You comments all talk toward letting the dominate 'majority' groups control how and when progress occurs, stop hiding behind your bullshit. Hiding behind Peterson's and Sam harris's 'thats not what i meant' isn't going to save you here.
-
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
You comments all talk toward letting the dominate 'majority' groups control how and when progress occurs, stop hiding behind your bullshit. Hiding behind Peterson's and Sam harris's 'thats not what i meant' isn't going to save you here.
Yeah it's called a democracy. Majority dominant groups tend to vote as well.
Seriously this is pathetic. Keep on ignoring how the moral imperative is absolutely a crisis right now and many issues are akin to the civil rights era you want to pretend weve moved so far from in order to tell under represented groups to shut up about progress. I look forward to reading your posts on another forum about how you trolled era.
it might seem like that but the question is, is that how politics ultimately works? Again, why Peterson is so
As for the rest of the world you really are not gonna be able to convince us that Putin and Bolsonaro are the result of PC culture so I dont know how changing progressive activism in the west would help.
Idk maybe the states could just run democratic candidates with favourable popularity ratings who do events in the rust belt.
As for the rest of the world you really are not gonna be able to convince us that Putin and Bolsonaro are the result of PC culture so I dont know how changing progressive activism in the west would help.
There is no issue today akin to civil rights of black people post slavery and claiming so is insulting to those who fought it and were victimised by it.
And I'm not trolling anyone.
And we found out during civil rights and slavery that we dont and shouldn't put social liberties and progress up to a popular vote
Funny, you using the same arguments that people used against the people of Civil rights movement is the real insult. And that you think you can gatekeep what social issues deserves to be fought for.
Oh ok so how about you stop ignoring my posts and now for the third time I'll bring it up, we are locking up black men at a rate thats more than double what it was during the jim crow era compared to white men. So sure, it shouldn't be compared to that era. Because this specific area, its objectively and incredibly worse.
The fuck out of here with the "its insulting to those who fought it". The only person insulting the civil rights era and those who fought it is the person who made an account to bemoan progressive activists and tell minorities to stfu and stop complaining because its not the civil rights era anymore and there isn't a moral imperative to make their lives better. Which is bullshit.
If I lumped Putin and Bolsonaro in that that's my mistake. Putin is not the result of reactionary politics to PC culture he's just standard Russian culture.
I think institutional racism is a moral emergency yes. But to equate it to the civil rights movement is beyond insulting it's delusional.
You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth here. How is institutional, societal racism not a civil rights issue?
I'm talking about specifically the civil rights movement of post slavery America. Not civil rights as a concept.
....are you fucking daft? what do you think caused the necessity of the civil rights moment?
This is what its like arguing with a peterson stan. My god.
What do you think was the directive of that movement?
I just realized, they literally made the account yesterday, to argue in this thread and defend Peterson.
It's the same fucking issue mate, just less overt.
I mean way to dodge the main response to your point. Trump did lose the population vote and Hillary Clinton had (fairly or unfairly) the second lowest favorability rating in the last few decades.
Why are we doomed to more trump?
All of their posts have been defending peterson, telling others that progressives are the real enemy and are causing the rise of white nationalism, and that comparing objective data that demonstrates we have problems that are worse than they were during the civil rights era that theyre delusional, while claiming that the movement was somehow not a movement against systemic and institutional racism. Peterson would be proud
We are doomed to more Trump and worse unless the underlying issue is addressed.
I believe Trump got elected for 2 reasons:
Loss of jobs due to automation and other reasons and the backlash against the percieved political correctness of the left.
Except polling shows none of that and you are pulling shit out of your ass?
And white supremacy has been going on for 400 years and we have Nazis marching openly with people telling us to not punch them as was our sworn duty the first time around.
I also don't think the dynamics between racial civil rights and LGBT civil rights are directly comparable because the fact is LGBT people can be white and thus have more opportunities to actually illicit empathy. 👀
Wow such a difference in their answers. Matt just gets to the fucking point instead of ongoing blabbering.
Man, I'd sure like a lucrative career as a talking head/self help guru where i only had to read my ideological opponents defining document ten minutes before a debate and yet can still be taken seriously as a philosophical voice by self-important online knuckleheads.
A 2 term black president in a white supremacist nation now that's a soundbite right there
People overwhelmingly dislike the term "political correctness" because it's a scare word meant to imply an inauthentic or self-serving concern for peoples' rights and well-being, the specific character of which changes to conform to your political priorities. When a socialist complains about "political correctness," he's not often talking about the defense of the rights of racial minorities. A reactionary conservative isn't likely to reference the appeals to religiosity and rural american anxiety in their indictment of "political correctness." The term is rorschach test; you see in it what conforms to your worldview.
It's sort of silly, then, to say that when reactionaries accuse progressives of being politically correct, we should fear the antipathy of everyone who has used the term to derisively describe the behavior of their ideological opponents.
That's a nope. "Could you not use the n-word?" is not one of the main reasons behind racist, bigoted shitstains of the world voting fascists to power.
Maybe but it's literally how the right wing thinks:
Why do they vote against their own interests to the point that the leading cause of "white genocide" is themselves?
They'll deny they're racist. To them this is "just how things are". Natural order of things and all that.
JP is just the latest salesman of this ideology wrapping it up in Tony Robbins self-help common sense and pseudo-intellectual bullshit so they can recruit more people and feel smart when they argue with progressives. Not much different when they'd parade some author who tries to make ties between race and intelligence and acts like he's discovering a new element.
Anything that even remotely smells like equality and government performing wealth redistribution causes them to break out in hives and they start screaming about deficits when they're the ones raising them.
From what I've read, PC-phobia and loss of jobs have been at least a factor. Trump's just successfully laid the blame on "the other" for that.
Palestine elected a woman- Benezir Bhutto- as President before we did. Misogyny doesn't exist there anymore.
Obviously.
Of course it still exists but I think there's a difference in saying racism exists in America and America is a white supremacist nation.
How can you say that when literal Neo-Nazis have held rallies in the USA since Trump entered office and are defended by the president himself?
THAT'S a soundbite.
The difference is that the latter statement is more accurate.
Because we elected one of the good ones.
Obama wasn't even that much of a friend to white people, especially the moment when he empathized with Trayvon.
That still means that political correctness itself isn't the root issue, but the successful propaganda driven by rich conservatives and their media mouthpieces are, who have been able to make political correctness into a bookeyman that a lot of people believe in. I imagine it's much the same as universal healthcare. Go out to the streets and describe universal healthcare to people and almost everyone will be all "yeah, that sounds awesome". Call it Obamacare and you've got a lot more critique. Or to take another similar example, most people would agree that Nazis & fascism is bad. But call it "alt-right" and then it's a fresh new outlook that people can get behind. That despite the ideologies overlapping pretty much 1:1.
Perhaps I misread the intent of your previous comment. I don't disagree with what you have written here.
I mean the inverse could also be said with his stance on Flint. I think regardless its ridiculous that that (now banned) poster was using Obama as evidence that we aren't a majority white nationalist country.
This Current Affairs liveblog of the debate with Zizek is about what I expected.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/04/live-commentary-on-the-zizek-peterson-debate
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/04/live-commentary-on-the-zizek-peterson-debate
It was glorious and about the only thing worth following of the debate.
I don't really know Zizek and I don't even care to pretend to be interested in what he has to say but it certainly was worth it to see Peterson fail so spectacularly.
And seriously being schooled on the fucking thing you based your entire public outrage is what I would call spectacular failure.
He doesn't even know what he is raging against.
He did minimal research (if even that, I don't call sleepreading a 60 page summary from Marx actual research) and bet everything on people being too stupid to notice how ignorant he is.
It's basically the same grift we talked about around 100 pages ago regarding Bill C16.
Yep. There is really nothing to Peterson's intellectual persona but half-baked semiotics. I would say that would make them "quarter-otics" but the term is derived from Greek, not Latin. Zizek exhausts me, in a way, but at least he has some concern for what he talks about, and maybe unsurprisingly to some I'm willing to support some levels of lefty crankery.
I knew this debate was happening because Zizek trended (Zizek alone, not Peterson or ZizekvsPeterson or anything) and read the cliffnotes for the laugh.
I'll repeat myself for the umpteenth time, Peterson's handling of graphs told me everything I needed to ever know about Peterson and his way of thinking.
Now I even have more ammo against the hack, the next time someone goes "but watch his other 8h vids or it's out of context", I'll just point out that they haven't read everything I've ever written so they are clearly taking me out of context and that I'm following Peterson's lead in sleepreading something someone said 10 years ago I read on the subway and that makes me an expert in his philosophy like he's an expert on Marxism.
If he doesn't have time to take what he says seriously, I have no idea why I should take it more seriously than he is.
At least I'm not asking for 20000 a month via patreon or something and my speaking fees are very cheap as well.
I'll repeat myself for the umpteenth time, Peterson's handling of graphs told me everything I needed to ever know about Peterson and his way of thinking.
Now I even have more ammo against the hack, the next time someone goes "but watch his other 8h vids or it's out of context", I'll just point out that they haven't read everything I've ever written so they are clearly taking me out of context and that I'm following Peterson's lead in sleepreading something someone said 10 years ago I read on the subway and that makes me an expert in his philosophy like he's an expert on Marxism.
If he doesn't have time to take what he says seriously, I have no idea why I should take it more seriously than he is.
At least I'm not asking for 20000 a month via patreon or something and my speaking fees are very cheap as well.
We knew that the guy was lazy from the start.basically this
He talks about hierarchical stereotypes like they're universal but spend no time making sure that there could an exception or even trying to reconcile any exception with his worldview.
I have no idea why anyone with a shred of curiosity can't see through his sheer laziness.
I'm not looking for anyone's acknowledgement for my views. Like I said, I like some his views, don't some of his other views. That's why I'm not a Peterson supporter, also not a Peterson hater. Since you asked for specifics on what stances of his I support, it's not neccecarily his stance, but his way of presenting what I also believe in. Let me try to clarify why I separate his TV performances from his youtube performances.
On TV, he voices my concerns and makes good points that raise consern. I myself am a big proponent of equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Peterson voices that opinion rather well on TV. I'm glad that Peterson pushes back against the notion that the west is a tyranical patriarchy with arguments that I can agree with. I like his stance on the group identity vs. individual identity. There are all points that made me follow Peterson to begin with. I learned of Peterson during his bill C16 pushback and I like the anti-compelled speach argument. Then the famous Cathy Newman interview happened and I agreed with practically every point he made. The views Cathy Newman had aren't just hers, but views that are presumed in a large protion of society, and that worries me (gross exageration of gender inequality, gender pay gap etc.).
And the views that I don't agree with are obviously tangent to mysogeny and bigotry. Those views are usually outed either in his tweets, or in youtube interviews with far right spokesheads.
His 'psychology' helped my female cousing from the middle east, who isn't an angry little lost boy, find purpose in her life and find self worth, she's now much more confident and happy and volunteers in refugee centers. I bet she does more for society - not thaks to, but with the help of Peterson - than you ever will, a-hole. Speaking of garbage people.
His points on anti compelled speech are toxic af. He's not coming from a reasonable place, AT ALL. He's attempting to deny the existence of non-binary and trans people and other gender fluid people.
What exactly do you find compelling about this part?
- Status