Forum menu
Well done forum.
Well **** done.
Let's try again - what for?
A bit of a stealth edit there!
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Yep, a good defence lawyer is like a good troll.... It's straight out of the ninfan playbook of lead it away from the things you don't want to talk about
You don't value learning then Binners
Au Contraire. i wander through the world, wide eyed in amazement, like a small child on a beach surveying the great ocean of knowledge that lies before me
But if you're classing 'learning' as watching two equally preening, self-absorbed faux intellectual blokes spout pseudo-pychology claptrap at each other on YouTube for hours, in some stupid point scoring exercise, I'll pass on that, thanks mate
Like I said... you should get out more.....
Let’s try again – what for?
Keep your hair on.
I was referring to the C+P cluster **** in my reply to ransos.
You don;t value learning then Binners
Or he would prefer to spend those hours learning something else. I cant say having Fry on the bill would get my hopes that high.
troll
That's me rebutted!
Keep your hair on.
I was referring to the C+P cluster **** in my reply to ransos.
If you're that sensitive, perhaps you shouldn't play with other children?
So far you're coming across as a hypocritical troll, a manchild unable to deal with the abuse you're happy to dish out.
I'll leave you to it.
And gt, making threats, even passive aggressive ones isn't really a nice thing to do.
If you’re that sensitive, perhaps you shouldn’t play with other children?
I'm fine thanks, what is it with everyone's obsession with projecting rage and angst unto others?
A man(child) can swear without bursting a blood vessel you know.
So far you’re coming across as a hypocritical troll, a manchild unable to deal with the abuse you’re happy to dish out.
If you think I'm being hypocritical point it out, and with the exception of being compared to ninfan I haven't received any abuse. Maybe it is you that is a bit too sensitive.
Geetee, maybe you missed it, but I did respond to you. Here it is again:
Do you have any clear evidence/links to Minassian’s character/motivation/background that we could possibly use as a starting point to discuss Peterson’s flat assertion about the reason/s for his crime?
I was just trying to clarify what you were saying, which is just as well as you appear to be using words that you don’t know the meaning of.
It could appear that way, I suppose.
Yet more evidence as to how monogamy is great for curbing male violence
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-23/when-women-are-believed-the-church-will-change/9782184
Or just keeping it quiet
I personally don't see what all the fuss is about. Had never heard of him until he popped up on my youtube. seems to be famous for being honest about the stupid law that Canada brought in. That interview on channel 4 was awful, the host clearly didn't research or listen to anything he was saying. as for the alt-right (who ever they are) are not part of the guys agenda. you can't stop people from following you. If people choose to send death and rape threats that is their choice, it has nothing to do with Prof. Peterson.
Malvern Rider
Geetee, maybe you missed it, but I did respond to you. Here it is again:
Do you have any clear evidence/links to Minassian’s character/motivation/background that we could possibly use as a starting point to discuss Peterson’s flat assertion about the reason/s for his crime?
Is that the 6th time you've asked the same question? It's obvious that you don't want an answer, you want Geetee to reply in a way that allows you to ascribe the worst possible meaning to what he says and post baseless rambling slanderous fear mongering shit like this.....
Binners, think 1950s. Back when hyper-masculinity was a thing, and ‘dorks’ would get sand kicked in their face or join ultra-misogynistic online cults. Men and women knew their place. Sluts were shamed. Marital rape didnt happen and so was not a thing. And there was equality of opportunity for women to be housewives. Science. No homo. Psychiatry ruled the waves.
...so you can re-affirm in you're own mind how "right" you are and protect your little echo chamber. It's very brave.
I gave you an obvious and simple explanation but you saw fit to criticise me for "acting as a self appointed translator" and post a gif of Bill Murray. You wanted an interpretation, you got one, but then only a psychic could do that. And yet you insist on an answer from Geetee.
Instead of wasting your time here and sullying yourself with ultra-misogynist anti-social media-addicts, self-appointed translators oh and Nazis (jesus wept you cretinous ****s) why don't you email or tweet Nellie Bowles, the author of laughable hit piece on Dr. Jordan Peterson you are constantly referencing. She'd probably be only too happy to help since she just barely stopped short of calling Peterson an evil wizard or sith lord.
Is Peterson now some sort of prophet, who's teachings must be interpreted?
He made a silly statement about the murder being angry at god & you have twisted that into sonetsome that fits the ideal you have of him jimjam.
As for Malvern rider expecting getee to answer a question about him, it's the least he could do to considering he spams the forum every couple of weeks with a link to whenever guff Peterson has spouted lately....
Which leads me onto poah only hearing of him via YouTube ?!?- in which case he's done well to avoid our resident accolytes constant prosletysing
You fan bois do seem very, very angry.
You should maybe try identifying with your feminine side a bit more
faux intellectual
Jordan Peterson is a tenured professor of Clinical Psychology. If you think that makes him faux just how qualified are you Binners? Seriously what are your credentials? It's a debate about intellectual ideas so come on, what's your level of educational attainment, how much actual studfy have you done?
You know what I think Binners? With all respect I don't think you've got the intellect to really engage here. I think you're outgunned intellectually and when that happens I think you just resort to being rude and insulting. That's not a personal attack; we're all blessed in different ways and it doesn't make you a bad person. But you've been so utterly obnoxious on every thread I've ever started or commented on that for as much as you think I've got issues, your's are equally as challenging.
Do you have any clear evidence/links to Minassian’s character/motivation/background that we could possibly use as a starting point to discuss Peterson’s flat assertion about the reason/s for his crime?
I don't see what that has to do about anything? I didn't really read much about the specific incident and have no interest in doing so. If someone is so angry that they drive a car into a crowd of peopel to kill or maim then, you don't need much more evidence to conclude that this is both horribly wrong and the product of a derrainged mind.
I'm more interested in explaining your misunderstanding of what Peterson was saying when he tried to explain why someone like Minassian might have acted the way they did. That is an entirely valid and important line of inquiry in the same way that a lot of time is being invested in trying to understand the process of radicalisation among Muslims.
Is Peterson basically saying that young white males are angry and violent because they are not getting a shag?
Which is the fault of the PC brigade,who must be getting it every night?
Well thats me told, then!
So... because I think that he's a misogynistic, self-serving charlatan, with very dangerous ideas, that we know have been used to justify violence, I've only reached that conclusion because I iz a bit fick
Is that right?
Certainly Binners...
The evidence above that monogamy and the church seems to cover up a huge amount of male violence is defiantly something that really doesn't challenge his conclusions either.
your misunderstanding of what Peterson was saying when he tried to explain why someone like Minassian might have acted the way they did.
But be wide of the mark, should really acknowledge that especially if people are misunderstanding what he is saying. I'm just glad we have his followers to explain what he really means to us....
Is Peterson basically saying that young white males are angry and violent because they are not getting a shag?
Which is the fault of the PC brigade,who must be getting it every night?
In a nutshell, yes
They can't seem to get their head around the fact that when a wimminz is looking for a partner they want to shack up and have a bit of rumpy-pumpy with, their list of credentials doesn't start with 'whiney, social inadequate with a persecution complex and hugely over-inflated sense of entitlement'
But that's all the wimminz fault, and definitely nothing the whiney, social inadequates with persecution complexes and hugely over-inflated sense of entitlements need to address
What’s important for you to understand binners, is that it was the women in your life that made you thick.
This thread is an excellent example of the people who I probably agree with are handling themselves poorly by slinging about unnecessary and reactionary hyperbole, and the people I probably don't agree with are trying to actually have a reasoned conversation. It's a bit like the Newman/Peterson interview, typed out by middle-aged men.
Jordan Peterson is a tenured professor of Clinical Psychology. If you think that makes him faux just how qualified
That makes him qualified in one specific area. Even within that field the chances are he would have been specialised. So either an appeal to authority or, on several things he speaks on, an appeal to non-authority.
With all respect I don’t think you’ve got the intellect to really engage here.
This seems to be a common theme amongst his fans. Anyone who disagrees must be a tad thick. It seems a nice ego boost trip.
I didn’t really read much about the specific incident and have no interest in doing so.
Considering your seeming strong interest in mens rights etc I would have thought it would have come up.
you don’t need much more evidence to conclude that this is both horribly wrong and the product of a derrainged mind.
You do. It shows a different set of priorities but not necessarily a deranged mind.
MR: Do you have any clear evidence/links to Minassian’s character/motivation/background that we could possibly use as a starting point to discuss Peterson’s flat assertion about the reason/s for his crime?
G: I don’t see what that has to do about anything? I didn’t really read much about the specific incident and have no interest in doing so. If someone is so angry that they drive a car into a crowd of people to kill or maim then, you don’t need much more evidence to conclude that this is both horribly wrong and the product of a derrainged mind.
It would seem then that our opinions fundamentally differ on all counts. I believe it to be irresponsible for anyone (most of all public figures who very much have the 'ears' of the killers's demographic) to make grandiose flat statements about the cause (and cure) of the Toronto killings/killer without having all of the available evidence on the table.
1. The narrative asserted (key point - not 'debated', asserted) by Peterson is that the killer was 'angry at God.'
2. I'm not sure what JP means by 'God' (in that context, or indeed in any)
3. jimjam provided an interpretation that by 'God' (in that context?) Peterson actually means 'society/the World'. This could be correct, as:
4. Peterson (if I'm correctly understanding his meaning of 'enforced monogamy'?) is claiming that it is society that must change if we want to somehow lessen/prevent/help Minassian
Malvern Rider
I believe it to be irresponsible for anyone (most of all public figures who very much have the ‘ears’ of the killers’s demographic) to make grandiose flat statements about the cause (and cure) of the Toronto killings/killer without having all of the available evidence on the table.
If no one comments on anything without knowing the full facts of everything then there's nothing to say. Peterson can probably feel justified in commenting because he's speaking in general terms, not specific ones. Anyone who listens to him speak would know that, but those who want to sling mud would rather gouge out their eyes with spoons than listen to him so you have a circular argument / stalemate.
If according to you, "he has the ear of the killer's demographic" wouldn't it be pertinent to comment? Peterson is constantly putting out advice that is geared towards people (not just men) reordering or making sense of their lives. Seems as though he has a responsibility to comment and is damned for commenting.
as much as you think I’ve got issues, your’s are equally as challenging.
It would help to avoid making grammatical errors when criticising someone's intellect.
Aaaanyway, what I find impressive about JP is the way he gets his fans to give him money via his website, I think just for quicker access to his youtube clips (of which there does not appear to be much of a shortage). There's something about a multimillionaire getting the poor saps who buy this bollocks to send him their cash that makes it begin to look a bit, erm, culty?
Aaaanyway, what I find impressive about JP is the way he gets his fans to give him money via his website, I think just for quicker access to his youtube clips (of which there does not appear to be much of a shortage).
lots of people do this though. BKXC has over 1000 patrons for watching MTB vids
john
Aaaanyway, what I find impressive about JP is the way he gets his fans to give him money via his website, I think just for quicker access to his youtube clips (of which there does not appear to be much of a shortage). There’s something about a multimillionaire getting the poor saps who buy this bollocks to send him their cash that makes it begin to look a bit, erm, culty?
Are you similarly impressed by everyone else on patreon? Is it "culty" when people support artists and writers and musicians who's work they enjoy in the same manner? People (I'm not one of them) support Dr. Peterson via patreon because they value his work. It's extremely common and no doubt will be the model for digital content in the future and it's necessary because Google/Youtube are so far up their own arses that they instantly flag/demonistise everything Peterson put's out, as well asc losing his youtube channel, locking him out and unsubscribing tens of thousands of his subscribers - issues his detractors don't have to contend with.
Alternatively, BKXC is basically David Koresh.
Are you similarly impressed by everyone else on patreon? Is it “culty” when people support artists and writers and musicians who’s work they enjoy in the same manner?
Art is one thing. Reactionary politics is another.
Alternatively, BKXC is basically David Koresh.
...if Koresh had asked folk to pay him to go off and ride a bike. (Nice work if you can get it btw.)
or if BKXC's patreons claimed that he was riding a golden unicorn despite the actual evidence that he was riding a bike, and claimed everyone else was wrong because unicorns are abstract higher meanings of riding bikes that only the select few can understand, and repeat ad infinitum when challenged with evidence of reality.
Alternatively, BKXC is basically David Koresh.
A large chunk of his target audience seem like the types who'd don long leather trench coats and go postal with an array of stockpiled firearms given half the chance.
Still.... it gets them out of their bedrooms at their mums house, watching endless YouTube conspiracy theories and hardcore grot, and into the fresh air, so its not all bad, eh? 😀
binners
A large chunk of his target audience seem like the types who’d don long leather trench coats and go postal with an array of stockpiled firearms given half the chance.
Still…. it gets them out of their bedrooms at their mums house, and into the fresh air, so its not all bad
The comment you make when you have absolutely nothing valid to say by way of critique so instead you create a lazy caricature of group you perceive to be ideologically opposed to you. Every time you post you're just winking to your little clique, and you've made it abundantly clear you've not listened to anything the man has said, so why comment? It makes you look stupid.
So I've been told.
Doesn't make me wrong though, does it?
I'd imagine theres a pretty big crossover between the people living at their mums, feeling rejected by girls, while nodding along to Jordans vids on YouTube, in between watching a lot of quite unpleasant grot and blogging about the aliens taking over the the government, and Mossad being behind 9/11
Basically, people looking to the internet to tell them what they want to hear, so that they don't have to face up to reality
This is all hugely entertaining, so by way of a very minor contribution, it’s probably worth pointing out that in North American higher education, ‘professor’ is a fairly generic term that’s used for most employed faculty members. In that respect, it doesn’t automatically imply the sort of seniority and intellectual gravitas that it does within the UK system, where the head of a department can still be a lowly ‘lecturer’.
A large chunk of his target audience seem like the types who’d don long leather trench coats and go postal with an array of stockpiled firearms given half the chance.
suppose if you are going to post bollox you may as well go right out of the box with it.
Doesn’t make me wrong though, does it?
Nope.
It's the being wrong that makes you wrong. 😛
it’s probably worth pointing out that in North American higher education, ‘professor’ is a fairly generic term that’s used for most employed faculty members. In that respect, it doesn’t automatically imply the sort of seniority and intellectual gravitas that it does within the UK system, where the head of a department can still be a lowly ‘lecturer’.
I heard he acquired his qualifications in an illicit game of cribbage one night, only winning thanks to turning over one for his nob.
binners
I’d imagine...
Yep.
I heard he beat a man to death with his own shoes to steal them
There's a very interesting article in The Economist that cites data collected by the LSE showing the relationship between polgamy and civil war and the impact that enforced celibacy can have on the male populations tendency towards violence:
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/03/19/why-polygamy-breeds-civil-war
Of course to suggest the the exact same effect is in evidence in the Canadian incident is perhaps tenuous at best and entirely inacurate at worst. We can't know for sure because we cannot assume that the same cultural norms and pressures are also at work in developed nations. While it is the case that there appears to be a correlation between instability (i.e. social unrest through male aggression) and polygamy, that could be as much to do with relative poverty.
Still, it's an interesting line of inquiry and precisely the one that JP was articulating.
Still, it’s an interesting line of inquiry
I assume you are using a different meaning of Polygamy? Or is there enough data on countries where being married to multiple people is common practice or allowed? It's certainly banned in Utah
Has he done any research into the correlation between incidents of domestic violence and proximity to a McDonalds?
My theory is that the availability (or otherwise) of sausage and egg McMuffins is a direct contributory factor to the number of assaults in the home in any given area.
Makes you think....
Or is there enough data on countries where being married to multiple people is common practice or allowed?
Yes thats what what the article is about. It’s safe to click. It’s the economist.
If they fight, they can loot, and with loot, they can wed. In a paper published last year, Valerie Hudson of Texas A&M University and Hilary Matfess of Yale found that a high brideprice is a “critical” factor “predisposing young men to become involved in organised group violence for political purposes”. Jihadist groups exploit this, too. One member of ****stan’s Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the attack on Mumbai in 2008 that killed 166 people, said he joined the organisation because it promised to pay for his siblings to get married. During its heyday the so-called Islamic State offered foreign recruits honeymoons in Raqqa, its former capital. In northern Nigeria, where polygamy is rife, Boko Haram still arranges cheap marriages for its recruits.
Interesting in a well that is happening somewhere, interesting as in something to draw extrapolated conclusions from?
then
Globally, polygamy is in retreat, but in some pockets support for it is rising. After America’s Supreme Court legalised same-sex marriage in 2015, some people argued that plural unions should be next. According to Gallup, a pollster, the proportion of Americans who consider polygamy to be morally acceptable rose from 5% in 2006 to 17% last year, among the most dramatic jumps in the subjects it tracks. Campaigners in Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and other central Asian states are seeking to re-establish men’s right to take multiple wives. In Kazakhstan, a bill failed in 2008 after a female MP included an amendment stipulating that polyandry (women taking multiple husbands) also be allowed. Advocates claim that polygamy promotes social harmony by giving lusty husbands a legitimate alternative to infidelity. The mayhem in places like South Sudan, Afghanistan and northern Nigeria suggests otherwise.
I see a direct correlation there, there are no other factors that could be influencing anything there at all.
and the impact that enforced celibacy can have on the male populations tendency towards violence:
At least that is your reading of it.
An alternate reading would be to look at the part about cultural norms only considering a man to be, well, a man once he has got married and had some sprogs. Then you would need to consider the impact on those males who still end up single and are now even more disadvantaged.
Also confusing the polygamy societies which will often have very strict cultural norms and for example Canada is more than slightly odd.
Still, it’s an interesting line of inquiry and precisely the one that JP was articulating.
Please provide the exact quote supporting this as opposed to your interpretation.
Still, it’s an interesting line of inquiry and precisely the one that JP was articulating.
And the causal link is?
An alternate reading would be to look at the part about cultural norms only considering a man to be, well, a man once he has got married and had some sprogs.
and
Of course to suggest the the exact same effect is in evidence in the Canadian incident is perhaps tenuous at best and entirely inacurate at worst. We can’t know for sure because we cannot assume that the same cultural norms and pressures are also at work in developed nations
You clearly didn't read my post did you. Back of the class for you boy.
And the causal link is?
Rate of violent acts in men tend to dtop after they have got married and had children. That's quite well established. There's something about getting married and having kids that calms men down, especially if those men were prone to violence before.
You don't see the same effect in women, notwithstanding the fact that women are less likely to be represented in violent crime data than men are.
Rate of violent acts in men tend to dtop after they have got married and had children. That’s quite well established.
Rate of violent acts in men tend to drop as they get older.
Older men are more likely to be married with children.
That's quite well established.
Rate of violent acts in men tend to dtop after they have got married and had children. That’s quite well established. There’s something about getting married and having kids that calms men down, especially if those men were prone to violence before.
Seems to depend on the reporting level doesn't it, as the recent investigative journalism in Australia pointed to a huge amount of suppression of prevention of reporting of domestic violence by organised religion.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-23/when-women-are-believed-the-church-will-change/9782184
Conclusions should be questioned if the underlying data is not sound don't you think?
Correlation and causation are two different things. Just because there's an apparent link between two things doesn't mean you can automatically assume that one begets the other. (Of course, it doesn't mean we can rule it out as causal either).
It's like when someone plays GTA or CoD and then goes and on a shooting spree. Do we conclude, as the media is wont to do, that he went on a rampage because he played violent video games? Or rather that there was something wrong in his brain that made him predisposed to both violent games and actual violence?
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
geetee wrote,
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
Still, it’s an interesting line of inquiry and precisely the one that JP was articulating.
</div>
Is it now? Polygamy is a statistical non-issue in the US and has no bearing on "incels", not one has been from a community where polygamy is legal.
Neither does monogamy for that matter, because of course monogamy doesn't adjust the ratio of potential mates in the slightest- it removes one from each pool. The odds remain identical.
And an "incel" would still be single even in an "enforced monogamy" world, because all that would mean is that people who can form a relationship stay in it; people who can't, will still be single, and no doubt will blame all the monogamous women for immorally and incorrectly withholding their vaginas.
So no, it's not an interesting "line of inquiry", it's an irrelevant nonsense and can only serve to make excuses for murderers, give future murderers more excuses, and sell some books. There is not some outside force or societal evil making this happen, it is individual guys who can't get laid and want to blame everyone else.
Rate of violent acts in men tend to dtop after they have got married and had children. That’s quite well established. There’s something about getting married and having kids that calms men down, especially if those men were prone to violence before.
That's not a causal link.
You clearly didn’t read my post did you.
I did although not sure why I bothered.
The first point refers to the fact that a lot of the problems are caused by the cultural norm of requiring marriage. Which as far as I can tell is what you seem to be aiming at. So as solutions go not really the best.
For the second. I was just commenting on it is absolutely pointless to try and correlate the two. I would say beyond absolutely wrong. You then skip past that regardless and try the "interesting line of inquiry" to try and ignore the wrongness of your link.
Back of the class for you boy.
Not up with class room layouts nowadays. is the back where the cool kids hang out or the incel morons? If the latter will give it a miss.
dear god, I wondered why I don't come on here as much. This thread is a perfect example . infowars links cited as evidence. Misogynists hiding their views behind pseudo intellectual claptrap . This place is looking more and more like a youtube comments section every day
Should we post more pictures?
You can’t call it pseudo intrelectual claptrap. If you do that then you apparently demonstrate your own lack of intelligence and inability to see the true picture
though, admittedly, the true picture seems to be no more complicated than some inadequate blokes who are really, really angry because nobody female wants to shag them. And this is apparently societies fault. Especially the 50% of society with tits
It’s definitely not as simple as them just not being a thoroughly unpleasant bunch of ****s who constantly voice pretty backward and misogynistic bollocks to try and explain away their numerous offensive personality traits
As I think this thread perfectly demonstrates
Careful binners, your anger shows you may be prone to polygamy or nicking your neighbours goats
Especially the 50% of society with tits
Speak for yourself... I'm easier than a two piece jigsaw....
though, admittedly, the true picture seems to be no more complicated than some inadequate blokes who are really, really angry because nobody female wants to shag them. And this is apparently societies fault. Especially the 50% of society with tits
I haven't read the rest of the thread - I'm not really a big Chris Evans fan - but I've always thought that enforced monogamy might help with that sort of thing. I don't know if anyone one else would agree, my wives were certainly all in favour,
though, admittedly, the true picture seems to be no more complicated than some inadequate blokes who are really, really angry because nobody female wants to shag them.
Binners, that is PRECISELY what Peterson is saying! So you're basically agreeing with him.
Yes, I get that. I’m not that bright, but I’m genuinely not that thick.
But it’s what he then suggests as the solution to that that i’ve Got the issue with.
Enforced monogamy? 😳 enforced how? And by whom? Well.... men, obviously. Like in the caliphate?
Perish the thought that the blokes might want to do some critical self-analysis, and moderate their behaviour accordingly to become a bit more pleasant to be around.
Nope... it’s the women’s fault, clearly
you can wrap it up in all the pseudo-bullshit in the world, but at the end of the day it’s just good, old fashioned misogyny
A true internet win there geetee, ignore everything else and misquote FTW
Nope… it’s the women’s fault, clearly
Especially the large percentage who are abused by their partners.
Here's a great article on Peterson and the failure of the left. It's written by "gasp" a woman (so presumably not a misogynist) and someone who describes herself as having a "life-long identification with the social democratic (or, in U.S. terms, left-liberal) side of the political spectrum". Obviously those who wish to attack and mis-characterise Peterson won't want to read or know anything about it or him but I've pasted some of the article because a lot of it maps quite well on to this thread. Perhaps something might sink in by osmosis.
I'd never heard of Jordan Peterson until a short time ago. In my case, the first signal of his arrival on the cultural scene was a friend’s series of Facebook posts vividly denouncing him as a reactionary cult-like leader.....Soon, I found myself going down the Peterson rabbit-hole with countless others. I listened to several of his lectures on reinterpreting Bible stories as archetypical myths. Contradicting my friend’s warnings of hate-filled right-wing propaganda, I found Peterson’s discussions intellectually engaging, personally meaningful, and a refreshing departure from the standard discourse on such issues.
Although my newfound interest in Peterson might seem to put me in good company this isn’t the case at all. On the contrary, it puts me into a pretty isolated, alienated, and uncomfortable position. The reason for this is simple: I’ve always identified strongly with the left-leaning side of the political and cultural spectrum.
The hyperbolic uniformity of the leftist attack on Peterson is emblematic of the growing tendency to reduce left-of-center thought to the status of a rigidly simplistic ideology. Increasingly, what passes for progressive political thought today offers little more than a scripted set of weaponized hashtags (you must be pro- #metoo and anti-patriarchy, no further thought required). This narrowing of our public discourse is disturbing, and worrisome on multiple, mutually reinforcing levels.
First, it’s unconvincing to everyone who’s not some sort of true believer or faithful follower (or, more cynically, a journalist looking to please an editor demanding yet another Peterson hit piece). No doubt, I’m not the only person who’s wondered what all the fuss is about, decided to take the time to listen to one of Peterson’s YouTube lectures, and come away feeling that the Left’s commentariat is trying to sell me a fake bill of goods. The gap between Peterson’s obvious intelligence and the Left’s scathing denunciation of him as an alt-right idiot is simply too large for many of us to ignore.
the Left’s attack on Peterson is so unrelenting, so superficial, and quite frequently so vicious, that many of us who work and/or live in left-leaning social environments feel scared to speak up against it.
I realize that Peterson has at times said things that I disagree with and might even find offensive. But I’m much more concerned with—and disgusted by—the endless stream of tendentious and dishonest articles from leftists critics that grab onto such statements and blow them out of proportion, while aggressively erasing everything else the man has ever said or done from the record.
I find it even more aggravating that such distortion is typically coupled with a predictable string of gratuitous insults (Peterson is a misogynist, a racist, a transphobe, and so on).
Rather then vilifying Peterson, I’d love to see left-of-center writers, thinkers, and political commentators engage with his ideas in challenging, but also thoughtful and respectful ways.
Sounds eerily familiar.
Evans has lost the plot (again?). He was playing a load of pish from Deepak Chopra this morning.
Sounds eerily familiar.
It does? It seems to me that you fanboys become shy when asked to substantiate his assertions.
Actually, I think one of his more interesting papers is this one:
AKA, why are lefties so miserable?
Something you can see borne out rather well in this thread 🙂
Here’s a great article on Peterson
which tells us precisely nothing about his ideas or their validity, but enables you to claim victim status on his behalf. Are you a snowflake?
AKA, why are lefties so miserable?
Because taking pleasure in human suffering is a little perverse.
Because taking pleasure in human suffering is a little perverse.
It’s an interesting theory
maybe you should go out and research the issue, and publish your results in a peer reviewed journal.
until you do, i’ll stick with his conclusions. My sincere apologies for preferring evidence over opinion 😉
I'll be just as happy if you shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
AKA, why are lefties so miserable?
Because we're worried that you haven't stopped beating your wife.
My sincere apologies for preferring evidence over opinion
When did this happen?
jimjam
obviously those who wish to attack and mis-characterise Peterson won’t want to read or know anything about it or him but I’ve pasted some of the article because a lot of it maps quite well on to this thread. Perhaps something might sink in by osmosis.
ransos
you fanboys
Sigh.
onewheelgood
which tells us precisely nothing about his ideas or their validity,
No you could listen to his ideas but that would take time out of your busy schedule fighting injustice and identifying this week's Hitler.
AKA, why are lefties so miserable?
Is it due to the lack of empathy required to be truly right wing? Would explain a lot, or maybe they can afford the happy pills
also loving the
https://www.excel-easy.com/examples/circular-reference.html
Sigh.
No substantiation then.
Is it due to the lack of empathy required to be truly right wing?