Which would be great if he did that using anything but lazy slogans and loose categories.
-
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 haven't seen him do that. Happy to be corrected otherwise, if there are examples.
Universities campuses are enjoying a bout of culture wars at the moment. He seems to be against the silly twerps that turn up at events and make mooing and booing noises. I agree with him when he describes their behaviour as being infantile.
I'm a stay at home dad who has terrible posture and I like my room messy.
Peterson is a loser and a hack. Lol. If walking straight (or insert whatever else he suggests here) helps you, good, enjoy. But that doesn't make you a winner, or better. Trying to say it does, because lobsters, is ridiculous.
Peterson is a loser and a hack. Lol. If walking straight (or insert whatever else he suggests here) helps you, good, enjoy. But that doesn't make you a winner, or better. Trying to say it does, because lobsters, is ridiculous.
Last edited:
What precise language does he use?
This is also ignoring the fact that language is constantly changing.
Peterson outwardly advocates for precise language, but he doesn't practice what he preaches. His writing is laden with obfuscated speech, pained metaphors, and diversions.
Watch any interview where he is pressed on his more inflammatory comments. There might be an entire page in his novel decrying the fact that arguing with women is difficult because you can't hit them, but when asked "hey, it sounds like you want to hit women here" he starts dodging and dancing like a mad man. He always leaves himself enough wiggle room in his statements to back away or reframe his comments. Does that sound like precise language? Sounds like weaselly bullshit to me.
Same with his theories about chaos and order. It's all dragons and feminine queens, and other abstractions. How is any of this shit precise? I think it's a better idea to judge him on his actual use of language than how he says he uses language.
Watch any video where he speaks at length. The man is not precise at all.
Nothing I have read of his suggests his rule about "precise use of language" is something he cares to live by himself.
And not even his most ardent defenders can agree on if he's atheist or not.
Such precision! It's amazing because the point of the article is that he's not precise. The dude even said he doesn't want to be boxed in. When asked if he thought Jesus died and resurrected, he asked the interviewer if he meant here on Earth. Like WTF
Here's a great example.
There are plenty of quotes showing his use of imprecise language less than a quarter of the way down the article. Not sure how you could have missed them.
Ah, ok. Well, I'll certainly not disagree with those examples.
He wrote Maps of Meaning as a young man, and if those quotes are anything to go by, a good deal of it is gibberish. That said, I think that accusation could be levelled at an enormous amount of post grad publication.
I'm only familiar with his more recent output. When I see him on television, I like the fact that he fights his corner and challenges what people say about him, rather than roll over weakly. Always good to challenge group think.
Young man? He published Maps of Meaning in 1999. He was 37.
There is some language he is precise with. He called women who wore makeup and complained about sexual harassment were hypocrites.
"carefully chooses his words"
Someone points out the time he said that the reason feminists support muslims "I think it's because of their unconscious wish of brutal male domination, I really do"
"you don't get it"
What I don't understand is how people write essays to defend and attack this dude when you can just transcribe his words to see how he shows his ass on the regular.
Someone points out the time he said that the reason feminists support muslims "I think it's because of their unconscious wish of brutal male domination, I really do"
"you don't get it"
What I don't understand is how people write essays to defend and attack this dude when you can just transcribe his words to see how he shows his ass on the regular.
College students being loud and obnoxious is not some new thing that we need to be concerned about.
You kind of need to combat his "body of work" with other "bodies of work". It's harder to refute essays breaking down why he's an idiot than it is to refute disconnected tweets.
And when academics write long-form dismissals of him, he totally loses his mind, so it's a twofer.
Students being unrully is a fucking old theme.
Like Enlightenment old and before!
And the more things change the more tame students are.
In Bordeaux it was known that you wouldn't want to go where student groups prowled for fear of mugging and worse.
Mai 68 is the goto French example of students tearing shit up,
Like seriously current college students are downright harmless doves in comparison.
I should mention the traditional stereotype of wolf pack dominance roles is extremely wrong. The "alphas" of the average wild wolf pack are the parents. "Submissive" and "dominant" behavior are based on context and both are advantageous.
Boy, are you in luck. You've stumbled onto a thread with tons of examples! In fact, the link in the OP is based around this very failing of his!
That's what I was saying. He's using something from the animal kingdom that he doesn't even know about as a map for human behavior.
It's almost like they don't care about the particulars about what he says, but instead like the worldview he supports (hierarchies are good and it's fine that white men are at the top. Women secretly long to be dominated. If you're failing in life, it's probably because of insidious cultural Marxists, but if women or minorities are failing, it's because they are not trying hard enough, etc)
he's rambling to the point of being nearly incoherent. Don't even get me started on his writing lol.
"Mr Peterson, you've said that women who wear makeup at work are hypocrites if they complain about being sexually harassed. Do you think women need to stop wearing makeup in the workplace?"
"Well now it depends what you mean by makeup"
"Are you a Christian? Do you believe in God?"
"What do you mean by God?"
"What do lobsters have to do with anything?"
"I suppose it depends on what you mean by lobsters"
"Look, can you just answer a question already?"
"Oh I'd love too. You just need to tell me what you mean by question"
"Well now it depends what you mean by makeup"
"Are you a Christian? Do you believe in God?"
"What do you mean by God?"
"What do lobsters have to do with anything?"
"I suppose it depends on what you mean by lobsters"
"Look, can you just answer a question already?"
"Oh I'd love too. You just need to tell me what you mean by question"
"You know what, fuck this, I'm out."
"See? Leftists won't debate me! I am very smart."
"identity politics are bad, unless I'm using my identity as an honorary indigenous person to deflect criticism. In that case HOW DARE YOU misidentify me.
"You should be free to express any opinion. Unless you have relatively mild criticisms about my work, in that case, I WILL SLAP YOU, SIR."
Something gives me the impression this turd feels like he's been 'wronged' by a woman at some point.
Some lady probably caught him admiring the lobster a little too hard
The one thing that's constant, and maybe precise to my senses anyways, through all of his work is his belief in the status quo as it existed during the time of the "nuclear family". He's adamantly against society progressing/changing together. Hence why he preaches so much about personal responsibility. It basically tells his followers to ignore the problems that don't concern them. Those aren't important problems or even real in his mind. Add in the fact that most of his followers are white and male, it's easy to see where he's leading with all of this.
That's the feeling I got. He wants a return to the fantasy 50s. It lines up with his claim that work relationships between men and women had deteriorated
Yup. It's basically Trump with a larger vocabulary and just as random incoherent ramblings.
Last edited:
I've had the bluray for over a year now and I still haven't taken it out of the shrink wrap. My bad.I think we can all agree that everyone should watch The Lobster by Yorgos Lanthimos.
So are you ever going to give us your thoughts on it? Your profile says you were last seen a little over half an hour ago.
He's spoken at length about abortion, climate change, gay marriage, race and IQ, and 'cultural marxism'
And yet he's never actually taken a firm position on any of those topics. His fans argue with each other about what his actual political opinions are.
He knows where his money comes from. He's threading the needle quite well.
Yeah I'm terms of exploiting his fan base, he is quite smart. He is applying his clinical psychology to great affect.
He encourages a completely different group think. There's a reason his followers often argue in almost identical ways.
- Status