Forum menu
Yes. They’re dog whistles. When he says “Declining western birth rates”, he means white people. He knows it,
Maybe he meant the birth rates of dogs in the West? Because he didn't specifically say it wasn't dogs that he meant he must have meant it right?
Knock yourself out I Scoff Cake -
https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1331505661817937921
Can we get back on topic now please?
I accept that Jordan Peterson doesn't think his penis is of adequate size and I have sympathy for the complex he seems to have because of it.
But he doesn't have to keep yapping like a demented Jack Russell. He could just shut his ****ing mouth and piss off.
Hah.
Actually surprised Jordan gave in there and saw the flaw in his logic - something tells me his real views are different to his contrarian stances.
Generally, I ignore post or clips where it's said that person X 'destroys' person Y.
Adversarial 'debate' where someone tries to catch or snare someone is a childish sport. People don't truly engage with or learn from each other doing this. Nothing is achieved other than to 'win' an imagined prize. It's all done in bad faith.
Actually surprised Jordan gave in there and saw the flaw in his logic – something tells me his real views are different to his contrarian stances.
He said he could be wrong implying that he may need to rethink or clarify his thoughts. Actually, the interviewer asked a loaded question and that may have caught him off guard too.
Sadly, in the impoverished world of Twitter and social media, admitting any kind of doubt is a weakness to be siezed upon, and we wonder why there are so many problems today!?
Nothing is achieved other than to ‘win’ an imagined prize.
The piss-mark on the wall is visible for at least five minutes.
I don't actually hate Peterson as much as others, I think his views are often siezed upon by deranged incel lunatics but unlike people like Katie Hopkins, he does seem to attempt to understand other peoples points of view. He's an arrogant, haughty prick but he's capable of engaging and being engaged by others in real debate - and his views have shown some fluidity. It's just a shame that intelligence sometimes translates to ****ing batshit insane viewpoints.
Katie Hopkin is a clown. Whilst I'm only lukewarm on Peterson it pains me that people want to lump all conservatives together like this. It's done in bad faith IMHO.
Jordan's latest brain fart is a real doozy "without looking into the figures I would say modern medicine, excluding public health, kills more people than it saves". Off the top of my head I would say more people have been cured of bowel cancer than have died due to medical mishap.
Adversarial ‘debate’ where someone tries to catch or snare someone is a childish sport.
Or alternatively, polarising opinions created to rile are best exposed through this simplest of scrutiny. Let them expose themselves.
I ignore post or clips where it’s said that person X ‘destroys’ person Y.
actually that one doesn't reflect too badly on JP as he realises he's on loser and admits it.
tbh, I might actually read a column of Burchill's on Peterson. I doubt she'd be gentle. Other than that, I think we're done unless anyone wants to
truly engage with or learn
....and then presumably sign up as a JP paetron. (The only mildly interesting thing about him is how he's managed to monetise incoherent middlebrow waffle. Nice work if you can get it.) Anyway, unlikely to be me.
Generally, I ignore post or clips where it’s said that person X ‘destroys’ person Y
You can't watch much of Peterson then, almost every clip seems to be titled "Jordan Peterson DESTROYS insert name of person he's having a perfectly civil chat with here.
Helen Lewis wrote a broadly sympathetic piece in The Atlantic recently. Peterson's response? A rather plaintive tweet
"Why do you hate me so much @helenlewis? I have tried to be a good man."
If he got addicted to Benzos, it doesn't surprise me that he's been more unhinged of late and posting twitter replies like that. There are usually fairly severe reasons for that kind of addiction.
Interesting Atlantic article, cheers.
“People need to know this. It’s not good. Those drugs are for short-term treatment of stress-induced anxiety,” he said. “It’s quite shocking to me actually that I didn’t know, despite my professional speciality, that I had no idea how catastrophic benzodiazepine use could be.”
Nobody warned me benzos were addictive? Really? Cool story bro.
Nobody warned me benzos were addictive? Really? Cool story bro.
There's a difference between knowing and knowing if that makes sense? Intellectual vs experiential knowledge.
If it wasn't Peterson would you be mocking someone's prescription drug addiction?
Nobody warned me benzos were addictive? Really? Cool story bro.
You'd be surprised by how some doctors in other countries give them out like sweets, I know someone here in the Netherlands who got addicted to them because the docs just threw drugs at a relatively minor psychological problem (in the grand scheme of things) instead of putting them through long term therapy.
Or alternatively, polarising opinions created to rile are best exposed through this simplest of scrutiny. Let them expose themselves.
The question was loaded with an ends justify the means assumption. Peterson looked tired and didn't pick up on it.
Absolutely nothing was learned.
You’d be surprised by how some doctors in other countries give them out like sweets, I know someone here in the Netherlands who got addicted to them because the docs just threw drugs at a relatively minor psychological problem (in the grand scheme of things) instead of putting them through long term therapy.
Valium especially used to be like that, i.e., given out way too easily. Utter hell to get off it.
There's plenty of examples on that thread - not just that one tweet.
Whilst I’m only lukewarm on Peterson
Then why have you completely de-railed the thread when someone mentioned him in passing?
Getting massive incel vibes from this thread.
has anyone tried to read his Maps of Meaning book? It's 300 pages of total parklife crypto bollocks, but the illustrations / diagrams what really make it for me
All this thread needs is some dull street portraiture and it'll be like we've gone back in time a couple of years.
has anyone tried to read his Maps of Meaning book? It’s 300 pages of total parklife crypto bollocks, but the illustrations / diagrams what really make it for me
Bahahaaha WTAF. Guess he chased the dragon of chaos too far.
All this thread needs is some dull street portraiture and it’ll be like we’ve gone back in time a couple of years.
Far too exciting.
Jung is an analytical framework, you can take it or leave it. It's not more or less empirically valid than many of the post-structuralist inspired ideas such as CRT, white privilege etc., that are currently in fashion.
post-structuralist inspired ideas such as CRT
Well. I think you'll find cathode ray tellies definitely exist, though I agree they aren't in fashion anymore.
has anyone tried to read his Maps of Meaning book? It’s 300 pages of total parklife crypto bollocks, but the illustrations / diagrams what really make it for me
Hahah that looks like something from Scientology.
It does seem like he went off the deep end properly, doesn't it?
Well there's a novelty! 🙂
If Jordan Peterson is what passes for a 'thinker' nowadays we really are **** ed as a species.
Calling all alien starships - you can take us now.
In another age, Peterson would have founded a religion. He's a classic stupid person's clever person and he's mostly very good at it.
So is he pro or anti vax? And what is his stance on Brexit?
The nation NEEDS to know.
Has anyone here who is mocking Jung / Joseph Campbell types ideas actually read anything on the topics of mythology and comparative religion? Don't get me wrong, all ideas have problems and can be criticised, but saying something is like Scientology and 'Parklife' seems anti-intellectual. I'm also wondering what of Peterson's people have actually been exposed to beyond some cherry-picked social media low-lights?
Has anyone here who is mocking Jung / Joseph Campbell types ideas actually read anything on the topics of mythology and comparative religion?
Yes.
A long, long time ago (at the end of the 60s).
This thread needs more pictures.
Here's a bike, out standing in it's field:
It should have fallen over by now, though...
...because it's two tyred.
^^^
By which point everyone with a pre-existing prejudice thinks they have had it confirmed one way or another and the goalposts are moved another millimetre towards legitimising view that should be unacceptable to a civil society.
"All lies and jest, still the man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".
There's a lot of twaddle spouted about how we are evolved animals at heart and that those urges and characteristics cannot be 'educated' out entirely. Even if that is true, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
People who like to misappropriate Nietzsche most often ignore the desirability of actually making the effort to combat innate issues...
Mind you, no one seems to be able to actually determine what Nietzsche or Wittgenstein were intending...
I think, ultimately, it boils down to rule number 1 most of the time.
There’s a lot of twaddle spouted about how we are evolved animals at heart and that those urges and characteristics cannot be ‘educated’ out entirely. Even if that is true, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
Have you tried going with food and water entirely? Try 'educating out' the need for them.
Freud thought that the civilising process of modern society made people miserable but otoh who would want to live in a Hobbesian world?
The truth is probably somewhere in between a post-modern idea that we are infinitely-plastic beings scripted by discourses and the idea of biological essentialism.
towards legitimising view that should be unacceptable to a civil society.
What exactly is wrongthink in 2021 out of interest?
Look!!!!
A squirrel!!
Oh hey
Have you tried going with food and water entirely? Try ‘educating out’ the need for them.
No, but what's that got to do with someone stirring up hate to compensate for having genitalia that they perceive to be of inadequate size?