-
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'm so glad this thread exists, I thought a lot of his unsavoury views were mostly found by reading between the lines. But no, he's an actual raging sexist. My god, he's so much worse than I initially thought
I don't care for his stupid war on "The Left" and, like I said earlier, I'm certain if he keeps this up he'll end up like Christopher Hitchens did: relegated to the wastebin of ephemeral hacks (all because he wanted to have a square with his name on it like Susan Sontag did in Sarajevo...).
It's a hard question to answer without getting too personal. He completely and radically upended the entire paradigm by which I view the world, and life, and ethics, and love, and Good with a capital-G, and belief and meaningful existence. Maybe he's not that special (he's certainly a lightweight philosopher at best), and maybe I'm just of subpar intelligence (I don't consider myself a smart person, to be sure), and maybe I just heard what he had to say at the exact time in my life that I need to hear it, but that doesn't change the fact that, for me, everything is different now. It was an Earth shattering change. There is an intense richness to things that wasn't there before. A good theory does that to you. I think he hits a sweet spot in "the story of humanity": psychology, biology, neurology, and literature. All of it comes together for an interdisciplinary lesson in the very deepest why's. Plus, he generally gives pretty good advice.
Again, this is all subjective. I have a very specific life. I don't suggest that other people would like his material very much, and in fact I think to most people it's either boring, obvious, or both. I'm only relating my personal experience. And my personal experience is that all of it has had a great impact me.
You can respect and appreciate the positive changes a shitty person has made in your life, but not want to associate with them anymore because, in the end, they're a bigoted asshole. Peterson isn't your father. You don't have to unconditionally love him. The fact is is that our experiences and beliefs color everything we think and do (which really, you yourself acknowledged), and Peterson's gross misunderstandings and bigotry is likewise going to color everything he says. I think it would be far more worth it to you to let go of Peterson as a person, hold onto the good you've gained from him (though again, this "good" seems to often come from ignorance, anger, and ego), and move on to someone with a better understanding of this world and wanting to help those in it (as well as yourself). They do exist, and they do this without raging on about minorities or anyone.
At the end of the day, Peterson causes and spreads more hurt than he helps.
Peterson is so vague that I fully expect people to go and say that they gained great insight on various subjects listening to him when in fact they did the job by themselves.
I'll badly paraphrase a saying :
"If you meet budha on the road, kill him".
Do not be afraid to let go or be critical of anyone who taught you what you know.
You don't have to respect anyone beyond what you need to respect them for.
I'll badly paraphrase a saying :
"If you meet budha on the road, kill him".
Do not be afraid to let go or be critical of anyone who taught you what you know.
You don't have to respect anyone beyond what you need to respect them for.
Why.... it's actually worse to know who he is and love him anyway.
Why I am not at all shocked that you managed to dig out two sentences to endorse (poorly I might add) in a story about Peterson supporting Trump.
Here are some options for an answer: some people don't think so or 'the Internet', you choose which one you like more.
Honestly its been a pretty good tear down of some of his arguments and a decent conversation about the fellow, which has been sorely needed. Some of the celebrity and celebration surrounding him is worrying.
When there's a cult of personality, the cult has to defend the master.
I agree. It's why I visit this place. I admit fully that I was a bit TOO enarmored with Peterson, failing to see his flaws. I see them more clearly now and feel a lot more sober.
I could do with a little les vitrol tho and people assuming things about my intentions (not aimed at you, by the way).
Maybe he should stick to that then instead of being the philosopher and political commentator that he sells himself as.
Though too late because I can't even begin to imagine what kind of noxious shit he'd fill his patients head full of in terms of gender roles and shit.
wtf is this?
Was this recorded pre or post alt-right popularity?
If you're going to post a video to discredit someone, at least get the thesis statement of the video right. He's talking about women inherently wanting testosterone laden men. I'm surprised you didn't lead with that.
This is the best. He just wants a time when women knew their place and men can be men.
Oh and he's using identity politics.
But it's not identity politics if you're defending the white male identity!
</peterson>
And where's the personal responsibility? Shouldn't these men be lobsters and not be sad that women make more money than them?
I'm still amazed that he chose the fucking lobster out of all of the more suitable animals
He realizes Trump's MAGA platform was one big identity politics game, yeah? The "identity" in that situation being Americans?
Nah. The lobster waffles are dope as hell. JP's more like Long John Silver's lobster bites. They look appealing from a distance, but take a slightly closer look and they're disgusting.
That video really seals the deal on him. He's a misogynist that wants women back in the kitchen and not cause problems at work. He doesn't want to deal with anything weird so new pronouns are bad. He wants the status quo. Any change is bad even if it helps people.
What a pathetic man. No one should look to him for inspiration.
What a pathetic man. No one should look to him for inspiration.
As an American of color Trump's MAGA platform does not represent me.
It really was just White European Descent Male American or really what we call male WASP.
Turns out if you live your life thinking "White/Male/Straight" is the default setting in the character creator of life, you become an ignorant jerk
Why are faux intellectuals so threatened by women? Or minorities? Why are these people scared of disadvantaged people rather than the most powerful? Cause they idolize the rich and white? Can't give the marginalised an inch, huh, or it's oppression and "white genocide". Bunch of SQWs.
Last edited:
In Peterson's case I bet he wants to maintain the "hierarchy" in society. Men are supposed to be on top.
Peterson's view on who he'd vote for comes up a bit, and it's never just "I voted for Trump". It's always the more melodramatic "I would've gone in, ready to vote Clinton, then decide last minute to say 'Fuck it!' and vote Trump".
Also, it's funny how he initially supports Clinton explicitly because "status quo", but then got turned off because of "identity politics", only to decide it was fine to risk the "status quo".....for the sake of identity politics?
Ah, yeah, right. Can't be "identity politics" then, me bad.
WASP would normally be fine, except 1) all Western Europeans basically count as "white" now, and 2) American Evangelism really has mutated beyond anything resembling Protestantism. We could really use a better name.
First, there is a fair amount of idolization involved, as well as the belief that, if you play nice enough and work hard enough, eventually you'll be able to join the club and partake in the fun.
Second, "SQW" is beautiful, and needs to be a thing.
True, but I wanted to highlight the actually controversial part, which is the implication that men might need to have to make more money than women in order to stick around and be a part of the family. Seems... incorrect.
We could call them HORNET.
They're invertebrate so that should please Peterson, they're also shit bees that fuck up any neighborhood they come into...
:p
Fuck me, the guy is conflating vendetta with justice.
And of course he's spewing so much word salad it's stupidly too hard to get any meaning.
For some reason I keep seeing this dude's name pop up whenever alt-righters are talking, which makes me instantly suspicious
"But then there's the state. So it's like, who's the monster here, the criminal or the state? It's like, well, the criminal for sure, but also the state."
He talks like a stoned 11th grader.
Anyway he's pretty much right and I agree with him on this. But the fact that he takes three minutes to explain his actually very simple view on the subject is hilarious.
Also idk I guess it's the lighting but you can really see how his overuse of hair products is a strategy to hide how bald he's going in this video ahahah
...Y'know, this thread's pretty long, but has anyone accused Peterson of Gish Galloping? Because I'm definitely getting vibes, though he does seem to be slightly smarter in that he doesn't drift completely off topic (or, more cynically, he doesn't have to fully commit because he isn't challenged enough for him to need to do so).
Yup. It's been brought up and it's helped by the fact that he remains vague until his sexist video posted earlier
That's about the last time I won't just be glib about answering this.
The issue with Peterson is not that he's "rational", it's that he's a fucking vague most of the time and pass off conservative "common sense" as rationality with either no sources or bad sources.
He's a shit scientist that tries to pass off as one.
ok but you gotta admit he has a pretty good kermit impression though
It's no surprise since Bucko knows how to manipulate puppets.
I would think that was kind of obvious. What Peterson does might be slightly different than a traditional Gish Gallop, but the effect is the same - to create a ton of noise, artificially inflate the weight of his arguments, and make rebuttal onerous (not actually difficult, just time consuming and boring).
The traditional Gish is to just bang out argument after argument, point after point. It works because you fool casual observers into thinking you have TONS of evidence/points, while putting the person on the other end on the defensive since they now have to go through an itemized list of bullshit to respond. Peterson does more of a wandering, old-man story version of this. He sure likes to pull out lots of examples and dubious claims to back up his claims (even in the death penalty video, he claims things like John Wanye Gacy "begged" for the death penalty which I stopped to look up - and could not confirm - thus falling for the trap), but it's less of a blitzkrieg and more like a blowhard at a party who won't shut up. It takes him forever to get to a simple point.
When you mix in Peterson's love of unnecessary academic language, he's weasely refusal to state a clear stance, and the numberous escape hatches he builds into every argument ("just asking questions!" "that's not what I meant" "you're not qualified to critique my work", etc), it's more like he's running an enhanced version of the Gish. It's totally a bad faith argumentative style, but it's wrapped up in several different flavors of bullshit so it isn't as easy to pin down and deconstruct.
A snake oil salesman of the highest order
I love when people start a sentence by telling me that they've read a lot of books. It's such a reassurance that I'm listening to a real intellectual.
- Status