Listened to him on Joe Rogan. Some stuff he said sounded reasonable, and then a lot of it sounded like babbling pseudo science nonsense. I dunno. Whatever.
-
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.
Jordan Peterson - The "Intellectual" We Deserve
- Thread starter Deleted member 25709
- Start date
- Status
I guess it depends how far you take it and how much you lose in the process. Removing bad aspects of society like racist and sexists laws is different than an attack on western culture and beliefs as a whole. Again I am inferring why he was so opposed to the law, not arguing on his behalf. But Oversoul is much more versed on this.
My main point of being here is not to defend JP's POV, since I have only watched a handful of his videos, but to point out the inability to discuss his theories in the thread. Personally I feel people in opposition to his viewpoints are far better served by arguing against them, rather then simply calling him an alt right nazi.
Can you please quote anyone in the last 100 replies that is simply just calling him an alt right nazi and not adding context to such a statement?
No problem at all. I've been following Peterson for quite some time now. The campus video where he get's yelled at by students and tries to listen anyway was the first I think, but I did not find that interesting.
Than youtube recommended me some excerpts from his lectures, which somehow caught my attention. I have studied psychology, but decided it was not for and quit. Here was a guy who made psychology interesting again by trying to find the psycho-analytical threads in large cultural stories like Lion King and Harry Potter.
It kind of went from there. The strong focus on resposibillity really resonated with me because my life was very unclear and chaotic at the time. I had no idea what to do next and felt kind of lost. I always grew up with freedom as my personal holy grail and was (and sometimes am) a selfish and impulsive person. Peterson made me rethink this conviction about freedom as a goal.
Now, I try to focus more on responsibillity and see freedom as a basic need and a gift that is to uses responsibilly.
As far as politics go, I have always been somewhat contrarian and centrist. So I greatly appreciate Peterson call to return to critical thinking and common sense in this age of hyper-partisanship.
He doesn't do this at all
You're talking about the guy who thinks Frozen is propaganda and not art because he didn't see the Hans twist comingm
I'm talking about the guy who says stay the hell away from the extreme right and extrme left idealogues and think critically as an individual.
He doesn't back this up though by using language like Cultural Marxism and attacking feminism.
That's his thing, as the OP suggests.
Reasonable but trite content, babble of big words surrounding it that allow the reader to add their own meaning, PLUS a bunch of alt-right style talking points and dog whistles and other quite shameful shit (like his masculine/feminine nonsense).
He's a hack, and he only got big after he went in on the anti-sjw stuff.
Jordan Peterson just crumbling when asked to expand on his makeup and workplace argument is absolutely hilarious to read in its entirety, so thank you for transcribing. The dude's evasive as hell if you interrogate his points with any depth.
I'm flabbergasted at that video. Gender equality is a screen for Marxists because they realized that the workers utopia is in the Soviet Union and it is murderous. Like what the fuck. Is there anything about what he calls the transgressions against western thought? The video didn't have the interviewers part about that.
OP
OP
This is the latest academic research I found on the different meanings of Cultural Marxism
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/rec3.12258
- By Jerome Jamin, 2018
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/rec3.12258
- By Jerome Jamin, 2018
I hear you, I'm just being (maybe a little pedantically) more specific about how I think people use it.
I thought his twelfth rule for life was strange, but then we get into this conspiracy here. I don't know, guys. I don't know how someone can here that and agree with him.
There is a reason why people keep calling Peterson alt-right or adjacent or whatever. It's because he keeps using terms the alt-right uses. Transgressions against Western thought, Cultural Marxism, railing against the idea of privilege, thinking that the work relationships between men and women was better forty years ago... these are alt-right concepts straight up.
What is Western thought? What are Western beliefs? Why must they be protected?
No one here is seriously asking what he means by this. The people posing the rhetorical question understand exactly what he means.
Do you think in the future children will be scared to go to bed lest Foucault and Derrida grab them in their sleep? This is the future conservatives want.
Thanks for the answer!
I certainly don't view him nor his work like you do, especially with regard to him and his politics as being "common sense" and him not being extremist, least on certain issues, but if his stuff helped you to be a better, more thoughtful person, I suppose that's a good thing.
I guess one last question if I may. You claim to be a centrist, but Peterson does attract a vocal, don't know how major or minor, fanbase that is very extremist; i.e., a lot of red-pill, men going their own way, anti-feminists, and anti-social justice type of folk that have really hateful views about women, minorities, and whatnot; and then there's the alt-right that gleam on and support him as well. I'm not trying to do a "guilt by association" thing, but do you ever wonder why he attacks those crowds in such a seemingly large and passionate way? Do you think they just have a profound misunderstanding of him when Peterson talks about feminist, transgender, and social political issues?
Saying that communism is bad is one thing. But saying that modern social justice struggles in western liberal democracies are Marxist and therefore Communist and therefore inevitably leading to the gulag is intensely fucking stupid and the bedrock of his entire worldview.
Also I want to be clear, there is a difference between Marxism and Communism, and people who conflate the two tend to be telling on themselves a little bit
Isn't outright dismissing anything from what you consider an extreme, in and of itself, a way of not thinking critically? There's a lot of potential for misuse in labeling things you disagree with as "extremism" so you can dismiss it without actually engaging in critical thinking. Thinking critically as you suggest would mean you'd have to take into account every part of the spectrum, extremes and everything in between. Truly thinking critically would involve understanding that something can be learned or gained even from "wrong" ideas.
What is so enticing to self-admitted lost men that they get into Jordan Peterson, cults, self-help gurus, pseudoscience peddlers, and other extremists? There was that guy earlier in the thread (Plok64) whose brother got into JP cause his life was unclear and transformed his life for the better apparently, and now the same is for Oversoul on this page.
They fall into these rabbit holes on Youtube, a platform ripe for extremism where facts and sources don't have to play, and come out the other side as ardent fans who will defend his contrarian conservative take on Disney cartoon movies with a serious face.
They fall into these rabbit holes on Youtube, a platform ripe for extremism where facts and sources don't have to play, and come out the other side as ardent fans who will defend his contrarian conservative take on Disney cartoon movies with a serious face.
Their white, heterosexual dreams will be haunted by the gender equality dystopia brought forth by Derrida
The world is changing, a lot of the white men are having their privilege called out and questioned and slowly, very slowly, seeing it start to edge away and mental panic is starting to set in, making them more in tune with these extremist ideas they precieve as being 'taken' from them.
That's my feeling about it anyway
If someone literally learned everything they know about politics and history from reactionary youtubers it can be hard to understand why other people are actually right and not just misinformed. I think.
No one is doing this
Fucking thank you
Haha, you're welcome. I'm a bit mad at myself for spending so much time on such absolute drivel.
If you can stand a probably-stoned bearded slob ranting into his cellphone Matt Christman of Chapo had a really good Periscope about what it is that draws them in and why it works.
And beyond this, if someone's spouting alt-right nonsense to argue against leftist beliefs, and yet doesn't really say anything against conservative beliefs... I'm not really sure how they can possibly be considered a centrist.
It's true there is a difference between "not understanding a thing" and a thing being "nonsensical." One claims it's the authors fault, the other claims it's the reader's fault. I'm clearly siding with the reader being at fault concerning Maps of Meaning. His other critiques of Peterson's work I tend to agree with but, again, he's trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I also never said the words used were too "technical" or "big" - but conceptually he's just not getting it. That is fact, whether you think it's his fault or Petersons.
Wrong - he complains about both (again, throwing everything at a wall and seeing what sticks). He specifically questioned the definitional meaning of certain words/phrases:
Critic said:
It's especially ironic when both of the phrases the guy bitches about are clearly positioned as flourishing language to supplement the more direct language.
Peterson said:
I mean it's OK for this guy to say he doesn't like flourishing language, but to pretend it's some disqualifying mark of incomprehensibility is a blatantly disingenuous reading.
And this critics response is "You just don't get it maaaaaaan. Your boy JP has always talked nonesense and you just don't know you're being duped." Or at least, that's what he claims for Maps and Meaning. Me trying to claim there's any value to this book whatsoever is essentially requiring me to call this guy out in this way, because there's no other move I could make. He even anticipates this move because he knows the trap he laid in which you're forced to either totally agree with him or else he gets to call you out as a duped egomaniac. He's the one who set himself up in this position as some Omnipotent Peterson critic, so don't come crying when I play the only card he dealt me.
The critic buying his insurance plan against all possible disagreement said:
And neither does this critic. He has degrees in politics and sociology focusing on African American studies. Where exactly does this leave us when a non-philosophy guy critiques a non-philosophy guys philosophy theory? A whole lot of nowhere.
If the true things Peterson says is so banal (1), then why does the author so happily conceded that he become popular because of these true things?
Critic said:
(1) So Peterson's true statements are overly obvious and boring, yet the left has failed to even offer even these banal truths to provide a political alternative to Peterson? Doesn't that mean these truths aren't banal, because people are highly interested in these truths? And in actuality I agree with the critic here. A large part of Peterson's popularity is filling a gap that the left has refused to fill out of fear of treading on some of the more extremist elements of the left.
(2) This comes down to what I said at the beginning. The fault of the critic's inability to comprehend (specifically concerning Maps of Meaning) either lies at his own feet or at Petersons. You already know where I place the blame.
(3) This is called flourishing language, and it's often surrounded by a context that clarified it.
I didn't ascribe secret motives. These motives are plain as day. The tone of this whole article, with the consistently irreverent jabs and pokes and guffaws clearly isn't to win over Peterson fans - or do you actually think that's the purpose this was written? If so, as someone who appreciates Peterson for some things and not for others, this critic failed miserably in convincing me of much, let alone for someone for who is one of his actual fans.
critic said:
See, I can quote the article too! This is the overriding tone. Until he starts talking about how Peterson does make some accurate points. But they're boring points. But left leaning people find them interesting. But actually the points are confusing "like a rorschach test", and people only like his points because they think the points must be good due to how confusing they are! Wait, are we talking about Peterson's first or second book? Maybe Peterson's tweets, Peterson's youtube videos? His interview? A long-winded story Peterson once told that the critic copy-pasted into his article? Who knows? Let's just criticize all of the things all at once in a multitude of ways in a single article and hope something sticks to the wall!
Book blurbs? Come on now, even the critic concedes this point. You did read the whole article, right?
critic said:
Ironically, he never actually answer the question of why Peterson has received legitimate recognition from actual authorities in academia for Maps of Meaning. How convenient for him for forget about that one despite still adding the book into his kitchen sink jamboree. It's easier to just bash and label anyone pushing back against this narrative as an ego-blinded "butthurt JP fanboy" as you so wisely stated.
Additional huge, beloved, gratuitous irony: this critic agrees with the infamous position that Peterson first publicly took that began his snowball of "antiSJW" popularity:
critic said:
I just can't, lol.
Last edited:
Exactly. He mostly goes on conservative talks shows. Never the left. I want him to go on Chapo. Also, you can't be a centrist if you tell people to take their children out of school if the school promotes equity, equality, and the end of white privilege.
I want him to listen to the latest Chapo because he will have a 600 tweet meltdown about it
Thanks, that explains why Jay P's hyper-individualism appeals to people who have lost the locus of control in their lives and are prone to believing that they need order in their lives (hence cleaning up your room with straight shoulders) and chaos (the feminine fearful outside world) is what they have to fight against. It's just too bad this ends up as a reactionary fight rather than caring about others in a collective effort so strive for equality falls by the wayside.
I think that's because neoliberalism also doesn't really offer that either. People are alienated by capitalism. The fascist "we are in a historic battle and you are a hero" is a lot more compelling to these Lost Boys than "America is Already Great."
Something they talk about in the podcast episode that precedes that Periscope is the idea that for so many people, liberalism is mainly the progress of inclusion in mass media. There's no class consciousness, there's no real anti-war message. People don't really see how the Democratic Party or the mainstream media have a way out for them. Representation matters and is good, but these lonely incel NEETs aren't going to be interested in diversity on TV.
I find it fantastic that because he hasn't actually defined Cultural Marxism, his followers just kind of make up their own meanings.
Yeah he's doing a bang-up job of that.
But please, do go on in praising this supposed centrist savior.
"WE ALL GONNA POMO DOWN HERE"
------
This is what happens when I get bored and silly.
So, I think this applies outside of Peterson and really any politics in general, and into a broad topic (that I've contemplated making as a thread), but a lot of it also falls on how these thoughts get exposed to people. It used to be you were introduced to these theories and philosophies and politics in safe, understanding situations: schooling and primarily college/university. Things would get contextualized, explained, and explored from many viewpoints where students are asking questions and different professors giving different answers. Now, if introduced too young to some topics, I posit that they just get blown out and distorted (like, you really saw this with GamerGate and the very basic tenets of feminism and general media theory that caused such an uproar with a fanbase that had no idea on the very basics of how media is explored). And, with YouTube, the great extremist maker that it is, the algorithm will give you more of either what you want, or what will illicit a reaction from you (something totally not what you believe that can further cement your feelings or something that leads you down an even darker alley). Without getting context or historical thinking, it can really corrupt a viewpoint to where someone has no idea that these ways of thinking aren't new and novel, and may just be repackaged pseudo popsci jumbo. To be trite: give a person a knife in a culinary class and they'll learn to chop food; give a person a knife on their own and they may just start wildly stabbing things.
That fallacy doesn't apply to deliberate association, only loose/unrelated ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
No it doesnt because the far right ideology promotes a cult of fake news/reality where you can dismiss counter evidence by pointing to the cultural marxist conspiracy.
There is no left wing equivalent to the far right in its utter reliance on fantasy, victim complexes and conspiracy.
You guys defending this piece of racist shit in this thread really don't even seem to know who he is. It's incredible. You take some completely unoriginal and obvious points about the importance of being an individual and lap up the rest of the crap he spews like it's your job.
And fuck that "extreme left" shit. That is nothing but projection and false equivalence. The extreme right is the biggest threat to countries like Canada and the US. The extreme left isn't.
Er, ok? So why is it his fault and not
Peterson's. He quoted numerous examples of writing that are, at best, convoluted. Why is he wrong that they are at best trite ideas dressed up in florid and convoluted prose? Show, don't tell.
One move you could make is to explain why the passages Robinson takes issue with are actually insightful. Vague and imprecise prose doesn't become insightful simply because you call it "flourishing." That would be more difficult than attacking Robonson's motives, but you could certainly try.
Or because Peterson fans have a rather well-known tendency to do that. You yourself earlier insisted that it was somehow unfair to use quotes from Peterson's book to critique it.
Except Robinson isn't being treated as some towering public intellectual to whom attention must be paid. Peterson is. That's kind of the point of the piece. It's in the first few paragraphs.
Is it your position that nothing that is banal can be popular? I certainly hope not.
Maps of meaning isn't political. I'm not even sure what you're talking about at this point. Peterson's rise is due to "the left" failing to tell sad young boys to sit up straight?
Yes. And you've failed to offer any substantive justification for doing so other than asserting that Peterson must be brilliant because other people say he is and he's popular. You've completely failed to actually defend any of the examples of vague gibberish on their terms, in favor of hand waving about flourishing language.
You haven't explained how the context clarifies it or renders it insightful. You haven't even tried.
The point of the article is to show those unfamiliar with Peterson outside of his attempts to create public controversy how Peterson's work is viewed as brilliant even though it's lightweight, not to convince his fans. I doubt Robinson was expected eating to get many clicks from people who go to YouTubers for life advice.
This is getting silly. The article is a criticism of Peterson's presentation of himself as public intellectual. Of course he is going to talk about numerous statements by Peterson in various forums. It's not a book report.
Pretty disingenuous of you to pull that quote out of context, which actually shows that the controversy was the result of Peterson being foolish or dishonest.
devastating concession by libtard owned by logic master JP said:
I just can't, lol.
The guy claims civil rights marches lead to the gulag. He's as far right as it gets dude. Whether you want to believe it or not.
That is an extreme ideology.
Who even are the extreme left in Canada or USA? If there are any, they have little to no political power.
Maybe I'd take Peterson more seriously if he had any idea of what he's talking about when he steps out of self help. He doesn't understand post modernism or marxism at all. He got famous for wildly misinterpreting a bill. This dude is dumb
peterson: "art can't be made if it has a political point"
totally not peterson: "read 1984"
peterson: "art can't be made if it has a political point"
totally not peterson: "read 1984"
That moment when you realise a freeze peach advocate using the tired "only authoritarian don't welcome all opinions" line would rather punch one of his critics that the nazis that buy all his books.
- Status