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?
How do you know those 3 didn't have empathy?
Go on then, what is it? What keeps these rich old white folks happy
Sigh.
No substantiation then.
Peterson: Three hour lecture about Dragons as a metaphor for chaos and dragon slaying as a metaphor for gaining control.
The Guardian: Crackpot pseudo intellectual and alt right incel leader Jordan Peterson claims that dragons are real and encourages followers to murder endangered Komodo Dragon species on remote Indonesian Island.
STW: Substantiate JP's claims that dragons are real or I win the internet. PS you're a nazi who beats his wife and everything you say is invalid because you can't possibly know what Peterson actually means unless you have psychic powers.
Pol Pot – Wikipedia
Joseph Stalin – Wikipedia
Mao Zedong – Wikipedia
I'm surprised you didn't include Hitler on the grounds that he was a National Socialist.
everything you say is invalid because you can’t possibly know what Peterson actually means unless you have psychic powers.
you have psychic powers? I thought you might have been one of the chosen ones as you were able to translate his long words into other words that meant something different. Do I get to move to Level 6 now?
Peterson: Three hour lecture about Dragons as a metaphor for chaos and dragon slaying as a metaphor for gaining control.
The Guardian: Crackpot pseudo intellectual and alt right incel leader Jordan Peterson claims that dragons are real and encourages followers to murder endangered Komodo Dragon species on remote Indonesian Island.
STW: Substantiate JP’s claims that dragons are real or I win the internet. PS you’re a nazi who beats his wife and everything you say is invalid because you can’t possibly know what Peterson actually means unless you have psychic powers.
It would've been far quicker to just admit that you can't substantiate his claims.
aw shit ransos, I just paid my cash for level 6, or is the the Scientologists?
Jordan peterson? Blimey. All I'm seeing from his supporters here are the squeals and bleatings of yesterdays men.
The world is moving forward and the killer for the likes of JP, Trump and their supporters is that they can't stop it.
Jordan Peterson? Blimey. All I’m seeing from his supporters here are the squeals and bleatings of yesterday's men.
The herd mantra you are looking for is whining.
That's the buzz word, omit it at your peril.
Go on then, what is it? What keeps these rich old white folks happy?
NRA membership?
There are two themes that Jordan Peterson explores in his videos, one the clinical psicologist theme, and the other the slightly more political side.
You may disagree with this politics, however his videos on self improvement have genuinely helped people, some of the stuff he says is extremely relevant to people of my age group 20-30.
I believe some of his anger towards the left stems from working in a university, and the way that these institutions are indoctrinating students. Students who then join companies, who may end up working in HR.
In the UK we get a diluted version of some of the stuff happening in the US, however in the past 7 years, universities have in some ways gone from liberal (live and let live) to "I will tolerate you only if you think like me".
If you are over 30, chances are you will not be able to relate to some his videos or understand were he is coming from.
Woah there baboonz, you need to admit your undying love for Peterson or declare him Satan. The bivalency of this forum will accept nought else!
*See the EU thread if you need an example.
*Don't see the EU thread. 🙁
Where STW goes, NYT follows ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html
(Edited to point out that the picture is in fact a link to an article - no idea how that happened - forum "improvement" I guess)
This place is looking more and more like a youtube comments section every day
Naah - YouTube have software that works.
Did they use his tinder profile pic for the NYT link 😉 seems like his direct quotes are the ones people are saying he didn't mean...
however in the past 7 years, universities have in some ways gone from liberal (live and let live) to “I will tolerate you only if you think like me”.
Ive spent the last 12 years working at universities & other than the odd sensationalist splash in the right-wing press, I don't see that.
Universities have changed, they are far more about keeping up student numbers & become more focused on recruitment than ever. With staff entirely focused on hitting research & teaching targets.
Students have also become more interested in vfm as the prices they pay keep rising, tho ultimately sex & booze are still high on the priority list.
Im not sure where they fit in the time to become all left-wing, smash the patriarchy type activists.
The world & society changes constantly, some people struggle to accept it & yearn for a golden age that never existed....
In the UK we get a diluted version of some of the stuff happening in the US, however in the past 7 years, universities have in some ways gone from liberal (live and let live) to “I will tolerate you only if you think like me”.
Erm.... ok then. I'm presently working at a university, and have done for a number of years. I've got quite a few friends who are senior lecturers. I think we all must have missed the memo on indoctrination.
If I adopted the same condescending tone as yourself, and made sweeping generalisations, I'd conclude that maybe more intelligent, educated people are less inclined to fall for cod-pseudo claptrap, pedalled by snake oil salesmen, that essentially exist to find excuses to justify misogyny and racism
His material and presentations/vids on psychology are really good.
However, is material on philosophy/methodology is mixed.
And the material on religion is a steaming pile of horse manure.
[I'm a lecturer and psychology graduate, if that's relevant]
find excuses to justify
I think thats where you utterly miss the point Binners
he's not "justifying" anything
he's talking about WHY things are the way they are.
See the Lobsters stuff for example - JP isn't arguing that social hierarchies are inherently good or bad, he's telling us that they are inevitable, and the biological/evolutionary background as to why that is so.
Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance
The lobsters thing is utter nonsense though. Cherry picking at its very worst.
Oohh does he opine about evolutionary genetics?
That should be amusing
he’s not “justifying” anything
he’s talking about WHY things are the way they are.
Oh come off it! He knows exactly what he's doing!
He knows full-well that his more inflammatory stuff is immediately seized on by misogynists and racists as justification for their attitude, and (in some cases violent) actions. He's absolutely complicit in it
Why?
Well..... ker-****ing-ching!
binners
He knows full-well that his more inflammatory stuff is immediately seized on by misogynists and racists as justification for their attitude, and (in some cases violent) actions. He’s absolutely complicit in it
Nope. What he says is only "seized on" by clickbait authors who deliberately mis-represent it, strip it of any context, portray it as racist, sexist and misogynist then serve it to the likes of you so you can get frothy and upset about it.
And the only reason they do it? ker-****ing-ching!
It works well by the look of it.
I was attempting to give some context as to why Jordan Peterson is popular, also noticed I said DILUTED version.
If you don't think Universities have eagerly embraced the worst version of political correctness any further argument is futile.
If I adopted the same condescending tone as yourself, and made sweeping generalisations, I’d conclude that maybe more intelligent, educated people are less inclined to fall for cod-pseudo claptrap, pedalled by snake oil salesmen, that essentially exist to find excuses to justify misogyny and racism
Buzzwords, insults and no substance.
See the Lobsters stuff for example – JP isn’t arguing that social hierarchies are inherently good or bad, he’s telling us that they are inevitable, and the biological/evolutionary background as to why that is so.
I understand.
But as lots of people keep saying, his conclusions cannot be justified by the self evident, universally accepted truths he uses to reach them.
Too many gaps.
A refusal to accept the validity of anything that doesn't fit in with his beliefs.
An astounding inability to understand that he is the perfect example of those he dislikes.
If you don’t think Universities have eagerly embraced the worst version of political correctness any further argument is futile.
I'm presently sat in one of the countries leading universities and I don't recognise that statement at all. Its complete and utter cobblers, no matter what the Daily Mail would have you believe.
They are open and inclusive places. If thats what you mean by 'the worst version of political correctness'?
And is there a better version of Political correctness you could reference? Or is it all just 'political correctness gawn maaaaad'?
He knows full-well that his more inflammatory stuff is immediately seized on by misogynists and racists as justification for their attitude, and (in some cases violent) actions. He’s absolutely complicit in it
Nope. What he says is only “seized on” by clickbait authors who deliberately mis-represent it, strip it of any context, portray it as racist, sexist and misogynist then serve it to the likes of you so you can get frothy and upset about it.
I don't know which of these statements is closer to the truth, though the net result is the same is it not?
But if you're a public speaker and what you're saying is inadvertently being used by "misogynists and racists" to justify their nasty little attitudes, wouldn't you perhaps want to adjust what you're saying so that didn't happen quite so much?
Nope. What he says is only “seized on” by clickbait authors who deliberately mis-represent it, strip it of any context....
But they do that to everyone!
It's a universal trait and attributing it only to those you disagree with smacks of paranoia.
But if you’re a public speaker and what you’re saying is inadvertently being used by “misogynists and racists” to justify their nasty little attitudes, wouldn’t you perhaps want to adjust what you’re saying so that didn’t happen quite so much?
Isn't this returning to the left wing censor everything we don't like vs the *centrist free speech let's get it all out in the open and discuss it argument?
*As opposed to the right wing we want to call people racist names free speech argument.
Isn’t this returning to the left wing censor everything we don’t like vs the *centrist free speech let’s get it all out in the open and discuss it argument?
Lets leave aside the rather optimistic viewpoint of the centrist position. Are you really confusing censorship and someone thinking "hmmm i dont want some halfwits misrepresenting me so I will try and make sure they cant?". I know if I was in that situation I would be wanting to avoid them misrepresenting me.
A refusal to accept the validity of anything that doesn’t fit in with his beliefs.
I've seen no evidence of this - in fact most of the stuff I've seen is the exact opposite, him debating with people who disagree with him, conceding some points and refuting others.
Unfortunately, very few of the 'media' interviews involve any form of actual debate.
Its funny to see so many people thinking that JP is somehow responsible for the beliefs, comments and actions of his followers... or more accurately, so many people who in another thread would be telling us that Jeremy Corbyn bears absolutely cannot bear any responsibility for the anti-semitic beliefs, comments and actions of his supporters 😉
I suppose he could always produce material only in print and not on YT. That would help keep some of the halfwits at bay, though people have been using religious texts to legitimize atrocious behaviour long before the advent of the internet, so where do you stop?
Let’s be honest here. The real reason the people who hate Peterson are still on this thread belittling him and calling him a racist mysoginist is because they know full well he’s not, they know full well he has a point and they’re shit scared of that. It’s easier to dismiss him and anyone who agrees with him as being a racist mysoginist because it means they don’t have to engage with the ideas he represents. Their lack of dialogue and engagement is indicative of precisely the kind of ignorant bigoted thinking JP is trying to highlight. The irony is that by responding this way, people like Binners only show up their own bigotry and prove JPs point.
Keep up the good work guys you’re helping the cause.
What ‘Cause’ would that be then?
Cougar
I don’t know which of these statements is closer to the truth, though the net result is the same is it not?
Well, no I don't think so. Binners is saying that JP knows that what he says will be used by racists and misogynists to justify their hatred of (insert whoever). Even if this were true (it's not) Peterson is still not responsible for the way individuals will interpret his words.
On the other end you have "journalists" deliberately mischaracterizing him, his words and his work to stir the pot and get paid. On this note it's worth listening to Peterson's email exchange with a Guardian journalist over his use of the label "alt-right" do describe Peterson. It's a perfect illustration of how journalists and publications simply don't care about accurately representing him.
JP has lectured (he says) for almost 30 years about the evils of Nazism, totalitarianism and the far right. He's admonished the far right multiple times publicly so it's absolutely laughable to label him as far right, right wing, nazi sympathiser etc, so that won't stick but instead people just use "alt-right" because it carries the all the same inferences but it's much woolier and almost impossible to define. Again, note that Kanye West is now "alt right".
One is a byproduct, the other is an intentional lie. That should at least inform you about the motivation. If two factions are stirring up controversy, animosity and racial tensions and one side is doing it deliberately and the other is doing it by complete accident due to willful misinterpretation, who's intentions are worse?
But if you’re a public speaker and what you’re saying is inadvertently being used by “misogynists and racists” to justify their nasty little attitudes, wouldn’t you perhaps want to adjust what you’re saying so that didn’t happen quite so much?
Again, he can't control how people who want to misinterpret him will misinterpret him. All he can do is say what he believes. He's been scathing about “misogynists and racists” ...presumably the “misogynists and racists” just ignore those parts and skip to the little parts they like?
If these misogynists and racists really want leadership, or material that justifies their beliefs there's plenty of inflammatory hatred out there.
The real reason the people who hate Peterson are still on this thread belittling him and calling him a racist mysoginist is because they know full well he’s not,
You complain that people are unreceptive to his ideas yet you have the nerve to decide what everyone else thinks. It's difficult to see your behaviour as anything better than rank hypocrisy.
@onewheelgood - your link was a thing of beauty, well worth reposting I feel
https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/998385720992595968
<div id="singl-61cecc04c62c367448936d1e1e6c36d5"></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
You complain that people are unreceptive to his ideas yet you have the nerve to decide what everyone else thinks.
Well I did ask for clarification and for people to show their working six to seven pages ago but no one took me up on it, so you can hardly blame people from drawing conclusions from that.
Coming from a crowd that will shout "cite!" at the suggestion that grass is green, don't you think this is
rank hypocrisy?
Can any of the people saying that he's misrepresented explain to me the basic idea of what he's about?
All I seem to be able to find is arguments that say he's bad, followed by people saying naaah, you've not read his book and are misrepresenting him.
Well, can someone who's read his book explain WTF its all about?
edit: this isn't an attempt to fan the flames, I honestly can't see the truth in any of this.