Forum menu
A short but effective clip that summarises his broad position and what he is most concerned with. Worth a listen to introduce yourself to his ideas or if you just want to froth and foam at the mouth like a left wing biggot. Skip to 1hr 45min
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b25dbj
or if you just want to froth and foam at the mouth like a left wing biggot
Way to win over your audience there Greg.
or if you just want to froth and foam at the mouth like a left wing biggot
I'm not really about frothing and foaming at the mouth. Can I just quietly "harrumph" in a slightly right of left-of-centre manner?
I was making the distinction between being 'left wing' and a 'left wing biggot'. You can be one or the other but being left wing doesn't remotely make you a biggot and I never suggested that. Of course you can also be a right wing biggot and just a plain old biggot.
Is a biggot like an overgrown maggot?
I don't like Chris Evans.. I'd consider him a biggot.
Is it funnier than the interview on TFI Friday where Shaun Ryder gave Chris his shoes?
Well why didn't you type that??
Anyway after you multiple attempts to introduce us to his ideas, I've had a read around. He makes a lot of cash doesn't he? Most of that from the poor white guys he is trying to empower by taking their cash?
I don’t like Chris Evans.. I’d consider him a biggot
What has he done to be considered a biggot? just asking like.
I like Chris Evans, great taste in cars.
Never met the chap but I did once assemble him some golf clubs.
What has he done to be considered a biggot? just asking like.
Well, you have to ask yourself, what actually is a biggot? Too cryptic for some people, me.
No fan of his, but why did you characterise him as a biggot?
It's Bigot.
Standards these days of frothy right wing crypto-fascists, honestly.
No fan of his, but why did you characterise him as a biggot?
Well, you have to ask yourself, what actually is a biggot?
Maybe use bloody Google or something. Jeez
Well, you have to ask yourself, what actually is a biggot?
While you're about it, ask yourself how to spell "bigot".
I am not asking what a bigot is, I am asking why you called him one?
With the shit quoting it's hard to tell, but I assume it was a joke on the basis that a "biggot" [sic] was a 'big maggot', ie he just doesn't like Chris Evans, not thinks he's actually a bigot.
if you just want to froth and foam at the mouth like a left wing biggot.
better than frothing in the never regions like a Jordan Peterson fan boy bigot
You have found that most people think he is an idiot so don't need to continually create a post every time some other idiot gives him air time. What are you hoping to achieve?
The pious sanctimony is the frothiest, foamiest thing on this thread. Foamy, frothy spam.
it was a joke
Ah, the best ones always have to be explained eh? 🙁
I just read my post back. The 2 sentences were [i]really[/i] close together. I'll have a word with perchy as to how I can make my humour more everyman.
You still banging on about that bell end? Not really had that much joy enlarging your one man fan club, have you?
Maybe its because everyone else has got enough between their ears - left wing, bitggoted, maggotted, or whatever - to see him for what he is. He's just the Tom Cruise character out of Magnolia, who got a haircut and bought a suit...
Good luck with your continued misogynistic crusade though. With racism very much back in fashion, I suppose this was the next logical step
This seems to be his audience
That's an eye-opener for sure.
@MSP coincidentally that came up in one of my podcast feeds
https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/120-invcel#episode-player
Bit more depth and background to how things got to where they are - which ties into how people like Jordan Peterson are exploiting & extorting these guys, same as the bible bashing millionaire preachers asking for your donations or the Scientologists wanting you to pay for the next level.
I also made some super long golf clubs for a thalidomide victim who had almost perfectly formed hands growing out of his shoulders but with no real arms.
Dude had an amazing swing considering.
You have found that most people think he is an idiot so don’t need to continually create a post every time some other idiot gives him air time. What are you hoping to achieve?
Like most evangelical religious people, he doesn't let reality get in the way....
As for making money, JP is raking it in on Patreon, people pay him $1m/year just to keep him picking arguments with the LGBT community etc...
Never heard of him, a quick google seems to suggest he manipulates people to make himself very rich?
Those incels tho, wow. That's a scary ticking timebomb.
In the absence of frothing leftard cuck boggarts, this should do it:
What is it about JP that makes you such a fan geetee?
Then there was the time I got drunk with Debbie McGee and we ended up hitting balls on the range, but I'm starting to run out of golfing anecdotes now, what with me not being a golfer.
Lovely woman.
Well, in the spirit of actually listening to the thing before commenting on it, I've just listened to the Chris Evans thing.
There was nothing in it that I'd have a problem with, and I'm a lefty snowflake hand wringer. However, there was also nothing in it of any particular substance, and it's the only thing I've ever heard/seen of him, so can't really say that I've formed any kind of real opinion on the man
I've also now listened to about ten minutes of Malvern Riders YouTube thing.
I think I'm coming down on the side of 'not a fan'.
I’ve also now listened to about ten minutes of Malvern Riders YouTube thing.
I think I’m coming down on the side of ‘not a fan’.
Putting it mildly, he seems to be a very unpleasant individual, espousing some very dangerous sexist ideas which will get people hurt (mainly women). Which probably explains his massive popularity amongst the Alt-right.
He's superficially plausible if you have a chip on your shoulder and have misplaced your critical faculties.
Fundamentally, people with a sense of unbelonging and victimhood are a perfect target to be used and exploited by scumbags. And if you're a western white middle class heterosexual male with a sense of victimhood then you're probably the best target of all, because you're selfevidently a credulous halfwit desperately looking for someone to blame for your against-all-odds personal failure. Of course it's women! Dur. I do feel a bit sorry for these dudes but not that sorry.
The incel/black pill thing is creepy as all hell though, it's fundamentally a religious cult except they've cut away the religion. So they don't even have the excuse of "god says". And they're up to, what, 30 claimed murders in the US in the last 5 years- though it's still not classed as terrorism even though the attacks all read exactly like ISIS extremists.
though it’s still not classed as terrorism even though the attacks all read exactly like ISIS extremists.
White people can't be terrorists in Trump's America, it's what makes it so great (again).
To get the measure of how truly obnoxious he is, all you need is the recent Cathy Newman interview with the **** on channel 4 news...
you don’t have to watch it all. Pick any bit of it and you’ll get the gist.
I’d say that if you’re supporting and promoting the kind of attitudes he’s expressing then you probably need to have a serious word with yourself
worth noting that Cathy Newman received numerous death and rape threats as a result of that interview.
so that’s the company you’re keeping
I'd never heard of him. First Google hit was this.
Seems like a nice guy.
Listened to the interview, I didn't take much away from it aside from the fact that a) he was there to promote his book and not much else and b) how much he sounds like Jimmy McGill / Saul Goodman.
how much he sounds like Jimmy McGill / Saul Goodman.
Kermit...
It's funny you posted that Binners, I thought Newman comes across terribly in that interview. She's trying to put words in his mouth and not actually listening to what he's saying at all.
Putting it mildly, he seems to be a very unpleasant individual, espousing some very dangerous sexist ideas which will get people hurt (mainly women). Which probably explains his massive popularity amongst the Alt-right.
Care to quote some? I've not heard any and I listen to him quite a bit as my girlfriend is a fan.
Care to quote some? I’ve not heard any and I listen to him quite a bit as my girlfriend is a fan.
Flipping that round, why is she a fan of his?
She’s trying to put words in his mouth and not actually listening to what he’s saying at all.
She was trying, and failing, to nail jelly to the wall.
"the Idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory"
"It's harder to deal with "crazy women" because he cannot hit them"
"White privilege is a Marxist lie"
He described trump as liberal and moderate.
Couple of quotes for you. Sounds like a top bloke.
I thought Newman did a fine job of poor journalism in that interview.
I'm not especially knowledgable about psychology, but I understand ( perhaps incorrectly), that Peterson's views are framed through the lense of Jungian psychoanalytic philosophy, which is pretty dark and unpleasant stuff at times. I note he also talks in technical terms using language that conveys a different subtext and definitions within his field than common place use of the same language.
I've watched a few of his videos as I wondered who he is. Seems to me he's talking about pretty high level concepts in general terms rather than individuals. Its easy to get the hump with what he's saying if you can't spot that, or can't make the jump to the level of conceptual thinking he's working at.
Much easier to just mud sling and label him as an alt-right poster boy than grapple with what he's trying to say.
That said, I'm still trying to work out what he is trying to say.
And today's entry for pseuds corner goes to...
Seems like the spokesman for a bunch of whiny brats with a hugely over-developed sense of entitlement that can probably be seen on Google Earth. Sad.
if you can’t spot that, or can’t make the jump to the level of conceptual thinking he’s working at.
Ah you met his target market.
Jordan Peterson on Chris Evans’ Breakfast Show
Didn’t Jordan revert to her birth name - Katie Price, well over a decade ago...?
Any more context to those quotes, uselesshippy?
Flipping that round, why is she a fan of his?
You'd have to ask her that, but as far as I can tell she agrees with what she's heard him talk about? She definetly not a member of the alt right or an incel, in case you were wondering
Another time having served Sam Torrence with Guinness since ten o' clock whilst trying to shoot an advert, I was instructed to serve everyone with Jager bombs to get things going. Pointing out that I was working and had to drive to and from work only resulted in my taxi fare being furnished upon me.
Now I'm totally out of anecdotes...
To get the measure of how truly obnoxious he is, all you need is the recent Cathy Newman interview
That's the one that was so bad (an interview by Cathy Newman) that it spawned a huge number of memes?
What exactly do you disagree with binners?
To get the measure of how truly obnoxious he is, all you need is the recent Cathy Newman interview with the **** on channel 4 news…
you don’t have to watch it all. Pick any bit of it and you’ll get the gist.
I'd never heard of him until just now, watched the interview - didn't hear anything controversial. What am I supposed to be outraged about?
The interviewer was desperately (and blatantly) trying to misrepresent every point he made - but I didn't hear anything controversial in what he actually said. I think he was remarkably restrained at the point that the interviewer seemed to completely lose the plot.
I think the point about feminine traits being less advantageous in the workplace because of the historical dominance of men was probably the most interesting part (although still not controversial) - but he was agreeing with the interviewer, and so the conversation moved on to something else that he didn't actually say about trans people.
I’d say that if you’re supporting and promoting the kind of attitudes he’s expressing then you probably need to have a serious word with yourself
worth noting that Cathy Newman received numerous death and rape threats as a result of that interview.
so that’s the company you’re keeping
Egh?
Not heard anyone "supporting or promoting" anything - not sure what your point about death/rape threats is? I'm guessing he has said things outside of that particular interview that has caused all the controversy? But certainly I didn't hear anything in that interview to get upset about.
Been dipping in and out of his 12 Rules book and watched a few of his YouTube content, kind of agree with a lot he says but I don't think its anything too controversial.
What are these controversial attitudes, must be serious for you to vent online...oh.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37875695
Well here is a start, he is using the slippery slope argument rather than just being considerate and polite, equating being asked to treat people with respect as authoritarian.
"I've studied authoritarianism for a very long time - for 40 years - and they're started by people's attempts to control the ideological and linguistic territory," he told the BBC.
"There's no way I'm going to use words made up by people who are doing that - not a chance."
Dr Peterson is concerned proposed federal human rights legislation "will elevate into hate speech" his refusal to use alternative pronouns.
Legal experts disagree.
The rest comes across as sad old right wing twitter troll, bemoaning that the world is changing and it's just nor fair.
Seems like the spokesman for a bunch of whiny brats with a hugely over-developed sense of entitlement that can probably be seen on Google Earth. Sad.
This thread glossed over me because of the OP’s insistence on posting threads of this nature, however we’re into a couple of pages so I opened it and like many watched the interview vid then did some random google search on the topic and him in general.
I don’t agree with many of his viewpoints, I do believe he’s a good communicator to an audience disenchanted with the way they see thier world full of thier own limitations. Why he and his followers seek to blame someone, or more specifically a few rather large social groups, for thier own failings fringes on fanaticism. Yet he comes across in the media as a calm reasoned educated human, clearly well versed with being both a figurehead and scapegoat for his beliefs.
Draw your own conclusions as to whether you follow his doctrine, message or mantra. But society is full of people like this who’s viewpoint grates at social cohesion and inclusiveness. All these people do is split, antagonise, shout to anyone whose listening thier belief that being exclusive and marginal is the way to run a society. You don’t have too look far in todays Political sphere to see how effective this doctrine can be.
Mu conclusion is summed up in the quotation above though.
This
Fundamentally, people with a sense of unbelonging and victimhood are a perfect target to be used and exploited by scumbags.
In the other interview he categorically says that if he had a trans person in his class he would refer to them however they (the individual) wished to be referred to. I think his objection is to there being legislation which determines how he must refer to people - without reference to them as an individual. I think that's what the free speech argument is about.
When Jordan Peterson meets someone called "Chris", he insists on calling them "Christopher". It's really the only way to stop the Jews committing white genocide through cultural Marxism and extremist fifth-wave lesbianism. #MAGA
How’s this working out for you Greg? Are the contributors working this out enough for you? You avoided my question on your last spam: what are your criticisms of Peterson? Of his agenda and his motives? Or can you only tell people what’s good for them?
In the other interview he categorically says that if he had a trans person in his class he would refer to them however they (the individual) wished to be referred to. I think his objection is to there being legislation which determines how he must refer to people – without reference to them as an individual. I think that’s what the free speech argument is about.
The fine art of the troll, another version of I'm not racist but....
His whataboutery on his twitter feed is another good example, hard to explicitly disagree that equality and the rights of women is a long way back in many countries but that really should no be used to deflect criticism of the state of play in western countries, almost as if you have to go fix everything on this list before you can challenge behaviours here.
Care to quote some? I’ve not heard any and I listen to him quite a bit as my girlfriend is a fan.
Watch the first 5 mins of the video in the post 1 or 2 above mine.
He states that women who wear make-up are hypocritical if they complain about sexual harassment. Which is part of the whole 'rape isn't really rape as they were asking for it because they were wearing a short skirt' mentality which is so ingrained in parts of society.
I’m not especially knowledgable about psychology, but I understand ( perhaps incorrectly), that Peterson’s views are framed through the lense of Jungian psychoanalytic philosophy, which is pretty dark and unpleasant stuff at times. I note he also talks in technical terms using language that conveys a different subtext and definitions within his field than common place use of the same language.
Completely irrelevant. He's just using 'I'm a trained psychologist' as a defence / smokescreen for his utterly repulsive extreme right wing misogynistic views. It makes people think twice before calling him out for what he is.
He states that women who wear make-up are hypocritical if they complain about sexual harassment. Which is part of the whole ‘rape isn’t really rape as they were asking for it because they were wearing a short skirt’ mentality which is so ingrained in parts of society
Yeah - this is my problem with the commentary on his views/lectures that I've seen. In the video you are referencing, he does indeed say that, but then the next 3 minutes of what he says (presumably a justification for that comment) is obscured by the person doing the voiceover. So we cannot actually talk about what he's saying and why he's saying it, we are just passing judgement on some edited soundbites - which then get copied/pasted on the internet. If I was sufficiently interested, I would go and find the original interview without the voiceover, listen to his explanation, and form a judgement.
I obviously don't agree with the above soundbite if you take it at face value, but I'm interested to hear his argument for it.
I think that his lecturing style seems to be to state his conclusion, then provide his justification for it. And that his conclusion (stated up-front) is dumbed-down to make a good/controversial soundbite - but then people get lost/bored in the explanation, so just leave with the soundbite.I should also say that I'm not coming down on either side of the fence - only that I haven't seen anything to convince me that he's the antichrist - as some people obviously feel he is.
The fine art of the troll, another version of I’m not racist but….
Is it? I guess I don't understand.
Care to quote some? I’ve not heard any and I listen to him quite a bit as my girlfriend is a fan.
Does your girlfriend hate being a woman? Or having any rights?
batfink -2min 20s onwards. He initially states that he 'doesn't know' if men and women can work together. Let alone can they work together if a woman wears ye masque of temptation
She’s trying to put words in his mouth and not actually listening to what he’s saying at all.
While this is probably true
He still manages to come across as a complete and utter bell-end and
worth noting that Cathy Newman received numerous death and rape threats as a result of that interview.
Nice fan club he has
I obviously don’t agree with the above soundbite if you take it at face value, but I’m interested to hear his argument for it.
He knows full well it appeals to the Alt-right / incel who love this crap and pay him handsomely to spout it as it justifies their misogynistic views. He just dresses it up as an 'intellectual debate' as that fools people into thinking he's not just another misogynistic right wing fruit loop. It's no different to 'I'm not a racist but all black people are stupid as they don't score so well on IQ tests'. Just that the latter is no longer an acceptable argument.
So we cannot actually talk about what he’s saying and why he’s saying it
He's defending sexual harassment and you're thinking "oh, this might be interesting"?
Its pretty simple really
Say you'd just started working with a bloke who then started spouting that kind of crap about make-up and high heals at work, and sexual arousal. What would you do?
After backing away from them as quickly as possible, you'd probably have a quiet word with everyone female in the office and warn them to make sure that they don't end up in a room alone with him, as he sounds a bit 'rapey'. In fact quite a lot 'rapey'. In fact he sounds like if he isn't on the sex offenders register already, he really should be
What is it about JP that makes you such a fan geetee?
my guess is geetee got dumped by a woman once, didn't quite ever get over it and now has unresolved resentment.
this is JPs demographic
same reason my teenage son used to fanboi about him
my guess is geetee got dumped by a woman once, didn’t quite ever get over it and now has unresolved resentment.
Along with having had a nice easy life he now has to deal with his views being challenged by equals not people he thinks he is superior to based on his plumbing.
There is a long discussion about Trump and when he thinks America was great - hence what he wants to preserve/recreate. Wanting to go back to a time where things he isn't comfortable with don't exist or were hidden at the expense of the people suffering.
He’s defending sexual harassment
Is he? Not in any clips I've seen so far. Just about to listen to the Vice interview above.
But you're right, we should only be interested in the views of people who we agree with.
Ok listened to the interview - TBH, the makeup remark was the only really controversial comment in it, and it's fairly old ground. But I think the assertion that complaining about sexual harassment whilst wearing makeup is "somewhat hypocritical" is completely wrong - but I think he's saying that from the position of academic debate, rather than as practical advice for people in the workplace. Should he clearly state that, to make sure that people don't interpret it as such? Yes, I think he should. Is he being deliberately controversial in not doing so? Yes he is. Is he a bit of a prick? certainly.
His book is actually written as a self-help type book, it would be interesting (if I'm allowed to be interested cougar?) in whether it's as provocative as some of his academic lectures/interviews.
I had thought he should be more unequivocal in his condemnation of the far/alt right who are particularly attracted to his themes of criticism of the extreme left and political correctness gawn mad..... but then he pretty unequivcally condemned them (4mins).
but I think he’s saying that from the position of academic debate, rather than as practical advice for people in the workplace. Should he clearly state that, to make sure that people don’t interpret it as such? Yes, I think he should. Is he being deliberately controversial in not doing so? Yes he is. Is he a bit of a prick? certainly.
As you go on to say, when he takes that and heads off down the self help without clearly saying this is simply an academic discussion abstracted from reality. He doesn't.
It's all there to make him money.
Maybe the people threatening to rape or kill Cathy Newman - his supporters and fan boi's - hadn't got the memo about the whole thing being an abstract academic discussion?
Along with having had a nice easy life he now has to deal with his views being challenged by equals not people he thinks he is superior to based on his plumbing.
That's the interesting thing, I think: Peterson is taking persistently dominant views and groups, and representing them as marginalized. In reality, all that's happening is structural inequalities are being redressed a bit and whiny people don't like it.
I wonder how long till he starts advocating that we bring back slavery (as an intellectual discussion only) .....
Well, he does say that 10% of the human population has an IQ of 85 or less and is beyond helping (100years of US army research apparently).
Maybe that's where his followers come from?😁
Is he? Not in any clips I’ve seen so far.
According to you he does:
In the video you are referencing, he does indeed say that [women who wear make-up are hypocritical if they complain about sexual harassment.]
... which is a pretty distasteful view however you dress it up.
(if I’m allowed to be interested cougar?)
You can be interested in whatever you like. If the opinions of someone who posits that abuse victims are hypocrites because they wore make-up is something you want to listen to, you go right ahead.
The only compelling reason I can think of for me to want to listen to him is to unpick whether he actually really said / meant what he said, and I don't know as I care sufficiently to give him the attention. Which I suspect is precisely his raison d'etre in the first place.
Up until this thread I'd never even heard of him, so that's a point for GT at least.
Maybe the people threatening to rape or kill Cathy Newman – his supporters and fan boi’s – hadn’t got the memo about the whole thing being an abstract academic discussion?
I always struggle with this lack of understanding regarding probability and population groups.
10 million people watched the video. 10% of the country have a psychiatric disorder.
It would be strange, verging on mathematically impossible, for there not to be death threats on an anonymous forum of that size.
I like you're logic!
That’s the interesting thing, I think: Peterson is taking persistently dominant views and groups, and representing them as marginalized.
I think thats certainly true - and explains his support within those groups (white males) who are looking for legitimised reasons why their life isn't panning-out quite the way they planned.
In reality, all that’s happening is structural inequalities are being redressed a bit and whiny people don’t like it.
Absolutely, thats my own view