism appears to be: Accuse a person with a large platform of something terrible, and then monetize the resulting controversy. If he complains, invite him to respond in your magazine so that he will drive his audience your way and you can further profit from his doomed effort to undo the damage you’ve done to his reputation.
Since then, Klein has kept at it, and he delivered another volley today. I told him that if he continued in this way, I would publish our private email correspondence so that our readers could judge him for themselves. His latest effort has convinced me that I should make good on that promise.
Below is our unedited email exchange. I believe patient readers will learn the following from it: (1) I can still get angry; (2) Klein gave me very good reason to be angry.
The list of prominent people on the Left who are willing to behave unethically in order to silence others continues to grow. If nothing else, readers of this exchange will understand how much harm these people are doing to honest conversation, both in public and in private.
Also, it's a bit rich to say you're being smeared and then publish this and their email conversation. I don't believe in being the 'better man' myself, so I understand, but Harris talks like he's above it.
The aim of poisoning the well against someone is to silence that someone. You isolate them, encourage others to disassociate from them and label them as untouchable.
It's a weird mix of classism and high school girl bullying.vox IS partisan trashEzra is a real piece of shit and Vox is trash.
please explain what skin in the game Thiel had RE: hogans dicka billionaire abusing his wealth and the legal system to shut down outlets he doesn't likeThat's not at all my interpretation of what happened.
Enough with these fringe ideologically driven psychologists. I will now turn to [checks notes] a Jungian who is fighting against a supposed cabal of neomarxist post modernists.:heh
when she jails and enslaves you :lawd
A billionaire using his wealth to game the legal system and shut down media orgs he doesn't like is of much greater importance than Gawker being trashy
You can say Gawker deserves what they got and I don't really have an issue with it, but the way it happened is scary as hell and absolutely has had a chilling effect on the press as a whole
I am not sure I can overcome your reading comprehension problems, so I'll yell things in caps like a goofball thinking it will help a deaf person understand.
GAWKER GOT GAT CUZ GAWKER DID BAD THINGS
WHY ARE YOU FOCUSED ON THIEL USING HIS MONEY TO FUND HOGAN
"Maybe the long, deep history of racism in America and the Anglosphere has an effect both in measured IQ on black citizens and the way white people interpret that data and a conversation about that topic should incorporate that context." - horribly defamatory hit job.
"Feminist, black, gay, and other identity-based organizing and activism are largely metastases of a cultural Marxist conspiracy." - completely normal, sane thing.
I am not sure I can overcome your reading comprehension problems, so I'll yell things in caps like a goofball thinking it will help a deaf person understand.
GAWKER GOT GAT CUZ GAWKER DID BAD THINGS
WHY ARE YOU FOCUSED ON THIEL USING HIS MONEY TO FUND HOGAN
Lol you're so easily :umad
Act like this didn't have a chilling effect if you want to, but that's par for the course for ostrich boy over here
Yes, why indeed would anyone in the news media want to give a damn about the president of the United States from the party of "family values" having an extramarital affair with a porn star?
et always has the best examples. The very best.
(https://i.imgur.com/E5jriGE.png)I assume this is a Photoshop, he looks too brown somehow :bobby What's this a reference to?
Is it really surprising that he'd wear a fedora with a god damn feather?bitch have you seen the pic, look at it, the sadness in his eyes like the will to live is being extracted through them, off brand skin colour, it's fucking weird man :lol
Yes, everyone is different. However, I still turn my eyes at boobs, legs and ass.newsfeed
As well, male fallout in society has consequences. We see that in the data on suicides, murder, homelessness and prison populations. Beyond that, there's the population of men who are stuck in a holding pattern. His comment about dating down is facetious. In studies, hetero women tends to not date downward in status. Despite their own success, women still date for reasons of status attainment and wealth.
That is one bold leap there etiolate, especially since many of those things have actually decreased since the feminist revolution. But even taking your assertion at face value, I think you would be unable to substantiate convincingly outside of poor attempts at specious correlations.. On the other hand, we have seen actual rises of those sorts of things in places where not only is there not a cultural shift like America, but shifts toward more regressive societies, which if your notion held true, we should be seeing the opposite as countries retreat into conservatism. Like in Russia, former baltic states, many Middle-Eastern countries and on. The idea that there is some obvious grand connection between feminism and murder/suicide/homelessness is fucking absurd, even for you.
QuoteThat is one bold leap there etiolate, especially since many of those things have actually decreased since the feminist revolution. But even taking your assertion at face value, I think you would be unable to substantiate convincingly outside of poor attempts at specious correlations.. On the other hand, we have seen actual rises of those sorts of things in places where not only is there not a cultural shift like America, but shifts toward more regressive societies, which if your notion held true, we should be seeing the opposite as countries retreat into conservatism. Like in Russia, former baltic states, many Middle-Eastern countries and on. The idea that there is some obvious grand connection between feminism and murder/suicide/homelessness is fucking absurd, even for you.
What do you think "my notion" is exactly?
As well, male fallout in society has consequences. We see that in the data on suicides, murder, homelessness and prison populations.
A relationship to what though? I am saying, in my view, we have more men going past the age of 30 than we've ever had. We've had major shifts in gender roles and life options recently as well. So my worry/theory is we have more available young men than we have roles for young men.
That's naive. Sorry. I have been out of the bubble plenty. And the bubble has influence o'plenty. If the bubble is academia then that means young people are being taught what is thought in the bubble. That's the future. It is dumb to think anything that is taught is designed to be contained in the classroom and not spread.
Meanwhile, I've dealt with people in prison, with the lives of those that get into that system, and with the community of men who end up homeless.
I gave you a real response and you're dragging out the tired old and refuted "its only in small places" reply. There is a fight to put more women in STEM and there are hiring practices that are arguing for not hiring more men. When I say let's not attack the few avenues men succeed, that is what I am talking about.
A relationship to what though? I am saying, in my view, we have more men going past the age of 30 than we've ever had. We've had major shifts in gender roles and life options recently as well. So my worry/theory is we have more available young men than we have roles for young men.
And I took issue with the assertion that the societal issues you listed(suicide, murder, homelessness, incarceration) are directly intertwined and serve as evidence to your thesis.
Because one, at least half of those statistics are relatively stable or are going in the other direction, and more importantly, two, there is no real evidence of some absurdist connection between male fallout post-feminism and social upbringing in a society and increasing levels of those statistics.
Wrong about what?A relationship to what though? I am saying, in my view, we have more men going past the age of 30 than we've ever had. We've had major shifts in gender roles and life options recently as well. So my worry/theory is we have more available young men than we have roles for young men.
And I took issue with the assertion that the societal issues you listed(suicide, murder, homelessness, incarceration) are directly intertwined and serve as evidence to your thesis.
Because one, at least half of those statistics are relatively stable or are going in the other direction, and more importantly, two, there is no real evidence of some absurdist connection between male fallout post-feminism and social upbringing in a society and increasing levels of those statistics.
No. You're wrong.
Suicide rates are rising. Incarceration rates quadrupled in the past four decades.
Okay, I gotta hear this.
How is feminism responsible for the rise in incarceration rates over the past 40 years?
Okay, I gotta hear this.
How is feminism responsible for the rise in incarceration rates over the past 40 years?
Nobody said that.
As well, male fallout in society has consequences. We see that in the data on suicides, murder, homelessness and prison populations.
Okay, I gotta hear this.
How is feminism responsible for the rise in incarceration rates over the past 40 years?
Nobody said that.
You said this dude:
As well, male fallout in society has consequences. We see that in the data on suicides, murder, homelessness and prison populations.
What is the cause of this male fallout?
My darkest fear is that we built society for centuries on the idea that many men would die before hitting age 30. That war, hard labor and risk would ween out the male population so that the need of the people never outweighed society's ability to meet the demand. However, many things have changed. Less men go to war. Less men die young from hard labor. Health has improved. Disease control has improved. We simply have more living men now and society wasn't built to handle their need. So they end up in prison or on the streets or they take their own life in a variety of vices and methods.
Okay, I gotta hear this.
How is feminism responsible for the rise in incarceration rates over the past 40 years?
Nobody said that.
You said this dude:
As well, male fallout in society has consequences. We see that in the data on suicides, murder, homelessness and prison populations.
What is the cause of this male fallout?
I already explained this.If you can't figure it out then you fail.
If you want me to teach you how to read and think then I'll set up a paypal and give you a rate.
And then you get really terrible stinkpieces that talk about how terrible men are and how it must be contained or corrected. It's as if parts of society, given more men than ever before, treats these extra lives as a contagion.
It's not that the stinkpieces hurt anyone's feelings, but that they reveal a public ignoring the question or rejecting the outcome. That's why I compared the response to treating the issue as a contagion.
We've had major shifts in gender roles and life options recently as well.
That's naive. Sorry. I have been out of the bubble plenty. And the bubble has influence o'plenty. If the bubble is academia then that means young people are being taught what is thought in the bubble. That's the future. It is dumb to think anything that is taught is designed to be contained in the classroom and not spread.
I gave you a real response and you're dragging out the tired old and refuted "its only in small places" reply. There is a fight to put more women in STEM and there are hiring practices that are arguing for not hiring more men. When I say let's not attack the few avenues men succeed, that is what I am talking about.
Incarceration rates quadrupled in the past four decades.
Who is leading this fight to put women in STEM and changing hiring practices to focus more on women?
Yes, feminism is involved, as is a birth control pill or a delayed marriage cycle and longer lives. Why are you freaking out over feminism?
Okay, I gotta hear this.
How is feminism responsible for the rise in incarceration rates over the past 40 years?
It's quite simple. Men, having been kicked out of the STEM field (one of the few avenues for a man to make something of himself and keep his shoulders high) by women, are forced into criminality to survive, leading to men being incarcerated while women rule the world.
Haven't watched this yet, but probably will tomorrow morning or tonight. Not sure who the other guy is but apparently he does a defense of identity politics at the end? Curious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDD5JzWXSas
Happy Easter
Not sure who the other guy isMickey Kaus' "radical centrist" anti-atheism half!
My darkest fear is that we built society for centuries on the idea that many men would die before hitting age 30. That war, hard labor and risk would ween out the male population so that the need of the people never outweighed society's ability to meet the demand. However, many things have changed. Less men go to war. Less men die young from hard labor. Health has improved. Disease control has improved. We simply have more living men now and society wasn't built to handle their need. So they end up in prison or on the streets or they take their own life in a variety of vices and methods.
The Atlantic has caved to the intolerant mob and fired Kevin Williamson, and in so doing has contributed to a slanderous fiction — that Kevin is so beyond the pale that he has no place at one of the nation’s premiere mainstream publications. His millions of words, his countless interviews, and his personal character were reduced to nothing — inconsequential in the face of deleted tweets and a five-minute podcast dialogue.
Kevin is independent. He’s provocative. Sure, he can troll a little bit, and — no — I don’t agree with everything he says. I’m a moderate, you see. If abortion is ever criminalized in this nation, I think only the abortionist (and not the mother) should face murder charges for poisoning, crushing, or dismembering a living child. So we might differ about the laws in hypothetical-future-America.
But in this America, the one we live in now, Kevin is one of our most interesting and talented voices. Like every single interesting and talented person I know, he can provoke. But so what? Aren’t we adults? Can’t we handle disagreement? Apparently not.
I’ve spent my entire adult life in an academic and media environment that put a premium on shocking the conservative conscience. Advocate for the most barbaric abortion practices? Fine. Celebrate an artist who dips a crucifix in urine? Cool. Decry 9/11 first responders as “not human” because of white supremacy? Intriguing. But the marketplace of ideas isn’t for the faint of heart, and good conservatives learn to simultaneously defend the culture of free speech while also fighting hard to build a culture of virtue and respect.
Look, I know it’s easy for some to dismiss Kevin’s termination as mere inside-baseball media drama. But it’s more than that. It’s a declaration by one of America’s most powerful media entities that it can’t even coexist with a man like Kevin. If he wants to write, he should run along to his conservative home. His new colleagues simply couldn’t abide his presence.
After Kevin was fired, Guardian columnist Jessica Valenti tweeted that she was “very relieved for the women” who work at The Atlantic. Why? What was Kevin going to do to them? Write things that made them angry? God forbid! His ideas might hurt? Have mercy!
And so it goes, the steady, inexorable division of America into the tolerable and the intolerable — with the range of tolerable people narrowing ever-so-rapidly. There’s no grace in this brave new world. There’s no charity. It’s not enough to disagree. Now we must ruin. Now we must humiliate. Saying “you’re wrong” is no longer enough. The argument isn’t sufficient.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdvMt2Orv6k
who's the person carl of akkad is responding to?
The beard/dyed slicked back hair is not a good look for JP. It makes him look decidedly even less friendly and more depressed.He now looks like a proper Bond Villain.
The death of poetry as an active, dynamic element in literary culture likely has a great deal to do with various international developments in mass education since the Second World War. It is hard to pinpoint when the traditional canon of English poetry began to disintegrate in educational institutions; though an English literature student who earned a BA between 2000 and 2004 likely has more in common with a 1950-1954 English BA than a 2010-2014 or 2014-2018 BA in English, certainly in terms of the curriculum and range of texts studied as part of the degree course.
Students of English in schools and universities alike are rarely introduced to any coherent or stable body of literary works. Nor are they often taught the fundamental features of verse (metre, rhythm, form) that would enable poems easily to be committed to memory. Critical precepts, interpretative methods, and social or political questions now drive the teaching of English literature; these new focuses come at the expense of traditional conceptions of literary instruction. The teaching of literature naturally has an effect on what is written in a society: you cannot aspire to be (say) your generation’s Keats when nobody in your generation has read any Keats, or knows who he was. Or you can aspire thus, if you are prepared to yell alone in the dark.
Ashbery, O’Hara, and Prynne are anti-traditional poets. You do not need to know anything about literature, history, philosophy, or art to grasp what is most important in their work; you do not need to have mastered foreign languages, or even have a secure grasp of English. All you need is a good dictionary, for Ashbery’s and Prynne’s instances of rare vocabulary, and Wikipedia and YouTube for O’Hara’s references to obsolete brand names and forgotten camp icons. Otherwise, you learn how to read these poets as you go along. Their work has attracted the attention of poetry critics and scholars such as Helen Vendler (Harvard) and Marjorie Perloff (Stanford), who have a vested interest in ensuring that various Modernist and Postmodernist strains in poetry survive; without writers like these, their entire academic careers become obsolete. They have spent decades promoting this sort of work, because their own reputations have been painstakingly built on coming up with plausible-seeming strategies for reading this sort of thing and enjoying it.
It is now possible to have a distinguished career as a professional poet, and win literary prizes, subsidies from the state, well-endowed fellowships, secure teaching posts, and all-expenses-paid residencies abroad at institutions like the American Academy at Rome and American Academy in Berlin, all without having more than a handful of colleagues and students as your readers. None of what is produced is necessarily ‘poetry’ in any traditional sense of the term. But as long as the system carries on paying poets for their activities, with no complaints save from bitter would-be poets who aren’t part of the institutional system, who cares?
real story, there was a girl who was interested in me, and I gave her an anthology of Sylvia Plath poems for her birthday, and we straight up just stopped talking
The idea of the death and resurrection has a psychological meaning, in addition to its metaphysical and religious significance. It can be thought of as part of the structure of narrative that sits at the basis of our culture. It includes elements of sacrifice (associated with delay of gratification and the discovery of the future) and psychological transformation (as movement forward in life often requires the death of something old and the birth of something new).
This five-part commentary is an attempt to explain such ideas in detail so that they can be understood, as well as “believed.”
ilkerbasan
2 days ago
Nietsche announced God is dead.
Dr. Peterson announced God is resurrected.
meusisto
2 days ago
I was agnostic. Deeply considering Christianity (Catholicism/Orthodoxy) now.
Luciano Latouche
2 days ago
Jordan Peterson's attitude has put the new "atheists" (here I'm not talking about unbelievers but people who despise religion in all its aspects and have made it their mission to destroy it) to shame. JP's approach to religion and respect for complex ideas are to be celebrated. No wonder why he's way more respected than all those proponents of anti-theistic nonsense.
So... Jordan Peterson is pretty much a self-help guru for the alt-right?
So... Jordan Peterson is pretty much a self-help guru for the alt-right?
lmfao
real story, there was a girl who was interested in me, and I gave her an anthology of Sylvia Plath poems for her birthday, and we straight up just stopped talking
maybe the canon would have worked better???
Isn't the only difference between the alt-right and regular right that the former also happens to like anime?
Isn't the only difference between the alt-right and regular right that the former also happens to like anime?
it was used enough for me to go look it up, took like 2 mins man, alt right is another name for Spencer's neo nazi loons.
“We’re the platform for the alt-right,” Bannon told me proudly when I interviewed him at the Republican National Convention (RNC) in July.
What about "This person has a squat form ideology that doesn't align with mine"?
everyone knows problematic is a meme word now that means "having racist or sexist views".more like that means ' if you dont stop what you are saying now I'm going to accuse you of having racist or sexist views'
etoilet is very problematic
okay tired of listening to Ariel now, and Joe Rogan has two trash guests on, time to listen to this Vox x Sam love.
etoilet is very problematic
I do present a problem to bullshitters like yourself.
What is it that you think I'm bullshitting about
Uh..you guys know that Ezra goes into quite a bit of detail about why he thinks Murray/Harris are "problematic", right? Like, he doesn't just accuse them of that and leave it at that, like some people I know...
Charles Murray is a racist with an agenda and there's nothing noble about defending him.
The neo-monarchists feel that the populace shouldn't be allowed a vote or as much agency as they've been given due to the public being mostly inept at making choices and undeserving of the power they've wielded in a democracy that allows even the dumbest guy in the room to shout what he wants. Important decisions should be reserved for the cultured and intellectual elite, who are as capable of understanding the farmer's plight well enough to speak for the farmer. So they're much like a neoliberal but far more straight forward about it.
Are you saying that's what Ezra's issue with Harris is?When I read the email exchange between Harris and Ezra I agreed with you that Ezra came off as a smarming punk. But when I looked more and more into Murray the evidence is quite high for ignoble intentions and sloppy science. If that hitpiece's point is that Sam Harris is another idiot to be suckered into defending that racist then the polemic is correct. The details about their exchanges since then and the quality of the Vox hit piece itself are irrelevant to me since the broad strokes are correct. So maybe unexpectedly, I think Ezra is wrong and and the Vox piece is right.
Are you saying that's what Ezra's issue with Harris is?When I read the email exchange between Harris and Ezra I agreed with you that Ezra came off as a smarming punk. But when I looked more and more into Murray the evidence is quite high for ignoble intentions and sloppy science. If that hitpiece's point is that Sam Harris is another idiot to be suckered into defending that racist then the polemic is correct. The details about their exchanges since then and the quality of the Vox hit piece itself are irrelevant to me since the broad strokes are correct. So maybe unexpectedly, I think Ezra is wrong and and the Vox piece is right.
This is mostly evidence of what I've always thought about Sam Harris, that he's a third rate loser and a waste of anyone's time.
2:18:22if i can get through the entire migos album you can definitely get through this
:shaq2
No and I'm worried it'll be a waste of my time. But I've got nothing better to do today, so I might as well.Harris is always worth listening to, if you're a detractor or fan(I'm neither) he's usually pretty verbose about his ideas so you can follow his logic easily and criticize or take it on-board as you want. I'm continually puzzled(not really) that he's constantly misrepresented by the media considering he's so precise and verbose.
if you're a detractor or fan(I'm neither)
You're the kind of moron I dont bother talking seriously to :trumpsif you're a detractor or fan(I'm neither)
::) :jerkingyourselfoff
Yeah breh you're a totally neutral arbiter unlike us silly Americans with our partisanship
Dude needs to learn the difference between data and ideas derived from data, his continual need to try and tie data to the worst possible ideas that can be derived from them is super frustrating to listen to.
No he's not, he says many times he's not defending the conclusions Murray comes to and in fact him and Klein seem to agree outcome wise. He very much tries hard to get Klein to separate the data from Murray's conclusions also, but the Klein refused to change.Dude needs to learn the difference between data and ideas derived from data, his continual need to try and tie data to the worst possible ideas that can be derived from them is super frustrating to listen to.
Harris is defending Charles Murray, right?
Cause Murray certainly has some ideas that go along with his "data."
No he's not, he says many times he's not defending the conclusions Murray comes to and in fact him and Klein seem to agree outcome wise. He very much tries hard to get Klein to separate the data from Murray's conclusions also, but the Klein refused to change.Dude needs to learn the difference between data and ideas derived from data, his continual need to try and tie data to the worst possible ideas that can be derived from them is super frustrating to listen to.
Harris is defending Charles Murray, right?
Cause Murray certainly has some ideas that go along with his "data."
Okay, so after listening to the podcast, some thoughts:
- Harris kept trying to steer the conversation to just talk about the "facts" and "data" of Murray's work. I believe Ezra doesn't necessarily think that the data Murray has is inaccurate per se, but that there is no broad consensus on IQ like Harris keeps insisting. But the actual science itself seems to not even really be the main issue Ezra has with Murray and Harris. The far bigger, and more salient point Ezra was trying to make was that you can't look at data in a vacuum. You can't disassociate it from the social policies Murray and people who like his work are trying to implement, and you can't discuss data on IQ without acknowledging the environmental factors that were involved in suppressing Black people since the country's founding.
- Aside from the MLK thing, I also loved how he mentioned the story of his black friend who made him feel better about not prefacing any race and science discussion with "I'm not racist", because clearly, THAT'S the issue here.
- The fact that Harris seems perfectly fine with discussing things with people like Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and Charles Murray, but refuses to do the same to someone like Ta-Nehisi Coates, because he will argue in "bad faith" says a lot about the guy.
- Harris truly seems to think that he's the only one on the planet incapable of having any sort of bias whatsoever. When he talks about shit like how it's okay to racially profile muslims, that's not an example of him playing "identity politics". It's only when other people do so.
Check out John McWhorter and Glenn Loury on Coates. Those are the two fellows I posted a page back that nobody seemed to watch. Loury is also the guy that told Harris to stop qualifying himself. He's not just a black bud of Harris, but a Professor at Brown University.
So Coates's historical account is a lie. It tells only one part of the story. It erases the responsibility that African Americans have for our own condition. I refuse to accept that we don’t have responsibility for our condition. I refuse to accept that we're not free-acting agents able to determine our own future.
There is a lot of people who can't be talked to in good faith. What is good faith? It's honesty. What is bad faith? Well, it's when Harris repeatedly brings the slanderous things that Vox said about Harris to Ezra's attention and Ezra completely dodges the issue. Vox and Ezra have continually been dishonest in their approach. Harris has said that when he feels Shapiro or Peterson misrepresent him and he addresses them about it, they apologize, correct it and don't repeat the misrepresentation. Ezra continually does not hold himself to account for the slanders issued and completely avoids even responding to Harris about them when Sam repeats what was written to Klein. It's slimy and weak.
And there really isn't much real debate on IQ. It's one of the most reliable metrics in its field. They have to continually refine the test to improve its accuracy. (It can be repeated with some variation between test results.) The fact that Klein never responds to or understands the way IQ works and that the mean of a population isn't significant because of the variance within tells me that Klein isn't at all interested in the science or data. In fact, the discussion between Harris and Klein is similar to what Harris would have run into with a Alt-Right figure. The hard concern for population IQ and treating it with too much importance and the idea that IQ differences are equal to superiority and inferiority differences are all racist viewpoints that Klein has.
He wants to associate with people like Murray, but doesn't want the stink of being associated with people like Murray. Harris bitched several times about how the bullies at the SPLC for linking the Vox article criticizing Harris and Murray. Why is Ezra responsible for what they do, but Harris thinks he should have no responsibility for how other people might view him for his associations?
Also, you need to better understand how IQ works than Ezra does to have the conversation Ezra does. I recall that he tries to use Flynn to say that IQ could be explained entirely through environmental factors or at least the gap could be. The probability of that is very low yet not absolutely zero. That is what Flynn is saying because that's how something like this works. For "oppression" to account for this entirely you have to throw out the biological. For biology to account for it all then you have to throw out environment. You don't do that either.
Not a good look, oblivion
Your reaction to Loury reads like "oh, he's one of those", which is not a good sign.
Why does there have to be the sort of stink that exists for talking to Murray? This racist, eugenics stuff is nonsense.
And it doesn't change the fact that the information is there. This is why Harris brings up the neandrathal point. We'll find out things over time. We need to be able to handle them.
When Ezra says his fear is Murray's impact on policy, he's really crying out that he's threatening a pet democratic voter base of the eternally dependent.
Which is why Harris bringing in the SPLC is relevant, because the SPLC is basically a political tool that uses the same scare tactics to shakedown wealthy, sheltered east coast white liberals for donations. And it really doesn't care who it runs over with slander in order to do so.
Also, you need to better understand how IQ works than Ezra does to have the conversation Ezra does. I recall that he tries to use Flynn to say that IQ could be explained entirely through environmental factors or at least the gap could be. The probability of that is very low yet not absolutely zero. That is what Flynn is saying because that's how something like this works. For "oppression" to account for this entirely you have to throw out the biological. For biology to account for it all then you have to throw out environment. You don't do that either.
It's just not reasonable to cry out at Sam for not invoking enough of the history of oppression when Sam is looking at ti scientifically. Oppression is a universal human experience, especially once you go evolutionary and extend what you're looking at over hundreds to thousands of years. Slavery and Jim Crow are just too small a piece of history to blame it all upon. You have to throw out the distribution whole, because you would have to explain how the highest ends of that population escape the problem. You'll notice how Ezra completely avoids discussing how Asian groups score higher than others or how Jews score higher. Both of those groups have gone through great periods of oppression.
It's best dealt with by looking at the individual, which Ezra does not do. The scientists he drags in are dishonest about the subject. They are cherry picked to defend the attack. When you're dealing with such a highly controversial topic then you are going to have people who abuse the political climate to prop themselves up as defending the moral good rather than be honest about the topic.
And the end result isn't anything of value is done, but that the topic is left to the shadows of science or in the hands of the ethnic supremacists. My view is that Klein and Vox are just puppets for higher ups who don't want Blacks to look at social programs as possibly not working for them.
The same as immigration, its largely a fucking war over vote outcomes rather than any real moral battle. Because the moral battle would realize its handing the topic over to the white supremacists and that's dangerous. The alt-right will know the science and warp it to their aims. If the public doesn't know that's happening then you're handing over the entire topic to the worst people.
Normally when you pull the "just asking questions" defense, you're not supposed to spend the next 20 years confirming your detractors right for what they indicated you were "really saying"
Charles Murray, smh.
If that dude was on holiday in Europe he'd wind up counting the number of whites vs. non-whites he saw out in public.
Yes, I know you'd think that Mandark. Because you can't play the fair game. You play the game with loaded dice.
I don't think so.
I’ve been marooned in Paris the last three days, waiting for a plane home after the snowstorm mess (“Poor Charles,” you’re all saying). Last night, having been struck by how polyglot Paris has become, I collected data as I walked along, counting people who looked like native French (which probably added in a few Brits and other Europeans) versus everyone else. I can’t vouch for the representativeness of the sample, but at about eight o’clock last night in the St. Denis area of Paris, it worked out to about 50-50, with the non-native French half consisting, in order of proportion, of African blacks, Middle-Eastern types, and East Asians. And on December 22, I don’t think a lot of them were tourists.
Mark Steyn and Christopher Caldwell have already explained this to the rest of the world—Europe as we have known it is about to disappear—but it was still a shock to see how rapid the change has been in just the last half-dozen years.
Peterson says enough dumb shit about those bible stories that it's hilarious to me that people still feel they need to engage media.routine.smear('alt_right', 'nazi); on him. Just call him a goober for taking life lessons from the book of Jesus weebs and deal with what he says on merit, there's enough there to not make yourself look like a distinguished mentally-challenged fellow smear ninja.
curly, you're an idiot and you need to stop talking to me, serious.
I'd say it was unwise to let that fraction of the book out as an article, but once you've been marked for that there's no shedding it.
Charles Johnson
Find someone else, I dont come on here to argue :stahpcurly, you're an idiot and you need to stop talking to me, serious.
i'm making this feud happen whether you agree to it or not
also he seems to be under the impression that Paris, one of the most international cities of the West historically, was lily white/immigrant free in like 2003, not even 1983 or some date decades earlier
Was Nietzsche, the guy who left his publisher for being an antisemite, and wrote multiple screeds about how stupid antisemites and antisemitism was, an antisemite? I dunno. Who can say?What does anti semitism mean then? I'm really confused. I admit he doesn't want to genocide them but it's obvious he views judaism as a blight on Europe, and Jews as poisoning the "blonde beast" Master race of nobles and conquerers. Unless, again, I'm misreading this!
Did I read this wrong?kind of. Was he an antisemite? I’d say unequivocally yes, though my criteria for determining racism might be different than some on this board. He’s a racialist, in that good late 19th century sense that views populations as discrete units that carry essentialized ‘cores’ of, say, values, temperaments, and mores that can then be evaluated and compared as to their worth. But Nietzsche is primarily a moral psychologist: he autistically analyzes character types in terms of their ethical consequences/interest. ‘Races’ are really personalities writ broad for Nietzsche, and I think it’s in this light that we have to call him a racist.
you're adorable oblivion
The rest of the panel had pretty lame contributions.
The rest of the panel was amazingly useless as well
The subject they were talking about was emotional fragility due to overprotection, and how that extends into educational systems.
The subject they were talking about was emotional fragility due to overprotection, and how that extends into educational systems.
The reason it's hard for me to take this or similar complaints seriously is cause I remember the early 90's, when a bunch of trends peaked. Compare the current youth rates for violent death, pregnancy, failure to finish high school, incarceration, etc. to what they were back then.I can't point to an empirical metric. Actually, I can't even think of one that would be meaningfully related. I concede that's usually a good starting point for claiming anything is ever a problem at all. But I can point to the qualitative shift in the zeitgeist. I know you don't bristle at it but other people do. I imagine it would be something like an intractable axiomatic difference if we were to actually discuss it.
If there's a case that "the kids are too sensitive" is a real, important problem having a material impact on society to the degree that we should give a shit and make fixing it a priority, I haven't heard it yet.
The reason it's hard for me to take this or similar complaints seriously is cause I remember the early 90's, when a bunch of trends peaked. Compare the current youth rates for violent death, pregnancy, failure to finish high school, incarceration, etc. to what they were back then.I can't point to an empirical metric. Actually, I can't even think of one that would be meaningfully related. I concede that's usually a good starting point for claiming anything is ever a problem at all. But I can point to the qualitative shift in the zeitgeist. I know you don't bristle at it but other people do. I imagine it would be something like an intractable axiomatic difference if we were to actually discuss it.
If there's a case that "the kids are too sensitive" is a real, important problem having a material impact on society to the degree that we should give a shit and make fixing it a priority, I haven't heard it yet.
Differences in values between older and younger generations certainly exist, the question is whether these differences are problematic. I generally believe that the handwringing over the youth is more an expression of the anxieties of older generations about becoming superannuated than a true reflection of reality.Sometimes the changing social dynamics really chafe inflexible old timers. But other times the outcries come from people who rub up against the new culture and feel like there's a real disequilibrium. Confusing the two is frequent but wrong. I think Bill Maher falls in the latter camp and he mentions he had difficulties with universities before as a "politically incorrect comedian".
The reason it's hard for me to take this or similar complaints seriously is cause I remember the early 90's, when a bunch of trends peaked. Compare the current youth rates for violent death, pregnancy, failure to finish high school, incarceration, etc. to what they were back then.I can't point to an empirical metric. Actually, I can't even think of one that would be meaningfully related. I concede that's usually a good starting point for claiming anything is ever a problem at all. But I can point to the qualitative shift in the zeitgeist. I know you don't bristle at it but other people do. I imagine it would be something like an intractable axiomatic difference if we were to actually discuss it.
If there's a case that "the kids are too sensitive" is a real, important problem having a material impact on society to the degree that we should give a shit and make fixing it a priority, I haven't heard it yet.
'qualitative shift in the zeitgeist' lol jeesh buddy put down the thesaurus and just say 'i don't know, it just feels like it's true to me'
It's not like the foundations of society are at risk, but then again, nobody said that.
I can't point to an empirical metric. Actually, I can't even think of one that would be meaningfully related. I concede that's usually a good starting point for claiming anything is ever a problem at all. But I can point to the qualitative shift in the zeitgeist. I know you don't bristle at it but other people do. I imagine it would be something like an intractable axiomatic difference if we were to actually discuss it.
Differences in values between older and younger generations certainly exist, the question is whether these differences are problematic. I generally believe that the handwringing over the youth is more an expression of the anxieties of older generations about becoming superannuated than a true reflection of reality.
To address this question, we first ask whether the students themselves think something is changing. A 2017 survey conducted by Cato/YouGov, on Free Speech and Tolerance (Total N = 2,300, including an oversample of 769 current college students and college graduates), asked: “Do you think that recent student protests and cancellations of controversial speakers on college campuses are isolated incidents, or are they part of a broader pattern of how college students respond to controversial ideas?”
Of the current 4-year college students in the survey, 79% responded that they thought recent campus events are part of a broader pattern of how college students respond to controversial ideas. (The percentage is nearly identical for college graduates, at 81%).
This is why I'm confused by the vocal denials that anything at all has changed. When you actually ask everyone, it seems like there's wide agreement that something has!there seems to be an obvious distinction to make here between perceived changes and real ones, which I assume is why mandark mentioned “material conditions” or whatever all those posts ago
tylerkwhich of you is riding the subway with this guy
3 hours ago
If I saw men masturbating on the subway on the way to work, I would cringe. If I saw men masturbating on the subway every day, week after week, month after month, no doubt the "cringe factor" would dissipate over time. And that is the fatal flaw in social change. One can be conditioned to accept horror.
Bonus: Out of 450 Universities in the theFIRE database, 136 earned a red flag rating for free speech and student right issues. This includes many major state colleges and ivy league schools.
If you throw in the yellow speech code rating, which is for policy that is vague enough to abused and restrict speech, then you probably hit over 50% of the universities.
Bonus: Out of 450 Universities in the theFIRE database, 136 earned a red flag rating for free speech and student right issues. This includes many major state colleges and ivy league schools.
If you throw in the yellow speech code rating, which is for policy that is vague enough to abused and restrict speech, then you probably hit over 50% of the universities.
- Just under one third (32.3 percent) of surveyed institutions received FIRE’s poorest, red light rating for maintaining speech codes that both clearly and substantially restrict freedom of speech. This year’s figure is seven percentage points lower than last year and almost 42 percentage points lower than in FIRE’s 2009 report.
- Most institutions — 58.6 percent — receive a yellow light rating. While less restrictive than red light policies, yellow light policies still prohibit or have an impermissible chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech.
- Thirty-five institutions earned FIRE’s highest, green light rating for free speech in this year’s report. Since the report was written, two more universities have earned green light status, bringing the total to 37. Only eight institutions earned this rating in the 2009 report.
32% of colleges is no minor thing, unless you want to pretend the events that keep happening over and over are nothing.
This column is my corresponding warning to the left, like when somebody tells you your shirt is not properly tucked in.
Here is what I see:
More and more of the interesting discussions are going off-line and occurring in private groups, in part to escape the glare of social media and political correctness. Right now, it is especially hard to tell who will prove to be the important thinkers of our time. I’m struck by Scott Alexander, a blogger at Slate Star Codex and a thinker who is influential among other writers. He keeps his real name a secret.
Often my best conversations are with doers and practitioners, rather than intellectuals and writers. The politics of the doers are typically difficult to discern or to boil down to simple classifications. Even when they are registered Democrats, they often seem alienated from that party in intellectual terms.
I find that left-wing intellectuals complain more about the right wing than right-wing intellectuals complain about the left. This negative focus isn’t healthy for the viability of left-wing intellectual creativity.
...
Religion has been a major force in world history, and today is no exception. The popular intellectual who probably has made the biggest splash this year, Jordan Peterson, describes himself as a Christian. Right-wing intellectuals, overall, aren’t nearly as religious as is the broader right-wing electorate. Still, I find they are much better suited to understand the role of religion in life than are left-wing intellectuals. For intellectuals on the left, the primary emotional reaction to religion is to see it as a force standing in the way of social liberalism, feel awkward about how many Americans are still religious, and then prefer to change the topic.
I see the main victims of the political correctness movement as standing in the center or center-left. In fact, some intellectual superstars, such as Peterson or Steven Pinker, have thrived and received enormous attention by attacking political correctness. But if you don’t have a big public audience, you work in a university, and you wish to make a point about race or gender that isn’t entirely along “proper” lines, you will probably keep your mouth shut or suffer the consequences. Those intellectual victims are not mainly on the right, and it means the left has ended up somewhat blind on these issues. This underlying dysfunction is a big reason the left was so surprised by the election of President Donald Trump.
Every intellectual on the right is extremely familiar with the doctrines of the left and center-left, but the converse is somewhat less true. It is virtually impossible to imagine a conservative or libertarian analog of Krugman’s earlier claim that there are no conservative sites he reads regularly.
In short, the new world of ideas is a free-for-all, and it is hard to wrap your arms around it. But the overall picture is by no means as favorable to left-wing intellectuals as left-wing intellectuals might wish to tell you.
JP is such a goof and continues to make unforced error after unforced error for those who don't like him (for whatever reason any individual has to dislike him, there are a few). He should probably scale back his appearances as, like most people, the more he speaks the more chances he gives himself to look like a dummy.
But he knows from personal experience that he has far more of a reach on any given number of podcasts he regularly goes on than a few minutes on Fox News. Going on the worst pundit shows on Fox News undermines his position on anything, imo. He can go on JRE basically whenever and be on a show with 5m+ downloads on one platform alone and talk for 3 hours about all of his points, or he can go on Tucker for 7 minutes for half as many people and talk about those dang libs. It makes him come off as an ideologue and, dare I say it, dog whistler.
It's almost..idk...intellectually dishonest. Cowardly, perhaps.
32% of colleges is no minor thing, unless you want to pretend the events that keep happening over and over are nothing.
Nine years ago it was 74%. The source you picked shows the trend significantly and monotonically improving in the last decade.
:yeshrug
FIRE wins its cases, which improves the rating for the college they win against. It reflects trends in the court, but not for certain trends in the college mentality or the youth there.
It would be better if you knew how to be honest Mandark, but I don't think you do know how to be honest. If you did have honesty then I probably wouldn't have to explain this rather obvious bit of nuance.
You can be a non-believer in your surface rationality, but you can’t be a non-believer in your actions, you see, because Harris’ metaphysics is fundamentally Christian. So he acts out a Christian metaphysics, while at the same time saying ‘I don’t believe it’. Yes, you do, because you’re acting it out. You just say you don’t believe it, but he’s acting it out, e.g. he doesn’t rob banks, he doesn’t kill people, he doesn’t rape. This addressed in Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment.
What the hell is a Doestevsky?
This isn't the first time he's said something like this.Quote from: Jordan PetersonYou can be a non-believer in your surface rationality, but you can’t be a non-believer in your actions, you see, because Harris’ metaphysics is fundamentally Christian. So he acts out a Christian metaphysics, while at the same time saying ‘I don’t believe it’. Yes, you do, because you’re acting it out. You just say you don’t believe it, but he’s acting it out, e.g. he doesn’t rob banks, he doesn’t kill people, he doesn’t rape. This addressed in Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment.
You would think Peterson himself would spend a few seconds to trying to clarify that at some point throughout the debate, if that were the case.
This isn't the first time he's said something like this.Quote from: Jordan PetersonYou can be a non-believer in your surface rationality, but you can’t be a non-believer in your actions, you see, because Harris’ metaphysics is fundamentally Christian. So he acts out a Christian metaphysics, while at the same time saying ‘I don’t believe it’. Yes, you do, because you’re acting it out. You just say you don’t believe it, but he’s acting it out, e.g. he doesn’t rob banks, he doesn’t kill people, he doesn’t rape. This addressed in Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment.
I'm not sure its to Christianity alone. I think he sees the best wrangling of the ideas in Christianity, but he references other religions. He brings up the Tao in the discussion.
The Dillahunty/Peterson discussion needed to answer the question of whether a transcendental being (such as God) is required for a proper morality.
I'm not sure its to Christianity alone. I think he sees the best wrangling of the ideas in Christianity, but he references other religions. He brings up the Tao in the discussion.
The Dillahunty/Peterson discussion needed to answer the question of whether a transcendental being (such as God) is required for a proper morality.
(Narrator) It's not.
The race-and-IQ debate is back. The latest round started a few weeks ago when Harvard geneticist David Reich wrote a New York Times op-ed in defense of race as a biological fact. The piece resurfaced Sam Harris’ year-old Waking Up podcast interview with Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve, and launched a Twitter debate between Harris and Vox’s Ezra Klein. Klein then responded to Harris and Reich in Vox, Harris fired back, and Andrew Sullivan went after Klein. Two weeks ago, Klein and Harris released a two-hour podcast in which they fruitlessly continued their dispute.
The campus free speech debate is heating up. Last month I made the case (first in a Twitter thread and then again at the Washington Post’s The Monkey Cage) that there is no campus free speech crisis. Around the same time, similar arguments were made by Matt Yglesias (at Vox), Aaron Hanlon (at NBC), and Mari Uyehara (at GQ). The gist of our collective argument was that young people and university students are generally supportive of free speech, that university enrollment is associated with an increase in tolerance for offensive speech, and that a small number of anecdotes have been permitted to set the terms of public debate.(https://niskanencenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/FreeSpeech6.png)
Unsurprisingly, these debunkings have attracted some debunkings of their own. The most detailed of these was a pair of posts by Sean Stevens and Jonathan Haidt at the Heterodox Academy. In addition to restating the case for why the campus free speech crisis is real, Stevens and Haidt make a number of additional claims for why alarm is warranted. I am grateful for their critique, but I am not persuaded.
This was a great week for the battle for the right to FREE SPEECH.
RedState fired every single one of their anti-Trump columnists.
The entire right-wing is freaking out about Michelle Wolf being too mean to Sarah Huckabee Sanders and the Trump admin.
Once again, proving that the "fuck your feelings" crowd is (and always has been) full of shit.
SHOCK. James Clapper Lied To Congress About Discussing The Trump Dossier With Jake Tapper
SHOCK: Jerk who committed perjury in Congress and completely got away with it, probably did so again; now forced to work at CNN
To be honest, the most shocking and frightening thing about the RedState story is that:
1. They were paying bloggers enough that firing them would save money.
b. That they had bloggers people would notice if they were fired.
iii. RedState has non-technical employees in general, since it looks like an automatically generated blog bumping platform.
IIII. That it's not having Raven create a Battle Royale mode to compensate.
Max Boot can't figure out why Republicans who claim to be upset by Donald Trump won't do what he sees as the only reasonable thing and vote Democrat.
I did not vote for Donald Trump. There are plenty of his policies I have been pleasantly surprised by. But I hold to the old fashioned view that character matters and find his character to be low. All that said, I do admit he has made great appointments and has advanced some good policies both in foreign relations and in domestic policy.
He still concerns me though and I too wish the GOP would be more forceful against him instead of less deferential. I still think Congress needs to use its checks and balances against him more and take the lead on legislating when he won't.
I could never vote for Democrats though. As much as I think the GOP has gone insane, I think the Democratic Party has embraced policies I find as morally repugnant as Trump's behavior. And his behavior is just on him. The Democrats not only want to advance morally repugnant policies, but not allow any of us to opt out of them.
It is easy for Max Boot to vote Democrat if you aren't a social conservative or Christian. But I think life matters and the Democrats' embrace of killing children, hiding euphemistically behind the term "abortion," is actually a moral evil. One of my concerns with President Trump is that I remain skeptical of his commitment to the culture of life. I'm sure not going to embrace a party that has handed itself over to a government subsidized death cult called Planned Parenthood.
Likewise, I think homosexuality is a sin and gay marriage is an affront to God. I'm not going to support a party that wants to shut down small businesses run by Christians who refuse to go along with the the left's view on human sexuality.
And then there's transgenderism. A transgender person is mentally ill and the left would prefer we treat the transgender person as normal instead of trying to get them help.
On all these issues, the Democratic Party has been hijacked by those who'd treat deviancy as normal and normalcy as deviant. I think these moral issues directly relate to a collapse of our culture. So while I have no affection for a President who is a moral cretin, I'm certainly not going to cast my lot with a party that celebrations moral abominations and thinks the government should subsidize them.
Trump may be an authoritarian, but the Democrats are the ones trying to force nuns to pay for killing kids and force small businesses out of business for not wanting to support same-sex weddings.
He sold RedState to Salem in 2014 in the first place to focus on his radio show and CNN full time. (Also presumably to make money before its value dropped more.)
More evidence on the attack of free speech on college campuses (https://apnews.com/0c87e4318bcc4eb9b8e69f9f54c7b889)
More evidence on the attack of free speech on college campuses (https://apnews.com/0c87e4318bcc4eb9b8e69f9f54c7b889)
suspect we've been browsing the same subreddits :doge
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a19834137/jordan-peterson-interview/
Long piece that's a nice counter to all the smear peaces.
Viewed another way, Peterson’s intellectual project is exceedingly immodest, and can be stated in a sentence: He aims at nothing short of a refounding of Western civilization, to provide a rational justification for why the materialists of the digital age should root themselves in the soil of Christian ethics despite having long ago lost the capacity for faith.oh, that's all?
Criticism = slanderous propaganda hit piecesThis is dumb, he can actually be slandered (as he is) and be full of shit. The thing that keeps feeding Peterson are idiots like the woman trying to catch him on TV and people writing fake news articles about him. The guy is out there telling bible stories, I cannot impress on you enough how disappointed I am when people invent things to slander him on instead of laughing at his fucking bible stories.
Praise = well written articles
More evidence on the attack of free speech on college campuses (https://apnews.com/0c87e4318bcc4eb9b8e69f9f54c7b889)
suspect we've been browsing the same subreddits :doge
how do you guys deal with the constant tankie bickering
you think it has no effect but then you find yourself "well actually..."ing the HolodomorBA's got your back:
From coast to coast, people have been out on campuses, gaining some experience and making beginning headway in the efforts to take the film of BA’s talk THE TRUMP/PENCE REGIME MUST GO! In The Name of Humanity, We REFUSE To Accept a Fascist America. A Better World IS Possible to campuses. Below is some correspondence on these experiences. New reports are coming in, and we will continue to post them on this page.
Right now, before the spring semester ends at many schools, is a critical time to step up the work to impact campuses with this film. “Take BA to Campus Week” begins April 30 (though in some instances it started a week earlier or will start a week later). We need to come out of this period with a deeper understanding of the mood of the students, a real presence on some critical campuses and activated cores of people who are into this film and want to see it go further, as well as people who are getting into BA and wrangling in a more overall way with the new communism. And we need growing Revolution Clubs.
There are different strengths and weaknesses to the efforts described in the correspondences below, and different things to learn from each. None of these should be seen as THE answer; all of them are actually parts of an ensemble of what revolutionary political work on campus should look like (an ensemble that would also include things like programs on the Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America, “HOW WE CAN WIN—How We Can Really Make Revolution”; ongoing study groups on THE NEW COMMUNISM by Bob Avakian; bringing people from those who catch the hardest hell onto the campuses while bringing students into the battles and even just the lives of the communities off-campus; broad distribution of Science and Revolution by Ardea Skybreak; and other things).
Criticism = slanderous propaganda hit piecesThis is dumb, he can actually be slandered (as he is) and be full of shit. The thing that keeps feeding Peterson are idiots like the woman trying to catch him on TV and people writing fake news articles about him. The guy is out there telling bible stories, I cannot impress on you enough how disappointed I am when people invent things to slander him on instead of laughing at his fucking bible stories.
Praise = well written articles
For a moment, he resists, falling silent and still. He looks stricken. “This always breaks me up.” The tension gathers in his weather-beaten face. He flushes. The effort to hold back tears then shifts to the effort to expel them. They flow freely. The cathartic release of emotion sends a subtle tremor through his rather emaciated body. He recovers his speech. “I don’t tell people, ‘You’re okay the way that you are.’ That’s not the right story. The right story is ‘You’re way less than you could be.’”
...
In these moments, Peterson is filled with frustration that so many need his message, for want of what had once been common wisdom. At the refusal to address men in the language that summons them to embrace their better instincts. (Yes, Peterson is one of those problematic figures who believe that men have a nature that is best appealed to in ways consistent with that nature.) Why has no one ever set these young men straight before? Where were their fathers? Where were their teachers? Why have they left it up to him, a YouTube personality, to roust them from their hiding places and send them out into the world?
I met Peterson in Los Angeles on a cloudless January afternoon, accompanied by his wife of twenty-eight years, Tammy, who had quit her job as a massage therapist in 2017 to help manage her husband’s affairs. There was something faintly comic about seeing this austere, steely-haired, admonitory figure from the frozen north at the wheel of a white Miata convertible in the southern-California sun. We were on our way to the home studio of the YouTube broadcaster Dave Rubin, a former reporter for the progressive Internet news show The Young Turks and now the host of the nonpartisan Rubin Report, on which Peterson was scheduled to be interviewed alongside the conservative pundit Ben Shapiro.
We pulled up to a pleasant white suburban house and rang the bell. Rubin came to greet us. “Every time I turn my head, you’re there!”
Tammy met Peterson in 1969, when she was eight years old and he was seven. They lived across the street from each other in a small town in northern Alberta. ...
Peterson would leave for college at the age of seventeen standing five foot seven inches tall, and return home a year later standing six foot two.
“I don’t know that he was celibate. . . .” Tammy said. “But he was always the sort that if he was going to sleep with a woman, he was going to marry her.”
I asked if she had known other guys like that.
“He was the only one.”
Peterson’s father was a nonbeliever, and his mother was a practicing Protestant. He attended church as a young boy, until he started trying to debate the priest over doctrinal contradictions.
The local librarian, who was married to the head of the NDP, Canada’s social-democratic party, identified Peterson as a young man of promise and gave him a schooling in the great books. He spent his youth as a committed socialist before growing disillusioned with the character of his fellow travelers, whom he came to regard as motivated by resentment. At the same time, he met some conservative small-business owners who earned his grudging admiration. “It produced a fair bit of cognitive dissonance for me,” he says. “Because ostensibly, I didn’t admire the conservative ethos. But I certainly admired the people.”
By thirteen, Peterson had become “very tangled up and obsessive about ideas,” and haunted by the totalitarian atrocities of the twentieth century. For years, he was plagued by vivid nightmares of a nuclear holocaust.
At McGill, Peterson says, “I split myself into two.” By day, he was a conventional graduate student researching the neurology of alcoholism. By night, he was working on a book called Maps of Meaning, an attempt to reconcile the writings of Jung with the latest neuroscience and evolutionary biology. “I wasn’t trying to write an academic book,” Peterson says. “I was trying to solve a problem: Confronted with the opportunity to become an Auschwitz guard, how can you protect yourself against saying yes? Which was the fundamental question of the twentieth century.”
I noted that while we still read the canonical thinkers who presumed to address the big questions, nobody attempted to write in such a mode anymore. “People told me that the time for the great theories in psychology is over,” he said. “I said, ‘It might be over for you, but it’s not over for me.’ ”
Then, in September of that year, Peterson posted a video stating his opposition to C-16, a Canadian bill that sought to make gender identity and expression protected categories. He argued that the law might compel people to adopt a panoply of gender-neutral pronouns, something he declared he would not do. He judged these pronouns—zie, and zir, and they, to name three of the more than seventy and growing such terms—to be the invention of “postmodern neo-Marxists” seeking to use state power to decree that gender differences were not biologically based but rather social constructions that could be made or unmade at will.
In Peterson’s telling, delivered with the flair for drama that made him a star—his reedy voice at times hesitant then suddenly propelled by bursts of moral passion—the anodyne language of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” used to justify the new law was, in fact, a Trojan horse hiding an army of the radical left seeking yet another unattainable utopia. The [Joe Rogan] interview established the template through which the public would come to regard him, by turns, as a hero of resistance to an encroaching assault on civil liberties, or an absurd Don Quixote waging war against a figment of his own imagination; a redemptive and transformative thinker, or the most problematic mansplainer of all time.
Many of these initial supporters were drawn from the male-dominated message boards of 4chan and Reddit, where a traffic in affectionate Jordan Peterson–themed memes instantly came into existence. Peterson’s odd combination of midcentury rural slang and existential exhortations spawned viral in-jokes: “Get in, Bucko. We’re rescuing your father from the Underworld,” read one. His lectures were dubbed onto videos of Kermit the Frog, a play on his somewhat Muppetlike voice.
Peterson’s fame on these subversive platforms is often used to paint him in ominous tones. “I have something in common with Nazis,” he told me, “in that I am opposed to the radical left. And when you oppose the radical left, you end up being a part of a much larger group that includes Nazis in it.” But his refusal of the consolations of group identity also puts him at odds with the alt-right. “The alt-righters would say—and they’ve said this to me directly—‘Peterson, you’re wrong. Identity politics is correct. We just have to play to win.’ I think that’s a reprehensible attitude. But I understand exactly why you would come to that conclusion.
“What I’m saying with my YouTube videos is ‘Okay, there’s a different way of playing the whole game. Forget about the bloody group-identity framework and concentrate on what you can do as an individual.’ ”
Some see the clips of Peterson’s speeches, excerpted and circulated online with fan titles such as “Jordan Peterson Debunks the Myth of White Privilege,” as a gateway drug to the sprawling red-pilled netherworld of men’s-rights activism, scientific racism, and revanchist white ethnonationalism. But Peterson sees himself as a kind of Catcher in the Rye, rescuing alienated young men from such dangerous temptations.
Peterson often indulges a fatalistic resignation that someday, inevitably, he will be taken down for good. “The overwhelming likelihood, as far as I’m concerned, is that this will go terribly wrong,” he told a CBC newscaster, looking beleaguered, just a few days before I met him in Los Angeles.
...
“I’m surfing a one-hundred-foot wave,” he told the newscaster. “And generally what happens if you do that is that you drown.”
Peterson, who suffers from an autoimmune disorder that affects his health, energy, and mood, has adopted his daughter Mikhaila’s diet of mostly red meat and greens, from which nearly all gluten and carbohydrates have been restricted.
He ended the conversation expressing his intent to step back from the precipice of confrontation. “I’m trying to modify my Twitter approach,” he said.
...
Pankaj Mishra published a piece on the website of The New York Review of Books calling Peterson a symptom of the “intellectual and moral breakdown” that leads to fascism. The piece included a passing reference to Peterson’s “claim” of having been inducted into a Native Canadian tribe as an instance of “eggheads pretentiously . . . romancing the noble savage.” Peterson responded on Twitter by calling Mishra a “sanctimonious prick,” adding, “If you were in my room at the moment, I’d slap you happily.”
He had met with Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen to discuss an unspecified future venture. Both of those billionaires have for years called for the disruption of higher education, and Peterson has spoken of his desire to create an online university that will offer accreditation in the humanities at a tenth of the prevailing cost.
I asked which aspect of Peterson’s messages resonated most strongly with him. “He’s getting people to be more responsible for their lives. He’s talking to them on the individual level. And even though he doesn’t identify as a Christian, he is very pastoral in a way that can be inspiring. It’s hard to discredit someone when they’re actually making individual lives better.” That was the simplest of all the explanations I had heard for Peterson’s continuing success in the face of ongoing efforts to expel him from polite society. I thought back to something his friend Wodek Szemberg, who produced the Maps of Meaning miniseries, had told me in a coffeehouse in Toronto.
Peterson would sometimes forward Szemberg emails he had received from viewers of the series. “A young man from Italy wrote in, saying, ‘I was about to commit suicide. I heard your lecture. And I’m going to live.’ The ability that [Peterson] has to speak to those who feel themselves at the end of the line, and to tell them: ‘There is a way for you to regroup and to rethink yourself and be productive and live a good life.’ That’s real. That’s not his imagination. The response that he gets proves how important it is for there to be someone who is believable when he says, ‘You can do it.’”
Szemberg spoke of his own frustration with the sort of people Peterson has allowed himself to be associated with in public. “He doesn’t get it. In some sense, he doesn’t want to get it.” According to Szemberg, it was only after Peterson was scheduled to appear with Faith Goldy, then of Rebel Media, an online outlet that has been friendly to the alt-right, that Peterson finally reached the conclusion that “not everyone who wants to be your friend can be your friend.”
[friend and a psychology professor at the University of Toronto named William] Cunningham described feeling nervous before attending one of his lectures. “I was expecting to be surrounded by fascist skinheads. And there are, like, nuns in the audience, and the audience is totally diverse, and it’s this beautiful discussion about the nature of myth for creating social reality. And I’m like, Yeah, I love this stuff! And the next day he starts tweeting again, and I’m like, Noooooo, not this again!” There was a moment soon after the Cathy Newman interview when Peterson received positive coverage from New York Times columnist David Brooks and The Atlantic. “I went to Jordan and told him, ‘You have a chance now to reframe your image, and you probably won’t get a second chance,’ ” Cunningham said. “ ‘Because if Twitter Jordan comes back out, that’s probably going to be it—forever.’”
The young men who love Jordan Peterson love him for all the reasons that the smart set despises him. He gives them something the culture—sometimes it seems this way—wants to deny them. A sense of purpose in a world that increasingly defines their natural predispositions—for risk, adventure, physical challenge, unbridled competition—as maladaptive to the pacified, androgynous ideals of a bureaucratized, post-feminist world. Increasingly one hears that the problem menacing the world today is not the excesses of masculinity, but masculinity itself. That masculinity itself must—and can—be eradicated.
...
He argues in 12 Rules that “if men are pushed too hard to feminize, they will become more and more interested in harsh, fascist political ideology.” He notes that “Fight Club, perhaps the most fascist popular film made in recent years by Hollywood, provides a perfect example of this inevitable attraction,” as do “the populist groundswell of support for Donald Trump in the U. S. and the rise of far-right political parties even in such moderate and liberal places as Holland, Sweden, and Norway.”
I watched several hundred people trade a few words with Peterson, some of them bearing gifts. “You are omnipresent in our life,” said the female half of one married couple.
“Thank you for helping me to become a less agreeable person,” said one Asian woman.
“You’ve helped me to grow up,” said a young man.
The ratio of those expressing gratitude for the positive effect Peterson had had on their personal lives to those wanting to talk about the culture wars was roughly twenty to one, a more or less perfect inversion of the impression given by much of the media.
I spoke to a Hispanic man named Joseph. “I was smoking too much weed. I was drinking too much. I hadn’t talked to my family in years. I didn’t think I needed anyone. Now I know that I do,” he said, wiping away tears.
A twenty-six-year-old guy named Jordan received Peterson’s lectures from his sister and his mother. His girlfriend Breanna described the change in his energy and motivation since he discovered Peterson three months before. “We started talking about marriage,” she said.
I asked if Jordan had tried other self-help programs or books. “Yeah, but none has ever made a difference.” I noted that Peterson’s message is a dark one. “That’s why I like it. When he says, ‘Life is suffering,’ that resonates very deeply. You can tell he’s not bullshitting us.”
A young woman I met named Faith was inspired to break up with her boyfriend. “I heard what he was saying about weak men and how women can be drawn into those relationships to—I feel bad saying this, but it’s true—to dominate them. My boyfriend didn’t want responsibility for his life or our relationship. Dr. Peterson helped me to accept that it would be a disservice to myself—and to him—to stay with him.”
i admit some of the Peterson stuff is just fascination with the man and his weird continued rising star of fame off of what is not just bad common sense for those he's speaking to, but like, bad versions of old common sense... plus as jake and others have pointed out here, and many elsewhere, and i just have had a gut reaction to from his first surfacing, he doesn't even seem good at his professed job, let alone his expansion into undergrad philosophy which seems to have not even skimmed wikipedia first
Why are so many people even talking about IQ
I thought the Jewish Question is why are there so many Jews in finance and Hollywood and Law?
Why are so many people even talking about IQ
Btw I found out recently that JP's thing about Jews and high IQ is wrong. Ashkenazi Jews had an average iq of about 98 before the first world war, so it isn't an adequate explanation for their prevalence in high status occupations. This factoid brought to you by Cindi's dad, Thomas Sowell.
I'm going to need to see an example of someone using that phrase in that way from earlier than the post war period.
And if you say that it's a recent redefinition, I want to see examples of other people using it like that. Also in general it's a good idea not to appropriate Nazi terminology and then redefine it. Or make videos that address redefined Nazi terminology.
Peterson has had many opportunities to tell the truth about the problem of Jewish power, but on every occasion has failed the litmus test. Instead of rightly criticizing the monstrous effects of Jewish power, Peterson has justified their power with IQ arguments, stating that they deserve to rule us because they’re just smarter than the rest.
It’s abundantly clear now that classical liberals like Peterson are either wittingly or unwittingly in the pay of Jews. These fakers steal arguments from the alt-right while rejecting the more controversial truths on race and the Jewish question. By siphoning off potential support for the alt-right and redirecting it into Jew-friendly individualist ideology, this classical liberal clique does Jewry’s work to defang the right-wing backlash to globalism, leftism and the multicultural experiment.
In other words, the number of Jews are greatly over-represented in elite schools, and that over-representation has nothing to do with their high average IQ or good academic achievements. Ivy League schools discriminate against Asians and Whites in favor of far less academically qualified Jewish students. Of course, this discrimination at the college level is at least partially responsible for how successful Jews become later in life.
Why are so many people even talking about IQSam Harris had a conversation with a questionable fellow, controversy followed so everyone is expected to comment on the subject that caused most controversy. I think that's about the timeline.
Why are so many people even talking about IQSam Harris had a conversation with a questionable fellow, controversy followed so everyone is expected to comment on the subject that caused most controversy. I think that's about the timeline.
I defer to anyone who's been paying attention longer, I've only recently come across it but cant give enough of a fuck to pay attention to Murray.Why are so many people even talking about IQSam Harris had a conversation with a questionable fellow, controversy followed so everyone is expected to comment on the subject that caused most controversy. I think that's about the timeline.
This has actually been going on for a few years now, though mainly in the youtube skeptosphere community from what I've seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz0oxIZ3xIgThis was pretty great, I wish you guys would talk about him more instead of arguing over lamers.
a rundown of how the issues within colleges operate
Funny how etiolet completely skipped over the Jewish Question post, immediately changed the subject, and then went back to attacking people instead of having some self reflection instead on how fucked up using that phrase to talk about the Jew master race is.
I watched that for 2 minutes before I couldnt anymore, it would be at home in the bad feels threadJ and L to skip 10s backward or forward respectively (and K to pause). Indispensable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas)
Re-posting this here because it's good (cringey skits aside).
The rise of Patreon – the website that makes Jordan Peterson $80k a month:gddr5
In five years, online membership service Patreon has attracted two million patrons supporting 100,000 ‘creators’ to the tune of $350m – including nearly $1m a year for rightwing psychologist Jordan Peterson.
surprised he hasn't passed up chapo yet
alt left 1 – alt right 0
Any news on the debate with Zizek? Was it ever actually scheduled?
I don't think the Zizek fanpage ever responded to Peterson's challenge.Hue hue.
I don't think the Zizek fanpage ever responded to Peterson's challenge.Hue hue.
Seriously though, the Zero Books video agrajag posted recently has got me worried now. I need to hear them talk past each other as intensely as possible.
Zizek/Harris or Harris/Peterson? I dont wanna hear another Harris/Peterson debate after the last two tbh
It's going to get off the rails, I guarantee it. Harris will never let Peterson get away with bible stories.
As an ess jay dubya myself I'm not really down with the "hur hur kill yourself" rhetoric.
But you don't find that, while you find religious cultures through all of recorded human history. And not just random cultures and random texts, but texts that lead cultures to succeed and replace older texts that offered less to the people and species. Harris isn't appreciating how we got to this point as a species by treating religion in such a manner.
Harris' point is that Peterson's metamyth analysis is unfalsifiable and ad-hoc.
It's tough for me to call something that works across multiple disciplines and cultures as ad-hoc.
Leadbelly:
Two links and I'll leave it there for good:
http://www.thebore.com/forum/index.php?topic=45437.msg2419019#msg2419019
http://www.thebore.com/forum/index.php?topic=45437.msg2420397#msg2420397
Okay. I've not said the Right is necessarily any better than the Left in this regard. In fact this is why being on the side of free speech is extremely important. Who is on top can change. Those same speech restriction policies you were in agreement with could one day suddenly be used against you.
You say you don't understand why they are focusing on the Left so much because you see similar attitudes, but for different reasons on the Right. What I think you are missing is institutional power. So for example, universities are overwhelmingly liberal which is why the attacks on free speech are more likely to be from the Left. We're not simply talking about attitudes from the students, but the policies they are beginning to influence. Safe space policies, trigger warnings, dress codes at halloween, etc, they're not coming from the Right, it is coming from the Left. They are also creeping into other areas. As you know, Google for instance has a diversity department that has a particular ideological perspective. The very reason Peterson suddenly came into the spotlight was because of legislation to do with gender neutral pronouns.QuoteBasically the one place that the left seems to take a harder line on free speech restrictions are when it comes to issues of prejudice. Which has always made me suspicious about why so many like Peterson only seem to give a shit about that particular inflection point of anti-prejudice and not the still much larger issue of people advocating restrictions on speech because of their prejudice??
I'm from the UK. We have hate speech laws in the UK. You may be aware of the Count Dankula incident, in which he was prosecuted for hate speech for making a Nazi joke. Very few people on the Left defended him. The majority of the protest actually came from the Right. The Left has pretty much completely abandoned free speech.
Why be against hate speech? The problem with hate speech is that it is vague and subjective. What exactly is 'hate' if you get my point. If you go back 60 years for instance, the LGBT community would have been considered grossly immoral and a degradation of society. Homosexuality of course was illegal in the UK until 1967. It took a bit more time to get wider acceptance. One thing LGBT campaigners knew back in those days was that free speech is extremely important. When you are faced with a society and a State that is hostile to you, all you have is free speech. Some people today seem not understand that hate speech laws even 60 years ago would have been used against them. Against their speech. In fact in terms of LGBT campaigners, don't take my word for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOb_r2A7NKM
The other thing is, once you normalise the idea that the State has the right to criminalise certain speech, you create a culture and climate where people grow up thinking no one has the right to offend them. That the state should step in. Then you get all kinds of special interest groups that say things like, "Wait a minute, if this speech is classed as hate speech, why not this other type of speech?". That's inevitable. So in the UK for instance there have been campaigns to make 'misogyny' a form of hate speech. You can really see the issue there. Misogyny no longer simply means 'hatred of women' it is used far more broadly than that by feminists and people on the Left. Pretty much anything criticisng 'feminism' could be construed as misogyny. And the way hate speech works, it is not intent that decides whether something is classed as hate speech or not, it is the person who took offence.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/amber-rudd-misogyny-hate-crime-change-law-prejudice-women-home-secretary-greens-mps-charities-a8196786.html
The left is silent. What they don't seem to grasp is, governments change. One day maybe a far-right government is voted in and they have the same legislative powers against 'hate speech' as any other government. It is a bad idea to allow the state to control speech. It is a bad idea historically, and it is a bad idea logically.
Peterson was against it because it was compelled speech by the State. I hope I have given you a god explanation of why you should be fully in support of Peterson on that. A lot of people on the Left it seems aren't. Certainly this is the case in the UK.
Much else though isn't really addressing what I am trying to get across. Though I get the points you are making.
I'm not saying that the left, and more specifically the younger generation of the left, is absent their own free speech concerns, clearly there are some notable cleavages there, and you speak to some of them. My point has only been that by all evidence I have found, they are not currently the sort of existential threat that is often catastrophized by the speakers mentioned in the video in the other thread. That comparatively, the left-leaning youth and the left writ large seems to be much smaller in both depth and breadth toward restricting free speech than what you currently see on the right and from older generations. And the left unquestionably in America has far less control of power levers to advance their free speech restrictions.
Throughout Europe there is a very real concern about the level of immigration over recent years, particularly Muslim immigration. You have questions about security. You have questions about identity and what this will mean for Europe in the coming years. They're hard questions to answer. It is not Right that is making it difficult to talk about these issues (obviously) it is the Left. You see the more the Left is silent about Islam, the more they are silent about the effects on mass immigration, all they are doing is showing the wider public that they are incapable of dealing with the real issues. The more they dismiss people's concerns about Islam and immigration as racism, the more they will push the public away. The far-right is quite happy to talk about these issues. I think the biggest problem with the Left is its inability to connect with ordinary working-class people. Its abandonment of working class people in fact. There has been move from class politics to identity politics. My fear is what they are really doing is pushing more people to the right. As Sam Harris has said, identity politics is extremely toxic when it comes to these sorts of discussions.
Throughout Europe there is a very real concern about the level of immigration over recent years, particularly Muslim immigration. You have questions about security. You have questions about identity and what this will mean for Europe in the coming years. They're hard questions to answer. It is not Right that is making it difficult to talk about these issues (obviously) it is the Left. You see the more the Left is silent about Islam, the more they are silent about the effects on mass immigration, all they are doing is showing the wider public that they are incapable of dealing with the real issues. The more they dismiss people's concerns about Islam and immigration as racism, the more they will push the public away. The far-right is quite happy to talk about these issues. I think the biggest problem with the Left is its inability to connect with ordinary working-class people. Its abandonment of working class people in fact. There has been move from class politics to identity politics. My fear is what they are really doing is pushing more people to the right. As Sam Harris has said, identity politics is extremely toxic when it comes to these sorts of discussions.
1) The Left is refusing to talk about important questions of identity.
2) The Left has become toxic by embracing identity politics.
In the same dang paragraph, man.
What are you doing? Are you sifting through the post looking for something to find fault with?
Trying to second guess people's motives is kind of pointless in that regard.
What are you doing? Are you sifting through the post looking for something to find fault with?Trying to second guess people's motives is kind of pointless in that regard.
I bolded four sentences which are all in the same paragraph and plainly contradict each other.
If you don't find that contradiction to be worth noting, I don't know what to say.
You are missing the point, yes.
It being a contradiction I think onlly makes sense if having concerns about identity and 'identity politics' are literally interchangable statements.
Also, Leadbelly: as far as the issue of Free Speech is concerned, there's a lot of problems people like us have against people who claim to advocate such a thing, and at the top of the list is the fact that said advocates don't seem to actually believe in such a thing. Case in point:
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/995827598952484865
Also, Leadbelly: as far as the issue of Free Speech is concerned, there's a lot of problems people like us have against people who claim to advocate such a thing, and at the top of the list is the fact that said advocates don't seem to actually believe in such a thing. Case in point:
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/995827598952484865
Am I missing something? Obviously free speech does not mean you can't be critical of something. Of course this in itself can be a bit murky. For instance, is it okay to use your free speech in way that you deny someone else their free speech? An example of that would be students who protest in a lecture so loudly that the person giving the lecture is unable to speak. I've heard people make the argument that, well, they're exercising their free speech. Yeah, they are, but...
I think the line is at "using my speech with the objective of denying others speech"
Someone made the point, I think it was Bret Weinstein, that you're not only suppressing one person's speech but the right of others to hear that speech. As silly as I think people protesting outside a Peterson speech are, I don't wish to stop their right to protest outside. I'd draw the line at blocking the entrance and the audience attending or going inside with the protest and taking the stage/shouting down everyone else.
I think the line is at "using my speech with the objective of denying others speech"
Someone made the point, I think it was Bret Weinstein, that you're not only suppressing one person's speech but the right of others to hear that speech. As silly as I think people protesting outside a Peterson speech are, I don't wish to stop their right to protest outside. I'd draw the line at blocking the entrance and the audience attending or going inside with the protest and taking the stage/shouting down everyone else.
The Marx thing is sheer intellectual cowardice on Peterson's part, using the specter of 20th century mass killers to tar the thought of a philosopher from the 19th without engaging the content of his thought, and if anyone on the left tried that sort of guilt-by-association he and his buddies would be up in arms.
The Marx thing is sheer intellectual cowardice on Peterson's part, using the specter of 20th century mass killers to tar the thought of a philosopher from the 19th without engaging the content of his thought, and if anyone on the left tried that sort of guilt-by-association he and his buddies would be up in arms.
90% of what Marx wrote was a critique of capitalism. That's how he arrived at communism, not by saying this system is bad and we need to fix it, but by saying this system has these glaring contradictions and flaws which will cause it to collapse. And a lot of his criticisms are extremely relevant to where we are in the present day: the extreme accumulation of wealth into the hands of a few and accompanying disappearance of a middle class, capitalism's crises of overproduction and existential need to seek out new markets, to privatize and monetize every aspect of human existence. You have to be blind to not see the ways in which Marx was right—hell you can find articles all over the capitalist press saying, gee, Marx was kind of on the money.
So when Peterson or his ilk say Marx was a monster, we must not talk about Marx, they're basically covering their eyes and pretending the flaws he pointed out don't exist. They're ignoring how the crises of the present day—Trump in the US, Brexit in the UK, the rise of xenophobic nationalism in general and the turn towards autocracies in the developing world—are born out of discontent with the ills of liberal democratic capitalism. What Zizek said at the end of that "capitalist realism" video rings quite true to me, that we are in a crisis of liberalism and we have a choice between Berlusconi and some type of socialism.
One thing about capitalism is, despite its flaws, it has actually worked.
One thing about capitalism is, despite its flaws, it has actually worked.
That relies on rather broad definitions of both "capitalism" and "worked."
I've read the Manifesto and I have no idea what you're talking about. When it mentions the petty-bourgeois it treats them as a class destined to disappear under capitalism, not an enemy that the proletariat must defeat during the course of a revolution—and "defeat during the course of a revolution" is not synonymous with "commit a genocide against." To put blame on Marx for the Holodomor because Stalin used Marxist rhetoric is akin to blaming Nietzsche for the Holocaust because the Nazis took up the concept of the ubermensch. It takes the most disingenuous reactionary reading to see calls for genocide in the Manifesto—which, by the way, is a piece of agitprop and not a particularly important document for understanding Marx's thought as anyone who's studied him seriously could tell you.
In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.
In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.
From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.
You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.
It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.
The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.
The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.
In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.
The classification seemed relatively simple. The Ukrainians were already outcasts. The Communist Army had imposed their will on the Ukrainians when they overthrew the Ukrainian ruler. The Ukrainians themselves had rich culture and thus a large and deep sense of national pride. The deposing of their leader made them bitter to the idea of communist rule. Their independence had been attacked. Due to this, Stalin felt their national pride undermined his power and the idea of communism as a whole. These traits made the Ukrainians an easy group to target.
The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.
Well, the majority of the world's population is now lifted out of poverty. It wasn't lifted out of poverty through charity.
Well, the majority of the world's population is now lifted out of poverty. It wasn't lifted out of poverty through charity.
From 1990 to 2010, roughly two thirds of the headcount reduction in global absolute poverty came from the People's Republic of China. :ussrcry
One thing about capitalism is, despite its flaws, it has actually worked.
That relies on rather broad definitions of both "capitalism" and "worked."
If Marx is to blame for Stalin, who's to blame for Hitler?
I've read the Manifesto and I have no idea what you're talking about. When it mentions the petty-bourgeois it treats them as a class destined to disappear under capitalism, not an enemy that the proletariat must defeat during the course of a revolution—and "defeat during the course of a revolution" is not synonymous with "commit a genocide against." To put blame on Marx for the Holodomor because Stalin used Marxist rhetoric is akin to blaming Nietzsche for the Holocaust because the Nazis took up the concept of the ubermensch. It takes the most disingenuous reactionary reading to see calls for genocide in the Manifesto—which, by the way, is a piece of agitprop and not a particularly important document for understanding Marx's thought as anyone who's studied him seriously could tell you.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/QuoteIn depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.
This is all based on a historic view of life as oppressor and oppressed, with communism as the end to that. The violent revolution is inevitable. And he specifically means capitalists by bourgeoisie.Quote4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
This is of course was one of the ideas that supplied the gulags with pointless forced labor.QuoteYou are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.
In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.
From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.
You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.
It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.Quote9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
These ideas feed directly into the logic behind the state actions that lead to the mass starvation and famine of the Ukranians and the "kulaks". All the angry bourgeoisie rhetoric slipped right onto the farmers who were doing better. Redistribution and lack of property made them enemies. The middle class had to be flattened out.QuoteThe lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.
I doubt you actually read this shit or know about the Holodomor propaganda.
(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fe%2Fe1%2FAway_With_Private_Peasants%2521.jpg&f=1)
Fat capitalist is now fat kulak.QuoteThe Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.
The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.
In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.
https://ukrainiangenocidewhap.weebly.com/stage-1-classification.htmlQuoteThe classification seemed relatively simple. The Ukrainians were already outcasts. The Communist Army had imposed their will on the Ukrainians when they overthrew the Ukrainian ruler. The Ukrainians themselves had rich culture and thus a large and deep sense of national pride. The deposing of their leader made them bitter to the idea of communist rule. Their independence had been attacked. Due to this, Stalin felt their national pride undermined his power and the idea of communism as a whole. These traits made the Ukrainians an easy group to target.
Ukranians too much a national identity. Too many kulaks. Something had to be done to them.
And Marx expected violence. It was part of the plan.QuoteThe purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm
There are critiques of Capitalism at the time of Marx by Marx which are of merit. The problem is his solution and make no mistake its his solution. It's his name on these ideas and this angry, resentful, violent rhetoric.
Understood another way:
Marx - None of these bad things you say will happen have any chance of happening because proletariate yada yada..
Narrator - All the bad things happened.
This is relevant to the conversation we've had. Watch it the whole way through
by engaging with etiolate, you have already lostI know and I still do it :goty2
Revolutionary violence tends to be in high death counts.
by engaging with etiolate, you have already lost
Marx's solutions to capitalism and his communist groundwork, while not explicitly murderous, are so terribly misguided and resentful towards the exceptional that they naturally lead to death. He is not absolved of what happened. He is the seed for what happened. The acts that killed millions are an extension of his ideas.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.
Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
(http://vintagenewsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/all-that-is-interesting.comholodomor-starving-family-d185758f2c552c37244ea284ef38cb35f81297cd-630x381.jpg)
(http://vintagenewsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/all-that-is-interesting.comholodomor-starving-family-d185758f2c552c37244ea284ef38cb35f81297cd-630x381.jpg)
(http://vintagenewsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/all-that-is-interesting.comholodomor-starving-family-d185758f2c552c37244ea284ef38cb35f81297cd-630x381.jpg)
(http://vintagenewsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/all-that-is-interesting.comholodomor-starving-family-d185758f2c552c37244ea284ef38cb35f81297cd-630x381.jpg)
(http://vintagenewsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/all-that-is-interesting.comholodomor-starving-family-d185758f2c552c37244ea284ef38cb35f81297cd-630x381.jpg)
(http://vintagenewsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/all-that-is-interesting.comholodomor-starving-family-d185758f2c552c37244ea284ef38cb35f81297cd-630x381.jpg)
(http://vintagenewsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/all-that-is-interesting.comholodomor-starving-family-d185758f2c552c37244ea284ef38cb35f81297cd-630x381.jpg)
This doesn't stop until you admit that Communist Manifesto is the basis of the policies that starved these people.
scoring points on the bore> putting your worthless internet pride over the truth of history
I think the most surprising thing about this current discussion is that for some bizarre reason I thought etoilet wouldn't be dumb/lazy enough to make the asinine Marx ---- > Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot connection that every right-winger since the 19th century has . I mean, I know he likes to play in the fever swamp, but only enough to go waist deep, and not actually swim in it.
Again, I don't know why I thought this, but I did. :doge
Soon your eyes will gloss over these morbid flashes of chemicals and time. The futures lost long ago will merge and meld like fresh iron in the blacksmith's fire. A bit of old versus a bit of new. Silly souls who didn't work out quite right. An unfortunate generation. A thousond or a million. Bones wearing skin like a cat wears an April rain storm. Death in the eyes. Just a mistake, really.
Thanos had a point you know.
If you guys are just going to keep antagonizing etiolate this is going to happen, ignore him, engage him on his points or drag him to debate on your terms, but if you're going to do the usual spiel he's just going to go postal oneday and you'll all be to blame.
I'm just out here trying to not get my ass shot :dogeIf you guys are just going to keep antagonizing etiolate this is going to happen, ignore him, engage him on his points or drag him to debate on your terms, but if you're going to do the usual spiel he's just going to go postal oneday and you'll all be to blame.
But what about personal accountability you fucking commie?
Because I don't enter into mental altercations that I believe to have already won.FTFY
Now it spreads across the forum.The actions of a stable individual.
You're trying to argue the grandaddy of communism has nothing to do with the practice of communism.No they weren't.
by engaging with etiolate, you have already lost
Because I don't enter into mental altercations that I haven't already won.
I'm not a gambler. I'm an opportunist.
The other thing is this guy (although I don't know enough about it) seems to look at it from a standpoint of classical Marxism, something I think at least some of these intellectuals would actually agree (although I don't know if he agress with it) is dead.
Certainly I think that is the case. Identity Politics, through its separating of identity groups and their grievances, encourages difference. Marxism was more about fostering solidarity through more universal causes. Common cause. The main focus of Modern Leftist politics seems to be more around minority issues. The main focus of Marxism is of course class.
That said, people on the far-left are not capitalists. You can't completely separate Marxist thought from Left-wing politics, it's just that the main focus has switched from proletariat vs bourgeoisie to oppressor and oppressed.
I don't particularly like the way Jordan Peterson defines the far-Left because it almost sounds like a conspiracy theory, whether he actually intends that or not. That said, I understand the need to define it a certain way. It isn't the Left in general that is problem in itself. You have to be more specfic. The Postmodern/neo-marxists seems to me to be an attempt by Peterson to more specifically define people he is critical of.
Spamming images of victims of starvation is really tasteless and immature but, after some consideration, would not be out of character for Jordan Peterson.
what if etiolate just wanted to get banned so he can finally say he has been
what if etiolate just wanted to get banned so he can finally say he has been
FWIW no one here actually supports full on communism, I don't think?
FWIW no one here actually supports full on communism, I don't think?
what if etiolate just wanted to get banned so he can finally say he has been
:thinking
Go hang out in Venezuela. Maybe you'll enjoy yourself. Or maybe you'll die of starvation. :trumpsFWIW no one here actually supports full on communism, I don't think?
I would call myself a democratic socialist
lol this just popped up on Youtube as a recommended video. Perhaps partly because of this thread, although I have watched Peterson videos before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exHEFl2p1V8
Something I mentioned in the other thread:QuoteThe other thing is this guy (although I don't know enough about it) seems to look at it from a standpoint of classical Marxism, something I think at least some of these intellectuals would actually agree (although I don't know if he agress with it) is dead.
Certainly I think that is the case. Identity Politics, through its separating of identity groups and their grievances, encourages difference. Marxism was more about fostering solidarity through more universal causes. Common cause. The main focus of Modern Leftist politics seems to be more around minority issues. The main focus of Marxism is of course class.
That said, people on the far-left are not capitalists. You can't completely separate Marxist thought from Left-wing politics, it's just that the main focus has switched from proletariat vs bourgeoisie to oppressor and oppressed.
I don't particularly like the way Jordan Peterson defines the far-Left because it almost sounds like a conspiracy theory, whether he actually intends that or not. That said, I understand the need to define it a certain way. It isn't the Left in general that is problem in itself. You have to be more specfic. The Postmodern/neo-marxists seems to me to be an attempt by Peterson to more specifically define people he is critical of.
As this video shows, it isn't really classical Marxism he is talking about. Sure, he makes comments about Marxism, but as I mentioned before, I don't think that is actually what he means by Postmodern/neo-marxist.
The way he characterizes the left as so unified behind the post-modern neo-marxist ideals he abhores with liberal academics and the media pulling the strings at the top is a conspiracy theory, and a way to appear consistent in his derision of the left while also being super vague on what exact points he is being derisive of.
Pretty similar to the way nazis raised the spectre of cultural bolshevism to deride political opponents - specifically jews. Neo-fascist sites like rightpedia are all about it http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Cultural_Marxism
(http://en.rightpedia.info/w/images/c/cf/Dummies_Guide_to_Cultural_Marxist_caste_system.jpg)
Go hang out in Venezuela. Maybe you'll enjoy yourself. Or maybe you'll die of starvation. :trumps
Your honor, let the record show that etoilet, a man who thinks of himself and portrays himself as a true intellectual, perhaps THE singular intellectual voice of this godforsaken sewage dump, also thinks the way to win an intellectual discussion is to go out of his way to find the most horrific pictures of human atrocities he can find to shock you so you can't disagree with him, while also saying he will not engage unless he thinks he's already "won" the conversation.
Leadbelly, what do you think of Trump saying he wants to jail people in the press?
Either way, even if you think he is talking nonsense, it is highly unlikely it is some kind of dog whistling to Nazis. I'm not sure if that is the angle you are coming at it by linking that stuff, but I doubt that is what he is doing. That in itself is kind conspiratorial thinking.
I don't think he's a fascist, but he uses the term to generalise and discredit academia, activist movements and other groups he lumps in with the post-modern neo-marxist gang as ruining society, in a way that parallels with historic use by some pretty distasteful groups.Speaking of historic similarities, I was mildly chilled when I saw the similarities between Julius Evola and Jordan Peterson. Western esotericism is for crazy people.
I don't think he's a fascist, but he uses the term to generalise and discredit academia, activist movements and other groups he lumps in with the post-modern neo-marxist gang as ruining society, in a way that parallels with historic use by some pretty distasteful groups.Speaking of historic similarities, I was mildly chilled when I saw the similarities between Julius Evola and Jordan Peterson. Western esotericism is for crazy people.
Despite what you might have read in Teen Vogue, Marx didn't invent communism or socialism. And Marxism-Leninism was basically Lenin and Trotsky going "this won't work! here's what will!"The Marx thing is sheer intellectual cowardice on Peterson's part, using the specter of 20th century mass killers to tar the thought of a philosopher from the 19th without engaging the content of his thought, and if anyone on the left tried that sort of guilt-by-association he and his buddies would be up in arms.
If you know about the holodomor and have read the communist manifesto then the linking between the two is pretty obvious. The language of the propaganda against the "Kulaks" is straight out of the manifesto.
The wiping out of dissent is in the manifesto. The confiscation of property from emigrates and "rebels",which the Soviets took to however a degree they wished and filled up their gulags.
Just read the manifesto and look at what happened.
Under Marxist theory the petit-bourgeios are an irrelevant class long before a revolutionary period. The very idea of attempting to institute socialism in a backwards society like czarist Russia goes against orthodox Marxism.
The Soviet and Chinese agricultural polices are derived from Leninist and Maoist theories about how to transition to socialism in a largely peasant society, a situation whose very existence is a departure from orthodox Marxism.Nowhere was he hand-waiving Marx by blaming Stalin, he was pointing out that Marx didn't even have any reference material on the situation that Lenin and Stalin came into that they could reference. Instead Lenin, and Stalin and Mao and so on, tried to fill Marx's holes and then force it to fit into their situation, then they're the ones who did the hand waiving by being quite violent against anyone who said they were interpreting Marx wrong.
Since Ho Chi Minh quoted a paragraph of the US Declaration of Independence for his own Vietnamese Declaration of Independence, does that mean Thomas Jefferson is responsible for both sides of the Vietnam War?FACT: Thomas Jefferson was rabidly Pro-France, lived there many years, and supported the Revolution even into the bloodiest days
Lenin, and Stalin and Mao and so on, tried to fill Marx's holes
Mathematician Eric Weinstein, managing director of Thiel Capital, coined the term Intellectual Dark Web some while back, but it only became a subject of mass controversy after Bari Weiss published a recent New York Times profile of the crew. Weiss lumps Weinstein, his evolutionary biologist brother Bret, and about a dozen other high-profile, often controversial folks in the IDW ranks, including "New Atheism" guru Sam Harris, American Enterprise Institute scholar Christina Hoff Sommers, "comedian" Dave Rubin, conservative pundit Ben Shapiro, author and academic Jordan Peterson, and Quillette founder Claire Lehmann.
A diverse group in terms of work backgrounds and political leanings, what they share is a disdain for modern center-left orthodoxies—and a view of themselves as victims of unfortunate and intensifying forces: identity politics, feminist militancy, transgender activism, illiberalism around speech.
...
The IDW view of their evolving position seems, at minimum, like a selective remembering of recent history. Figures like Harris and Sommers have been controversial for most of their careers, and certainly no one was rolling out the mainstream political welcome wagon for them a decade ago. If anything, both are less fringy figures now than they were 10 years ago.
The last decade was also littered with battles about evolutionary biology and psychology, debates that built on gender wars started decades earlier. Just how physiologically different males and females are and how much this matters has long been a subject of intense and fraught debate; it is not some newfangled concern that millennial SJWs have suddenly seized. Similarly, partisans have been debating political correctness on college campuses for decades.
I don't buy the notion that IDW ideas are only now becoming beyond the pale. Nor am I convinced that they're actually so taboo these days.
As Weiss points out, this is a crowd that has built followings on new-media platforms like YouTube and Twitter rather than relying solely on legacy media, academic publishing, and other traditional routes to getting opinions heard.
...
Presenting themselves as brave and imperiled truth sayers facing down an increasingly "politically correct" populace, they offer their fans an immensely appealing proposition: It's not you, it's them, and liking us is a sign that you are not like them. We are rational, radical where it's called for, able to take a joke, and part of America's great intellectual tradition—everything the speech-policing, biology-denying left is not. And anything we say or share that angers the left is just proof of how insane they have become.
There are indeed a lot of loony people on the left, as there are in most ideological spheres. And college kids have indeed mounted some passionately stupid crusades in the past few years. Pushing back against these people, exposing their hypocrisies, and riling up outrage over their antics is sometimes necessary and often fun. It is always good for garnering attention. But it is also easy
"Israelis like to build," reads one Ben Shapiro tweet*. "Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage." Shapiro is also fond of pointing out on the regular that he thinks trans people shouldn't have the right to self-determination.
Peterson, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, skyrocketed to international renown for refusing to address transgender students by their preferred pronouns. His YouTube videos and recently published self-help book are full of sensible advice—interspersed with wisdom about how all feminists have "an unconscious wish for brutal male domination," rants against postmodernism (which has reached almost mythical megavillain status in Peterson's worldview), threats to hit other academics, and goofy parables about lobsters.
Basically, Peterson is like the ideological equivalent of a fad diet: The basic advice is sound—and it may even help you reach your goals—but you could skip the more esoteric elements, like eating for your bloodtype or believing that wearing lipstick in the workplace is asking to be sexually harassed, and wind up in the same place.
Rubin regularly makes absurdly reductionist statements about various groups he opposes ("The leftist media hates gamers" because "they don't like people who solve problems"), relies on bastardized evo-psych to make his points (today's gender norms are good because they've existed "from our hunter-gather days"), and makes videos that instruct people on how "trigger" progressives.
When your fan base is predicated largely on serving up quickly digestible, dopamine-triggering outrage day after day, week after week, it's very easy to lose perspective, to pander to their (and your own) worst impulses, and to wind up engaging with only the most ridiculous of the other side's arguments. To spend less and less time on the things you want to change and more and more on how stupid the things that other people want to change are.:teehee
It is not a career model that encourages nuance, niceness, or introspection. This is also fine; plenty of people make media careers peddling what the market wants, not trying to reveal injustices, speak radical truths, or change the world. Where some of the IDW crowd can become insufferable is doing the former while insisting it's doing the latter.
loveconstitution1789|5.14.18 @ 4:04PM|#QuoteEscherEnigma|5.14.18 @ 3:05PM|#
And Republican voters, despite being in control of the majority of state houses, both branches of the legislature and the presidency, continue to claim that they're being oppressed.
Some folks have a persecution complex that borders on paranoia.
To be fair, the left would absolutely put every last Libertarian and Republican in a concentration camp if they could.
For some reason, Republicans are not advocating the same thing for lefties.
That might be where the defensiveness comes from.
Just Say'n|5.14.18 @ 3:08PM|#
It's amazing how fast ostensibly libertarian commentators have become the biggest defenders of political correctness.
Just Say'n|5.14.18 @ 3:15PM|#
"No one is attacking these people, now allow me to smear them with spurious accusations."
- ENB
Microaggressor|5.14.18 @ 4:28PM|#
I noticed the frequent jabs at Peterson in this piece are all out of context. He likes to ask questions, testing hypothetical boundaries, without necessarily taking that position. ENB interprets him as taking that position, e.g. makeup in the workplace, and writes as if that were a fact. Is this what you'd call a smear?
It's a tried-and-true tactic of the Blue Church gatekeepers to quote their detractors out of context to make it seem like they said something more sinister than they really did. The purpose is to keep the proles away, making it seem like their views can be safely discarded, because you know all you need to know. Take it as a sign that Reason is becoming indistinguishable from the MSM.
buybuydandavis|5.14.18 @ 4:37PM|#QuoteIt would be nice if they ever actually quoted someone when trying to "explain" them to the publicWhen your goal is to silence WrongThink, you're naturally reticent to repeat the WrongThink.
You notice the only time the author bothers to link to any source-material, its only for the purpose of citing the most-shock-value, taken-out-of-context quotes?
But likely silencing WrongThink isn't really the goal, it's simply domination, the thrill of trampling on an enemy.
When they aren't physically there to be trampled upon, one has to make due with vilification.
GILMORE™|5.14.18 @ 3:58PM|#
""Seems like a pretty similar niche to where Reason lives."
It makes more sense when you start to think of Reason.com as controlled opposition, whose purpose is mainly to defang and water-down libertarian criticisms rather than promote them.
Rigelsen|5.14.18 @ 4:25PM|#
Yes, ENB seems to believe it is perfectly fine to have anyone with heterodox opinions in any of our expanding array of "controversial" topics to be run out of academia, jobs, and major platforms.
This is a dishonest treatment one would expect on The NY Times editorial page, not on Reason.com.
Just Say'n|5.14.18 @ 4:15PM|#
And this is how conservatives became better defenders of free speech than the ostensibly libertarian
Rigelsen|5.14.18 @ 4:21PM|#
ELB is anti-heterodoxy. Got it.
Look, they are not complaining about how people are not subscribing their ideas. Their complaint is about being forced out of jobs, "de-monetized" if not kicked off platforms, being literally banned, shouted down or rioted against in college campuses, having hit pieces like this in mainstream media that only seems to quote them out of context.
Yes, they have created their own platforms and found an audience, out of necessity, but ELB's contention seems to be that they should relax and enjoy the crumbs and stop complaining about the vapidity and homogeneity of mainstream intellectual discourse. ELB indeed seems to think that all of this is just fine as it is.
Is ELB actually a libertarian who believes libertarian values should be promoted? Or is "libertarianism" something she just affects for her job? This article suggests the latter.
The Iconoclast|5.14.18 @ 7:19PM|#
^ this. I think ENB and other of the young reasonoids are endeavoring to thread the needle between writing ostensibly semi-libertarian pieces and creating a corpus that will serve as their career building blocks to eventually get better and more mainstream gigs elsewhere.
buybuydandavis|5.14.18 @ 11:46PM|#
Progressitarians
The Left infiltrates an org, then exerts relentless in group preference and out group attack to take it over or destroy.
It's good either way. No opposition is left standing.
JP88|5.14.18 @ 11:15PM|#
This author endorsed punching Ben Shapiro in the face. She promotes political violence. She is not a libertarian.
RockLibertyWarrior|5.15.18 @ 2:00PM|#
Fucking "Reason" I am about done with this fucking publication that used to be "libertarian" they really aren't anymore, their water carriers for the regressive left. I am sick of this shit, the PC left are dangerous, they want to get rid of free speech and they wouldn't mind lining up libertarians and conservatives in front of a firing squad. Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin etc. are way braver than any of the fake libertarians that now run "Reason" and their right, the PC left is out for control and blood. I will read "Reason" a little longer to see if they get back on track. I am not holding my breath.
Hochmeister|5.15.18 @ 2:02PM|#
Good grief Reason What is your beef with this guys? Especially Peterson which you can't seem to give an honest reading of and he is about as libertarian as they come.
ThomasD|5.16.18 @ 2:38PM|#:rejoice :rejoice DISCOURSE :rejoice :rejoice
ENB is just following the latest directive from her Journolist kommissar.
but that he's a neurotic weirdo who doesn't know how to get out that nervous energy other than diving headfirst into a subject so deep that it utterly consumes himBut like, he doesn't even do this. He doesn't even skim wikipedia on his phone half the time.
Jordan Peterson, Custodian of the Patriarchy(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/05/20/fashion/20PETERSON1/merlin_137783031_85a72dac-32b6-489c-b025-19df337ee1f4-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp)
He says there’s a crisis in masculinity. Why won’t women — all these wives and witches — just behave?
Mr. Peterson’s home is a carefully curated house of horror. He has filled it with a sprawl of art that covers the walls from floor to ceiling. Most of it is communist propaganda from the Soviet Union (execution scenes, soldiers looking noble) — a constant reminder, he says, of atrocities and oppression. He wants to feel their imprisonment, though he lives here on a quiet residential street in Toronto and is quite free.(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/05/20/fashion/20PETERSON3/merlin_137783334_41b9a433-e343-49b3-a520-5a1760292f97-superJumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale)
“Marxism is resurgent,” Mr. Peterson says, looking ashen and stricken.
I say it seems unnecessarily stressful to live like this. He tells me life is stressful.
Mr. Peterson illustrates his arguments with copious references to ancient myths — bringing up stories of witches, biblical allegories and ancient traditions. I ask why these old stories should guide us today.
“It makes sense that a witch lives in a swamp. Yeah,” he says. “Why?”
It’s a hard one.
“Right. That’s right. You don’t know. It’s because those things hang together at a very deep level. Right. Yeah. And it makes sense that an old king lives in a desiccated tower.”
But witches don’t exist, and they don’t live in swamps, I say.
“Yeah, they do. They do exist. They just don’t exist the way you think they exist. They certainly exist. You may say well dragons don’t exist. It’s, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. It’s a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious. You say, ‘Well, there’s no such thing as witches.’ Yeah, I know what you mean, but that isn’t what you think when you go see a movie about them. You can’t help but fall into these categories. There’s no escape from them.”
This just doesn't explain the way you think it explains.
“Marxism is resurgent,” Mr. Peterson says, looking ashen and stricken.
Benji is a swamp witch.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxJyPsmEask
#draintheswamp
Benji is a swamp witch.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxJyPsmEask
#draintheswamp
A newt!?
Go hang out in Venezuela. Maybe you'll enjoy yourself. Or maybe you'll die of starvation. :trumpshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy#Notable_social_democratic_political_parties_worldwide
Redistribution of wealth : :holeup
Redistribution of pussy :aah
Sorry, he dives so deep in to the IDEA of a subject that it utterly consumes him
He's kind of like the smart guy version of Eddie Bravo, who hears something or watches one clip and becomes an expert and obsessed with something so fucking stupid that he doesn't even understand, which makes you then question how anyone follows him in any meaningful way.
Either way, even if you think he is talking nonsense, it is highly unlikely it is some kind of dog whistling to Nazis. I'm not sure if that is the angle you are coming at it by linking that stuff, but I doubt that is what he is doing. That in itself is kind conspiratorial thinking.
I don't think he's a fascist, but he uses the term to generalise and discredit academia, activist movements and other groups he lumps in with the post-modern neo-marxist gang as ruining society, in a way that parallels with historic use by some pretty distasteful groups. I doubt it's an intentional dog-whistle to the nazi conspiracy theory, but like et spamming pics of people dead and starving at the hands of communism, there's a strong pathos in his argument.
He definitely dislikes the use of intersectionality in framing issues, the problem for him he sees it as increasing tribalism in his eyes instead of resolving it. But it's only a part of his pathos. He mis-characterises intersectional thought and diversity to make a case for individualism. Slightly incongruous with his focus on white privilege making it harder for white people to act successfully as individuals due to unfairly being blamed for minority marginalisation and the (possible, he makes clear to point out) misdeeds of our ancestors, also his penchant for generalization of opposing groups as swathes of sheeple suckling at the post-modern neo-marxist teet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfH8IG7Awk0&feature=youtu.be&t=1h37m38s
if yt tag doesnt link properly, starts at 1h37m38s
To paraphrase Peterson here, and this is getting into his conclusion; there are more differences within the defined groups than between them, and the diversity creates more division than inclusivity.
And again, he is so frustrated, and just can't understand why post-modernists have made the canonical distinctions they've made: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfH8IG7Awk0&feature=youtu.be&t=1h45m45s) Gender, Ethnicity, Sexual Proclivity and Gender Identity. These dimensions across which the post-modern neo-marxists have defined people are too narrow. The post-modern need to separate, label and categorise people into these separate groups, this constant search for; and institutionalization, of diversity through initiatives like affirmative action, simply creates more division and tribalism. Individualism is the only answer.
Clearly cheeky pete is making a bit of a joke here, these are the lines down which the most clear discriminations have been made against people as groups regardless of their individual attributes. Surely he at least see's the logic of why those groups were targeted? I've seen etoilet use this whataboutism in the past. Where do you stop taking marginalisation based on difference into account?
"here's some ways people differ! intelligence, temperament (haha, hohoho :lol), geography, historical time (yes he explains: you live now and not 100 years ago), attractiveness, youth, health, sex (as in having it); women have advantages, men have advantages, maybe one has more than the other - it's not self evident! women live about 8 years longer than men, they're multi-orgasmic (you sly-dog peterson), athleticism, wealth, family-structure, friendship (how many friends you have. sad), and education. WHY NOT THOSE OTHER DIMENSIONS?" Peterson finally asks, exasperated. The other dimensions being the "post-modernist" defined, Gender, Ethnicity, Sexual Proclivity and Gender Identity.
Peterson claims ignorance to why Race is considered a key point of difference. Not just disingenuous, but also mischaracterizes the issue: there is a lot of compassion and assistance provided for the lesser-abled (physically and mentally), the less wealthy and those with poor education. Particularly so in the more social leaning side of social capitalist democracies.
To paraphrase Peterson here, and this is getting into his conclusion; there are more differences within the defined groups than between them, and the diversity creates more division than inclusivity.
I actually wish the Left still held similar views that actual more classical Marxists did in the 60s and 70sah yes, the classical age of Marxism, which culminated in Woodstock
And the Civil Rights Movement. In any case, it is the ideas I mentioned which I think were actually good, rahter than the entirety. You can agree with some things and disagree with others.Wait, I need more explanation of this. You wish the left was still driven by "classical marxists" because they were driven by the unifying principle of class, rather than identity politics, and you think this is best demonstrated by the civil rights movement and leftist politics in the 60s and 70s, which is partially but significantly characterized by the blossoming of all kinds of racially identarian political movements and wacko new age communistic, anarchistic, terrorist groups that kidnapped and bombed people?
And the Civil Rights Movement. In any case, it is the ideas I mentioned which I think were actually good, rahter than the entirety. You can agree with some things and disagree with others.Wait, I need more explanation of this. You wish the left was still driven by "classical marxists" because they were driven by the unifying principle of class, rather than identity politics, and you think this is best demonstrated by the civil rights movement and leftist politics in the 60s and 70s, which is partially but significantly characterized by the blossoming of all kinds of racially identarian political movements and wacko new age communistic, anarchistic, terrorist groups that kidnapped and bombed people?
*looks at list of things I'll never do again, sees "debate what MLK Jr would have thought about modern identity politics"*
I'm gonna have to bow out of this one brother, have fun
I actually predicted you would say this. The civil Rights was a form of Identity Politics and obviously a necessary one. Anti-racism was more universalist and colour blind in its approach though back then. As Martin Luther King Jr said, "my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” It is the exact opposite now. In fact comments like, "I don't see race" is often seen as a microagression. In other words Indentity Politics now creates division between peoples when Left-wing politics of the past was about universalism. That we had a shared humanity.
I MUST make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
In terms of Martin Luther King, his attention moved from race to class. This was around the time he was assassinated. Some speculate that was why he was assassinated. Organising around class was seen as a much greater danger.
Now there is another myth that still gets around: it is a kind of over reliance on the bootstrap philosophy. There are those who still feel that if the Negro is to rise out of poverty, if the Negro is to rise out of the slum conditions, if he is to rise out of discrimination and segregation, he must do it all by himself. And so they say the Negro must lift himself by his own bootstraps.
They never stop to realize that no other ethnic group has been a slave on American soil. The people who say this never stop to realize that the nation made the black man’s color a stigma. But beyond this they never stop to realize the debt that they owe a people who were kept in slavery two hundred and forty-four years.
In 1863 the Negro was told that he was free as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation being signed by Abraham Lincoln. But he was not given any land to make that freedom meaningful. It was something like keeping a person in prison for a number of years and suddenly discovering that that person is not guilty of the crime for which he was convicted. And you just go up to him and say, "Now you are free," but you don’t give him any bus fare to get to town. You don’t give him any money to get some clothes to put on his back or to get on his feet again in life.
Every court of jurisprudence would rise up against this, and yet this is the very thing that our nation did to the black man. It simply said, "You’re free," and it left him there penniless, illiterate, not knowing what to do. And the irony of it all is that at the same time the nation failed to do anything for the black man, though an act of Congress was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the Midwest. Which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor.
But not only did it give the land, it built land-grant colleges to teach them how to farm. Not only that, it provided county agents to further their expertise in farming; not only that, as the years unfolded it provided low interest rates so that they could mechanize their farms. And to this day thousands of these very persons are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies every years not to farm. And these are so often the very people who tell Negroes that they must lift themselves by their own bootstraps. It’s all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is a cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps.
We must come to see that the roots of racism are very deep in our country, and there must be something positive and massive in order to get rid of all the effects of racism and the tragedies of racial injustice.
I actually predicted you would say this. The civil Rights was a form of Identity Politics and obviously a necessary one. Anti-racism was more universalist and colour blind in its approach though back then. As Martin Luther King Jr said, "my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” It is the exact opposite now. In fact comments like, "I don't see race" is often seen as a microagression. In other words Indentity Politics now creates division between peoples when Left-wing politics of the past was about universalism. That we had a shared humanity.Quote from: Martin Luther King, Letter from a Birmingham JailI MUST make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
“We have inherited a big house, a great “world house” in which we have to live together – black and white, Easterners and Westerners, Gentiles and Jews, Catholics and Protestants, Moslem and Hindu, a family unduly separated in ideas, culture, and interests who, because we can never again live without each other, must learn, somehow, in this one big world, to live with each other. This means that more and more our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. We must now give an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in our individual societies.”
It's clear you know very little about the CRM, but you have no hesitation to make broad assertions about it, with the sole purpose of making current anti-racist politics look worse by comparison.
Maybe take a minute and think about why you're doing that.
Er? What are you talking about?
Let's make it simpler.
What's more of a problem right now: anti-black racism, or anti-racist tactics?
Between the two, which do you think is the greater problem?
Sorry. My fault. I'll rephrase it.
What's more of a problem right now: anti-black racism, or anti-racist tactics?
Mr. Peterson stresses the importance of cleanliness, but honestly his office is a mess.
Can't imagine why he's always so miserable and looking/sounding like he's on the verge of tears when he made wallpaper out of etoilet's Holodomor spam and his place is a mess.
His office being a mess is a lot different than his house being a mess. A lot of professors have messy offices. The level of the hysterically stupid in this place sometimes borderlines that of REEs.QuoteMr. Peterson stresses the importance of cleanliness, but honestly his office is a mess.
Of fucking course.
His office being a mess is a lot different than his house being a mess. A lot of professors have messy offices. The level of the hysterically stupid in this place sometimes borderlines that of REEs.QuoteMr. Peterson stresses the importance of cleanliness, but honestly his office is a mess.
Of fucking course.
What is everything else in his life that is messy? Stop fucking reaching. Seriously, the guy talks about allegories and you all have a wank fest because he said shit about witches.His office being a mess is a lot different than his house being a mess. A lot of professors have messy offices. The level of the hysterically stupid in this place sometimes borderlines that of REEs.QuoteMr. Peterson stresses the importance of cleanliness, but honestly his office is a mess.
Of fucking course.
So make sure your room is clean before you go out and change the world but it's okay if everything else in your life is messy?
What is everything else in his life that is messy? Stop fucking reaching. Seriously, the guy talks about allegories and you all have a wank fest because he said shit about witches.His office being a mess is a lot different than his house being a mess. A lot of professors have messy offices. The level of the hysterically stupid in this place sometimes borderlines that of REEs.QuoteMr. Peterson stresses the importance of cleanliness, but honestly his office is a mess.
Of fucking course.
So make sure your room is clean before you go out and change the world but it's okay if everything else in your life is messy?
Frankly, i find it funny that most of you, from what i gather from posts made on various threads here, need this guy. A lot of you are either unemployed, or work a low level job, and are sexually frustrated white males.
hahahaha. the irony :doge
You're taking his words to the extreme. It doesn't mean he won't have a messy office from time to time considering how often he's probably in there.What is everything else in his life that is messy? Stop fucking reaching. Seriously, the guy talks about allegories and you all have a wank fest because he said shit about witches.His office being a mess is a lot different than his house being a mess. A lot of professors have messy offices. The level of the hysterically stupid in this place sometimes borderlines that of REEs.QuoteMr. Peterson stresses the importance of cleanliness, but honestly his office is a mess.
Of fucking course.
So make sure your room is clean before you go out and change the world but it's okay if everything else in your life is messy?
Frankly, i find it funny that most of you, from what i gather from posts made on various threads here, need this guy. A lot of you are either unemployed, or work a low level job, and are sexually frustrated white males.
hahahaha. the irony :doge
So I'm guessing you'll be handling shitposting duties while etoilet is away.
The "clean your room" thing isn't just allegorical, you twit. He says you should do it because it reflects on you as a person. It would be weird if he would be trying to say "ONLY focus on keeping your room clean and nothing else in life". But this is Peterson, so fuck, maybe that IS what he's saying.
Talk shit about deriving meaning from a music video, stan for a grown man deriving life lessons Cinderella.A professor of Psychology that taught at Harvard most of his life. Some of you shouldn't be employed to even clean the toilets at McDonalds, honestly.
:neogaf
Do you know what humor is, assimilate
His hair is messy, tbh
My main takeaway from the NYT profile is that I can't believe anyone ever claimed he wasn't a reactionaryI think that counts as misrepresentation for some reason.
oh and that the structuralists refuted his whole theory 60 years ago
My main takeaway from the NYT profile is that I can't believe anyone ever claimed he wasn't a reactionaryI think that counts as misrepresentation for some reason.
oh and that the structuralists refuted his whole theory 60 years ago
Anyway, this dude also adresses that:
https://twitter.com/ositanwanevu/status/997484128667951104
"People increasingly marry within their class"
Yo, Peterson really did the "we need traditional norms about sexuality so blue balls don't turn men into mass murderers" bit.
I'm going to have to actually read this piece.
“It makes sense that a witch lives in a swamp. Yeah,” he says. “Why?”
It’s a hard one.
“Right. That’s right. You don’t know. It’s because those things hang together at a very deep level. Right. Yeah. And it makes sense that an old king lives in a desiccated tower.”
Well, I guess this is an interesting conversation. Seems like the perfect combination for you guys. Someone on the Right speaking to someone on the Left about Jordan Peterson. Just so happens to be Contrapoints. lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCuEIyLxeGo
In terms of Martin Luther King, his attention moved from race to class. This was around the time he was assassinated. Some speculate that was why he was assassinated. Organising around class was seen as a much greater danger.
First of all, it's fucking wild to suggest that organizing for racial equality wasn't seen as dangerous in the 50's and 60's. Tell that to Medgar Evars, or Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner. Civil rights activists were literally trained on how to best survive police brutality.
Second..
Martin Luther King was assassinated around the time he switched attention from racial politics to class politics. This is why people speculate it was the real reason for his assassination.
Well, I guess this is an interesting conversation. Seems like the perfect combination for you guys. Someone on the Right speaking to someone on the Left about Jordan Peterson. Just so happens to be Contrapoints. lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCuEIyLxeGo
She has a video directly talking about Peterson's wankery too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas
Martin Luther King was assassinated around the time he switched attention from racial politics to class politics. This is why people speculate it was the real reason for his assassination.
Buddy, if you believe something then say it yourself.
It's interesting, some people talk about the cultural Marxist conspiracy, but I often think, well, it could just as well be the Establishment conspiracy. I say that because the nature of identity politics has basically created competing interest groups all fighting for their own narrow and specific grievances, yet a lot of these people seem to advocate for some radical transformation of society in the some way. The Establishment is quite happy to see it this way. The Establishment has actually embraced these campaigns to some extent if you notice. Obama sppoke out against the Wage Gap. Joe Biden spoke out against Rape Culture. Trust me, if the Left actually organised under class lines advocating for real radical change, and were effective in creating mass solidarity, things would be different.
It's interesting, some people talk about the cultural Marxist conspiracy, but I often think, well, it could just as well be the Establishment conspiracy. I say that because the nature of identity politics has basically created competing interest groups all fighting for their own narrow and specific grievances, yet a lot of these people seem to advocate for some radical transformation of society in the some way. The Establishment is quite happy to see it this way. The Establishment has actually embraced these campaigns to some extent if you notice. Obama sppoke out against the Wage Gap. Joe Biden spoke out against Rape Culture. Trust me, if the Left actually organised under class lines advocating for real radical change, and were effective in creating mass solidarity, things would be different.
And theeeeeeeeeeeeere we are.
Yo, Peterson really did the "we need traditional norms about sexuality so blue balls don't turn men into mass murderers" bit.Why does that seem like a far fetched possibility to you? Don't radical muslims get teenage boys to blow themselves up on the promise of 72 virgins waiting for them?
I'm going to have to actually read this piece.
Bucko, if you think sexual release will prevent murder then you have my blessing to give prostate massages to angry incels. Heck, I'll help you write up a grant application.Why so dense bro? I'd be willing to bet that half these school shootings or more would be prevented if one of these dudes were routinely getting pussy.
Bucko, if you think sexual release will prevent murder then you have my blessing to give prostate massages to angry incels. Heck, I'll help you write up a grant application.
Dog, can i get some service here? why is it so hard to change your avatar on this damn site.Bucko, if you think sexual release will prevent murder then you have my blessing to give prostate massages to angry incels. Heck, I'll help you write up a grant application.
Or alternately, ask TVC to read you some bedtime stories. He's got plenty saved away.
::)
The point I was making is, the fight for racial equality in the law was obviously a necessary requirement. However once achieved, the next step wasn't to focus on race, the next step was to organise multiracially under class lines. This is what he planned with the Poor People Campaign. Sure, it was dangerous in the South to protest for racial equality, but it didn't potentially threaten the Establishment and the power structures. It's when you organise under class lines that there is a real problem. You have the whole population then united and organised under a common cause. That is a real threat to the Establishment.
My main takeaway from the NYT profile is that I can't believe anyone ever claimed he wasn't a reactionary
oh and that the structuralists refuted his whole theory 60 years ago
Dont need sex to pacify young men when you have Nintendo cardboard :rollsafe
The point I was making is, the fight for racial equality in the law was obviously a necessary requirement. However once achieved, the next step wasn't to focus on race, the next step was to organise multiracially under class lines. This is what he planned with the Poor People Campaign. Sure, it was dangerous in the South to protest for racial equality, but it didn't potentially threaten the Establishment and the power structures. It's when you organise under class lines that there is a real problem. You have the whole population then united and organised under a common cause. That is a real threat to the Establishment.
I think it might be beneficial for you to consider the following: is the United States a bourgeois state, or is it a bourgeois white supremacist state?
Base has some manner of primacy over superstructure, but it does not develop independent of it (https://nacla.org/news/2017/08/10/challenging-racism-revolutionary-raceless-cuba-audio).
Yo, Peterson really did the "we need traditional norms about sexuality so blue balls don't turn men into mass murderers" bit.Why does that seem like a far fetched possibility to you? Don't radical muslims get teenage boys to blow themselves up on the promise of 72 virgins waiting for them?
I'm going to have to actually read this piece.
Examples of Harris’s tribal psychology date back to the book that put him on the map: The End of Faith. The book exuded his conviction that the reason 9/11 happened—and the reason for terrorism committed by Muslims in general—was simple: the religious beliefs of Muslims. As he has put it: “We are not at war with ‘terrorism.’ We are at war with Islam.”
Believing that the root of terrorism is religion requires ruling out other root causes, so Harris set about doing that. In his book he listed such posited causes as “the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza…the collusion of Western powers with corrupt dictatorships…the endemic poverty and lack of economic opportunity that now plague the Arab world.”
Then he dismissed them. He wrote that “we can ignore all of these things—or treat them only to place them safely on the shelf—because the world is filled with poor, uneducated, and exploited peoples who do not commit acts of terrorism, indeed who would never commit terrorism of the sort that has become so commonplace among Muslims.”
If you’re tempted to find this argument persuasive, I recommend that you first take a look at a different instance of the same logic. Suppose I said, “We can ignore the claim that smoking causes lung cancer because the world is full of people who smoke and don’t get lung cancer.” You’d spot the fallacy right away: Maybe smoking causes lung cancer under some circumstances but not others; maybe there are multiple causal factors—all necessary, but none sufficient—that, when they coincide, exert decisive causal force.
Or, to put Harris’s fallacy in a form that he would definitely recognize: Religion can’t be a cause of terrorism, because the world is full of religious people who aren’t terrorists.
I'm speaking from observation and personal experience here but i see it. I see exactly what he's talking about. The difference between the states and latin america is huge in this respect. I've said it before in the relationship thread, i feel bad for guys in the states right now.Yo, Peterson really did the "we need traditional norms about sexuality so blue balls don't turn men into mass murderers" bit.Why does that seem like a far fetched possibility to you? Don't radical muslims get teenage boys to blow themselves up on the promise of 72 virgins waiting for them?
I'm going to have to actually read this piece.
I actually do somewhat think that sexual frustration/repression can lead to aggression and anti-social behavior.
I don't see how enforcing "traditional norms" would somehow get incels laid though. I can't follow that train of thought in any way that isn't completely damning.
I'm speaking from observation and personal experience here but i see it. I see exactly what he's talking about. The difference between the states and latin america is huge in this respect. I've said it before in the relationship thread, i feel bad for guys in the states right now.Yo, Peterson really did the "we need traditional norms about sexuality so blue balls don't turn men into mass murderers" bit.Why does that seem like a far fetched possibility to you? Don't radical muslims get teenage boys to blow themselves up on the promise of 72 virgins waiting for them?
I'm going to have to actually read this piece.
I actually do somewhat think that sexual frustration/repression can lead to aggression and anti-social behavior.
I don't see how enforcing "traditional norms" would somehow get incels laid though. I can't follow that train of thought in any way that isn't completely damning.
Guys growing up now have it hard. Despite the availability of tinder and all that, it's harder. And what i find really funny is that these 'white knight' dudes that follow the current 'guidelines' and push for these norms are the ones that will get burned the most.
When Peterson says only the most powerful, better looking guys will get females he's right. In the states i see women that are like 4s at best act like the biggest fucking snobs. I can't imagine what your average guy will do in this environment. I can only see a lot more of these 'incel' incidences growing.
I'm speaking from observation and personal experience here but i see it. I see exactly what he's talking about. The difference between the states and latin america is huge in this respect. I've said it before in the relationship thread, i feel bad for guys in the states right now.Data would be more convincing.
I don't have a solution at the moment. Maybe some social awakening?I'm speaking from observation and personal experience here but i see it. I see exactly what he's talking about. The difference between the states and latin america is huge in this respect. I've said it before in the relationship thread, i feel bad for guys in the states right now.Yo, Peterson really did the "we need traditional norms about sexuality so blue balls don't turn men into mass murderers" bit.Why does that seem like a far fetched possibility to you? Don't radical muslims get teenage boys to blow themselves up on the promise of 72 virgins waiting for them?
I'm going to have to actually read this piece.
I actually do somewhat think that sexual frustration/repression can lead to aggression and anti-social behavior.
I don't see how enforcing "traditional norms" would somehow get incels laid though. I can't follow that train of thought in any way that isn't completely damning.
Guys growing up now have it hard. Despite the availability of tinder and all that, it's harder. And what i find really funny is that these 'white knight' dudes that follow the current 'guidelines' and push for these norms are the ones that will get burned the most.
When Peterson says only the most powerful, better looking guys will get females he's right. In the states i see women that are like 4s at best act like the biggest fucking snobs. I can't imagine what your average guy will do in this environment. I can only see a lot more of these 'incel' incidences growing.
...and what takeaway from this are we supposed to take other than "Women need to be put back in their place"?
Should we take away the pill? their franchise? reinstate coverture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture)?
Yeah, i agree that's why you should probably listen more carefully to what Peterson says. This is his profession. He has the data for you.I'm speaking from observation and personal experience here but i see it. I see exactly what he's talking about. The difference between the states and latin america is huge in this respect. I've said it before in the relationship thread, i feel bad for guys in the states right now.Data would be more convincing.
Yeah, i agree that's why you should probably listen more carefully to what Peterson says. This is his profession. He has the data for you.He studied romantic relationships academically? Well, then delight me by pointing the way to some links. (I can't seem to find any.)
You're like the rest of the people in here lambasting the guy without even looking at his credentials? He has a decent body of work.Yeah, i agree that's why you should probably listen more carefully to what Peterson says. This is his profession. He has the data for you.He studied interpersonal relationships academically? Well, then delight me by pointing the way to some links.
Et would know (pbuh).
Edit to clarify. I have looked at his body of work before, but couldn't remember anything to suggest you're right in claiming that he's studies this. So... If you would, please?I work for you? Go look for shit yourself lol .
Man the NYT piece on Peterson gets better the more deeper you go, some hilarious shit that hasn't been quoted:Stro, you're laughing at things that members of this forum, especially a place like Ree, are a representation of. Ree gets emotional and lit over defending Marvel movies and Nintendo. At least Peterson hangs some dark art up on his walls, and not pictures of anime and nintendo figurinesQuoteHe looks down as he walks. He paces. He pleads — he often sounds frustrated, like you’ve just said something absurd and he’s trying to correct you without raising his voice. He speaks for over an hour without any notes. He runs his hands over his face when it’s all too much. He cries often.
:lol :lol :lolQuoteI ask him about the retro clothes and phrases. He calls it his prairie populism.
“That’s what happens when you rescue your father from the belly of the whale,” he says. “You rediscover your tradition.”
:lol :lol :lolQuote“It made sense in a primordial way when he breaks down Adam and Eve, the snake and chaos,” Mr. Arar says. “Eve made Adam self-conscious. Women make men self-conscious because they’re the ultimate judge. I was like, ‘Wow this is really true.’”
:lol :lol :lolQuoteThe changes in his life include starting to clean his room. “My mom’s been nagging me for years, but I’ve never done it until Dr. Peterson,” he says.
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lolQuoteAgreeing, Mr. Arar gave off the same guttural m-hmm that Mr. Peterson does.
:lol :lol :lolQuoteThere are now regular Jordan Peterson discussion groups. The one in Toronto meets once a week at a restaurant called Hemingway’s and is run by Chris Shepherd, who used to be a professional pickup artist who coached men on how to get laid fast at a club but is now a dating coach.
:lol :lol :lolQuoteOver his bed is a painting celebrating electrification in the Soviet Union.
:dogeQuoteMr. Peterson’s office has objects scattered and strewn throughout: There is a hat from a gulag, some steampunk masks he thought were cool, stacks of papers and cords, and a Kermit puppet his sister sent him because his fans joke that his voice, high and hoarse, sounds like the Muppet.
:neogaf :neogaf :neogaf :neogaf :neogaf
For someone that advocates taking personal responsibility in your life his message of radical redistribution of pussy to help quell the society destroying urges of men who just can't help themselves otherwise is, uh... well, I see why etoilet is a fan.Men should take personal responsibility in getting pussy?
:morans
For someone that advocates taking personal responsibility in your life his message of radical redistribution of pussy to help quell the society destroying urges of men who just can't help themselves otherwise is, uh... well, I see why etoilet is a fan.Men should take personal responsibility in getting pussy?
:morans
Wow dog you're so fucking smart, who would've thought that?For someone that advocates taking personal responsibility in your life his message of radical redistribution of pussy to help quell the society destroying urges of men who just can't help themselves otherwise is, uh... well, I see why etoilet is a fan.Men should take personal responsibility in getting pussy?
:morans
Go out and talk to girls like they're regular human beings instead of posting angrily on the internet about how hot guys are getting all the chicks?
Go out and talk to girls like they're regular human beings instead of posting angrily on the internet about how hot guys are getting all the chicks?
Wow dog you're so fucking smart, who would've thought that?For someone that advocates taking personal responsibility in your life his message of radical redistribution of pussy to help quell the society destroying urges of men who just can't help themselves otherwise is, uh... well, I see why etoilet is a fan.Men should take personal responsibility in getting pussy?
:morans
Go out and talk to girls like they're regular human beings instead of posting angrily on the internet about how hot guys are getting all the chicks?
You can only set yourself up to the highest of your abilities, and then the woman still has to CHOOSE you. That's the point. At the end of the day it's out of your control.
Wow dog you're so fucking smart, who would've thought that?For someone that advocates taking personal responsibility in your life his message of radical redistribution of pussy to help quell the society destroying urges of men who just can't help themselves otherwise is, uh... well, I see why etoilet is a fan.Men should take personal responsibility in getting pussy?
:morans
Go out and talk to girls like they're regular human beings instead of posting angrily on the internet about how hot guys are getting all the chicks?
You can only set yourself up to the highest of your abilities, and then the woman still has to CHOOSE you. That's the point. At the end of the day it's out of your control.
wow it's almost like women are independent entities with their own hopes and dreams and not mere constructs gifted to us from god for our male pleasures
No, dog, the point Peterson is making is that through political pressure and societal shaming women are being fooled into thinking that working full time, not raising families, not wanting children, is what they really want. That women are equal to men in every way, that they should have multiple sex partners just because.Wow dog you're so fucking smart, who would've thought that?For someone that advocates taking personal responsibility in your life his message of radical redistribution of pussy to help quell the society destroying urges of men who just can't help themselves otherwise is, uh... well, I see why etoilet is a fan.Men should take personal responsibility in getting pussy?
:morans
Go out and talk to girls like they're regular human beings instead of posting angrily on the internet about how hot guys are getting all the chicks?
You can only set yourself up to the highest of your abilities, and then the woman still has to CHOOSE you. That's the point. At the end of the day it's out of your control.
wow it's almost like women are independent entities with their own hopes and dreams and not mere constructs gifted to us from god for our male pleasures
I don't have a solution at the moment. Maybe some social awakening?I'm speaking from observation and personal experience here but i see it. I see exactly what he's talking about. The difference between the states and latin america is huge in this respect. I've said it before in the relationship thread, i feel bad for guys in the states right now.Yo, Peterson really did the "we need traditional norms about sexuality so blue balls don't turn men into mass murderers" bit.Why does that seem like a far fetched possibility to you? Don't radical muslims get teenage boys to blow themselves up on the promise of 72 virgins waiting for them?
I'm going to have to actually read this piece.
I actually do somewhat think that sexual frustration/repression can lead to aggression and anti-social behavior.
I don't see how enforcing "traditional norms" would somehow get incels laid though. I can't follow that train of thought in any way that isn't completely damning.
Guys growing up now have it hard. Despite the availability of tinder and all that, it's harder. And what i find really funny is that these 'white knight' dudes that follow the current 'guidelines' and push for these norms are the ones that will get burned the most.
When Peterson says only the most powerful, better looking guys will get females he's right. In the states i see women that are like 4s at best act like the biggest fucking snobs. I can't imagine what your average guy will do in this environment. I can only see a lot more of these 'incel' incidences growing.
...and what takeaway from this are we supposed to take other than "Women need to be put back in their place"?
Should we take away the pill? their franchise? reinstate coverture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture)?
Though, I think the solution will eventually come about naturally after women start to realize it kind of sucks having to choose from the abundance of unemployed/underemployed beta males. Not every opportunistic female will find themselves a Prince Harry. They won't like it when they realize that.Yeah, i agree that's why you should probably listen more carefully to what Peterson says. This is his profession. He has the data for you.I'm speaking from observation and personal experience here but i see it. I see exactly what he's talking about. The difference between the states and latin america is huge in this respect. I've said it before in the relationship thread, i feel bad for guys in the states right now.Data would be more convincing.
Pictures of dragons aren’t data.
When does the purveyor of L's get to come back?
Despite what you might have read in Teen Vogue, Marx didn't invent communism or socialism. And Marxism-Leninism was basically Lenin and Trotsky going "this won't work! here's what will!"
And then Stalin went "anyway, fuck those guys, time to settle my long term inferiority complex growing up in the Russian caste system by taking it out on the world at large!"
Most importantly, Marx was absolutely obsessed with historical determinism to a level that he didn't bother elaborating on how his ultimate states come about because it considered it scientifically proven to happen because he said so. And often would attack his followers who tried to explain it, especially the transition period to communism, for undermining the science. One result of this, and what Lenin and Stalin both had to grapple with is that Marx's very specific stages didn't apply to Russia, like, at all, they were written for the UK and a prospective unified and industrial German state that didn't even come to exist until a few years before Marx died and years after he wrote the Manifesto. (His opinion on France was all over the place, like everyone else's opinions on France always.)
Despite what you might have read in Teen Vogue, Marx didn't invent communism or socialism. And Marxism-Leninism was basically Lenin and Trotsky going "this won't work! here's what will!"
And then Stalin went "anyway, fuck those guys, time to settle my long term inferiority complex growing up in the Russian caste system by taking it out on the world at large!"
Most importantly, Marx was absolutely obsessed with historical determinism to a level that he didn't bother elaborating on how his ultimate states come about because it considered it scientifically proven to happen because he said so. And often would attack his followers who tried to explain it, especially the transition period to communism, for undermining the science. One result of this, and what Lenin and Stalin both had to grapple with is that Marx's very specific stages didn't apply to Russia, like, at all, they were written for the UK and a prospective unified and industrial German state that didn't even come to exist until a few years before Marx died and years after he wrote the Manifesto. (His opinion on France was all over the place, like everyone else's opinions on France always.)
Marx wrote Communist Manifesto. Marx wrote about communism. He wrote it was coming and there'd be revolutionary violence.
I pointed out every part of the Manifesto that lead to the death of millions. The ideas therein were carried out and were deadly. They then were repeated in China and Zimbabwe.
You should have been honest and stated exactly what you were doing: That's not real socialism!
But you tried to weasel around the awful thing that you, culry and Mandark were doing.
Who gets more pussy, white knights or angry sad sacks with a surrogate YouTube father?I'd say it's a push.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxYimeaoea0
Stephen Fry makes a joke at 1:25 ish when the moderator asks him what people will see when they look back at this debate - 'Well they will wonder why political correctness isnt being discussed' :ohyeahhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxYimeaoea0
This debate seems a bit weird to me. I feel as if Peterson isn't actually addressing the actual subject of the debate. It seems like the argument he is making is a different debate. Political correctness in some general sense is the idea that certain points of view and ideas shouldn't be expressed. Peterson seems to have made about his general gripes with Left wing politics.
Although they are related, he isn't explicitly saying why 'political correctness' is a bad thing or counter-productive. He is arguing why identity politics is a bad thing.
Stephen Fry makes a joke at 1:25 ish when the moderator asks him what people will see when they look back at this debate - 'Well they will wonder why political correctness isnt being discussed' :ohyeahhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxYimeaoea0
This debate seems a bit weird to me. I feel as if Peterson isn't actually addressing the actual subject of the debate. It seems like the argument he is making is a different debate. Political correctness in some general sense is the idea that certain points of view and ideas shouldn't be expressed. Peterson seems to have made about his general gripes with Left wing politics.
Although they are related, he isn't explicitly saying why 'political correctness' is a bad thing or counter-productive. He is arguing why identity politics is a bad thing.
I feel as if Peterson isn't actually addressing the actual subject of the debate. It seems like the argument he is making is a different debate.That's what you do when you only know how to talk about one thing.
like for real tho, if etiolate isnt here anymore, no need to obsess over JP, no one else cares, there's 3 other people on the panel.
it wouldn't be if this wasn't a 31 page thread talking almost exclusively about JP, someone we all seem to agree isnt specifically interesting, yet discuss every day.like for real tho, if etiolate isnt here anymore, no need to obsess over JP, no one else cares, there's 3 other people on the panel.
half your posts are complaining about what other people are talking about, like you paid for a subscription to this site
I don't think Peterson's uninteresting, just wildly wrong. But he's at least idiosyncratic and provides a lot of entertaining material.I mean Carl of Akkad is interesting in that 'entertainment' regard also but I doubt anyone here wants to talk about his ass. Anyway i'll post some stuff after you guys are done grave stomping.
Compare that to Dave Rubin, who's basically Glenn Reynolds 2.0. Talking about him would be boring as shit.
I've always found Stephen Fry to be boring so probably not.
Good podcast. Living in a country where racelessnes is so core to the whole idea (with some obvious practical problems), it's always interesting to contrast with the situation in the Americas.
Momo-kun, I like ya, but YOU'RE the one who posted that PC debate with Peterson! :dogeonce again there are like 3 other panelists, I'm not going ignore interesting content because I cant trust people to behave (imo of course).
I'm not going ignore interesting content because I cant trust people to behave (imo of course).
Dear lord, I just skimmed through some of the video Momo posted... all of Etoilet's ramblings about communist atrocities is parroting Peterson almost verbatim. Gotta get a mind of your own, sunshine!And you go by what? bullshit you see on CNN? or maybe some poorly googled articles you picked up on your way to enlightenment?
:dead
You get the sense Assimilate's just trying to get an argument going while he waits for the laundry to finish.
i'm usually busy and the times i have to let loose some rage and anger i'll come here to do so.
I thought that's what this place was for?
:fbm
Yeah, that he's fucking dumb.
Not to belabor the point, Assimilate, but your comments on Venezuela, CNN, and now Jordan Peterson seem to paint a particular impression regarding your political beliefs...I don't have political beliefs. I don't like politics. I go with what makes sense to me, what seems backed by evidence and what i have experienced in life. Like i said before and was mocked profusely... I voted Obama twice. If i were black i know i know i'd still be an 'uncle tom'
I appreciate Assimilate trying to step in to fill the void, but it's not the same.Laundry? Motherfucker that's what a girlfriend is for :gurl
et really thought Peterson had revealed some dark, forbidden knowledge. You get the sense Assimilate's just trying to get an argument going while he waits for the laundry to finish.
Actual reactionaries, especially the meaner ones, think Peterson is a fairly boring pro-liberalism conservative (ie right-center/center-right) and they would be mostly correct on that. The idea that because he doesn't like modern feminism or pronouns that begin with xyz, he's actually aligned with people who want to overturn democracy or global capitalism is silly. When he isn't the middle of lecturing on his Jungian/Darwinian/Gnostic blend (he's a little less Christian than I originally thought, but in a way that makes him even less of a reactionary), he's a fairly standard knee-jerking Canadian conservative boomer, right down to failing to properly label what he's arguing against ("post-modern marxism", which is a misnomer for the typical "PC Culture" academia or maybe even Harold Bloom's School of Resentment).sure, but this particular misnomer he’s committed to and the narrative (read: top-down conspiracy) that goes along with it was invented/propagated by actual reactionaries. Surely that’s at least a little relevant.
The fact the charts are already going up is a bit of a rhetorical obstacle for anyone who thinks there is a huge economical/political problem with society, left or right.the main objection raised towards pinkers work for 15 years now has been that he manipulates the charts to point up, or otherwise handwaves them away when they don’t.
I'm more interested in pointing out the behavior here of people towards incels. Incels are downtrodden people. Not every one is a madman. Most are just socially awkward and starving for confidence. Many just may not be good looking. These are people who likely got bullied a lot and this forum sees them as their own bullying target. It takes a real piece of shit to want to hate on the already beat down. But that's what this place is about. A bunch of meek people looking for anything or anyone they can be above so they can step all over them.that the rest of the forum gets blamed for not being sympathetic enough might be the most appropriate way et could’ve signed off
Marx wrote Communist Manifesto. Marx wrote about communism. He wrote it was coming and there'd be revolutionary violence.A good version of The Manifesto to pick up is the version with Gareth Stedman Jones' extended historiography as an "introduction" (it's actually like 80% of the physical book) that I think is from Penguin Books. It rather extensively covers the history of the writing of The Manifesto by Marx and Engels and properly places its "final form" (Engels re-edited the thing multiple times, including long after Marx's death, especially translations) as a rush job to meet the Revolutionary Wave of 1848 that had already begun.
I pointed out every part of the Manifesto that lead to the death of millions. The ideas therein were carried out and were deadly. They then were repeated in China and Zimbabwe.
You should have been honest and stated exactly what you were doing: That's not real socialism!
But you tried to weasel around the awful thing that you, culry and Mandark were doing. Nah. Fuck you. Enjoy your Holodomor images. I don't know why anyone thought the images would stop by banning me a couple of days. I said they would happen until an apology was made. I don't see an apology. I just see more terrible behavior.
As for the images, they do several things: Apply a serious topic at a visceral level for a community of people who can't handle serious topics. They then repeat over and over, making it feel cheap because that's what happens to serious topics in the hands of jackasses., they get cheapened. They also hold the forum up, hostage-like, in way that represents Soviet interrogations. Let's call it the gun pointed at you on the table.
Marx wrote Communist Manifesto. Marx wrote about communism. He wrote it was coming and there'd be revolutionary violence.A good version of The Manifesto to pick up is the version with Gareth Stedman Jones' extended historiography as an "introduction" (it's actually like 80% of the physical book) that I think is from Penguin Books. It rather extensively covers the history of the writing of The Manifesto by Marx and Engels and properly places its "final form" (Engels re-edited the thing multiple times, including long after Marx's death, especially translations) as a rush job to meet the Revolutionary Wave of 1848 that had already begun.
I pointed out every part of the Manifesto that lead to the death of millions. The ideas therein were carried out and were deadly. They then were repeated in China and Zimbabwe.
You should have been honest and stated exactly what you were doing: That's not real socialism!
But you tried to weasel around the awful thing that you, culry and Mandark were doing. Nah. Fuck you. Enjoy your Holodomor images. I don't know why anyone thought the images would stop by banning me a couple of days. I said they would happen until an apology was made. I don't see an apology. I just see more terrible behavior.
As for the images, they do several things: Apply a serious topic at a visceral level for a community of people who can't handle serious topics. They then repeat over and over, making it feel cheap because that's what happens to serious topics in the hands of jackasses., they get cheapened. They also hold the forum up, hostage-like, in way that represents Soviet interrogations. Let's call it the gun pointed at you on the table.
The notion of revolutionary violence is not exclusive to Marx, nor communism, especially in the wake of the French Revolution where the very concept of revolutions was identified as violent by Burke and other conservatives. Marx and Engels came up intellectually in this same period so it's not shocking that seeing the events of 1848 all over Yurop that they wrote their own version in the same, especially to get it out there in time. I'd have to look it up but I don't think The Manifesto was very successful for decades not "taking off" really until well after Marx died and disappointed everyone with Capital.
Unfortunate that you were banned, even for revolutionary hostage taking only to be faced with Israeli like negotiation tactics by DogMod, but perhaps your new found interest in The Manifesto (or your sparking of interest in any others left in the bubble) will want to look into this version of the work for that introduction. Even if to properly acquire it from the internet store rather than contribute to profit making.
Giving a single work, or a single man, too much power is one of Peterson's main problems. Thinking that it's a "not real communism" argument to refuse to remove agency from people like Lenin, Stalin and Mao who wrote extensively in their own theory and place it in the long dead (even then) Marx's hands for a single work he wrote is a rather troubling anti-intellectual route to take. Especially since, again, despite what Teen Vogue wrote, Marx didn't invent communism or socialism. He simply discovered the divine word of the science of socialism that all his predecessors had missed in their sickening and uninformed utopianism about an achieved state of socialism where things just simply work out because they do.
A good version of The Manifesto to pick up is the version with Gareth Stedman Jones' extended historiography as an "introduction" (it's actually like 80% of the physical book) that I think is from Penguin Books. It rather extensively covers the history of the writing of The Manifesto by Marx and Engels and properly places its "final form" (Engels re-edited the thing multiple times, including long after Marx's death, especially translations) as a rush job to meet the Revolutionary Wave of 1848 that had already begun.
The notion of revolutionary violence is not exclusive to Marx, nor communism, especially in the wake of the French Revolution where the very concept of revolutions was identified as violent by Burke and other conservatives. Marx and Engels came up intellectually in this same period so it's not shocking that seeing the events of 1848 all over Yurop that they wrote their own version in the same, especially to get it out there in time. I'd have to look it up but I don't think The Manifesto was very successful for decades not "taking off" really until well after Marx died and disappointed everyone with Capital.
Unfortunate that you were banned, even for revolutionary hostage taking only to be faced with Israeli like negotiation tactics by DogMod, but perhaps your new found interest in The Manifesto (or your sparking of interest in any others left in the bubble) will want to look into this version of the work for that introduction. Even if to properly acquire it from the internet store rather than contribute to profit making.
Giving a single work, or a single man, too much power is one of Peterson's main problems. Thinking that it's a "not real communism" argument to refuse to remove agency from people like Lenin, Stalin and Mao who wrote extensively in their own theory and place it in the long dead (even then) Marx's hands for a single work he wrote is a rather troubling anti-intellectual route to take. Especially since, again, despite what Teen Vogue wrote, Marx didn't invent communism or socialism. He simply discovered the divine word of the science of socialism that all his predecessors had missed in their sickening and uninformed utopianism about an achieved state of socialism where things just simply work out because they do.
Also, don’t mean to beat a dead horsefucker or anything, but p sure we buried the lede here:I'm more interested in pointing out the behavior here of people towards incels. Incels are downtrodden people. Not every one is a madman. Most are just socially awkward and starving for confidence. Many just may not be good looking. These are people who likely got bullied a lot and this forum sees them as their own bullying target. It takes a real piece of shit to want to hate on the already beat down. But that's what this place is about. A bunch of meek people looking for anything or anyone they can be above so they can step all over them.that the rest of the forum gets blamed for not being sympathetic enough might be the most appropriate way et could’ve signed off
Giving a single work, or a single man, too much power is one of Peterson's main problems. Thinking that it's a "not real communism" argument to refuse to remove agency from people like Lenin, Stalin and Mao who wrote extensively in their own theory and place it in the long dead (even then) Marx's hands for a single work he wrote is a rather troubling anti-intellectual route to take.and it’s not exclusive to Peterson, it happens in everyday discourse all the time. I’d push this a step further and say that any narrative that solely -and maybe even primarily- attributes monumental social change to any written sources, esp. canonical ones, is overly ambitious. There’s been a lot of recent (read: past ~25 years) work done on the French enlightenment that suggests that the most widely propagated and causally efficacious literature before and during the revolution wasn’t Rousseau, montesquieu, Voltaire, but instead run of the mill pamphletry fit for common consumption. You can likewise look at Quentin skinners case against reading too much into the private possessions of authors in order to draw inferences about ‘influence’. The texture of social reality is ultimately too complicated to settle for such univocal explanations. How much of the 1968 student protests was actually Marcuse’s fault? I’m skeptical towards any narrative that answers that question with: “a large portion of it” -simply because that seems like a cute way to efface the grievances of the actual people on the ground.
Especially since, again, despite what Teen Vogue wrote, Marx didn't invent communism or socialism. He simply discovered the divine word of the science of socialism that all his predecessors had missed in their sickening and uninformed utopianism about an achieved state of socialism where things just simply work out because they do.Saint-Simon and Comte annihilated
This, more than anything, is in line with how et's traditionally thought of stuff, even before he got explicitly political. I also think it's kind of indicative of the way a lot of people push back against "identity politics" and I've absolutely got a Nola-length carepost in me on this.i showed you mine (http://www.thebore.com/forum/index.php?topic=45437.msg2385588#msg2385588) now you
Ironically, I've come around strongly to the position that the Holomodor was less deliberate savagery than the result of a cornucopia of disastrous decisions combined with an institutional mindset that didn't particularly care much about anything like that as long as it wasn't happening visibly in places like Leningrad and Moscow...funnily enough, this is literally the most contentious area within soviet scholarship. Pinning the famine on Moscow’s desire to break the
Also, don’t mean to beat a dead horsefucker or anything, but p sure we buried the lede here:I'm more interested in pointing out the behavior here of people towards incels. Incels are downtrodden people. Not every one is a madman. Most are just socially awkward and starving for confidence. Many just may not be good looking. These are people who likely got bullied a lot and this forum sees them as their own bullying target. It takes a real piece of shit to want to hate on the already beat down. But that's what this place is about. A bunch of meek people looking for anything or anyone they can be above so they can step all over them.that the rest of the forum gets blamed for not being sympathetic enough might be the most appropriate way et could’ve signed off
This, more than anything, is in line with how et's traditionally thought of stuff, even before he got explicitly political. I also think it's kind of indicative of the way a lot of people push back against "identity politics" and I've absolutely got a Nola-length carepost in me on this.
I watched that whole 2 hour Canadian debate thing and was most taken by Peterson being an absolutely dreadfully humorless bore who takes any opposing view as direct criticism and personal attacks (even when just quoting his own words). Also that he really doesn't SAY anything the whole debate other than really long winded versions of "TheJews Women Coloreds Witches DragonsPostcultural Marixsts are the worst!", which really wasn't the topic.
Every single time one of the other three told a joke or just had a humorous beat, he'd be sitting there as pouty and miserable as ever, then get up to sound like a whiny and frightened nerd before BOWING after most of his times to speak :lol :lol :lol
before BOWING after most of his times to speakAnd it makes sense that an old king lives in a desiccated tower.
Please donate to etoliate's kickstarter for his game about the death of loads of kids.
That Dragon, Communism.
I thought it was called:
Marxist Swamp: Shadow of HoloMordor?
No interest in discussing Peterson or anything with this forum. Complete waste of time. I would like to say that you can google "enforced monogamy" and find the research papers and literature on it. It's a social sciences and biology term. It basically means socially preferenced and standardized monogamy.
Beginning to think this isn't the most rigorous science.
"
Even if we give JP the benefit of the doubt that he's talking about socially "preferenced and standardized monogamy," what's that going to look like? It'll be a taboo about sex before marriage, enforced by punishing women*. Also, he was pretty explicit in the NYT interview that monogamy was meant to solve the problem of young men who had turned against God because they couldn't get dates. So this is very clearly a system where we use social stigma to limit the choice of girls and women, in order to make them fuck the guys who might otherwise become school shooters.
Which is VERY UNCOOL, and considering the incidence of intimate partner violence, probably a bad idea even based on its own shitty internal logic.
Ah yes, the terrible "system" of everyone having agency over their bodies and life choices we have now.Yeah that's what i'm talking about here ::)
You think the system is good right now? Women are being shown that it's cool to dump your man when he isn't making good money anymore, dump his ass and find yourself a prince, girl, because you need to do you and you deserve it because you got a twat between your legs. That's the fucking message out there right now.
I had a female manager one time that honestly said this in front of everyone "next time i go on a date with a guy i'm going to ask to his financial statements before anything gets serious" . My jaw was on the floor, and i thought every other female at lunch at that time was going to look at her like some cunt, but nope, they all nodded in agreement. :lol
Yes, naturally women seek power, wealth, etc. It's what they want. Exactly what Peterson has said.
You think the system is good right now? Women are being shown that it's cool to dump your man when he isn't making good money anymore, dump his ass and find yourself a prince, girl, because you need to do you and you deserve it because you got a twat between your legs. That's the fucking message out there right now.
I had a female manager one time that honestly said this in front of everyone "next time i go on a date with a guy i'm going to ask to his financial statements before anything gets serious" . My jaw was on the floor, and i thought every other female at lunch at that time was going to look at her like some cunt, but nope, they all nodded in agreement. :lol
So you hang around with woman that see marriage through the sort of transactional lens in the way that proponents of reinstating pre-feminism patriarchal social norms like yourself are pining for? What is your problem again?
His point is idiotic then.Your opinion. And we don't know if he's totally right or horribly wrong. From my own personal observation i think a lot of what he says is correct. Looking around at corporate women in their 30s, most of them (the ones i interact with) are miserable and probably wish they didn't go down this road.
Everybody in their 30's regrets their life choices. The house wife wishes she went college to have a career, the career women wishes she settled down. So what?I don't believe that. That's part of that societal stigma you speak of "women HAVE TO BE unhappy in the house cooking". Yet, when i go to another country, countries in latin america, i don't see disgruntled housewives at all.
Yeah, we know, Mandark. It's just funny that he tries. Say what you will about etiolate, but the man honed his craft through decades of disingenuous shit-posting.
Yes, naturally women seek power, wealth, etc. It's what they want. Exactly what Peterson has said.
It only gets worse now because if women are naturally like this because of the natural hierarchy of things what's going to happen when there's not enough dudes walking around with a decent fucking job? The outcome that you guys think will happen won't because a woman making good money isn't going to support your fuck ass most of the time.
Like Peterson has said, women have always been the selectors. They are the ones who choose. They already had a ton of power. Society isn't the way it is because of oppression, that's his point.
His point is idiotic then.Your opinion. And we don't know if he's totally right or horribly wrong. From my own personal observation i think a lot of what he says is correct. Looking around at corporate women in their 30s, most of them (the ones i interact with) are miserable and probably wish they didn't go down this road.
And it's kinda funny because they all fantasize about being plucked out of the workforce by a wealthy man.
I'm from Saudi Arabia, dude. A lot of forced housewives absolutely are disgruntled and it wouldn't shock me if it doesn't come up in casual conversation, unless you're a weirdo who asks dumb questions all the time.Let's not talk about extremes. I've seen extremes. I have been in places where there were literally no dudes for women to choose from. Tiny little towns where the capable men all fled, and nothing was left but lowlifes. Women would marry guys 20,30 years older then them. I've also seen the opposite. Where women became such snobs it was impossible for a guy to talk to a girl.
It's funny cause I figure that normally, Assimilate would love talking shit about a bunch of self-pitying basement dwellers who had turned to overanalyzing literal Disney fairy tales in order to feel better about their place in the world.It depends. If something i see is like REE where a group of people are trying to forcefully push an agenda by shaming others then i don't have any sympathy. Also, like how a lot of the trans community and their hyper crazy activists have been acting lately.
But he's trapped by being the forum contrarian, so he has to nominally take the side of swamp witches and lobster sex when his heart's clearly not in it.
It depends. If something i see is like REE where a group of people are trying to forcefully push an agenda by shaming others then i don't have any sympathy. Also, like how a lot of the trans community and their hyper crazy activists have been acting lately.
Plus, i like to work on my sensitive side. :-[
You know why you're obnoxious Nola? Because it's apparent where you get your thoughts from, and most of everything of what you say you've had no real world experience in. Like, zero. A true keyboard warrior as it would be.His point is idiotic then.Your opinion. And we don't know if he's totally right or horribly wrong. From my own personal observation i think a lot of what he says is correct. Looking around at corporate women in their 30s, most of them (the ones i interact with) are miserable and probably wish they didn't go down this road.
And it's kinda funny because they all fantasize about being plucked out of the workforce by a wealthy man.
You know who also tends to feel that way about the corporate world? Men.
Now that etiolate is gone I'd love if this thread became the place for those comfy ass long jakefromstatefarm posts.
You know why you're obnoxious Nola? Because it's apparent where you get your thoughts from, and most of everything of what you say you've had no real world experience in. Like, zero. A true keyboard warrior as it would be.His point is idiotic then.Your opinion. And we don't know if he's totally right or horribly wrong. From my own personal observation i think a lot of what he says is correct. Looking around at corporate women in their 30s, most of them (the ones i interact with) are miserable and probably wish they didn't go down this road.
And it's kinda funny because they all fantasize about being plucked out of the workforce by a wealthy man.
You know who also tends to feel that way about the corporate world? Men.
Anyways, the point i was making was you won't find many guys saying "wow i wish i could find me an older wealthy woman to save me from this" . You will be hard pressed to hear that from a guy but it's constantly a reappearing theme for women, women's fantasies, and something they actively strive for.
Now that etiolate is gone I'd love if this thread became the place for those comfy ass long jakefromstatefarm posts.Seconded.
I don't get this train of thought. I don't have the time like some of you do to sit here and go on and on in dumb arguments that do nothing. And i also find it interesting how a lot of keyboard warriors such as yourself pretend you guys like, i dunno, are scholars in various fields because you can google shit?
I think you've demonstrated those traits as well, but I also tend to think you know that you are mostly trolling with these lame arguments, so I don't feel bad not going into detail about why your personal anecdotal experience isn't really substantive ground to make large social inferences from, I think you know that...
Karl Marx was and is immensely popular.Ok? And you never bothered to understand why they were popular? It's obvious that your 'line of thinking' would never lead to a very successful career in any field lol. You can not agree with someone and still understand why that person may appeal to others.
Pat Robertson is immensely popular.
Donald Trump is immensely popular.
Dr. Oz is immensely popular.
I don't even have to google the proper term for this logical fallacy to show how stupid your line of thinking is.
I don't get this train of thought. I don't have the time like some of you do to sit here and go on and on in dumb arguments that do nothing. And i also find it interesting how a lot of keyboard warriors such as yourself pretend you guys like, i dunno, are scholars in various fields because you can google shit?
I'm not a professional in this area. I listen to what Peterson says, i listen to what other profs say, and i weigh that against my personal experiences. I've traveled a lot, i've seen various cultures, and been on both sides of this argument through the years.
What i notice now with my own eyes is that Peterson is not wrong in a lot of what he says. Shrugging this off as some kind of bullshit trolling... i dunno, that's weird logic to me. He's immensely popular for a reason.
People like you, like most on this forum, dismiss the other side constantly as "idiots" or "trolls" or pretend those people are just hateful assholes without ever stopping for a second and thinking maybe you're the ones that are wrong?
That Shoko Asahara must really have some important truths about achieving healthy religious enlightenment and the benefits of hierarchal cuckoldry. The proof is in the following.
That Shoko Asahara must really have some important truths about achieving healthy religious enlightenment and the benefits of hierarchal cuckoldry. The proof is in the following.
Oh man, I remember when I was growing up they used to play his brainwashing tv pieces in between morning cartoons.
It just dawned on me that Jordan Peterson is just doing the intellectual, Canadian version of MAGA
I don't get this train of thought. I don't have the time like some of you do to sit here and go on and on in dumb arguments that do nothing. And i also find it interesting how a lot of keyboard warriors such as yourself pretend you guys like, i dunno, are scholars in various fields because you can google shit?
I think you've demonstrated those traits as well, but I also tend to think you know that you are mostly trolling with these lame arguments, so I don't feel bad not going into detail about why your personal anecdotal experience isn't really substantive ground to make large social inferences from, I think you know that...
What i notice now with my own eyes is that Peterson is not wrong in a lot of what he says. Shrugging this off as some kind of bullshit trolling... i dunno, that's weird logic to me. He's immensely popular for a reason.
It's funny cause I figure that normally, Assimilate would love talking shit about a bunch of self-pitying basement dwellers who had turned to overanalyzing literal Disney fairy tales in order to feel better about their place in the world.
But he's trapped by being the forum contrarian, so he has to nominally take the side of swamp witches and lobster sex when his heart's clearly not in it.
I don't get this train of thought. I don't have the time like some of you do to sit here and go on and on in dumb arguments that do nothing. And i also find it interesting how a lot of keyboard warriors such as yourself pretend you guys like, i dunno, are scholars in various fields because you can google shit?
I'm not a professional in this area. I listen to what Peterson says, i listen to what other profs say, and i weigh that against my personal experiences. I've traveled a lot, i've seen various cultures, and been on both sides of this argument through the years.
What i notice now with my own eyes is that Peterson is not wrong in a lot of what he says. Shrugging this off as some kind of bullshit trolling... i dunno, that's weird logic to me. He's immensely popular for a reason.
People like you, like most on this forum, dismiss the other side constantly as "idiots" or "trolls" or pretend those people are just hateful assholes without ever stopping for a second and thinking maybe you're the ones that are wrong?
You don't exactly make sophisticated arguments that require a PHD to engage in with Assimilate. Unspecified immigrant culture is making me less safe in America you idiotic liberals can easily be drilled down into by looking at the crime rates of immigrants, legal and otherwise, then measuring them with US crime rates. The problem, like usually happens, is that when presented with contradictory evidence to the opinions you hold, you go off the fucking deep end like etiolate did.
For someone that loves to rail about people's high sensitivity to out-group opinions, it seems to always be you that loses your cool when others push back on statements you make. That seems wholly incapable of engaging with civility with people that don't agree with you.spoiler (click to show/hide)It's also a little :neogaf to try and project the whole excuse of "I don't have the time like some of you do" for why you can only post at a troll level when you have been on here for 6 months and have 1400 posts.[close]
Second, love that you tried to make this point because it's a great example of what i was saying and one that Peterson also uses.
You made an appeal to popularity. He is popular therefore what he is saying must have merit. That is demonstrably false, as all sorts of crazy ideas and cult leaders have amassed large numbers of followers. I know you are trying to be your best to be like your toilet daddy and be a contrarian, but surely you will not argue that there might be something to Hitler's ideas because he was immensely popular?
Right wingers continue to prove that they're the most easily scammed people of modern times.And liberals don't get fooled? They're just as easily duped. Gwyneth Paltrow sells the same snake oil that Alex Jones does. The anti-vaccine movement is huge within the progress left and let's not get started on applying gender reassignment surgery to children.
You would then take this and try and label me a Trump supporter wouldn't you?Not everything Trump says is pure madness.
:dead
Oh yes, please do go on. Tell us of the good parts of Nazism that maybe we should look into adopting in our society.Who said anything about the good parts of Nazism? It's about understanding the situation that people were in and how Hitler could appeal to them.
I understand perfectly what Jordan Peter is saying that appeals to his audience of incels and right wingers that rage against SJ Double U's. Stro posted a perfect summary higher up on the page. I also understand how he uses these losers to make a fortune for himself. What of it?Your judging the guy for making money now? Stop being mad you still do retail.
I said right wingers AND incels, bucko.Yeah, and then when someone tries to understand how ordinary young males can fall into this incel shit and automatically you think we're defending it or excusing it.
:trumpsAnd do you really believe that everyone that listens to Peterson is a right wing nut?
yes
what a charlatanI kind of come down more and more on this side as I see the cult of personality around him develop and how he addresses it(and how so many of his followers respond to it).
I'm not a professional in this area. I listen to what Peterson says, i listen to what other profs say, and i weigh that against my personal experiences. I've traveled a lot, i've seen various cultures, and been on both sides of this argument through the years.
What i notice now with my own eyes is that Peterson is not wrong in a lot of what he says. Shrugging this off as some kind of bullshit trolling... i dunno, that's weird logic to me. He's immensely popular for a reason.
You're back pedaling on what you previously said now. You said this:How about you appeal to my dick in your face?QuoteI'm not a professional in this area. I listen to what Peterson says, i listen to what other profs say, and i weigh that against my personal experiences. I've traveled a lot, i've seen various cultures, and been on both sides of this argument through the years.
Appeal to authority: Peterson is not a "professional in this area" either. Only by virtue that he made this his mission and started making money off it.QuoteWhat i notice now with my own eyes is that Peterson is not wrong in a lot of what he says. Shrugging this off as some kind of bullshit trolling... i dunno, that's weird logic to me. He's immensely popular for a reason.
Appeal to popularity: you say that Peterson is correct on many points and you back that up with the fact that he is popular.
Notice that nowhere in this quote, or earlier, did you say "maybe we should study and understand why young men are becoming incels and turning to guys like Jordan Peterson." This is a new thing that you're saying now.
good oneWhat exactly do you think you're accomplishing by pointing out argumentative fallacies? I"m not having a philosophical debate with you. Everyone appeals to authority in day to day life. I take what Peterson says vs a counter point some other knowledgeable person in the area says against it. I then weigh that with my own personal experiences.
Oh yes, please do go on. Tell us of the good parts of Nazism that maybe we should look into adopting in our society.i'm sure nudemacusers has some thoughts on the fashions
No, you try to argue in good faith, like your daddy etiolate always said. You know you changed your argument once I called you out on it, just admit it and move on, it's not a big deal. And the reason why I point out the fallacies is because they suggest fallacious reasoning on your part. And I still think you missed the point.No dude, no. I'm not backing off on anything. He's popular for a variety of reasons, if one of those is helping disheartened males maybe there's a reason for that? Maybe there's a problem there that needs addressing. Again, you come into this as a way to win cred or some shit. It's a very inefficient way to have a discussion when all you want to do is paint someone as the loser, racist, bigot, whatever.
First, Nola wtf you even talking about? When did i ever say immigrants make me feel unsafe here? I don't have patience for people that take what i say and the apply identity politics to it. The Bore is not any different than Ree in this respect.
No, you try to argue in good faith, like your daddy etiolate always said. You know you changed your argument once I called you out on it, just admit it and move on, it's not a big deal. And the reason why I point out the fallacies is because they suggest fallacious reasoning on your part. And I still think you missed the point.No dude, no. I'm not backing off on anything. He's popular for a variety of reasons, if one of those is helping disheartened males maybe there's a reason for that? Maybe there's a problem there that needs addressing. Again, you come into this as a way to win cred or some shit. It's a very inefficient way to have a discussion when all you want to do is paint someone as the loser, racist, bigot, whatever.
etoilet was absolutely right saying no one here really cares to listen or to actually discuss anything. It's a place to shit on opinions the majority don't agree with. That's all it is and that's fine but let's not pretend otherwise.
Nobody's pretending anything, Assimilate. You're just a fuckwit.And you're a round faced softboy.
I'm so offended you'd default to non-creative insults you lifted online. Considering your usual projection I'm going to guess that deep down you know that's what you are: A whiny cunt who needs JP to make him feel better.You're right. From now on you'll just be Unibrow. :doge
good oneWhat exactly do you think you're accomplishing by pointing out argumentative fallacies? I"m not having a philosophical debate with you. Everyone appeals to authority in day to day life. I take what Peterson says vs a counter point some other knowledgeable person in the area says against it. I then weigh that with my own personal experiences.
What else am i supposed to do? Go full crazy Nola keyboard warrior and start looking up citation after citation after citation to back up an opinion i already decided on in my mind?
Nola, admit to me you're a self hating white male. It keeps you up at night doesn't it?
This honestly says quite a lot lol.
Everyone appeals to authority in day to day life.Elaborate because...I'm skeptical of this claim, in part because:
I take what Peterson says vs a counter point some other knowledgeable person in the area says against it. I then weigh that with my own personal experiences.This isn't an appeal to authority, for example.
Nola, admit to me you're a self hating white male. It keeps you up at night doesn't it?
This honestly says quite a lot lol.
soyboy cuck confirmedNola, admit to me you're a self hating white male. It keeps you up at night doesn't it?
This honestly says quite a lot lol.
Like I've said, if your loaded reads on people on this forum are indicative of the way you analyze social behavior in your day to day, I suspect your heavy reliance on those anecdotal experiences to shape your worldview, and those people you can find that reinforce them, are an order of magnitude more shitty than someone with even average social IQ doing it...Not that it wasn't already clear in your posts here.
No, you try to argue in good faith, like your daddy etiolate always said. You know you changed your argument once I called you out on it, just admit it and move on, it's not a big deal. And the reason why I point out the fallacies is because they suggest fallacious reasoning on your part. And I still think you missed the point.No dude, no. I'm not backing off on anything. He's popular for a variety of reasons, if one of those is helping disheartened males maybe there's a reason for that? Maybe there's a problem there that needs addressing. Again, you come into this as a way to win cred or some shit. It's a very inefficient way to have a discussion when all you want to do is paint someone as the loser, racist, bigot, whatever.
No dude, no. I'm not backing off on anything. He's popular for a variety of reasons, if one of those is helping disheartened males maybe there's a reason for that? Maybe there's a problem there that needs addressing. Again, you come into this as a way to win cred or some shit. It's a very inefficient way to have a discussion when all you want to do is paint someone as the loser, racist, bigot, whatever.
No, you try to argue in good faith, like your daddy etiolate always said. You know you changed your argument once I called you out on it, just admit it and move on, it's not a big deal. And the reason why I point out the fallacies is because they suggest fallacious reasoning on your part. And I still think you missed the point.No dude, no. I'm not backing off on anything. He's popular for a variety of reasons, if one of those is helping disheartened males maybe there's a reason for that? Maybe there's a problem there that needs addressing. Again, you come into this as a way to win cred or some shit. It's a very inefficient way to have a discussion when all you want to do is paint someone as the loser, racist, bigot, whatever.
So you're going to once again ignore that nobody gave this clown the time of day until he started shitting on trans people and feminists?
So you're just a c*nt then? Right, moving on.Oh nooos i jumped on the crazy trans community for going after comedians making jokes
the dog
the beak
the unibrow
:rejoice
just for the record: i came.
filler is only using his platform to help the disenfranchised.Chill out Master Unibrow.
was editing my ignore list and decided to see why i stopped seeing the walrus post here.
turns out mandark was instrumental in his departure too.
great final post. byeeeee.
:lol
http://www.thebore.com/forum/index.php?topic=39503.msg2167527#msg2167527 (http://www.thebore.com/forum/index.php?topic=39503.msg2167527#msg2167527)
A New York Times Magazine hit piece says more about the mainstream media than it says about Jordan Peterson.
So it is still the woman's fault that men's frustration results in violence?He isn't blaming women, he's blaming society.
(https://i.imgur.com/p8hRfH1.gif)
Maybe if these "incels" would adjust their standards, they wouldn't be so unfuckable. There is a sea of women who feel the same way as the boys. Unfortunately, both sides are looking over each other's heads to find their ideal.I don't see that. But i'm not going to get into a deep dive with you fucks because you'll do the same thing you always do... dog pile. I'll just say let's see where this experiment leads. Either we become like Japan or a version that is far more violent.
2) In both the NYT article and in Peterson's response on his site, he's explicitly proposing this to address male violence. Even the nicest, softest version of this boils down to adjusting the rules and incentives of dating to steer women towards men they would otherwise not choose, in hopes that those men will be less likely to lash out.
We find a large, statistically significant, and econometrically robust decline in the number of women committing suicide following the introduction of unilateral divorce. No significant effect is found for men. Domestic violence is analyzed using data on both family conflict resolution and intimate homicide rates. The results indicate a large decline in domestic violence for both men and women in states that adopted unilateral divorce. We find suggestive evidence that unilateral divorce led to a decline in females murdered by their partners, while the data revealed no discernible effects for men murdered. (http://www.nber.org/papers/w10175.pdf)
To be honest I kind of wish this thread would steer away from Peterson. I'm kind of bored of hearing about him. The hyperbolic interpretations of everything he says even more so. lol
If only Momo would stop posting his videos.
It's really interesting how the only people that ever REALLY understand what Peterson is REALLY saying are the people that give him money to affirm their bloody feelings of bloody inadequacies and outdated views, that they bloody well have the right to have. That's the sane thing. Literally every one else is attacking him.That's a lot of people that like him.
If one wants to address male violence, making it easier to end relationships safely, quickly, and with the full support of the law are demonstrably effective. Funny how these things are attributed to causing the problem, huh?
You know, Mandark, someone might interpret all this French phrase dropping as status signalling.
Reminder:
1) Peterson used a defense by one of his lobsters to defend his dumbass comments in the NYT.
2) Among other things, Peterson thinks women haven't been subjugated throughout history because England had queens.
I got called out for saying that the guy basically just sells self-help books to the alt-right. I guess they were right, it's not just books but also seminars.
Peterson has only grown in reputation because every single time he's challenged he crushes.It's really interesting how the only people that ever REALLY understand what Peterson is REALLY saying are the people that give him money to affirm their bloody feelings of bloody inadequacies and outdated views, that they bloody well have the right to have. That's the sane thing. Literally every one else is attacking him.That's a lot of people that like him.
And it's funny that the people that are attacking him are exactly the type of people you would think would attack him. He was never going to win over the audience that already made up their minds about him after the pronoun debate. People inaccurately painted him a transphobe, and you fucking know that was it for that crowd. Nothing else he said would do anything to change that.
Whacked out fuckers like the people on REE attack everyone. Even their own. When you play the who can be more woke than who, it's a race to the fucking bottom. No one wins.
Literally just quoting his own words back to him is taken as a direct personal attack. Asking him to clarify his stances is also a direct personal attack. Even though one of his big thinga is speaking with clarity so people know what you mean, yet magically whatever he says isn't what he means and he has to explain it by saying something different to what he said the first time.
Weird.
He doesn't "crush" at all. He deflects. There's no way anyone can honestly "challenge" him in his and his followers eyes.Come on, have some goddamn honesty behind you for once. His popularity exploded after that Chanel 4 interview. He destroyed that fucking news reporter.
Can you link or quote exactly what he said.
Peterson 2018: "If We DoNt EquAllY DiViDeZ Ze WomeN Men WiLl starT KillING EVERYONE" :derp
I do have some honesty. I've watched that Channel 4 thing, and both of them come off badly.
I do have some honesty. I've watched that Channel 4 thing, and both of them come off badly.
:neogaf
ok well then you just can't be impartial. Even his critics recognized how bad that interview looked for the host.
You stupid bitch you said they both come off badly. He doesn't come off badly at all, you just don't like him, and therefore can't be impartial.I do have some honesty. I've watched that Channel 4 thing, and both of them come off badly.
:neogaf
ok well then you just can't be impartial. Even his critics recognized how bad that interview looked for the host.
bitch what did I just fucking say. I said the the host looked bad. But Peterson's rhetoric is bullshit.
God, you're insufferable
That Cathy Newman interview is pretty much going to be Peterson's "four touchdowns in a single high school football game", isn't it?
He doesn't "crush" at all. He deflects. There's no way anyone can honestly "challenge" him in his and his followers eyes.Come on, have some goddamn honesty behind you for once. His popularity exploded after that Chanel 4 interview. He destroyed that fucking news reporter.
Same thing he did with the vice news piece when it was edited to make him look ridiculous, when the whole interview was released you see why it was edited.
The problem with a lot of hyper-liberals is they don't LISTEN. Regardless if you find the opinion wrong or not, you should listen and actually try and understand where the person is coming from. They don't do that. So you can't even have a decent discussion.Can you link or quote exactly what he said.
Peterson 2018: "If We DoNt EquAllY DiViDeZ Ze WomeN Men WiLl starT KillING EVERYONE" :derp
Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
"Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end."
You stupid bitch you said they both come off badly. He doesn't come off badly at all, you just don't like him, and therefore can't be impartial.I do have some honesty. I've watched that Channel 4 thing, and both of them come off badly.
:neogaf
ok well then you just can't be impartial. Even his critics recognized how bad that interview looked for the host.
bitch what did I just fucking say. I said the the host looked bad. But Peterson's rhetoric is bullshit.
God, you're insufferable
That Cathy Newman interview is pretty much going to be Peterson's "four touchdowns in a single high school football game", isn't it?Considering how difficult it is to destroy a news anchor when they clearly have the upper hand in those settings.... yeah, it definitely will be.
Not true. His fedora wearing piece is cringe-worthy, same with when he gets overly emotional and starts to shed tears. lol i mean he has a lot to laugh at, for sure
And you don't like anyone who disagrees with his nonsense. Do you see the fucking recursion here
Funny thing is it's not even a new grift. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythopoetic_men%27s_movementDoesn't Peterson continuously reference Jung? I don't think he's ever hidden that fact.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61if75g7FNL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg) (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7f/42/c6/7f42c69dbbfb5da327a6d682655af137.jpg)
The main proponents were, you guessed it, Jungian analysts!
Kind of interesting: those books were published in 1990 and 1991. 1991 was also when "political correctness" entered common usage; GHWB mentioned it in a speech and the New Republic had an entire issue devoted to it, etc. David Mamet's Oleanna came out in 1992 and Michael Crichton's Disclosure came out in 1994, both about men (a professor and a businessman respectively) being targeted by false accusations of sexual harassment.
A lot of the current panic about men and masculinity being under siege, speech being restricted by new unwritten rules, and feminism run amok is very, very reminiscent of those freakouts in the early-mid 90's. Someone get recursive in here, he's the expert on nostalgia cycles.
Peterson's best defense is this:Yeah, he definitely goes off on these tangents. One of the things people love about him is how he dives deep into literature filled with a ton of allegories and all that, i personally don't like it, nor do i like his religious side but he does tend to get to his point... eventually.
"So you say women should be forced to marry?"
"No, you should actually listen to what I have to say. I didn't say that. What I said is that women... look. We have society, we've had a society for centuries. And remember we fought each other. Most of the 21st century humans have been at war with each other and excuse me I don't want to see that repeated. So in my view and this could be backed up by literature but it's mostly an idea I have. In my view we must look at society as an ever moving and changing construct. Like the ancient Greeks already discovered. Time is not a flat circle if you put in in perspective and Fibonacci knew that when you looked at the stars you could see this in the constellation. So...
"So are women force...."
"LET ME FINISH my point. You have to let me finish my point. So you have these two polar opposites of right and wrong. Of Yin and Yang of Adam and Eve and honestly if we look at it from this profound construct and look deep into our society on a cultural but more like a molecular level so to speak we can see these ever changing movements. The Greeks saw them, Fibonacci saw them and hell the Germans saw them. How do you think Hitler managed to control society? Right, you're absolutely right he deprived the men of women but the weak men, so the able bodied men would reproduce would create soldiers. But in this, in this society of competition that means that at some point the Marxists will return. After all the Marxists are the exact opposite. You have chaos on one hand and rationality on the other. If one is rational the other must be chaos. And so I never said that. But what I am saying is this. Hey man, the world is in chaos. We're in a really really bad place.... so what are you going to do aboot eet?"
When he gets challenged:People are allowed to get tired, and impatient. Especially if they aren't listening and already judging what he's saying based on what they perceive about him. I haven't seen him take things as a personal attack, unless he's personally attacked.
1. He pouts
2. He takes it as a personal attack. This happens even in debates with other academics and philosophers. Asking him to clarify or repeating his words to him is a personal attack to Jordan Peterson
3. He says people misunderstood him or took him out of context, then explains what he really meant which is always somewhat to very different than what he said originally that people "misunderstood" or "took out of context"
He's now started to use posts from his own fan boards and tweets as "evidence" and "explanation" of what he said when people :doge him over wacky shit he says. Now, to me, these, along with admitting he puts on a vocal and physical presentation tailored to his specific audience of malcontents and his fury when he gets challenged on anything, are clear and present signs that he's a charlatan just bilking money out of idiots who think they're intelligent free thinkers.
He's a snek and a goof and people following him like a cult leader are to be mocked for falling for such a blatant scammer. That's as deep as it goes.How exactly is he a scammer? What is he scamming?
Until recently, those who contributed $200 or more monthly to his Patreon account could also receive a 45-minute Skype session with him.
There’s also the issue of the payment. As noted, this was not an official therapy session. But it’s important to note that therapists have an ethical responsibility to charge a reasonable rate for services and to refer a patient elsewhere if they cannot be seen in a timely manner. It’s unclear how much Nestor paid in total—it could have been scheduled after he subscribed to Peterson’s Patreon for one month, making it a fairly typical rate. But posts on the Jordan Peterson subreddit indicate that it could take several months to schedule a Skype session with Peterson. I don’t know the state of Nestor’s finances, but based upon his unemployment and lack of stable housing, he most likely spent money he didn’t have to support Peterson (who reportedly makes $80,000 a month from his Patreon account). I don’t blame Nestor for being desperate for help. I do blame Peterson for bilking him out of his hard-earned money.
Look at how much Peterson cares about helping his lobsters in need:And Peterson canceled it. It wasn't logistically possible for him to answer the sheer number of people that tried to get the 45min skype session with him. The guy is a Psychologist, not a business man. He'll probably have to consult with someone and bring on help.QuoteUntil recently, those who contributed $200 or more monthly to his Patreon account could also receive a 45-minute Skype session with him.QuoteThere’s also the issue of the payment. As noted, this was not an official therapy session. But it’s important to note that therapists have an ethical responsibility to charge a reasonable rate for services and to refer a patient elsewhere if they cannot be seen in a timely manner. It’s unclear how much Nestor paid in total—it could have been scheduled after he subscribed to Peterson’s Patreon for one month, making it a fairly typical rate. But posts on the Jordan Peterson subreddit indicate that it could take several months to schedule a Skype session with Peterson. I don’t know the state of Nestor’s finances, but based upon his unemployment and lack of stable housing, he most likely spent money he didn’t have to support Peterson (who reportedly makes $80,000 a month from his Patreon account). I don’t blame Nestor for being desperate for help. I do blame Peterson for bilking him out of his hard-earned money.
https://slate.com/technology/2018/05/jordan-peterson-seems-like-a-terrible-therapist.html
Seems like a pretty good businessman to me.Maybe you don't know what a businessman is.
I didn't say he wasn't good at making money, the way he's doing it is hilarious though
Now i get it. It's about money. He's making great money while most of you still scrapping the bottom.
Seems like a pretty good businessman to me.
He tells people to clean their rooms, stand up straight, get their act together but that's not considered taking personal responsibility? Oh, ok.
It literally has absolutely nothing to do with his anything about trans people or pronouns. He's selling an admittedly false image, boogeymen, and the most general platitudes like CLEAN YOUR ROOM, STAND WITH YOU SHOULDERS STRAIGHT and weirdo nerds are in awe because he affirms their shitty beliefs they have as general losers. He makes them feel good about themselves by blaming all their problems on whatever other is in fashion for his audience at the time. He's already changed it a few times. People paying him to talk about propaganda in Frozen :lol :lol :lol :lol
The dude is a huckster, and I guarantee his view points will do a 180 in the next few years when his audience runs dry and he's not making enough on Patreon to buy his prospector suits anymore. It's hilarious to watch people get so sucked into everything he says like it's revolutionary and magical brain expanding shit.
Jordan Peterson Net WorthThat doesn't make him a good businessman. He blew up because of his own profession, his personal views, and his timely appearances on prominent youtube and media channels. That's nothing to do with "business". He'll need help from a real business person if he is going to sustain this, or build some type of 'brand'.
1.5m USD (and growing)
Terrible businessman.
God you are dumb. He blew up when he realized he could exploit angry losers, it's a sound business strategy.Ok agrajag. You're too smart for me. ::)
The Secret was written by a television producer, once again Peterson is a tenured professor. He taught at one of the best Universities in the world. There's a difference there.
I think that's a good description of Peterson's schtick. The difference is that for some reason (and I have my suspicions), his followers demand that everyone else take him seriously in a way we were never expected to with Tony Robbins or the woman who wrote The Secret, for example.
The Secret was written by a television producer, once again Peterson is a tenured professor. He taught at one of the best Universities in the world.
What?The Secret was written by a television producer, once again Peterson is a tenured professor. He taught at one of the best Universities in the world.
man you don't give a shit about that
God you are dumb. He blew up when he realized he could exploit angry losers, it's a sound business strategy.
you don't give a fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck about thatWhat?The Secret was written by a television producer, once again Peterson is a tenured professor. He taught at one of the best Universities in the world.
man you don't give a shit about that
Turning some viral appearances on TV and the internet into a steady flow of $80,000 a month through Patreon to produce additional low cost content through Skype and with the promise to pander with additional content his audience craves, often in free venues that simultaneously help offer free advertisement for further growing his personal brand, is evidence of a fairly successful business strategy to me.
Not sure why Assimilate is even belaboring this point?
As to whether Peterson has a total genuineness with his hybrid self-help/political agenda persona trying to help people live better lives and become strong, open-mined thinkers, I have my doubts.
Turning some viral appearances on TV and the internet into a steady flow of $80,000 a month through Patreon to produce additional low cost content through Skype and with the promise to pander with additional content his audience craves, often in free venues that simultaneously help offer free advertisement for further growing his personal brand, is evidence of a fairly successful business strategy to me.You mean like everyone else that has visibility and an audience? Damn, guy is a genius. Hand him an MBA from The Wharton School of Business.
Woah, how much? :hyper
On an unrelated note. JP being a prof. at my school is a major source of embarrassment. I saw him once getting off an elevator. If you want to buy my used underwear, Assimilate, I understand. Just send a PM.
200$ per 45 mins of wear. There is no better use for money like that.It's tempting.
There's no question you still labor under minimum wage because you may be the dumbest motherfucker in this place.
Because he is trying hard to take up etoilet's mantle by being a contrarian at any opportunity.
If we were all saying that Peterson has a terrible business acumen he'd be in here telling us how successful Peterson is.
This particular point started because Oblivion singled out his poor decision to offer 45min skype sessions that he clearly did not have the time or capabilities to handle. Great research and business planning he had on that one...... take that MBA away boys!
He has so much money coming in he has a hard time keeping uo, poor guy. I'm sure there is an easy fix for this particular problem, I dunno, maybe hiking up the price of his skype sessions? We'll see what happens.Hey agrajag i just put a bandaid and some cohesive elastic wraps around my girlfriends cut. Am i certified nurse now? Could i get a job at the local hospital? What do you think?
Turning some viral appearances on TV and the internet into a steady flow of $80,000 a month through Patreon to produce additional low cost content through Skype and with the promise to pander with additional content his audience craves, often in free venues that simultaneously help offer free advertisement for further growing his personal brand, is evidence of a fairly successful business strategy to me.You mean like everyone else that has visibility and an audience? Damn, guy is a genius. Hand him an MBA from The Wharton School of Business.
Hey at least you guys are giving him credit , look at that. The tables have turned.
I'm sure when you're unemployed like yourself anyone that makes money looks like they have a successful business model even if it's just a content creator asking supporters to give him cash for more content. Next level shit.Turning some viral appearances on TV and the internet into a steady flow of $80,000 a month through Patreon to produce additional low cost content through Skype and with the promise to pander with additional content his audience craves, often in free venues that simultaneously help offer free advertisement for further growing his personal brand, is evidence of a fairly successful business strategy to me.You mean like everyone else that has visibility and an audience? Damn, guy is a genius. Hand him an MBA from The Wharton School of Business.
Hey at least you guys are giving him credit , look at that. The tables have turned.
You are being unusually silly tonight Assimilate.
To be someone with a successful business and a successful business model doesn't require an Ivy league education or naturally infer you think they just invented some evolutionary business construct like the assembly line. At least put some effort into your shtick.
Didn't you get the memo Nola, you cannot be a successful businessman unless you have an MBA from Wharton :dogeyeahhh because that's what i said you stupid fucking jackass. :lol
Obviously I cant stop you assholes from talking about this loser, thought at least I could get you to stop repeating the same points page after page.To be honest I kind of wish this thread would steer away from Peterson. I'm kind of bored of hearing about him. The hyperbolic interpretations of everything he says even more so. lol
If only Momo would stop posting his videos.
I'm sure when you're unemployed like yourself anyone that makes money looks like they have a successful business model even if it's just a content creator asking supporters to give him cash for more content. Next level shit.
I'm sure if he hasn't already, he will soon enough be hiring some consultants to grow whatever brand he thinks he can grow.
Funny thing is it's not even a new grift. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythopoetic_men%27s_movement
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61if75g7FNL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg) (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7f/42/c6/7f42c69dbbfb5da327a6d682655af137.jpg)
The main proponents were, you guessed it, Jungian analysts!
Kind of interesting: those books were published in 1990 and 1991. 1991 was also when "political correctness" entered common usage; GHWB mentioned it in a speech and the New Republic had an entire issue devoted to it, etc. David Mamet's Oleanna came out in 1992 and Michael Crichton's Disclosure came out in 1994, both about men (a professor and a businessman respectively) being targeted by false accusations of sexual harassment.
A lot of the current panic about men and masculinity being under siege, speech being restricted by new unwritten rules, and feminism run amok is very, very reminiscent of those freakouts in the early-mid 90's. Someone get recursive in here, he's the expert on nostalgia cycles.
Funny thing is it's not even a new grift. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythopoetic_men%27s_movement
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61if75g7FNL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg) (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7f/42/c6/7f42c69dbbfb5da327a6d682655af137.jpg)
The main proponents were, you guessed it, Jungian analysts!
Kind of interesting: those books were published in 1990 and 1991. 1991 was also when "political correctness" entered common usage; GHWB mentioned it in a speech and the New Republic had an entire issue devoted to it, etc. David Mamet's Oleanna came out in 1992 and Michael Crichton's Disclosure came out in 1994, both about men (a professor and a businessman respectively) being targeted by false accusations of sexual harassment.
A lot of the current panic about men and masculinity being under siege, speech being restricted by new unwritten rules, and feminism run amok is very, very reminiscent of those freakouts in the early-mid 90's. Someone get recursive in here, he's the expert on nostalgia cycles.
For being such "alpha bros", they sure sound like whiny dumb biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaaaaaaaaatches.
Is it possible because these movements pop their heads up every so often? Thankfully it hasn't worked out for the other side very well.Funny thing is it's not even a new grift. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythopoetic_men%27s_movement
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61if75g7FNL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg) (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7f/42/c6/7f42c69dbbfb5da327a6d682655af137.jpg)
The main proponents were, you guessed it, Jungian analysts!
Kind of interesting: those books were published in 1990 and 1991. 1991 was also when "political correctness" entered common usage; GHWB mentioned it in a speech and the New Republic had an entire issue devoted to it, etc. David Mamet's Oleanna came out in 1992 and Michael Crichton's Disclosure came out in 1994, both about men (a professor and a businessman respectively) being targeted by false accusations of sexual harassment.
A lot of the current panic about men and masculinity being under siege, speech being restricted by new unwritten rules, and feminism run amok is very, very reminiscent of those freakouts in the early-mid 90's. Someone get recursive in here, he's the expert on nostalgia cycles.
For being such "alpha bros", they sure sound like whiny dumb biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaaaaaaaaatches.
Assimilate, what did you think of Peterson getting triggered as fuck when Dyson hurt his fee-fees by calling him an "mean, angry white man"?I think Peterson shouldn't of risen his voice, he was clearly annoyed and rightfully so but at the same time this is supposed to be a debate with intellectuals and Dyson is clearly baiting him throughout. It actually came off worse for Dyson considering the topic at hand, he demonstrated exactly the problem with this type of thinking.
I thought Peterson's reaction totally proved Dyson's point that for all the BS the Right spews about PC being a bad thing, the truth is they desire nothing more than PC, just...for themselves (as with everything in life).You're having a debate with someone and you call them an "angry white man" Imagine if he called him an 'angry black man' what good is that going to do? You're trying to put a person in a corner based on whatever group they are in. That's problematic. No one is debating he can't say those things if he wants to say them. I'm not sure what the confusion is here.
Fry's arguments were nonsensical too. On the one hand, he was arguing that people should be allowed to say whatever they want without worrying about people's feelings, while also somehow simultaneously making the case that the reason gay rights were able to succeed in England was because....people were polite about it and not yelling or being mean.
he was clearly annoyed and rightfully so
Quotehe was clearly annoyed and rightfully so
Glad to know that Assimilate is the ultimate arbiter of whether annoyance is justified or not.
What would the Stan Lee cameo look like in his movie?
Quotehe was clearly annoyed and rightfully so
Glad to know that Assimilate is the ultimate arbiter of whether annoyance is justified or not.
Sticks and stone will break my bones, something something, if only you didn't get offended, it would lose all its power.No dickwad. Losing the debate is when you start to get personal, which Dyson did. And like i said Peterson should have not shown annoyance.
Get your panties in a bunch when your opponent acts politically incorrect while you debate against political correctness brehsI guess being black is an excuse to be a moron now to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bagrW1_twUA
I thought Peterson's reaction totally proved Dyson's point that for all the BS the Right spews about PC being a bad thing, the truth is they desire nothing more than PC, just...for themselves (as with everything in life).You're having a debate with someone and you call them an "angry white man" Imagine if he called him an 'angry black man' what good is that going to do? You're trying to put a person in a corner based on whatever group they are in. That's problematic. No one is debating he can't say those things if he wants to say them. I'm not sure what the confusion is here.
Fry's arguments were nonsensical too. On the one hand, he was arguing that people should be allowed to say whatever they want without worrying about people's feelings, while also somehow simultaneously making the case that the reason gay rights were able to succeed in England was because....people were polite about it and not yelling or being mean.
And it's not the right spewing anything, many liberals, centrists are saying Pc is a bad thing.
Peterson pointed out multiple times that when the right does PC it's also bad.
But it does no good when you start playing these word games, and these group identity politics bullshit that is severely hindering any type of honest conversation.
edit: And let me point something out to you Oblivion. When Dyson kept saying "well, it's you, it's the right that put people into groups, making it racial"
The "you" part is problematic. Who the fuck was he talking to? Peterson even said it at one point pissed off like "Who is you??" Dyson's stance was that Peterson and Fry being white guys somehow should hold the brunt of the responsibility during the debate just because they were white guys. That's ridiculous.
Peterson spent most of his career (has he pointed out) talking about the tyrannical right. He's in total agreement with Dyson on that point and yet Dyson did not understand it, he couldn't grasp that Peterson fights against group identity politics on both sides and just kept goign at him as if he was some republican candidate.
. How long until The Bore and Ree lose their shit over this guy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5c4vrXKtiIThe 2nd part is now out.
You're now trying to insinuate what my positions are? and what i actually think? nice. Something about radical leftists that they do this shit a lot....I thought Peterson's reaction totally proved Dyson's point that for all the BS the Right spews about PC being a bad thing, the truth is they desire nothing more than PC, just...for themselves (as with everything in life).You're having a debate with someone and you call them an "angry white man" Imagine if he called him an 'angry black man' what good is that going to do? You're trying to put a person in a corner based on whatever group they are in. That's problematic. No one is debating he can't say those things if he wants to say them. I'm not sure what the confusion is here.
Fry's arguments were nonsensical too. On the one hand, he was arguing that people should be allowed to say whatever they want without worrying about people's feelings, while also somehow simultaneously making the case that the reason gay rights were able to succeed in England was because....people were polite about it and not yelling or being mean.
The point is that he got triggered when he was called something he was incredibly sensitive too. This honestly isn't difficult.QuoteAnd it's not the right spewing anything, many liberals, centrists are saying Pc is a bad thing.
Yes, but all three of those groups have a different idea of what PC is.QuotePeterson pointed out multiple times that when the right does PC it's also bad.
Oh, well shit :badassQuoteBut it does no good when you start playing these word games, and these group identity politics bullshit that is severely hindering any type of honest conversation.
Yes, non-identity politics related "honest conversations" like what percentage of Mexicans are rapists, murderers and drug dealers?Quoteedit: And let me point something out to you Oblivion. When Dyson kept saying "well, it's you, it's the right that put people into groups, making it racial"
The "you" part is problematic. Who the fuck was he talking to? Peterson even said it at one point pissed off like "Who is you??" Dyson's stance was that Peterson and Fry being white guys somehow should hold the brunt of the responsibility during the debate just because they were white guys. That's ridiculous.
Sounds like you didn't understand Dyson's point at all.QuotePeterson spent most of his career (has he pointed out) talking about the tyrannical right. He's in total agreement with Dyson on that point and yet Dyson did not understand it, he couldn't grasp that Peterson fights against group identity politics on both sides and just kept goign at him as if he was some republican candidate.
Serious question: does shit like this ever work on anyone? By that, I mean trying to brag about a person's non-shitty positions even though you yourself don't give a shit about said non-shitty position(s), and are a fan of said person for the exact OPPOSITE positions?
Like, I'm honestly surprised you haven't pointed out that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican at this point.
Poor assimilate must be exhausted having to play contrarian for every single post just to keep this goingContrarian to the bore maybe because it's filled with a bunch of soft ass pussies
You're now trying to insinuate what my positions are? and what i actually think? nice. Something about radical leftists that they do this shit a lot....
Riiiiiight. Now you guys need to put more effort this is getting boring.You're now trying to insinuate what my positions are? and what i actually think? nice. Something about radical leftists that they do this shit a lot....
I don't need to "insinuate" anything, dude. You're putting them on full display.
Has anyone written anything comparing the IDW to the early 00's "warbloggers?"why can't you let me live this down
Cause it feels like there's enough parallels to make it worthwhile: semi-credentialed autodidacts using new-ish media to circumvent the old gatekeepers, generally hostile to Islam, predominantly (but not exclusively) center-right white guys who try to avoid the labels of partisan politics, etc.
Of course the audience for a piece like that is basically "people who remember Steven Den Beste" so...
There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weapons? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own . . .
How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a global genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world's population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher's stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen.
The demographic trends are ominous: Given current birthrates, France could be a majority Muslim country in 25 years, and that is if immigration were to stop tomorrow.
I'm more interested in pointing out the behavior here of people towards incels. Incels are downtrodden people. Not every one is a madman. Most are just socially awkward and starving for confidence. Many just may not be good looking. These are people who likely got bullied a lot and this forum sees them as their own bullying target. It takes a real piece of shit to want to hate on the already beat down. But that's what this place is about. A bunch of meek people looking for anything or anyone they can be above so they can step all over them.
Couldn't his faulty logic be applied to Japan as well, and their kamikaze bombers in WW2?
I really mean it. I used to have arguments all the time with Christian fundies who would say shit like "you can't be an atheist because you have a sense of morality and morality comes from God," he isn't breaking any new ground in that regard.Honest question did you accomplish anything else from that time till now? I hope you've done something with your life other than argue online endlessly :neogaf
So he admits he's just spit-balling?
:lol
...
:heh
So he admits he's just spit-balling?
:lol
...
:heh
I can't tell what's better about that quote. The fact that he came up with the theory based on some pseudo-scientific book by a guy who believes that shamans have actual spiritual power, or that he didn't make a "claim" just a "tentative hypothesis".
I really mean it. I used to have arguments all the time with Christian fundies who would say shit like "you can't be an atheist because you have a sense of morality and morality comes from God," he isn't breaking any new ground in that regard.Honest question did you accomplish anything else from that time till now? I hope you've done something with your life other than argue online endlessly :neogaf
From 2002 to now? Yeah i'd' say that's a lot of time.I really mean it. I used to have arguments all the time with Christian fundies who would say shit like "you can't be an atheist because you have a sense of morality and morality comes from God," he isn't breaking any new ground in that regard.Honest question did you accomplish anything else from that time till now? I hope you've done something with your life other than argue online endlessly :neogaf
I have a lot of time to post right now, simmer down cupcake.
And stop trying to channel etiolate, you are a poor imitation.
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/313623700085817344
Rule 8: Tell the truth – or, at least, don't lie.
:teehee
I've never claimed that gay people shouldn't get married because marriage is fundamentally about children.
It's certainly possible that marriage will serve gay people well. We'll see.
Has there ever been a "truth teller/I'm just stating the facts" character that was likable at all
Well, that made me find and listen to this, out of curiosity...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tYL5q_wGQY
SHOSTA, HOW DID YOU STAN THIS GUY?
Well, that made me find and listen to this, out of curiosity...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tYL5q_wGQY
SHOSTA, HOW DID YOU STAN THIS GUY?
Jesus fucking christ. This is the problem that i have with millennials like yourself. Just because it's online doesn't make it 100 percent. He's thinking out loud here, as if he was having a conversation with someone. It's clear he hasn't made up his mind on any of this. JUST BECAUSE IT'S ONLINE doesn't make it FINITE.
Lots to unpack with that clip, but one thing I want to focus on is his dumbass argument that he wouldn't support something, even if it seemed like a good idea, if it was also supported by the postmodernneowhatevers. But by that logic, wouldn't that mean he wouldn't be able to support anything like either gay marriage or any other civil rights because no doubt those things would also be supported by those same people?
Unless you understand where the guy is coming from everything may sound weird to YOUR specific viewpoint.
Assimilate’s really trying, isn’t he?
Him just taking the comment of gay marriage being a cultural marxist plot at face value is the best part.Why is it so hard for you guys to actually LISTEN. It blows my fucking mind.
I'm good. Most clever thing dude can come up with is calling me unibrow. At least etiolate came up with interesting narratives like me turning Tasty gay and Mandark being responsible for holodomor.
Assy is just a pretender.
even 'assy' is a relatively complimentary nickname since Assy McGee was funnier than anything lil man has ever posted
Filler look at this! shower me with likes!!!! :rejoice
Users can only like a post one time idiot.
At least etiolate came up with interesting narratives like . . . Mandark being responsible for holodomor.
Let me do a little "care post" truth telling about myself, or my back ground to this place and GAF.
I used to post on GAF simply for 1 video game i was passionate about at the time. I never considered myself a true "gamer" per se, but i was addicted to this one game and the devs posted on GAF. That's why i was part of it for a very brief period of time. I stuck to one thread, that games thread, for a long long time until i started to notice the bat shit insanity of the off topics thread. I couldn't believe there was this large swath of people that thought like that. It was bananas. Of course i'd push back on the horrible narratives i saw only to eventually be ousted for wrong think. Oh well.
Years later GAF implodes. I find The Bore, a place i thought was about just laughing at the ridiculousness of GAF/Ree with calibrated functioning members of society from the earlier years of GAF. I was wrong. Dead wrong. :doge
Most of you, i'd say 90% of you are disgruntled socially awkward manchildren that yearn to be included in that community. That's why most of you think and act very similar to that type of toxicity. Seriously, most of you are totally fucked.
I feel like it has become a good rule of thumb that if Assimilate passionately generalizes or accuses other people of something, they are things he is doing to an equal or greater degree. Often simultaneously. Like every time.I don't think so but ok.
Users can only like a post one time idiot.
Dude...
EDiT: some of you honestly concern me.
Him just taking the comment of gay marriage being a cultural marxist plot at face value is the best part.Why is it so hard for you guys to actually LISTEN. It blows my fucking mind.
The question to Peterson went "...i'm against gay marriage BUT ONLY because it's backed by cultural marxist" in which Peterson responds "i would to be against it if it were backed by cultural marxists"
Years of reading hot takes has fried your brains. This is why every time i open up something like Apple News it's nothing but hot takes and catchy tag lines to pull you into the article... they know you won't read the fucking thing, they just want the clicks.
what game was it
I'd rather have guys like Assimilate or Etiolate here, provided he doesn't post dead kids, than not. Considering how terrible traffic here is already, it's good to have some activity. :dogeI'm not well versed in Marxism but i'd tend to lean towards a guy that was employed by Harvard University, a tenured professor at Toronto University for many years and wrote about 20th century oppression most of his life. I mean, call me crazyHim just taking the comment of gay marriage being a cultural marxist plot at face value is the best part.Why is it so hard for you guys to actually LISTEN. It blows my fucking mind.
The question to Peterson went "...i'm against gay marriage BUT ONLY because it's backed by cultural marxist" in which Peterson responds "i would to be against it if it were backed by cultural marxists"
Years of reading hot takes has fried your brains. This is why every time i open up something like Apple News it's nothing but hot takes and catchy tag lines to pull you into the article... they know you won't read the fucking thing, they just want the clicks.
Yes, Peterson did say that he wouldn't accept gay marriage if it was a cultural marxist plot that was my point. Anything he's against he decides to put in that umbrella no matter what his definition of it is on any given day. He still hasn't decided where to place gay marriage yet according to the video as you've kindly pointed out.
And we're laughing at the notion of Cultural Marxism and Peterson's adamant belief in it. Considering his understanding of both culture, or Marx are about as deep as your average libertarian philosophy undergrad. (apologies to Benji-kun)
If it's the "left's trying to rebuild society in their image" is your interpretation, go ahead. It's not like it's an original Peterson idea that hasn't popped up for the last century and a half, and under more nefarious presumptions.what game was it
Probably Gaylo
And Nola you're a real cocksucker. I edited a post and you decide to post it anyways. But what can i expect from you, yeah? No class.
Unless you understand where the guy is coming from everything may sound weird to YOUR specific viewpoint.
lol you don't believe this and you're not gonna read his dumb books
Just noticed this thread was still going on, omg what the fuck is this thread even anymore lmao
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/
Assimilate annihilated
Momo randomly decides what he likes people discussing and not discussing. Why? I have no idea. At least when I do so it's in the GAF thread where no one can blame me. Nobody but myself, at least.Momo's posts are perfectly logical. Don't speak to me or my dad ever again.
Momo randomly decides what he likes people discussing and not discussing. Why? I have no idea. At least when I do so it's in the GAF thread where no one can blame me. Nobody but myself, at least.You dont have to read any of my posts, yet you do. Baah when I do it it's okay :foodcourt
You mad? You keep posting how you're bewildered we keep posting here, yet you also keep posting. So take a chill pill or shut the fuck up.:girlaff :crowdlaff :umad
I mean Momo's right, this thread is just kind of a jerking off session now. Also it was just a casual observation, he wasn't insulting people in here, but exo acting hella mad as usual for no reasonNot so much the jerking off session, I mean it was since page 1, more that you guys would be willing to have multi page arguments with Assimilate's ass has me rofling, but ya Exo's had a bug up his ass about me for a while now (maybe not just me :yeshrug ) cant really say I care though.
I mean Momo's right, this thread is just kind of a jerking off session now. Also it was just a casual observation, he wasn't insulting people in here, but exo acting hella mad as usual for no reason
Reminder: the guy who was smart enough to teach at Harvard thinks that women haven't been oppressed throughout history because there were queens in England.Can you show me this conversation? From my understanding of his viewpoint it's that he believes everyone has been oppressed through history and women haven't been oppressed that much more than men, in general.
Chill your Unibrow down.I mean Momo's right, this thread is just kind of a jerking off session now. Also it was just a casual observation, he wasn't insulting people in here, but exo acting hella mad as usual for no reason
Oh yeah, so mad. So mad in fact that I told someone calling me a cunt to take a chill pill.
Not my fault he caught feelings.
get pissy like a child if anyone wasn't gurgling whatever faux intellectualI find it funny how the radical left constantly do this. Everyone is a 'faux intellectual' or a 'stupid man's smart person' or 'pseudo-intellectual' when you don't agree with him. Kay, so whose not in your eyes? Every time i see this it's always followed by that person(s) posting an article from some shitty 'journalist' or a fucking Social Studies Warrior. Peterson being such a 'faux intellectual' he sure is taking down a lot of fucking challengers lol.
spill it. name the game ya bitch
spoiler (click to show/hide)Though even I, who struggles finding a poster I won't care post with, can't find the appeal in engaging Assimilate anymore. He's just a walking caricature and completely incapable of operating above entry level troll...though at the same time I do enjoy seeing people shit on him, so whatevs.[close]
doxxing lol dude you're naming a game, not posting your address and ssn. no one is going to google any shit you post about yourself cuz no one fuckin cares who you are. you're just kinda some boring dipshit
name the game biiiiaatch. you won't because you're terrified of sharing even the name of a video game, on a videogame offshoot board no one reads, cuz you're an colossal insecure pussy. but you should cuz it's literally the only interesting thing about you
What this "game" reference you guys keep making? :doge
Quote from: AssimilateLet me do a little "care post" truth telling about myself, or my back ground to this place and GAF.
I used to post on GAF simply for 1 video game i was passionate about at the time. I never considered myself a true "gamer" per se, but i was addicted to this one game and the devs posted on GAF. That's why i was part of it for a very brief period of time. I stuck to one thread, that games thread, for a long long time until i started to notice the bat shit insanity of the off topics thread. I couldn't believe there was this large swath of people that thought like that. It was bananas. Of course i'd push back on the horrible narratives i saw only to eventually be ousted for wrong think. Oh well.
Years later GAF implodes. I find The Bore, a place i thought was about just laughing at the ridiculousness of GAF/Ree with calibrated functioning members of society from the earlier years of GAF. I was wrong. Dead wrong. :doge
Most of you, i'd say 90% of you are disgruntled socially awkward manchildren that yearn to be included in that community. That's why most of you think and act very similar to that type of toxicity. Seriously, most of you are totally fucked.
I feel like it has become a good rule of thumb that if Assimilate passionately generalizes or accuses other people of something, they are things he is doing to an equal or greater degree. Often simultaneously. Like every time.
In that sense, and pretty much only that sense, I do think he is an heir to etiolate.
Nah, i just felt i was being too mean.What this "game" reference you guys keep making? :doge
Assimilate posted a long life story post, which he subsequently deleted because he is a pussy (but not before the good Nola quoted and replied to it) where he detailed his history on GAF and how he used to only post in OT thread of some X-Box game or some shit.
I don't see any negotiation, I see trusting in YUM! Brands to provide the answer. As always.Dogmod doesn't negotiate with terrorists. :american
Fake news:Here's a story for you all:
Joe and I were eating at Taco Bell when my phone buzzed. It was a Facebook update showing that someone [Wrath] had posted in The Bore Facebook group in the thread about etiolate's shenanigans, stated that it was happening again. I went to The Bore on my phone and noticed that etiolate was at it again with the dead kids. "Well," I sighed, "look like we're gonna have to perma ban etiolet." Joe shrugged. "Go ahead and do it, then," he said, returning to his burrito. So, I permabanned etiolate, cleaned up his dead kid posts, and re-opened the Wank Dad thread. All while eating at Taco Bell.
This is a true story.
i typed "taco bell jordan peterson" into youtube and got this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rovpZlrF8zE
I wonder what JP did for weight loss. I assume a secret pill addiction.