Forum menu
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
Seems like you are having trouble with the quote function cougar. What I said was:
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.
Not sure where the text you put in quotes and attributed to me came from - certainly wasn't me.
I don't want to come across as somehow supporting what he's saying (I'm not)
Samunkin wrote,
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.
Ah so no doubt Jordan Peterson has received a similar amount of death and rape threats? No? No.
Not sure where the text you put in quotes and attributed to me came from – certainly wasn’t me.
❓ It was the post you quoted and replied to:
I recall reading that Vice had done some tactical editing of their interview with him. They need to draw in the punters somehow.
I recall reading that Vice had done some tactical editing of their interview
Sauce 😉
Ah sorry cougar - I am only reading/watching this JP stuff for the first time now, you took part of one of my earlier comments where I said:
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
"the video" being the highly edited one. Have since seen the non edited one. Sorry - it sounded like I was contradicting myself, and I don't believe I have.
There is some interesting discussion to be had on Peterson, but seeing as we've gone from harassment to abuse to ****ing slavery it is obviously not going to happen here. 💡
Fortunately the rest of the internet discussed this months ago so the stwhite knights can dismount. 🙂
Ah so no doubt Jordan Peterson has received a similar amount of death and rape threats?
Who did Peterson deliberately misrepresent for his own gain?
Can you perhaps see that two different actions might result in two different outcomes?
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
Sauce
</div>
I don't recall exactly sorry, but when I tried to Google where it was I read it, JP's twitter page claims that they have.. this wasn't where I read it though.
Why this now? He's been internet famous for ages and his views are uncontroversial as far as I can tell. He doesn't like identity politics and has a bit of a thing for people being precise in what they say. Much of what's attributed to him isn't accurate and frankly his fears around bill C16 (the transgender pronoun legislation) were ultimately proved somewhat valid by the whole Lindsay Sheppard thing.
Before all this he was a well respected clinician and as I understand helped dozens if not hundreds of vulnerable people both men and women, so there's that. Funny how him making some money to fight his corner seems to be a real bone of contention, people are allowed to disagree aren't they?
As for his fans being ****s, I'd argue most rabid politicos both left and right are ****s but that's not down to him.
How anyone can argue that Cathy Newman interview was in any way not a car crash for her is beyond my understanding, agree with him or not. He was clear, straightforward and precise, she was not.
Oh the humanities!
Before this place descends into a Youtube comment-section, I mean cuckfestwhiteknightsnowtardmgtowgeddon Part Deux - Angry, lonely, bearded right-wing, woman-hating incels vs gender-inclusive blue-haired unicornkin cultural Marxists...
...the full (AFAIK) unedited interview:
The pared-down version I first linked was for expedience, having already watched the full length one. He doesn't expand much other than to restate women are hypocritical if they are concerned about sexual harrasment yet also wear makeup to work. And, according to him 'no-one knows what the rules are'. To which, I refer to the Dusty video I first posted. This whole thing somehow reminds me of the stitch-up job they did on women working in the coal mines.
I'm having a cup of tea and some sardines. Wonder if that Peterson will ever do a piece on internet addiction? Will Deepity Chopra do a lecture on woo-woo-listics? Will Ray Comfort dissect snake-oil salesmen? What are the rulez?