-
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
updated, sorry about that, I should know better and it's not like we never interacted before.
I should know better I 'he' everyone online, I blame French language that default to male in most cases.
No excuse, I fucked up.
If I fuck up again I'm glad someone can come and call me out on it.
They have juridiction over the US as well???
I'll end up in a post modernist comminazi prison, won't I?
What possible practical "benefit" would Peterson's "university" even accomplish for the average lobster? The whole point of going to a university is to get a job by proving to an employer that you've been educated/trained in whatever field you're applying for. Who is going to be fighting to hire someone from an some unaccredited, glorified webinar sessions?
You'll be extradited and you're going to do hard time for your crimes.
Three dimensional for no reason! The color coding is forgivable because it makes slices distinct from one another but there's that indecipherable infinite splintering in some places which is totally unlabeled.
Also, it's missing the most important categories, "Proper Being, as such" and "Jungian Pragmatic Centrists, or something like that".
私にはあなたを売る国があります...
http://time.com/4035819/japan-university-liberal-arts-humanities-social-sciences-cuts/
Well, if you read the Treaty of Versailles, you will see that it gives the Royal Mounties authorization to conduct operations in all of North America, certain areas of South America in particular El Dorado, and parts of the Moon.
This sure has been an entertaining romp of a thread. It turns out that Jordan Peterson fans bend logic and avoid confrontation just like he does! wow!
Yea, I'm done with H3H3. Used to love their content, but Ethan has basically turned into another Joe Rogan, which is...not so hot. It's disappointing.
Yea, I'm done with H3H3. Used to love their content, but Ethan has basically turned into another Joe Rogan, which is...not so hot. It's disappointing.
Last edited:
I do like how everything brainless JP moron defenders can do is say "watch this youtube" whenever asked to explain anything.
Not that i'm surprised, from people who require a kermit sounding fucker to tell them to clean their room.
Peterson announced in an interview he would have voted for Donald Trump.... Guess why?
IDENTITY POLITICS!!!
https://www.pluralist.com/posts/321...-why-he-would-ve-voted-for-trump-over-hillary
Riveting. Reminder the working class voted for Clinton.... she won the under 50k vote and she won massively the non white working class...
IDENTITY POLITICS!!!
https://www.pluralist.com/posts/321...-why-he-would-ve-voted-for-trump-over-hillary
Riveting. Reminder the working class voted for Clinton.... she won the under 50k vote and she won massively the non white working class...
What a fucking moron. Clinton barley mentioned identity politics in any of her speeches, Donald Trump went hard on the racist rhetoric from calling Mexicans racists, to literally one of his promises being a wall to keep Mexico out.
Identity politics in Peterson's eyes is anything that tries to put a spotlight on minority struggles. Its totally fine to dunk on them though or preach to white folk.
Identity politics in Peterson's eyes is anything that tries to put a spotlight on minority struggles. Its totally fine to dunk on them though or preach to white folk.
Drawing some sort equivalence between Trump and Hillary in the volume of bullshit spouted is insane.
And it's fine to use identity politics to make things worse for minorities. Has he said anything about segregation or redlining? Because most of what I've seen is him whining about social progression.
Replace "unscripted, impulsive lies" with "bigotry" and it becomes halfway decent. Otherwise it implies that Trump voters were smart enough to tell when Trump was lying or what he was lying about, which is just not accurate (especially when they conveniently didn't believe him when he admitted to being a rapist on tape).
Last edited:
It's so fucking hilarious seeing as Peterson's who gimmick against the Postmodern Cultural-Marxists is the narrative of societal upheaval.
What the fuck is Donald Trump if not that in a nationalistic, Wayback Machine to the "good days" sense? At the very least with Clinton you'd get social equality, but very little else, but so much of the table has been upended in nearly any of Trump's "policies" it's baffling.
How Kermit cultists still defend this man as an intellectual powerhouse fucking astonish me. They either can't see the glaring hypocrisies and gaps in Peterson's own boxed in archetypes and philosophy, or they're dumb as damn doornails.
And before any would be room cleaners come and try to correct me, let's look at the definition of identity politics, the thing that swayed Peterson to Trump: "Identity politics refers to political positions based on the interests and perspectives of social groups with which people identify."
Trump literally ran on a "he tells it like it is" and a "unsung majority" narrative. How the fuck is this not the same identity politics Peterson constantly makes to be a boogeyman?
And he seriously said the left gave up on economics? It's only in leftist circles you see actual arguments to handle the precariat that isn't socio-economic Darwinism.
Fuck me into toothpaste, this guy's a joke. I think at this point I'd be more offended on an intellectual level if someone told me they liked Jordan Peterson, more so than someone who claimed Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher liberated society. He's next-level stupid.
Last edited:
Trump lies about so much bullshit that it's harder NOT to notice. Even for his "fans".
Also, half of the US is not stupid. But to be fair, a two-party system makes it very tempting to make these kind of generalizations.
But I think you're smarter than that.
You're right. Half is not stupid, and the other half voted Trump.
I mean, I would love for that to be the case, but people have been shown to believe and give the benefit of the doubt to a liar no matter how many times it's proven that said liar is full of shit.
Case in point, you.
Half of the US didn't vote for Trump, only a quarter did. And sure, to say they're all stupid is an unfair generalization of a very diverse group of people. Some of them are just idiots who believed most of the dumb shit to come out of Trump's mouth, some of them are racists, some of them are sexists, some of them prioritize lower taxes over all else, etc.
But all of them thought someone who bragged about being a rapist on tape was worth putting into the highest office in the land, so I think it's perfectly fair to say that none of them are particularly good people.
Peterson hates identity politics so much, he voted for the guy who began his campaign in identity politics and continues to do so and who is also dumb enough to stare at the sun without eye protection and determines policy based on the last person he spoke to.
And I like he tells his hypothetical voting experience. It's so full of theater. He creates a story complete with a twist first to show that he is reasonable (Hillary is the better politician) but then he would swerve to Trump at the last second. A story for something he couldn't even participate in.
And I like he tells his hypothetical voting experience. It's so full of theater. He creates a story complete with a twist first to show that he is reasonable (Hillary is the better politician) but then he would swerve to Trump at the last second. A story for something he couldn't even participate in.
Wether they are good people or not is not part of the the summary you responded to, though.
I stand corrected on the percentage part.(I'm not used to the political system and the calculations. Is it more fair to say around 50 % states did?)
But as you say now in your follow up post, lot's of people vote for Trump for lot's of reasons. Not because of his lies, but rather despite his lies.
So that's why I think Petersons summary is fine.
Actually, Trump won over half of the states and more electoral votes but he received less total votes than Hillary.
And people voted him because of his lies. He's much like Peterson in that way, a mannequin for people to project their hopes onto. Trump lied a lot, even within the same day and it was almost always contradictory. He has said that people will have the best healthcare and wouldn't have to worry about premiums but then he tries to take it away. Usually those various reasons were lied about.
Peterson's summary isn't good because most of trumps voters didn't realize they were being lied to.
And let's reiterate, Peterson wouldn't have voted for Hillary because of "identity politics" and yet he would've voted for Trump who was all about identity politics. Peterson doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
I meant to say that they didn't vote for him because they think "oh lying is good!"
But (the smarter part of the Trump voters) were more like: "yeah, this guy is full of shit but he's still more likeable than Hillay."
Or one level below that: "All politicians lie, at least this guy isn't being shy about it"
When looking at Trumps behaviour, I think a lot of his base is A-ok with him bullshitting and lying.
Lol "he's a liar but at least he's honest about it"
That's not what's happening. His voters actually believed him. When confronted with his lies, they would either ignore it or handwave it, but for the most part, they believe him.
You said it wasn't fair to stereotype such a wide swath of people, so I provided a category under which the vast majority of Trump supporters fall. I should have made that more clear. My bad.
Only one group of people I listed could be seen as supporting Trump despite his lies (the people who just wanted lower taxes), the rest bought into his shit in one way or another. For example, as far as the racist group goes, half of Trump supporters believe in the birther conspiracy and that millions of illegal votes were cast in the election.
If half of his base believes his most obvious lies, chances are they've fallen for the more believable ones as well.
But if the smarter part of Trump's base justified their votes with such bad reasoning, that would mean the less intelligent among them are really dumb. You're really not doing them any favors here.
I'm not trying to do them any favours, I was just explaining why I found Peterson's summary sufficient. But I digress.
Anyway, here is a cool book review. The reviewer shares much of the same critiques that most people on here have hurled at Peterson. Yet it also stays slightly positive regarding the ramifications of the entire Peterson phenomenon. It's a great read.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/03/26/book-review-twelve-rules-for-life/
Anyway, here is a cool book review. The reviewer shares much of the same critiques that most people on here have hurled at Peterson. Yet it also stays slightly positive regarding the ramifications of the entire Peterson phenomenon. It's a great read.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/03/26/book-review-twelve-rules-for-life/
I don't agree with some of the posters other points but there is such a thing as liberalism that distinguishes it from both the left and from conservatism...
"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Copied from this thread that explains the differences better...
https://www./threads/liberals-please-stop-allowing-authoritarians-to-hijack-the-left.1461019/
I remember that thread. You had posted it here. And at GAF and other places.
Anyway, he said define Classical Liberalism, not Liberalism.
You're not even trying any more, are you?
Trying to do what exactly?
I don't speak GIF so please elaborate.
Intelligence is generally considered to be distributed along a bell curve right? If we define stupid as below average I wonder what that means.......
You may have missed the Classical in Classical Liberalism...
They are always on the right wing of the spectrum for a reason.
And if you expect any of us to go to that gaf thread to argue anything you haven't been paying attention why people left that place.
Oh and btw if you to play the wikipedia quote game, at least provide the correct article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Last edited:
Got motherfuckers in here talking about, "He's actually really smart" about a faux-intellectual, racist, sexist, idiotic piece of shit. I know none of you are over like 19-years-old. Clowns.
No no, you don't understand the tweet. Here, watch this public access contribution he did wearing a ridiculous fedora while complaining about women who make too much money.
OR IS THAT A TRILBY??
I take it that you take back your earlier opinion of him...?
I still love him, I just fully admit that he can be a total crank when he's out of his wheelhouse.
who writes tweets like that omg
That speaks volumes about you as a person. Nothing good, I promise you.
You love an unfettered misogynist pseudo-intellectual. That says a lot about your character.
I GAVE YOU A FUNNY TWEET TO LAUGH AT AND SELF DEPRECATED, GIVE ME SOME LEEWAY AS A PERSON (ALLEGEDLY)
- Status