Damn, what a take down. Will be book marking this.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Jordan Peterson - The "Intellectual" We Deserve
- Thread starter Deleted member 25709
- Start date
- Status
Damn, what a take down. Will be book marking this.
Everyone hates him because he fluffs up his language with nonsense?
He's hurting the trans community
And is a gateway into the Alt-right... see Shepherd, Lindsey
So you really didn't read the article but are adamant on arguing and defending him without knowledge of the substance of the thread?
For someone asking for answers, when someone presents you an avenue to get them, dismissing them seems rather strange.
That's a pretty good summary. A lot of his ideas seem to come from religious conservatism. He's loved by the alt-right because he fought against trans people on C16 and supporting his bigoted idea lead to him losing his funding at the university he teaches. So he got funding from Rebel Media which is like the Canadian Breitbart, then went to patreon. Now his books are selling really well too. It doesn't help that every people that throws themselves at him on TV are well below him intellectually which lead to him being painted as a victim. They all want a soundbite where he clearly say awful stuff but are not so subtle about it and he ends up winning unfortunately.
yeah i see that, none of the things he says are uniquely him at all
i've never sought him out but he was on joe rogan a couple times when i still listened to that (definitely making myself look worse here lol, but w/e) so i heard him talk a few times. never heard him anywhere else though, except through threads on here.
Peterson is worthless. His episode on EconTalk was so atrocious, I'm this close to dropping that off my list.
that was incredible
that was incredible
lol. dont care about jordan peterson but the sam harris parts were hilarious.
People like Peterson are only popular because the right has so few figures who aren't rambling fools. The bar is that low. And he can be very alluring to (generally young) people who aren't familiar with academic language or personalities, particularly when such a personality promises empowerment over their particular imagined oppressors (Marxism, multi-culturalism, feminism, etc.). He has the academic-intellectual facade of a Sam Harris combined with the politics of a mid-century conservative.
Current Affairs, on the other hand, is a very good publication and I'm glad this article is giving them attention!
Here's another new article about Peterson from the New York Review of Books. It treads some of the same ground as the Affairs article, but also digs deeper into his pseudo-philosophy, revealing even more of his pernicious reactionism, and connecting him to a greater tradition of gender chauvinism, anti-egalitarianism, and proto-fascism seen at times of anti-intellectualism and inequality.
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/19/jordan-peterson-and-fascist-mysticism/
Current Affairs, on the other hand, is a very good publication and I'm glad this article is giving them attention!
Here's another new article about Peterson from the New York Review of Books. It treads some of the same ground as the Affairs article, but also digs deeper into his pseudo-philosophy, revealing even more of his pernicious reactionism, and connecting him to a greater tradition of gender chauvinism, anti-egalitarianism, and proto-fascism seen at times of anti-intellectualism and inequality.
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/19/jordan-peterson-and-fascist-mysticism/
Last edited:
Joe is his perfect mark, since he's a largely non-confrontational meathead who is alarmed by "the SJW's" due to being an edgy comedian, and who has an enormous podcast platform to help JP's image problem. He's defended JP so many times and has never had on anyone intelligent enough to rebuke any of his horseshit.
Also, I'm disappointed that the article points out that Malcolm Gladwell praised him. Malcolm's great, except when he's rambling about french fries on his podcast.
Last edited:
What I know about toddlers and little kids is that they are VERY perceptive about people who are nice and who are not nice. They are only going to give attention to you if you engage with them at their level and give them YOUR attention.
I'm wondering what videos show him attacking minorities? I was unaware and would like to see what he said.
Not trying to troll I honestly havent seen a video of him attacking minorities. If you could show me one cool. If he is being offensive and racist in context that's not cool.
So my roommate is a huge closeted asshole and transphobe. He is, basically, fairly intelligent and proficient in his major. However he holds a whole lot of personal beliefs that sound smart and correct, except when subjected to any degree of critical review fall apart. (Not to mention lacking in empathy.) His favorite and most respected speaker is Jordan Peterson. In overhearing the things Peterson was saying in the videos he watched, I was super skeptical, especially knowing the beliefs my roommate adheres to.
I just wanted to say that this is exactly my roommate. It's infuriating at times.
I just wanted to say that this is exactly my roommate. It's infuriating at times.
Oh, God. I just got back into EconTalk, and I was unaware that Russ had him on.
Come on, man.
He literally testified against giving trans folk human rights protections.
That's why he even got famous
can't help but feel i kinda deserve to be trolled for clicking on a peterson topic
"identity politics" is thinly-veiled right-wing reframing of civil rights; to care about minorities is to care about those issues.
it's important to recognize basic dog whistles before engaging oh fucksake you're still trolling aren't you
He is a well spoken conservative voice when most conservatives look insane. I'm not a fan, but he has never been overtly offensive. His book was meh, standard self-help tripe.
Bad example given he was sorta right. He argued about 'compelled speech', whatever that is. The Lindsay Shepard thing absolutely proved people would miss-characterize and misuse the addition.
What did he say? I know he is against being forced (by law) to use gender pronouns, It makes him a bit of a dick but he has a point to it, and I wouldn't call it attacking minorities.
This is what I know about his views on transgender views.
maybe this will help
...oh, yeah i remember that dude
this feels a bit like when people'd ask to prove gg was misogynist...when the mess literally came from slut-shaming
agreed, more folks should
He's insane though.
He compares gender neutral pronouns to genocidal marxism and declares Frozen propaganda and not art because he didn't see the Hans is a bad guy twist coming.
Certain types are easily fooled by polysyllabic bigotry, while others appreciate it as a more palatable version of their own beliefs.
https://www.cba.org/News-Media/News/2017/May/CBA-position-on-Bill-C-16
He didn't have a point though.
He was factually wrong, according to both the Canadian Bar Association and Supreme Court. That's why people were angry, if the bill did what he said it did he would have a point.
Jordan Peterson isn't an idiot, he was well aware of what he was doing
Jordon Peterson argues well, and i see how some can agree with him on some points but i find plenty of his arguments and ideals fundamentally wrong. I live in the town that recently held a talk from him, and while i don't think i'd ever protest him (really i don't think hes worth the attestation, and it only helps him), a small part of me would've liked to as the worship he gets around his persona i find disingenuous, even dangerous. Hes the bigots intellectual. He also spreads a lot of misinformation about things like bill C-17 even after being proven to be false that creates many bogus right wing talking points against our current Canadian government and laws thats you hear repeated internationally by ring pundits. Hes wilfully ignorant, as so much of modern day conservatism is, and that does undermine any of his actual points i may have previously seen some validity to, as now it just all seems a bit insidious.
Last edited:
I actually want to see this, LOL.
Well duh. To my knowledge, his biggest issue with C-16 was ambiguity on language, and his idea of 'compelled speech'. Which isn't an outright attack on Trans-people, but that knowledge is mostly from CBC podcasts I listen to during my commute.
That said. I know how this topic/poster combo always works out and I'll probably duck out soon.
Then I will separate his views on the transgender community from his other views. I wish I had some details about what he said when he testified, but I hope its not as simple as him being bigoted against trans people, and more about him and 'free speech'.
A friend tried to get me into him a while ago because the sort of vague philosophical musings he gives can be compelling from a distance.
But you do sort of see the seams of what he's actually trying to do when you start noticing the contradictions.
Something as obvious as we are all fundamentally imperfect and then a few hundred pages later decrying people who engage in political activism because they're imperfect might sail by unnoticed until you realise he's basically laying down a praxis where activism is wrong, probably because he dislikes the majority of sorts of people who are political activists and their causes.
Similarly when he speaks of the disease of youth activism beginning in the 1960s as an abstract, and being foolish because young people don't know anything he's very careful not to mention what was being protested. Specifically it was racial segregation and the Vietnam War, both of which being things young people were correct about.
But you do sort of see the seams of what he's actually trying to do when you start noticing the contradictions.
Something as obvious as we are all fundamentally imperfect and then a few hundred pages later decrying people who engage in political activism because they're imperfect might sail by unnoticed until you realise he's basically laying down a praxis where activism is wrong, probably because he dislikes the majority of sorts of people who are political activists and their causes.
Similarly when he speaks of the disease of youth activism beginning in the 1960s as an abstract, and being foolish because young people don't know anything he's very careful not to mention what was being protested. Specifically it was racial segregation and the Vietnam War, both of which being things young people were correct about.
he literally did not do that, unless you have a source I am unaware of. he's pretty cagey with his language. obvs. pronouns are not human rights. but that probably doesn't matter, because...
... that he did do, and is every bit as bonkers as it seems.
I have seen him criticize radical right as well as radical left. I personally don't attribute myself to any party, and I absolutely disagree with the people that like to rally him as their leader, but I enjoy his University lectures. Particularly the psychology focused ones out of UofT.
Also that Cathy Newman interview was ace.
Also that Cathy Newman interview was ace.
Im honestly trying not to troll. Call me dumb or ignorant, i'm trying to improve my behavior here. Im fine with being enlightened or educated by posts/posters.
You should look into it more. You aren't informed.
I'm not really sure what your last sentence means either but it seems disingenuous at first glance.
I feel like you can even replace "Jordan Peterson" with "Sam Harris" and not be wrong either. A lot of these "intellectuals" on the right that talk about things beyond their scope talk in vagueries and generalities, as if they're trying to make themselves have plausible deniability (and not even doing it well) if you accuse them of bigotry.
this is a pretty good description of the dude, IMO.
basically veiled social attacks cloaked in thick layers of pseudogibberish that acts like a pair of shiny keys dancing in front of a receptive audience
- Status