-
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
Oops turns out when you dig through his past you get some pretty clear views on women:
"If choosiness wasn't there rape would be unnecessary"
This dude is insane. If there wasn't any choice, sex would be rape every single time.
Also, let's not forget that rape is more prevalent in less egalitarian cultures.
http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women
But yeah, let's find some shitty arguments from the animal kingdom.
genuinely impressed at how dumb and shameless that guy is
i thought Rubin was the ultimate right wing media figure bootlicker but this guy, oh wow
Oops turns out when you dig through his past you get some pretty clear views on women:
"If choosiness wasn't there rape would be unnecessary"
I really appreciate your digging. This man is fascinating in the most disturbing way.
I never imagined that all we have to do to prevent a nuclear war is, for us women to stop being so damned picky and just let your husband (that apparently was assigned to you) think for you.
Easy solutions for complex problems really are the most attractive ones.
Jesus fucking Satan, this guy is the gift that keeps giving huh?Oops turns out when you dig through his past you get some pretty clear views on women:
"If choosiness wasn't there rape would be unnecessary"
It's still kinda funny (and of course deeply ironic) that he rails so hard against "hierarchy of distribution", yet essentially advocates for that for (hetero men's) sexual partners. Disgusting moron.
See I actually don't think he's in it for the money. Guys like him I think do it for the attention. He's got mainstream media interviewing him about his ideas, jut like all the philosphers he's maligned over the years. He's got legions of fans that constantly reassure him "You're absolutely right! Your advice changed my life! You totally don't have your head stuck way, waaay, up your ass!"
yo wutOops turns out when you dig through his past you get some pretty clear views on women:
"If choosiness wasn't there rape would be unnecessary"
Great read, thanks for this.
Funny, was just watching Wild Wild Country so good shout on the Rajneesh comparison. I think that goes for most self help gurus.
Oops turns out when you dig through his past you get some pretty clear views on women:
"If choosiness wasn't there rape would be unnecessary"
Holy fuck, this dude has been the king of incels for years.
As an academic in training, it's really interesting to see articles about him from that perspective.
Questioning the need for a review board for ethical treatment of participants? Holy shit, that's a huge red flag.
Oops turns out when you dig through his past you get some pretty clear views on women:
"If choosiness wasn't there rape would be unnecessary"
So I decided to go find the context for his comment. I was slightly confused because he doesn't replay to a comment, he just makes his own. So I had to go through the thread to find it. The rape stuff is a reply to this:
With the totality of comments from Peterson from "enforced monogamy" to casual sex will lead to state tyranny, it's clear that he places all fault of the ills of men at the feet of women. Sorry, ladies, it's your fault.
"Women getting the right to work hurt men...."
"The pill caused problems."
When you... get ready for this.... put it in context of Peterson's entire TradCath 1950s dream revival.. you basically see that to Peterson there is nothing that isn't women's fault.
He's also wrong
https://hbr.org/2018/01/when-more-women-join-the-workforce-wages-rise-including-for-men
You're misrepresenting him! You have to put him in full context. Nuclear War has been prophesied in dreams because women (and trans) are upsetting the natural social order of things.
But yeah, he's essentially blaming women for everything wrong in the world. Every time he brings up "female sexual selection" or "men are twice as likely to fail" or calling women not having children "dumb memes", it's clear. With the totality of his comments, you cannot come up with a different explanation.
Woah. This guys just seems like your average conservative nut
This is just funny.
This is just funny.
"Look, I never said the gays shouldn't get married, but whether marriage will actually be a good thing for them? We'll see."
Oops turns out when you dig through his past you get some pretty clear views on women:
"If choosiness wasn't there rape would be unnecessary"
Oh good, he's also doing the men = men, women = females thing. You'd think someone who speaks so precisely would avoid that obvious misogynistic pitfall.
Y'know, 30 pages ago, I thought we'd seen everything. But nope, dude's just as gross as most of us called him for waaaay back in the beginning of this thread. Kind of makes all the Peterson supporters look that much more the fool, doesn't it?
edit - typo
edit - typo
Last edited:
I have to admit that I am having loads of fun reimagining my life from JP's perception of reality.
In that reality my husband did the world a huge favour by bringing me under his dominion. Saving natural order in an everlasting battle against my chaos spreading ways. It gives life a nice epic touch.
In that reality my husband did the world a huge favour by bringing me under his dominion. Saving natural order in an everlasting battle against my chaos spreading ways. It gives life a nice epic touch.
"Peterson is just acting on an entirely different level, now let me, and my super high IQ, write an essay as to why that is!"
[Insert any YouTube or Reddit comment from a would-be cultist here]
Era, Yui had a dream and sometimes her dreams are prophetic. She dreamed that the Third Impact is going to occur.
Finally the level-headed voice we need to get this thread back on track. Too many people are piling onto the grimdark idiotclown and his posse of sad weasels. Can we not meet in the middle? It's a great place to be.
This thread has 4,000 replies, basically. I can expound if you would like. I'm not criticizing anyone or anything. Just an observation.
Yeah. It actually started rather reasonable, even with regarding his critiques. JP is like a Trump type it seems lol. No middle ground.
The thread started with an article completely outing JP as an academic fraud. Why does no one read the article? It's really good.
A thread about a person having 4000 replies isn't cultish. That's not very good evidence.
Some things do not need middle ground such as social justice or misogyny.
Not so much about middle ground of the topic at hand. Discussion was just better earlier on the thread. Some of the better post were from some his critics, but they've mostly bounced.
I don't think this is the thread's fault btw. It's actually Jordan and his antics. People are gonna discuss it.
I think discussion has been good. I've had some good discussions in this thread.
How do you think it was better at the beginning? Perhaps it felt better because we didn't have so much terrible comments from Peterson in the beginning so there could be more discussion regarding his views. But now, we got him having a savior complex because he and his wife had dreams about the coming nuclear war.
That's true. My interest in JP came from him being a repackaged Joseph Smith. His message isn't new.
I was just wanted to see a conservative intellectual voice in the mainstream, but JP went wild and hence discussion about his antics is what has followed.
If you specifically come into a thread with the intention of branding all the people on it under a term like 'cult' which, I think is fair to say; is not exactly the most positive remark... it's not exactly 'just' an observation. It's more of an edgy, contrarian hit-and-run with no actual argument or helpful, productive comment given.
I mean, no matter how you feel about the thread and the people in it; it's a little rude and confrontational.
Well, the thing is that he didn't go Wild; it's how he always was. His popularity soared because of his misreading of C-16 was useful for other conservative voices to decry social justice. The critics in this thread have challenged his views and his supporters when it came to identity politics numerous times, but I fail to see how it is cultish.
I don't think there's much middle ground With misogynistic shit especially on a forum where that can just get you banned. There's less people arguing in Peterson's favor at this point because he's thoroughly made a fool of himself. So yeah the thread is kinda filled with his detractors mostly pointing out the holes in his statements but I don't know how that resembles "cult-like"behavior in any way.
I think that's fair. If he only stuck to bible readings and mythology I don't think there would be much objections, but I don't think he'd be famous either.
Ive come across this guy in a recent interview with the Economist and he comes across as incredible annoying and pathetic
This makes zero sense. Detractors aren't cultish. What you're saying is like calling anti-racists as cultish because they're united against racial supremacy.
Bingo.
Actually yes, please do, because accusing people of engaging in "cultish" behaviour because a months-old thread has many pages is quite the inflammatory stretch.
Ban all threads over 1000 posts. We shouldn't foster cultish behavior best evidenced by threads with high post counts.
Should note that, if Theologian comes back, people shouldn't pay him any credence, as he recently went into a thread defending Tommy Robinson, one of the founders of the vile hate group the EDL. I can guarantee because of that that he was never arguing in good faith.
That Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are the best they can throw out says a lot about the state of conservative thought.
American conservatism hasn't embraced open intellectualism since Firing Lines ended, and both Bill Buckley and Russell Kirk died. George Will was the probably the closest they got to that, and even then he has rather problematic views regarding college sexual assault, and is no longer a Republican, meaning conservatives aren't going to trot him out despite him still being conservative.
That Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are the best they can throw out says a lot about the state of conservative thought.
Opposing the garbage mysoginistic dogma of Jordan 'pied Piper of pathetic losers' Peterson is 'cultish behavior'? That's an... Interesting take.
It's only cultish because we don't have good things to say about Peterson.
Matt Dillahunty is an atheist (not New Atheist) and skeptic (not "Sceptic") who debated Jordan Peterson not too long ago. Here's the debate
I also really don't get why he uses myths as some end-all-be-all that show is that there is inherent order in the universe, when he admits himself that myths build on top of one another, not to mention that, along with that, myths aren't static: they change depending on who's telling it, even if it's the same core story. This is how you get the differences between the Pauline version of Christ (divine son of God, celibate), and the Gnostic version of him (normal human with no divinity, clearly married to Mary of Magdala).
It seems the atheist sphere in general has started to take notice of him, and are likely aware that his fans intersect with their's, and are perplexed about it. Even the not-very-feminist-or-social-justice Bible Reloaded guys have torn into him:
I'm gonna watch the whole thing later but I just watched a bit and at one point Peterson seemingly presents people's super-natural experiences while on "psychadelic drugs" as scientific proof of the super-natural because it's "replicable."
Fuckin' a.
- Status