All things relating to Jordan Peterson

Danzy

Deleted User wrote: »

Fairly shocking hatchet piece I just came across in the independent...Jesus, you'd expect more from them tbh..

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jordan-peterson-nazi-apologism-lindsey-graham-holocaust-migrant-caravan-mexican-border-tear-gas-a8659001.html?amp

Wow, he really had to pull and mangle to get that article over the line.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Fairly shocking hatchet piece I just came across in the independent...Jesus, you'd expect more from them tbh..

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jordan-peterson-nazi-apologism-lindsey-graham-holocaust-migrant-caravan-mexican-border-tear-gas-a8659001.html?amp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dwsYWF7TXI

Pretty sure this is the video.

Talking about Hitler makes you a nazi apologist.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Talking about Hitler makes you a nazi apologist.

Well yeah. To keep on the right side of public(and certainly media) opinion regarding Adolf, the only response is "he was pure evil", he was the Big Bad Wolf" and that's that. Trying to tease out the whys is usually not welcome. It wasn't always thus. When I was a kid back in the 70's and 80's I remember quite the bit of discussion on the whys of how a modern, educated, industrialised European nation went down that road with Hitler and his mates steering it.

I would disagree a little on one point. While he's dead right that vanishingly few people will brave sticking their heads up, even when stakes are low and that the vast majority of people watching that video if they were around at the time would be supporters of the regime. The German leaders were well aware of this, but contrary to popular belief(like the interviewer in the above) didn't come down so hard on low to mid level dissenters, especially in the early days.

The one thing the Nazis were scarily tuned into was human nature. EG there was a police chief of a German town whose name sadly escapes and when the order came to round up Jews and other "troublemakers" he took issue with it and said to his men that if they disagreed with this order they could choose to not go along with it. The Nazi hierarchy heard of this, but didn't frog march him to a firing squad. They knew. They waited. And the police chief noted that only a minority, the real bully boys set about this task with enthusiastic vigour and most of his men held back. At first. Within weeks all but a few were nearly as enthusiastic as the minority bully boys of the start. The herd instinct is strong, particularly if one believes one is protecting one's own herd.

I would say that very broadly speaking that's a difference between the extreme "right" and the extreme"left". The former are acutely aware of human nature and fashion it to their purpose, the latter see human nature as something that either doesn't really exist and it's "culture" and/or they think they can change it. That's on the philosophical level, though hard right types use it practically, but all totalitarian regimes and states of mind, left or right ultimately resort to using human nature for their own ends and to hang onto power.

johnnyskeleton

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Actually, I'd be quite keen on a definition as well for the former.

Can you get out of bed in the morning without questioning whether the idea of sleeping in a wooden structure with a fabric mattress is symbolic of the patriarchal tyranny of capitalism that forces you to sleep in such conditions? If not, then you are a post modernist.

iptba

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH16ympCb7Q

I can't find the bit now but he describes how men can feel in a no-win situation when against a woman e.g. in a debate: if he wins, he is a bully; if he loses, he is pathetic*. So they can tend to avoid such situations.

*not the word I would have used

While I don't blindly agree with everything he says, I think he's on the whole a massively positive influence, particular ly for young men.

blinding

If you have better ideas than Jordon Peterson then they are very good ideas .

20Cent

This video sums up why I dislike Peterson.
Shut up and know your place. Let your betters rule you.
Even the "psychology" is messed up. One can work on themselves and society at large as well.
PragerU is a far right propaganda site run by billionaires to tell regular people to stfu.
Peterson is helping them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOJe4_edU3E

I've yet to watch that video but PragerU should be taken with an enormous dollop of salt. Some of their videos are laughably bad. They are paid for by the republican party 100 times over. The audacity to claim they are a university, as if they are some kind of bastion of knowledge is mindblowing.

Watched it; if you skip to 2:38 in the video and go from there, it leaves out all the political nonsense and its a simple self help message. I must admit I agree with everything he says from there. Try be the best person you can be. The context that PragerU tries to put that in is horrific though.

iptba

‘There’s a difference between Jordan Peterson and a film about him’
Mike Sheridan on his viral interview with controversial professor and why he was impressed by new documentary

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/film/there-s-a-difference-between-jordan-peterson-and-a-film-about-him-1.4073236

It was clear, at least in the murky world of YouTube comment sections, that he had fans on both sides of the political divide, not just perpetually angry alt-right incels (who, granted, were still by far the loudest).

I'm not sure how he knows whether certain commentators are incels or not, I'm guessing it more insult aimed at people whose views you disagree with?

I didn't find the article that interesting, but I didn't click on any of the links.

iptba

Having seen the film, I find it surprising that The Rise of Jordan Peterson has had screenings cancelled after staff members in theatres objected. I’d recently viewed Alison Klayman’s superb fly-on-the wall look at Steve Bannon, The Brink. Bannon is another figure who has been the subject of widespread protests, but there weren’t protests at screenings of The Brink.

A similar thing happened with the "A Red Pill" documentary on the men's rights movement made by a feminist woman.

iptba

I was sad to hear of Jordan Peterson's difficulties. I hope he pulls through.

Social justice lunatics celebrate Jordan Peterson’s struggles
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/social-justice-lunatics-celebrate-jordan-petersons-struggles/

begbysback

iptba wrote: »

I was sad to hear of Jordan Peterson's difficulties. I hope people's through.

Seen an update today from his daughter, seems to be doing well in a center in Russia, and she said he’s over the worse of the withdrawals.

That is twitter for you I guess. Some of his opinions and ideas were so nonsense they bordered on the outright insane - like him thinking drugs gave ancient tribes magical mind powers in science - but as nut job as he ever got I do not recall ever wishing the man ill. Quite the opposite in fact - as I was almost jealous of his relationship with Sam Harris where the two of them disagreed vehemently on stage but seemed to have nothing but pure friendship and mutual respect off stage.

"Get well soon" is pretty much the only reaction I have to his suffering. Those that revel in his suffering - well nothing more needs to be said about such "people" I think. Wasps are gonna sting - hyenas are gonna bite - haters are gonna hate. Mindless animals do what mindless animals do.

Ill spend a few minutes today pretending I am a lobster - just for him.

Silentcorner

I'll never get over the hatred people have for Jordan Peterson....you'd swear he was leading a dooms day cult suggesting we are all going to die in some cataclysmic event someday soon!!! It's irrational!

Harika

Deleted User wrote: »

That is twitter for you I guess. Some of his opinions and ideas were so nonsense they bordered on the outright insane - like him thinking drugs gave ancient tribes magical mind powers in science - but as nut job as he ever got I do not recall ever wishing the man ill. Quite the opposite in fact - as I was almost jealous of his relationship with Sam Harris where the two of them disagreed vehemently on stage but seemed to have nothing but pure friendship and mutual respect off stage.

"Get well soon" is pretty much the only reaction I have to his suffering. Those that revel in his suffering - well nothing more needs to be said about such "people" I think. Wasps are gonna sting - hyenas are gonna bite - haters are gonna hate. Mindless animals do what mindless animals do.

Ill spend a few minutes today pretending I am a lobster - just for him.

Hope he is better soon, still why did his daughter make this update in her underwear?

ancapailldorcha

Harika wrote: »

Hope he is better soon, still why did his daughter make this update in her underwear?

Wait... Seriously?

Harika

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Wait... Seriously?

Did you watch the video?

Okay might be night wear, but seriously I would not suggest anyone to give an update on their father between life and death in this attire.

ancapailldorcha

Harika wrote: »

Did you watch the video?

Okay might be night wear, but seriously I would not suggest anyone to give an update on their father between life and death in this attire.

No. I've had enough of Peterson's nonsense. This comment just caught my eye and frankly, the cynic in me reckons she's trying to build a following similar to that of her father.

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

I'll never get over the hatred people have for Jordan Peterson....you'd swear he was leading a dooms day cult suggesting we are all going to die in some cataclysmic event someday soon!!! It's irrational!

Agreed, there are far worse role models both on Youtube and within US society/media. I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but honestly, most of his messages are positive, leading male followers towards a more balanced lifestyle (overall). Sure, there's some negatives, but i'd blame a lot of that on the focus on psychology and his wood for political science.

I think it's because anyone who becomes famous through male rights must be demolished and demonized. If you refuse to play to the community line (pc nonsense re trans, minorities or feminism) then you deserve to be attacked constantly. And if you're not a perfect example, then you're somehow a fake. As if anyone is perfect.. :rolleyes:

I was expecting something note worthy but bizarre to comment on what she's wearing in that vid tbh

iptba

Jordan Peterson is trending on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1331523815369830400

Danzy

iptba wrote: »

Jordan Peterson is trending on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1331523815369830400

The Book burners are in house now.

Danzy

Harika wrote: »

Did you watch the video?

Okay might be night wear, but seriously I would not suggest anyone to give an update on their father between life and death in this attire.

Are you a 1950s Priest?

Seriously, was that you who told the Girls in that school to not wear tight PE clothes?

mr.anonymous

I'm reading 12 Rules for Life at the moment have enjoyed all JBP's appearances on Joe Rogan and his bible lecture series on YouTube, and I'm looking forward to the next book. It's not out til March so we'll have to wait.

I don't agree with everything him (or anyone) says but he seems to be among the most misinterpreted and misquoted people in public life. He's not dangerous, transphobic or far-right, no matter how much the professionally offended like to say so.

paw patrol

mr.anonymous wrote: »

I'm reading 12 Rules for Life at the moment have enjoyed all JBP's appearances on Joe Rogan and his bible lecture series on YouTube, and I'm looking forward to the next book. It's not out til March so we'll have to wait.

I don't agree with everything him (or anyone) says but he seems to be among the most misinterpreted and misquoted people in public life. He's not dangerous, transphobic or far-right, no matter how much the professionally offended like to say so.

that grouping fear JP because he won't bow to them and their logic. He also has given men a focal point and blueprint to stand up for themselves and their wants /needs.



this is dangerous because the perpetually offended, leftie type twitter morons use men (esp white men) are the focal point for their rages. Can't have men empowered so...they want weak feminist men not real men.

brevity

Banning books seems counterintuitive to me. I think for the most part Peterson thinks he means well but touches on topics he knows nothing about and makes himself look a little foolish.

This thread on Twitter is interesting:

https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1331505661817937921?s=20

brevity

paw patrol wrote: »

they want weak feminist men not real men.

What’s a “real man”?

sbsquarepants

mr.anonymous wrote: »

I
I don't agree with everything him (or anyone) says but he seems to be among the most misinterpreted and misquoted people in public life. He's not dangerous, transphobic or far-right, no matter how much the professionally offended like to say so.

I agree, i haven't read any of his books but i have watched a reasonable amount of his lectures and interviews over the years (he's an absolutely fantastic public speaker IMO) One thing that i think is fairly obvious is that he is a decent, caring man. He strikes me as someone who above all genuinely wants to help - he has his flaws like us all, but i can't see why that surprises people, he's a psychologist not a fúcking superhero!

begbysback

brevity wrote: »

Banning books seems counterintuitive to me. I think for the most part Peterson thinks he means well but touches on topics he knows nothing about and makes himself look a little foolish.

This thread on Twitter is interesting:

https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1331505661817937921?s=20

So he admitted he was wrong about something, seems like a healthy conversation, how do you always protect yourself from not looking foolish on occasion? Be self righteous?

brevity

brevity wrote: »

Banning books seems counterintuitive to me. I think for the most part Peterson thinks he means well but touches on topics he knows nothing about and makes himself look a little foolish.

This thread on Twitter is interesting:

https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1331505661817937921?s=20

The thing is... apart from his role as a clinical Psych, he doesn't claim to be an expert.. that's an accusation placed on him on those who want to discredit him. He voices his opinion on a wide range of topics, and is well read to boot.

I don't agree with him on many topics, simply because he assumes that Psychology can answer everything as factual, as opposed to them being theories that are still in the early stages of being properly proven. Modern psychology has a lot to answer for, considering the way Americans have evolved.. and he's part of that problem.

but he is/was a force to encourage positive image for males, so i'm quite supportive of him, but he's not any kind of messiah.

ancapailldorcha

12 Rules is basically a Quora answer turned into a book and it shows. Badly. He keeps fawning over and quoting the same small few people and shoving Jesus into his ramblings. I wouldn't ban it or its sequel, I just think he peddles nonsense. If people want to waste their cash on it then that's their call.

begbysback

begbysback wrote: »

So he admitted he was wrong about something, seems like a healthy conversation, how do you always protect yourself from not looking foolish on occasion? Be self righteous?

Look at the rest of the twitter thread. There's some pretty dubious stuff there.

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

but he is/was a force to encourage positive image for males, so i'm quite supportive of him, but he's not any kind of messiah.

Neither is he a very naughty boy:D


I think a lot of his "teachings" for want of a better word are just common sense, there's little revolutionary in anything he says....but the shocking truth is there are a whole generation or more of people who have rarely been exposed to common sense - it's getting so rare these days it's like unicorn shíte!


That's the really shocking thing about Peterson - that what he says is seen as controversial whereas only a very short few years back he'd probably have been told to shut up stating the bloody obvious!


We've university deans calling cops in because someone says a woman is an adult human female - Seriously WTF is going on in the world!

The vitriol he inspires is really something to behold..

brevity

begbysback wrote: »

So he admitted he was wrong about something, seems like a healthy conversation, how do you always protect yourself from not looking foolish on occasion? Be self righteous?

It was a healthy conversation as are most of his. I would recommend reading watching some of the other clips in that thread...



FWIW, I have watched and read a lot of his stuff and considered myself a fan until he started getting a bit more fire and brimstone. I think the internet fame seemed to clutter his focus.

ligerdub

I think that anchoring ones philosophy on life to a particular persons views is a recipe for disaster, however that isn't to say it can't be of use, much like it can be for any amount of "self-help" books or any number of other high profile books that fly under the radar but appeal to a different demographic. Finally there seems to be a burgeoning offering which has gained traction with (but which not specifically written for) a male, mostly young audience, many of which are making positive changes in their lives. This obviously then has to be taken down, can't be having that.

I also find it interesting that so many people, even those positively disposed to his work seem to put the qualifier in that "I don't agree with everything he says"......why the weak qualifier? It's because they know that there's a social cost to an unqualified endorsement. This isn't a necessary prerequisite for many other authors or public figures, why is it required for him? Curious. Also, I doubt there's a single person of whom I agree with everything they say, so it's unnecessary for many reasons.

JP isn't making suggestions that are particularly dangerous to anyone, and to be honest the amount of criticism about him is bordering on the comical. I think it's quite reasonable to believe that the vast majority of the vocal critics are doing so because they don't follow the same political and social views that he does, and they need to have a go at him in any way possible to discredit every facet of his life. It's fairly poor stuff in my view.

ligerdub

ligerdub wrote: »

I also find it interesting that so many people, even those positively disposed to his work seem to put the qualifier in that "I don't agree with everything he says"......why the weak qualifier? It's because they know that there's a social cost to an unqualified endorsement.

Yeah, that's a part of it, but I think they're so quick to do that because in polite society one can't come across as having any time for religion these days..

ligerdub

ligerdub wrote: »

I also find it interesting that so many people, even those positively disposed to his work seem to put the qualifier in that "I don't agree with everything he says"......why the weak qualifier? It's because they know that there's a social cost to an unqualified endorsement. This isn't a necessary prerequisite for many other authors or public figures, why is it required for him? Curious. Also, I doubt there's a single person of whom I agree with everything they say, so it's unnecessary for many reasons.

Nope, I simply don't agree with everything he says.

He is someone who has covered a wide range of topics. I appreciated his stance against feminist propaganda, especially in relation to the Gender Wage gap, and I liked that he chose to take a stand against the pronoun debate.

At the same time, though, I find his political opinions to be overly complex, and flawed. His perspective on philosophy is particularly biased due to the idols he's decided are the more informed... and.. relgion? Nope. I don't agree even slightly with him there.

The qualifier is there because it's the truth. When he first came into the public eye, and his Youtube personality, I did agree with most of what he spoke about, but I feel that he grew to love his position as a guru, seeking to lead people towards his own perceived truth. Which is fine for other people, but I've already done a lot of my own introspection, self-discovery and personal development, so I don't need his brand of improvement.. nor do I agree with many aspects of it. I read his book, but found it to be completely unoriginal..

The qualifier is necessary because of the nature of the debate. Feminism, trans, etc are all movements that deal in absolutes. Black/White positions. Either you're a friend or an enemy.. and in discussions on boards, you get a lot of the same attitudes. So, the qualifier serves a purpose, in addition to being the truth

UpBack1234

super_furry wrote: »

I'm just baffled why he's being held up as this font of knowledge by certain corners of the internet. He seems like a dozen other different guys all selling the same thing to the same specific audience.

Yes and furthermore he just seems like such a thoroughly miserable individual. I don't get the appeal at all.

UpBack1234

UpBack1234 wrote: »

Yes and furthermore he just seems like such a thoroughly miserable individual. I don't get the appeal at all.

Look at his earliest interviews and videos. That was the appeal. Instead, of Milo, the troll, men finally had a reasonably articulate person to speak against the PC culture, in straight logical and rational tones. He was one of the first "reasonable" personalities to get involved.

It's different now. There's many people speaking out against this stuff online, but when he first started talking, there were very few people doing so. That was the appeal.

You're looking at the person he is now... a person who has gone through a lot of ****.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nope, I simply don't agree with everything he says.

He is someone who has covered a wide range of topics. I appreciated his stance against feminist propaganda, especially in relation to the Gender Wage gap, and I liked that he chose to take a stand against the pronoun debate.

At the same time, though, I find his political opinions to be overly complex, and flawed. His perspective on philosophy is particularly biased due to the idols he's decided are the more informed... and.. relgion? Nope. I don't agree even slightly with him there.

The qualifier is there because it's the truth. When he first came into the public eye, and his Youtube personality, I did agree with most of what he spoke about, but I feel that he grew to love his position as a guru, seeking to lead people towards his own perceived truth. Which is fine for other people, but I've already done a lot of my own introspection, self-discovery and personal development, so I don't need his brand of improvement.. nor do I agree with many aspects of it. I read his book, but found it to be completely unoriginal..

The qualifier is necessary because of the nature of the debate. Feminism, trans, etc are all movements that deal in absolutes. Black/White positions. Either you're a friend or an enemy.. and in discussions on boards, you get a lot of the same attitudes. So, the qualifier serves a purpose, in addition to being the truth

But like, you're not expected to be in total agreement with everything he says..

I think the point being made is that you don't feel it necessary to say that when talking about anyone else..

Except maybe Alex Jones..or Stalin or something..

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

But like, you're not expected to be in total agreement with everything he says..

I think the point being made is that you don't feel it necessary to say that when talking about anyone else..

Except maybe Alex Jones..or Stalin or something..

Except, I rarely talk about anyone, and when I do, I would likely say the same thing... that I don't agree with everything they say.

It's not as if Peterson is unique for this.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not as if Peterson is unique for this.

Yeah, but it does seem to said in relation to Peterson a LOT..

super_furry

God he's back at it, is he? 12 More Rules for Life?

1) Don't get hooked on benzos
2) Don't let your mental daughter convince you to eat only meat
3) Don't let said mental daughter haul you off to Russia so they can put you in a coma
4) Etc......

How are people still falling for this grift?

Wibbs

super_furry wrote: »

How are people still falling for this grift?

Sadly there are a lot of grifters out there SF and from any angle you care to mention. Many get into it to grift from the outset, others have grift forced upon them. He'd be more the latter as he was held up as some impossible icon against the "left" as the Yanks like to term it, because of a couple of early statements that resonated and had a fair bit of truth to them. Or at least were publicly questioning some current sacred cows. They must always be questioned. Every single truth and certainty and right we hold dear came about because someone somewhere called bullsh1t on the old truth and certainty. And yes we are not immune to worshipping current BS as truths and certainties. Though all cultures think "we're spot on at the moment, maybe a bit of a polish here and there".

That's a good thing. However and as usual and often a draw for the academic who's used to if not an enthralled audience, at least a captive one. He then started to believe his own farts smelled of roses and went way out of his comfort zone and expertise, which is always a bad idea. He's a clinical psychologist. That's his expertise(and lord knows that discipline has more holes than a teabag). Though again that's common with many public figures who are seen as clever. Look at Stephen Hawking. Great physicist, but acolytes were lining up to ask him about all sorts of diverse subjects that he had zero proven expertise in. Oh please great robotic voiced sage, lead us to the truth etc.

On his self help book? Never got around to reading it, though got snippets over the years. Meh, as usual with such things the parts that were useful weren't original and the parts that were original weren't useful. It was unusual as men generally don't buy them, the self help section of a book shop is almost entirely aimed at the subsection of the chronically well, if slightly neurotic women.

Though I suspect Jordan got some spillover from the subsection of usually socially inept men who bought into the whole PUA end of the interwebs and those who hang out in bodybuilding forums(and don't lift weights). Or at least that's the impression I get? That demographic are into the self help genre, though unlike the life coach ballsology of women's self help stuff, it's not mainstream so I suppose they grab it where they can.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

It was unusual as men generally don't buy them, the self help section of a book shop is almost entirely aimed at the subsection of the chronically well, if slightly neurotic women.
.

Ahh no, Wibbs, the self-help/personal development industry is massive for men.. originally it would have been focused on the business management, and productivity books, but it's since expanded far beyond that. It's not so much about dating and romance.. but on accelerated learning, balancing internal states, habit formation, etc.

I have a publisher who constantly sends me updates about the market, since I'm in the middle of writing such a book. Men in their 30s-40s are a huge market, especially in Asia, but the European/US markets are considerable.

iptba

iptba wrote: »

Jordan Peterson is trending on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1331523815369830400

https://twitter.com/typofoto/status/1331502131560534016

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

super_furry wrote: »

God he's back at it, is he? 12 More Rules for Life?

1) Don't get hooked on benzos
2) Don't let your mental daughter convince you to eat only meat
3) Don't let said mental daughter haul you off to Russia so they can put you in a coma
4) Etc......

How are people still falling for this grift?

What’s the story with him getting addicted to benzos? I heard some journalist (whose name escapes me) say in his defence the other day “That was because his wife has cancer!”. I’m not seeing the link there. I mean, I have great sympathy for him and would not wish addiction on anyone. I’m just not understanding why he would be prescribed enough of them to get addicted simply because his wife was ill. From my experience, doctors are generally very reluctant to prescribe more than a handful of benzos. Guess it’s different in Canada.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

What’s the story with him getting addicted to benzos? I heard some journalist (whose name escapes me) say in his defence the other day “That was because his wife has cancer!”. I’m not seeing the link there. I mean, I have great sympathy for him and would not wish addiction on anyone. I’m just not understanding why he would be prescribed enough of them to get addicted simply because his wife was ill. From my experience, doctors are generally very reluctant to prescribe more than a handful of benzos. Guess it’s different in Canada.

Both the US and Canada are very different to Europe. The Pharmaceuticals have greater influence with doctors over there, so in many cases, they're more like salespeople, than doctors. You could press the case that a doctor is someone serving a variety of masters... whereas in Europe, typically, your doctor serves you. And with any salesperson, there are sales quotas to maintain if they wish to continue getting the commissions and benefits of being connected to the big companies.

How did he get addicted? I've no idea... but then again, I've struggled with a variety of addictions, and for some of them, I'm not quite sure where/when the addiction began. When you're in pain, it's hard to think logically all the time.. throw in depression, and you'll likely forget when or the quantity of what's been taken.