The Intellectual Wank Dad [ ot ] jordan peterson Jordan Peterson JORDAN PETERSON

[Momo]

, 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.



 

It's like you didnt read my entire two sentence comment 

[warcock]

, 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.

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.

[Oblivion]

, 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.

A JP fanboy begging the Left to be more politically correct so as not to hurt the fee fees of right-wingers.

[warcock]

Could u change your name to warcock pl...oh nvm

Im gonna rape you stro. After that bjj no real world fight application taco remington.

[Brehvolution]

Tweet error (does not exist)

https://twitter.com/InnerPartisan/status/973637640846233601

[naff]

 

"ALL HELL" is a minute of disruption to their lecture?  wouldn't be surprised if it was a plant by Peterson for the drama, and to give that cuck something interesting to discuss.

 

[Mandark]

Okay guys let's get this discussion back on track.

Tweet error (does not exist)

https://twitter.com/shujaxhaider/status/963820282527014917

[etiolate]

, 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.

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.

The left that interacts with Peterson certainly does not do argue with reason. He is targeting people who are arguing for equity, so when he says there will be inequality but you have to adjust that inequality to acceptable levels or else the whole thing falls down... they won't accept that.

[Rufus]

Tweet error (does not exist)

https://twitter.com/InnerPartisan/status/973637640846233601

How very postmodern.

[Oblivion]

I'm guessing "equity" is the hot, new right wing buzzword, like postmodernism, whose meaning is essentially whatever one wants it to mean at any given instance.

Which is, amusingly enough, quite a postmodern way of thinking!

[Oblivion]

pretty sure that started as a liberal meme

I should really attend more of those meetings since I've literally never heard that term being used (in the context of leftist politics) before.


In other news, have we discussed how Jordan feels about the gays getting married?

[Oblivion]

Oh I've seen that image, but not with the word "equity" before.

[El Babua]

Look at those browns trying to watch the game without paying for a ticket 

[etiolate]

Plus, the kids are being scouted by both teams.

[Brehvolution]

They get to watch without a ticket because the fence isn't that high.

[etiolate]

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.

[warcock]

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.

I bought all his books in order to formulate a refutation to his non statistical work, hes a fucking enormous asshole. I still have not read his work. Intellectuals like blyth and milanovic hold his philosophical framework in high regard so i thought id give his non black swan stuff a spin.

Also from his twitter
Tweet from Emma Rose Hurst (@EmmaRoseHurst)
Emma Rose Hurst (@EmmaRoseHurst) Tweeted:
Something isn’t quite right about this placement @nntaleb #books #skininthegame https://t.co/KOOvS9QxWA

Something isn�t quite right about this placement @nntaleb #books #skininthegame pic.twitter.com/KOOvS9QxWA

— Emma Rose Hurst (@EmmaRoseHurst) March 4, 2018

https://twitter.com/EmmaRoseHurst/status/970319915612884992?s=17

[etiolate]

Pretty sure Taleb and Peterson read each other.

[benjipwns]

You've seriously never seen this before?

(Image removed from quote.)

Pretty sure I first saw this like a decade ago when I started highschool.

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.)

They assume no one will notice this degradation in living standards by attempting to distract us with the bread and circuses of the ballgame.

[benjipwns]

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

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?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/mar/16/jordan-b-peterson-self-help-guru-we-love-to-hate

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?

[benjipwns]

it tells me i'm great and don't suck in the footnote though

[jakefromstatefarm]

it's such a waste of time.

how so?

[etiolate]

yah I had to skim the current affairs piece

that one is a huge effort troll

[Oblivion]

Complaining about verbosity in a fucking JORDAN PETERSON thread!  

[etiolate]

Its only a Jordan Peterson thread to certain people.

[Oblivion]

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.

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:

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.

Once again, the Western Hemisphere's leading conservative "intellectual", ladies and gentlemen.

[warcock]

Why the fuck is this dude still in Canada is what I want to know. Fighting the good fight?

[etiolate]

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.)

[Oblivion]

Complaining about length is extra special hilarious because the only reason that article is that long to begin with is because it's full of Peterson's annoying, rambling quotes. It would probably be 1/3 the length it is if it wasn't for that.

[Oblivion]

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.

You are taking a troll piece seriously btw.

Every piece of criticism is a "troll piece" to you, my dude.

(As did Peterson, as he did not like the article at all.)

YOU DON'T SAY 

[Oblivion]

Serious question, et: Has there EVER been any "legitimate" form of criticism leveled against JP, in your estimation? Or is everyone just simply jealous of his sexual prowess?

[Rufus]

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.

Count on it being filed as misinterpetation if he does decide to read it.

[etiolate]

Here are my criticisms of Peterson:

-He gets caught up dealing with the far leftists that fight him and doesn't often give his criticisms of the right.
-He's more internet savvy than you'd expect for a grandpa, but he still makes mistakes. Gets into twitter arguments. Doesn't know how to tell a fake.

Those are the lighter criticisms. The real issues I have:

-Doesn't get into exactly what he means by cultural marxism. Doesn't dive into whether Marx intended for this reading at all. Just sort of shits on the whole thing. Should be more descriminate.
-Similar note is that there's a far better reading of Derrida than he gives him. He paints Derrida as an evil entity. I am not sure Derrida intended for the mess of interpretation we have now.
-In both cases, should clarify that he deals with the product of these thoughts and that is what matters. He mocks the "not real communism" excuse, but doesn't get into how pointless that take is. When you have something creating real world problems then it's rather disgusting to sit there and pratter about the "real" form of the thing that is fucking people up.
-By his own admission, he is not well versed in Islam and doesn't bring it up much in his religious studies. Should research it far more than he has.
-Defaults to traditionalism too much.
-Misses that some people work well in chaos. Recently, he went over the meaning behind "clean your room", but I also think there are people who operate at a level that appears cluttered and messy to others. Order may not actually give them anything. You also want good people who can operate in chaos during chaotic times. You want balance overall, so you want the right chaos around.
-Given everything he's said, he really should be a very outspoken opponent of the US prisons system but doesn't talk about it much. That's one topic that I'd request he get into.


The criticisms thrown at him rarely hit these spots. The only one they seem to hit is the question of what exactly cultural marxism is and what it has to do with Marx.

When you've read a work, you can tell when someone is critiquing it without having read it or understood it. When you've played a game, you can tell when someone is lambasting it without having played it. When you know the piece of work then you know its faults and can tell when others are just squealing like nutters.

[Mandark]

You can't make this stuff up, eh, Nathan J? @NathanJRobinson https://t.co/sm5QD3Jgpf

— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) March 16, 2018

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/974528330115334144


oh nooooooooooooo

[etiolate]

The Nathan kid looks like Thom Wolfe's virgin grandson.

[Mandark]

that the activation of resentment through politics was a dangerous path

 

[Mandark]

jp and his fans clearly resent feminists and maybe just women

[etiolate]

 

[etiolate]

The question itself stated the bill was backed by far left idealogues. He should check on the Bill himself to see if had dangerous language and ideas in it. Gay Marriage itself isn't the issue. The issue is rate of change and whether the people pushing change have any sense as to what they're doing.

The 60 gender identities, gender rainbow, biological sex doesn't really exist, transwomen should be able to physically compete against biological women stuff is bad. If that's the intended direction of the people pushing change then maybe you should say no to what they're up to even if you approve of gay citizens being allowed to marry.

It's not an easy question if you actually care about people.

[Mandark]

In any case, I'm a really orthodox Democrat and would (recently) consider myself a vocal fan. Reconcile that if you can.

"I would have voted for Obama a third time if I could."

[Momo]

I heard something like Sam Harris dissociated himself with some other atheist he was going to speak with recently cause the dude is apparently a serial woman mishandler(dunno what the accusations are, so i hesitate to say molester) what's the deal? Cant remember which podcast i was listening to.

[Mandark]

I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Try again.

google the quote

[etiolate]

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.

The odd thing is that the ritual is never outlawed. It's always about the rights and privileges of marriages not being conveyed to gay relationships. Gay marriage rituals existed before gay marriage laws.

And I agree, the concept and ritual is not torn asunder by gay marriage. It's being destroyed by other factors. There's the chance that people who fight for the privilege of marriage may actually restore some meaning back into it.

[etiolate]

Stro

Should I bother to take you sincerely ever or should I just treat you like a street performer?

[Momo]

I hope you guys dont make Jordan Peterson's ideas a partisan thing else you're going to throw some interesting conversions into the typical us politics garbage fire. Over the last two pages I've called JP a loon as well as agreed with things he said, I hope we can stop short of partisan attack and defend actions and give some thought to what makes sense and criticize what's dumb and not just the same garbage that happens everywhere else on US centric boards.

[Mandark]

I know what the quote's from, I'm responding to the underlying accusation.

then you should  see how "i voted for hillary" reinforces rather than rebuts it

[Nintex]

Jordan's problem is this:

"...So now this is a profound question. You ask yourself why do butterflies fly and people don't. Why do people say: "I feel butterflies" when they are in love of feel like they match that concept of love?

"Well you have to go back to the 16th century. Our brain works in funny ways. We remember everything. We pass onto the next generation, we don't know how that works. However in the 18th century the socialists tried something new. They tried to use bugs to torture the higher educated that they had captured. They then took a cocoon. Like a small cocoon and had their victims eat it. It was really gruesome stuff. Then they released their victims. Onto the world, like all of us are released onto the world."

Joe Rogan: "Wow, that's really interesting"

"This is actually the meaning of a Bible verse too. Remember when Jacob sacrificed a sheep in front of god? This had the same effect. So anyway a guy gets a cocoon. He goes about his life and then he meets a girl. They're all happy, he's about to marry. You know the stories of men and women of how they marry. That happiness. Or more like, the chemical reaction in their brain. There is no real happiness just an urge to reproduce and to self protect on the part of the females. Which means that they will find a shelter and be 'molested' as it were voluntarily to produce offspring. You see the same thing happening today in European society where women throw themselves at the migrants, hoping that they will survive the coming purge. I can tell you, that doesn't end well. It never does. It's an equality of outcome and you can't have that. It will never stop."

"We call that marriage and it's a beautiful thing but really we don't really understand it. So this guy, he's happy and then suddenly, pains. Stomach aches. Incredible pain. The pain you feel when someone puts a sword through your penis. Yes, that hurts. So anyhoo this guy then goes to a doctor and before he arrives there, his intestines have been completely eaten by the butterfly. Because the butterfly wants to escape so it starts eating it's way out. Much like the rat torture. People are evil, remember that. Inherently evil and vile and terrible creatures. So the guy dies and the women is left all by herself and then they comeback. The socialists, the well doers and they say: "Oh we give you food stamps, we give you shelter, we shag you from time to time so you don't feel lonely." That's what these people, these cultural marxists do. They rip out your intestines. Not literally but figuratively. Like if anyone still understands what that means. And then there's always the question. The question I ask people when they come to see me and they feel they're being eaten... ready to be devoured by society and then I ask them Wat are you gonna do aboot eet? *teary eyes* "

Joe Rogan: "Woah, Far out man, that's like totally true, Like I know that butterflies and shit. I mean, I was talking to Eddie the other day and we totally had the same vibe going"

Eddie Bravo: "Like this was like this time I had like too many drugs and I felt like I was being eaten like from behind but actually I dropped down the stairs"

Jordan Peterson: "YES that is EXACTLY what I MEAN"

[Momo]

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'

[etiolate]

y'all are the B students of life

[Mandark]

by saying they voted for a black person twice, an action that wasn't irreconcilable with being racist

there you go

being an orthodox dem isn't irreconcilable with resenting feminists

[etiolate]

Also, we should stop acting like disliking third wave radfems is a far right/mysigonistic view. The majority of people can't stand them, which includes a lot of women.

[Mandark]

Ok, Mandark. You caught me. I hate women.

you keep bringing in stuff that i haven't said

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

[Rufus]

The majority of people can't stand them, which includes a lot of women.

Is this just a gut feeling?

[etiolate]

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.

good old mandy

[etiolate]

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.

[Mandark]

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]

kaffkatrappin up in my thread

smh

[jakefromstatefarm]

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]

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]

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?

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?