Author Topic: The Intellectual Wank Dad [ ot ] jordan peterson Jordan Peterson JORDAN PETERSON  (Read 204902 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #480 on: March 16, 2018, 04:02:55 PM »
The majority of people can't stand them, which includes a lot of women.
Is this just a gut feeling?

From interacting with various people. I could cite some poll about how many women self identify as feminists, but that can shift due to various reasons.

The approach of the ugly sections of feminism isn't really about independence or strength. It tends to fetishize weakness and victimhood. Woman who are out there trying to do their thing don't want that. Most people don't want that. The whole "I'm a male feminist" thing really is a put off in dating. (Don't do that kids.) Mature women that are fun to be with don't fuck with that nonsense.

shosta

  • Y = λ𝑓. (λ𝑥. 𝑓 (𝑥 𝑥)) (λ𝑥. 𝑓 (𝑥 𝑥))
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #481 on: March 16, 2018, 04:03:01 PM »
you keep bringing in stuff that i haven't said

i do think you resent feminists (and this was established outside this thread) tho
I'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.

And I haven't said that I resent feminists. You're confusing me for someone else. Not to mention the word "resent" here is being misused for your false analogy.
每天生气

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #482 on: March 16, 2018, 04:18:33 PM »
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.

you do resent feminists, i never brought up being right-wing or "deplorable," and my model of the average jp fan is a young-ish straight white dude with a certain level of alienation and a slight tendency towards autodidacticism

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #483 on: March 16, 2018, 04:31:55 PM »
kaffkatrappin up in my thread

smh

jakefromstatefarm

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #484 on: March 16, 2018, 04:39:06 PM »
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. 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

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #485 on: March 16, 2018, 05:00:22 PM »
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. 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

I'll give a summary of his response he gave to someone questioning the issue of protest and "clean your room" message.

JP- Students are being told to protest and change the world, but you can't change the world if you can't even clean your room. Solving big problems requires a great deal of competence and understanding that which your average 19 year old doesn't have. Standing outside protesting doesn't actually accomplish something or if it does then then it doesn't accomplish anything resembling the assumed goal would be for that which they protest.

As a counterexample, he told the story of a young man who noticed the plastic bottles in the ocean as he out in the ocean. He also noticed that manta rays float and skim at the same shallow depths as the plastic bottles do. The bottles tend to float in the top 3ft (or something) of the ocean water. So this guy designed a device that would skim the ocean surface, and collect the plastic bottles. He pitched to an investor and got a partner. Now it's being put in place and may clear out 90% of the plastic bottles in the ocean.

So the protesting isn't doing much or isn't "working" because its not accomplishing anything. 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 nazis. However, if you want to do some outreach programs or become competent at the problem, learn what's going on and develop a solution? Congrats, that's the sort of thing for which you're supposed to be in college.

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.

Also, this is the interview that I'm paraphrasing from:


jakefromstatefarm

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #486 on: March 16, 2018, 06:03:23 PM »
So the protesting isn't doing much or isn't "working" because its not accomplishing anything.

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.
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?

Quote
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 nazis
this 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?

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #487 on: March 16, 2018, 06:39:17 PM »
So the protesting isn't doing much or isn't "working" because its not accomplishing anything.

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.
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?

Quote
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 nazis
this 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?

1. You protest something. Your protest is X is bad.

The question is do you understand X? What do you do about X? You have to really understand the problem to help alleviate the problem. 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'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.

A reoccuring theme is the difference between an act that is giving and productive versus an act that is self-serving and loud.  I would like police shooting to go down, but I don't want to people at BLM protests drafting the solution. I want competent people on the job. Maybe the protests get some action done? Sure. They can also get inaction done as well by being carelessly divisive. (Kill pigs chants, interrupting gay parades, making it a black issue only)

So even when you protest, you do a better job protesting when you're competent. (And it's very hard to ensure competent people at your protest, because the nature of these acts lets so many random fuckers show up.) 

I don't think it has to be technology as an answer. That was just his example.


As for nazi thing: It's easy to deflate nazis if you let them speak. You build them up faster by denying them rights. The alt-right states this themselves. They love the protests and the recruitment. You let these people say their peace, you counter it and deflate it. You're not there to change their mind. You'deflate their argument by showing there is no white genocide and no white hatred and go on your merry way. When you protest them and shout anti-white messages then you end up doing just what they want.

The other factor is that nazi is a label. You say X can't speak then soon Y can't speak because you've managed to say they're really X. Hate speech policies end up expanding over time and doing things unintended. They are troubled roads to go down.

If you can't make a better point than a nazi then god help you.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #488 on: March 16, 2018, 07:18:30 PM »
Making a better point than a Nazi depends on the subject and the audience. It was probably not easy to deflate Nazi's with debate in the post-1933 Bundesrat for example.

The Nazi's were for the most part not out of the political mainstream, especially for the era, Hitler was. The problem (so to speak) was that Hitler's (here standing in for much of the leadership) goals were wildly out of the mainstream until they were broken down into incremental stages each only so far outside and supposedly "final" so as to hide the full frame of the conspiracy theory driven nutty genocidal cult at the center of the movement.

The Nazi's maintained both power and political legitimacy years before the war. Hell, before even the Anschluss and Munich. It's hard to fathom that it was all because of their ethnic views and policies considering how much else the German state was doing at the time. (Really, their identification with the German state was the most important part of the ideology.) Oh, and there was whole part where the majority of the population kept rejecting them during elections which is why they stopped having those troubling things.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #489 on: March 16, 2018, 07:32:40 PM »
I note that because if the premise is that you're going to be debating an American neo-Nazi on the ethics of ethnic cleansing or the genetic superiority of the races in front of a modern American audience you either already have the audience on your side or we have larger problems than whether or not you can deflate them in a debate.

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #490 on: March 16, 2018, 08:05:36 PM »
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.

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.

Rufus

  • 🙈🙉🙊
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #491 on: March 16, 2018, 08:33:33 PM »
Quote
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.

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #492 on: March 16, 2018, 08:42:51 PM »
What does the alt-right talk about? Do you even know? No, but you hear about them a lot. They sure sound big. We've decided to make Pepe an alt-right meme even though that's a lie. Now pepe is advertising the alt-right?

I don't know why the focus switched to nazis. It was one sentence in a paragraph not about nazis. It was about competence, which really this is as well. The people that tell you we should take away the alt-right's ability to speak are incompetent. They've blown up the alt-right in ways a Spencer could not.

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #493 on: March 16, 2018, 09:08:19 PM »
Peterson genuinely has some good points. Like telling people to look after themselves and sorting their lives out. The Channel4 interview was also quite something.

However, there's this group of cheerleaders around him that encourage him to go beyond sending that message. It gets caught up in a plot of cultural Marxism so convoluted that Square should have him write the next Kingdom Hearts.
It's also quite obvious that Peterson has taken on this persona to rake in a ton of money and fame. He's way too smart to be a target of his adversaries for 'free'.
🤴

jakefromstatefarm

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #494 on: March 16, 2018, 09:33:41 PM »
I’m primarily interested in Peterson’s functionalism here and how he uses it to draw ethical inferences at all. The particular stances he takes on these inferences are important, but that’s not the main meat of what I’m asking about. When I ask why social protesting can’t be construed as playing a role, it’s because Peterson claims it ought not be practiced(in a particular way), so there’s some implicit way he’s taxonomizing phenomena into i) those that have positive functions (positive in the sense that they merely have content, not that they are ‘net gains’ or whatever) and ii) those that don’t serve any role in the organism we call society and can therefore be normatively written off. I’m not wedded to any particular function that protesting, or anything else, may or may not have.  I’m merely asking how we come to know which phenomena do and which don’t merit inclusion in Peterson’s teleological vision.

The cool thing about functionalism is that you can introduce a cunning of reason/invisible hand effect whereby agents act toward a goal they aren’t fully aware of. A couple pages ago shoshtakovich mentioned that Peterson subscribed to something just like this in explaining how political conservatism acts as an insulator against natural disaster/disease. This means that intentionality isn’t all that important as it relates to achieving the final goal, whatever that may be. So between “intentionality isn’t important” and “you need to thoroughly understand problems in order to begin to combat them”, one of these needs to give.

I’m trying to see if there’s any foundationalist principle outside pragmatism and/or Darwinian self-preservation that informs that telos/end that Peterson wants everyone to be guided towards. When this is explained as “what’s viable/able to be accomplished” this just recapitulates the question in different terms, what needs to be accomplished and how do we adjudicate between methods of accomplishment? But when you say
Quote
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.

When I see Peterson claim something along the lines of...
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'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.
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.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #495 on: March 16, 2018, 10:01:01 PM »
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.

spoiler (click to show/hide)
*
[close]

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #496 on: March 16, 2018, 10:23:38 PM »
Unfortunately

Quote
A reoccuring theme is the difference between an act that is giving and productive versus an act that is self-serving and loud.

Is my commentary on the examples and not Peterson's. Peterson has said that he finds the protesters narcissistic.

In relation to post-modernism and "author is dead" arguments, Peterson has said there are multiple and endless interpretations but only a select amount of those interpretations are valid. To explain this, he talked about the robotics engineers and the difficulty they had getting their robot and simple AI to see the world and move around in it. It turned out that vision and seeing was far more complex than we assumed. We already check off a bunch of things before we move and the AI couldn't even do this without embodiment. There are multitudes upon multitudes of ways for an intelligence to view the limited objects in front of it. His example was that we see a bean bag as a chair even though it lacks for legs, a back and seat. On that same note, I'd say that when I'm on a hike in the woods and I see a tree stump, I also see the stump as a place to sit. I can sit on the grass or against a tree or on a log or on river rocks, etc. I'd probably choose the tree stump over all of those because it fits "chair" best functionally. I don't see the ground as a chair even though I can sit on it. So in order to walk, the robot needs to view the world from the perspective of a body. That body limits interpretations. It needs to check off functionally what it accounts for.

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.

Now this is me trying to connect that to other things: Accomplishment - what does your protest accomplish? If you are looking to help the ocean but you're just holding a sign saying that in the middle of a plaza where people ignore you then it's probably not that functional an approach to saving the ocean. 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.)

When I was dealing with multiple interpretations in college, I actually fell back on video games. My view is that you're limited by authorial design. Now I realize this is basically the frame problem. You can play Starcraft. You can play Super Mario Bros. You can't play Starcraft as a platformer. You can't play Super Mario Bros as a RTS. You would have to change either game in major ways in order to allow the other to occur. Despite games having more freedom given to the audience than a book, interpretation is still limited by the design from which you're interpreting.

This may get into a competition of validity. Does one way of the viewing the world accomplish more or succeed more than the other? If you're doing a interpretation, which interpretation fits better in the grand scheme and has more evidence for it? However, that's my question. It may relate to how Peterson views the world.

Frame problem:
http://groups.umd.umich.edu/cis/course.des/cis479/projects/frame/welcome.html
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frame-problem/

And Peterson talking about this:



« Last Edit: March 16, 2018, 10:38:11 PM by etiolate »

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #498 on: March 16, 2018, 10:48:23 PM »
we're in a war, it's a battle between good and evil, us and the postmodernists

who are slight of handing marxism, giving us ptsd

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #499 on: March 17, 2018, 12:42:10 AM »
Wait, let me see if I have this right.

Nazis are both so evil and such a joke that it's actually a GOOD thing to give them a platform to make them look foolish, because nobody in their right mind would support such people.

But also, if we fail to give these same evil, pathetic losers a platform to spread their ideas, they will... somehow suddenly become more popular and legitimate?

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #500 on: March 17, 2018, 01:18:25 AM »
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.

Now to be clear, personally, I'm with uncouth and I would even accept some extent of their argument (and the one etoliate posted on the prior page) that it makes the protesters look worse compared to something like shunning. Like I imagine the Hugh Mongus lady harmed her cause (to block some kind of police station or something?) by her behavior more than if she had simply ignored the guy.

But then I do tend to favor a non-confrontational, measured approach. I understand those who think certain ideologies/groups/persons/etc. are beyond the pale in any situation. I guess I have more faith in the strength of our society and institutions (odd, I know) to take somebody like Richard Spencer coming in to give a talk and render him ultimately harmless. (Not to mention expose his invitees a bit.) Even if nobody does anything to counter him.

Something like the Unite The Right event or others are a different situation in my mind, from what I've seen of him, Peterson is almost laser focused on academia and speakers coming to schools to speak including himself. He actually often seems to do a determent to the arguments he's attempting to make because he only structures it within the world he knows, which is not an uncommon thing with long term academics. But I honestly don't track him outside of this thread. Those articles I posted for example I just saw get bumped up on memeorandum and think it's funny how these kind of kerfluffles keep going. Also, the fact that he's responding to them, parody accounts and bots on twitter. While missing obvious jokes like that ad. He could maybe use catitstimetostopposting.jpg

The postmodernism explainer thing is a whole nother can of worms. He's redressing an argument from the 1990s/2000s that postmodernists admitted they had faulted on with a barely even skin deep research of the subject, he also seems to suddenly find labeling people and accusing them of subversive and literally evil motives with a broadbrush across a spectrum of people to be just fine. The fact that most of the people he does media appearances with have even less of a grasp of the subject really does his jihad a disservice as it's going to have a low strength of schedule rather than getting in reps against top 25 teams.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #501 on: March 17, 2018, 01:42:16 AM »
I haven't thought of him in years since he died, but I just realized Peterson might want to at least look into someone like Jean-Francois Revel, who for example, wrote at least two books in which he tackled the French postmodernists and their grasping for continuity in thought in a post-Soviet world especially as members of the French intellectual class who were Communists began to recant and rethink. Revel obviously took great pleasure in this but he also recognized that it wasn't a homogeneous Marxist blob and that entire branches of the social sciences were not inherently corrupted by Marxist thought even if dominated by Marxist persons.

I say something like that not knowing what Peterson has looked into, only because from what I have seen on the YouTubes, he's just scratched the surface of postmodern critiques even from the "right" let alone the left, and even more let alone postmodernism itself. But he may be dumbing down his research for Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin.

The formats he goes on for his fans are really not the best. I mean has he even gone on that guy who wears a leather jacket with no shirt on's channel? When does he debate fellow Canadian Jason Unruhe? Oh wait, they both despise identity politics...

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #502 on: March 17, 2018, 02:01:53 AM »
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.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to make that implication. I was mainly just trying to address the idea that Nazis are just as a matter of fact, reprehensible people that no one would support, if not for the fact that they're denied a platform (given to everyone else). Basically, if Nazis would garner support for ANY reason whatsoever, well, that would that either there's a LOT of people out there who are not "in their right mind", or that blowback against things like campus protests are indeed rightfully justified.

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #503 on: March 17, 2018, 02:46:09 AM »
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.

I think a lot of people would make this distinction intuitively and I'm not sure how well it holds up under scrutiny.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #504 on: March 17, 2018, 07:33:58 AM »
oh, yes, i do agree with that, that line of thought was related to where i was trying to condense what i think is the Peterson (and etoliate?) argument that places a great weight or faith on the discussion or debate process itself deflating (to use a lack of better term) a Spencer's potential power

i think you could maybe even argue that the reason they see the protest and shutting down of such discussion/debate as harmful is less an interest in say Spencer being heard, than in others opportunity to refute him and deny him power

i could be off base here though (especially with etoliate's views as i may be ascribing him too much of peterson's), and i just want to re-iterate so it's clear that i don't agree with this or give much value to it as a strategy to change minds

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #505 on: March 17, 2018, 07:35:54 AM »
i mean, if someone endlessly dominating debate was all that's needed you'd all be mocking the corporate state's claim to a legitimate monopoly on the use of violence

seagrams hotsauce

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #506 on: March 17, 2018, 11:35:43 AM »
Its only a Jordan Peterson thread to certain people.

Like maybe the guy who's been passionately defending this sobby muppet for 11 pages

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #507 on: March 17, 2018, 01:39:04 PM »
You can protest Spencer. It's the idea of shutting down his right to speak and punching him that backfires.

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #508 on: March 17, 2018, 01:42:30 PM »
Don't think Spencer's the best example for that right now.

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #509 on: March 17, 2018, 02:23:06 PM »
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?

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #510 on: March 17, 2018, 02:31:23 PM »
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.

:thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking :thinking

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #511 on: March 17, 2018, 02:34:45 PM »
Yes, we know that you don't understand the violence boundary Mandark. We know now you don't understand this whole conversation.

agrajag

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #512 on: March 17, 2018, 02:54:31 PM »
Jordan Peterson is a goober

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #513 on: March 17, 2018, 03:04:16 PM »
ProTip 1. Never follow Mandark's lead

The violence boundary is an interpersonal sphere between two or more people conversing directly within a group. A speaker addressing a crowd is not having a one-to-one conversation level. The people who slide up and punch him aren't even in the conversation.

See, what may be boundaries between you and I may not necessarily be so with another party. It's not something that applies by just about speaking. It's about directly speaking to a someone. Now that shapes how we speak with reservation in all matters and that applies to someone attacking you personally who may not even be in your vicinity, but it doesn't really work in the same interpersonal level for someone speaking to a crowd.

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #514 on: March 17, 2018, 03:07:57 PM »
See, what may be boundaries between you and I

"you and me"

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #515 on: March 17, 2018, 03:08:51 PM »


Interpersonal conversation: 5 people, 2 college girls, Damon and Afleck, and blonde college douche. 

Threat applied by someone in the conversation. Ends conversation. Boundary re-established.

If some random person from the bar ran in and punched one of them it would not be the violence boundary. It would just be a random dick.

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #516 on: March 17, 2018, 03:15:42 PM »
why?

Rufus

  • 🙈🙉🙊
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #517 on: March 17, 2018, 04:29:35 PM »
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?
Has this borne out?

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #518 on: March 17, 2018, 04:38:35 PM »
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=richard%20spencer

Absolutely nothing until around 2016 election. Second spike coincides with the first punch video. Other spikes with media storms over him and other punches. Top related term is punch.

Note that Spencer had been running alt-right websties since 2012.

Rufus

  • 🙈🙉🙊
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #519 on: March 17, 2018, 04:45:47 PM »
I don't think much can be concluded from searches of his name.

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #520 on: March 17, 2018, 04:51:26 PM »
Well I don't really find your question to be anything other than a shitpost.

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.

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #521 on: March 17, 2018, 04:52:52 PM »
Spencer just announced in this past week that he's pulling back on campus appearances in large part cause of antifa.

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #522 on: March 17, 2018, 04:54:46 PM »


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
- Lindsay Shepherd is more attractive than I noticed before

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #523 on: March 17, 2018, 05:07:04 PM »
The Steyn show probably has tv make-up artists for her.

I think for the young people that dive into this thing that it will be harsh on them at first. They aren't used to public speaking or massive attention.

I told people that problematic was a weaselword and the one response I got was "No, it's not. It means something is sort of messed up for some reason."  I was like  :shaq2

Rufus

  • 🙈🙉🙊
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #524 on: March 17, 2018, 05:16:06 PM »
Well I don't really find your question to be anything other than a shitpost.

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.
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.

jakefromstatefarm

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #525 on: March 18, 2018, 06:50:59 PM »
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....
Frame problem:
http://groups.umd.umich.edu/cis/course.des/cis479/projects/frame/welcome.html
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frame-problem/
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).

The ‘functionalism’ I’m talking about is the social ontology that Peterson subscribes to.* If we explain social phenomena like this: “conservative political movements play a role in the preservation of human life by incubating society in times of natural disaster/disease” - that means that we understand certain premises of society to hold, namely:

i) social phenomena are primarily understood by the particular role they play as part of a whole
ii) this ‘whole’ can be construed as a kind of organism that logically precedes its constituent parts and strives toward some goal, as opposed to a machine which would entail more of a bottom up approach and is more agnostic with respect to ends
iii) this end/goal/telos can be realized without any of the parts (so, including individual agents) actually knowing what it is, or how to realize it
and I think we can tentatively posit iv) this end is infinite self perpetuation

The points I’m raising are that iii, above, directly conflicts with his imperative on setting ones house in order before passing judgment on what needs to be changed. You totally don’t need to thoroughly understand a problem if The Good can be realized without it being consciously pursued. If you want a coherent worldview, you need to toss one of these out, and if it’s iii that gets tossed out, then that has consequences for Peterson’s functionalism. If intentionality is sacrosanct, then the genetic understanding of moral truth is undermined to the extent that it relies upon people unwittingly transmitting information across generations.

I also want to know where he’s getting iv from, to what extent he’s actually committed to it, and whether or not he provides alternatives to it. Because from what I’ve seen, for Peterson, self preservation is both the criterion to diagnose whether the good is being realized and is the actual good itself. I want to know if that’s actually the case.

 Those are the two main points I’m wondering about.**
Quote
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.


*or, more accurately, sometimes subscribes to. I don’t think he’s consistent on this and flip flops on his view of what social reality really ‘is’. Sometimes he’s an organic functionalist, sometimes he’s and out and out positivist.
**i also think you might could get away with saying that ii has a sort of tension  with his Cold War like taxonomy where collectivism = bad. But I’m not sure how serious this tension might be

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #526 on: March 18, 2018, 07:10:55 PM »

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #527 on: March 18, 2018, 07:26:30 PM »
It's from his book. He poses a bunch of questions for himself and anyone on how to live a life and deal with problems. I read it as: When you're called to answer then stand up and state what you know despite it being imperfect.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #528 on: March 19, 2018, 03:29:47 AM »
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
CANADIANS
i mostly like mark steyn despite his flaws, but this setup is terrible, TURN THE CHAIRS MORE FFS

spoiler (click to show/hide)
also i've never thought of him as an ideal long form interviewer, like he'd be better doing a daily show/colbert type thing where he can do his extended riffs and jokes and such on topics and then when he interviews someone it's for an edited down five to ten minute segment
[close]

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #529 on: March 19, 2018, 03:39:49 AM »

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #530 on: March 19, 2018, 03:43:34 AM »
I dont have a clue who he is, googled and Wikipedia says he's a conservative Canadian, is that like a left leaning democrat in US terms? :thinking

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #531 on: March 19, 2018, 03:46:23 AM »
He spent the 00's cheering on the Iraq war and warning everyone that Muslims were going to overrun the planet etc.

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #532 on: March 19, 2018, 04:00:48 AM »
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.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #533 on: March 19, 2018, 04:02:43 AM »
breh, i said this before, back when syph was promoting him regularly and i said the same thing and you inquired, i think he's often legitimately funny (it's a Brit-like humor, much like his surely adopted accent) and generally smarter than most conservatives but i like him in the same way i like Rush or Michael Savage, less than where i might agree with them but also versus say how i like Sean Hannity for his unironic stupidity

and i made fun of his immigration stances considering he's been technically abusing the visa and immigration system for most of his career, like living solely in NH for decades, doing most all of his work in the U.S. but still refusing to become an American citizen, i'm also convinced he uses his semi-nebulous status to his advantage in his many legal suits

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #534 on: March 19, 2018, 04:04:29 AM »
also, his frettting about the rise of Islam and the multiculturalism of the Left was that it would 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 :ufup

spoiler (click to show/hide)
:doge
[close]

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #535 on: March 19, 2018, 04:09:31 AM »
his fretting about the rise of islam is that he hates muslims

he's bad

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #536 on: March 19, 2018, 04:16:57 AM »
it's called caring about western civilization, maybe you should try it sometime

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #537 on: March 19, 2018, 04:40:17 AM »
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.

desert punk

  • ENDUT! HOCH HECH!
  • Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #538 on: March 19, 2018, 04:55:57 AM »
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.

Where I live people too like to flock to those places and eat their delicious food. But it doesn't prevent them shitting on Muslims :idont

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #539 on: March 19, 2018, 05:04:26 AM »
Eh, it's more than just food, workplaces here offer long lunches on Friday for mosque, religious holidays despite not being public holidays are made allowances for, we generally like each other and watch cricket together and mingle without issues etc