Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Dyr · 14-02-2020 12:54pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

See below:

Jaysus, I though you were going to at least go to the effort of regurgitating some of Ruth Dudely Edwards efforts.

He wrote a poem about having two sons, do you think he was a Mother as well?

ancapailldorcha · 14-02-2020 1:01pm

Bambi wrote: »

Jaysus, I though you were going to at least go to the effort of regurgitating some of Ruth Dudely Edwards efforts.

He wrote a poem about having two sons, do you think he was a Mother as well?

If people want to see him as a sacred cow who should never be criticised then that's their call. The thread is not about him so I'm not going to go any further with this. I was just dropping whatever examples first entered my head in my above post.

Rodin · 14-02-2020 1:02pm

This interviewer is awful.

She's inherently biased.
Probably thinks he's sexist.

Awful, awful stuff.

Equal opportunity not outcome should be the target.

El_Duderino 09 · 14-02-2020 1:05pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If people want to see him as a sacred cow who should never be criticised then that's their call. The thread is not about him so I'm not going to go any further with this. I was just dropping whatever examples first entered my head in my above post.

Well, to be fair, the accusation has been made which is interesting, but I won't make any conclusions about PP based on the accusation and the poem. It's interesting though.

ancapailldorcha · 14-02-2020 1:07pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well, to be fair, the accusation has been made which is interesting, but I won't make a by conclusions about PP based on the accusation and the poem. It's interesting though.

Well, when someone's response is as above then I do not see any point in continuing. I've not read biographies of Pearse, just giving my opinion on what I do know.

El_Duderino 09 · 14-02-2020 1:12pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, when someone's response is as above then I do not see any point in continuing. I've not read biographies of Pearse, just giving my opinion on what I do know.

That's fair enough for you because you've done the reading. I haven't so I don't know.

Edit, I thought you said you had read biographies.
Anyway, we've gone off topic.

ancapailldorcha · 14-02-2020 1:12pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's fair enough for you because you've done the reading. I haven't so I don't know.
Anyway, we've gone off topic.

Indeed. Let's leave it there.

EmmetSpiceland · 14-02-2020 1:12pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well, to be fair, the accusation has been made which is interesting, but I won't make a by conclusions about PP based on the accusation and the poem. It's interesting though.

As far as I’m aware there is no evidence that Pearse was an “active” abuser. No allegations or anything like that.

I’ve heard the poetry and plays he wrote being used as proof but, when it comes down to it, all it can really prove is that he might have “fantasised” about it.

Still, it doesn’t look great. Stephen Fry has some “questionable” stuff in his back catalogue too, but none of it is proof of anything.

And I’m sure if we were to look at some of the songs written from the 50s on through the 70s we’d see numerous examples of “creepy” lyrics regarding young teenage girls.

14-02-2020 1:20pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I read 12 rules. It's a mix of old school Dad advice, ranting about lefties and likening them to Stalinists and some truly bizarre Grandpa Simpson-esque nonsense about existence.

I also read it. I'm quite big into the area of personal development, and I wouldn't really consider 12 steps to be particularly good. A few good ideas, but most of them can be found in other self-help books or management books going back two/three decades. So nothing particularly new.

And generally when it comes to personal development books, it is the perspective that is different while the techniques remain mostly the same. The score is when you find an author who describes the technique, but does it in such a manner, that it clicks with your personality or general outlook. I didn't like Petersons writing style, and his political ranting at the end, just ended the book for me. All I could think was WTF? Where did this crap come from?

Karl Marx was a notorious antiSemite, even for his time and spent his life sponging off of Friedrich Engels, Padraig Pearse was almost certainly a child molester, Dr. Seuss was a notorious philanderer whose wife took her own life, etc... While it's not hard to find many more such examples, a lot of these people make significant cultural and philosophical contributions. I see none of this from Peterson.

Neither would I, but what exactly are we elevating him into? In terms of personal development, he's not saying anything new. He's simply rehashing other peoples revelations and using a different format to describe them. In terms of current affairs, feminism, etc. he's promoted male rights and sought to reduce the impact of feminism or PC thinking.. but he's hardly charismatic enough to generate a platform to push his beliefs effectively.

I think his achievements match the age that we live in. The age of technology, skepticism, and willful ignorance. A world of social media crusader knights and agendas (from minorities) driving policy for the majority. It's an age of misinformation, and confusion...

So what has he achieved? Very little, except that he stands out as one of the more reasonable opponents of both feminist/SJW agendas, and PC movements.

I tend to look at the area(s) of male rights/anti-pc, and consider the progression of those who fight against the movements. The first few generations of speakers were muppets. Extremists. Full of hate, bile, or out to trigger responses. Milo springs to mind. Very interesting, but a complete troll. Alienated his supporters as much as his opponents. And there's a pile of other similar speakers who were borderline nutjobs, but still raised the issues that shouldn't be spoken of.... because many of those topics were taboo due to the influence of feminists/sjw aggression. Next we have Peterson, and while he's not perfect, he's a more logical and reasonable face for the movement. And the person who replaces him will be even better.

Personally, I'd imagine Peterson is part of a movement that is evolving. His value is that the movement is moving away from the likes of Milo, or MTGOW and giving a more reasonable image, and far more focus on logical thinking.

nozzferrahhtoo · 14-02-2020 1:48pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What outrageous statements?

I don't think he is consistently outrageous, at least in my limited experience of him. So I am not going to suggest he is AS BAD as some people here might. Most of what he says is not outrageous, just..... devoid of any real content. He has a Deepak Chopra like skill of saying a lot of fancy sounding stuff without seemingly saying anything at all.

But he has definitely come out with SOME absolute howlers of supreme nonsense. But sure haven't we all???? I would hardly hang him for it. No one is perfect and the more a man like him speaks the more he is gonna eventually say nonsense.

But if you want some examples I could offer as few. For example he straight up said he believes that you can not be an artist.... or over come addiction (a little more relevant given recent news).... without a god. What nonsense is that?

In conversation Matt Dilahunty pulled him up on this. The best he could do to defend his view is just to indicate the godless people are deluded and only THINK They are godless:

Dillahunty: "What are you afraid of if we lose religion, demonstrate to me any benefit"
Peterson: "Oh you would lose art, poetry, drama, narrative and story telling".
Dillahunty: "Oh why, are there no godless artists and poets?"
Peterson: "There are artists and poets who THINK they are godless."

That is outrageous nonsense in my book for a start. Without religion we could not tell stories? BULL. Absolute bull. The creation and formation of stories is what the human brain does. Religious nonsense does not give us stories. Stories give us the religious nonsense.

He plays the William Craig Lane move on thinking gods are required for morality too. In fact he claims that atheists are not really atheists because if they were they would all be like straight out of Dostoyevsky and the fact they are not means they can not actually really be atheist. They are just lying that they are atheist. So seemingly mind reading is in his repertoire. En Masse.

Dillahunty: "I agree people take drugs and report experiences they describe as mystical. We have no way to confirm something supernatural actually happened".
Peterson: "It stops people from smoking"
Dillahunty: "Well you can stop smoking without supernatural intervention".
Peterson: "No, not really"
Dillahunty: "You CANT stop smoking without supernatural intervention?????"

Finally his claim that through the use of drugs people obtained, long before science discovered it, a knowledge of the Double Helix nature of DNA is probably the biggest howler I have heard him spew out. His evidence for this? An image of art showing two snakes intertwined. And solely by looking at this piece of art he decided that these tribes used Ayhuwascha (sp?) and it told them about the double helix nature of DNA.

I mean..... really.

But all that said, so the hell what? Get well soon old man. I think underneath a few howlers you are a decent sort, heart mostly in the right place, and you likely have sorted 1000s of young people onto a better path in their life. No one deserves your suffering, least of all you. Come back to us alive and well!

ancapailldorcha · 14-02-2020 3:39pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I also read it. I'm quite big into the area of personal development, and I wouldn't really consider 12 steps to be particularly good. A few good ideas, but most of them can be found in other self-help books or management books going back two/three decades. So nothing particularly new.

And generally when it comes to personal development books, it is the perspective that is different while the techniques remain mostly the same. The score is when you find an author who describes the technique, but does it in such a manner, that it clicks with your personality or general outlook. I didn't like Petersons writing style, and his political ranting at the end, just ended the book for me. All I could think was WTF? Where did this crap come from?

Pretty much my reaction as well, K. It's just a load of waffle based on an answer he gave once on Quora.com that someone persuaded him to turn into a book which he mentions in the introduction or preface to 12 rules.

Deleted User wrote: »

Neither would I, but what exactly are we elevating him into? In terms of personal development, he's not saying anything new. He's simply rehashing other peoples revelations and using a different format to describe them. In terms of current affairs, feminism, etc. he's promoted male rights and sought to reduce the impact of feminism or PC thinking.. but he's hardly charismatic enough to generate a platform to push his beliefs effectively.

I'm not really elevating him into anything myself, either good or bad. He's not much more than an old guy with opinions, some old school Conservative, some religious and some barmy.

Deleted User wrote: »

I think his achievements match the age that we live in. The age of technology, skepticism, and willful ignorance. A world of social media crusader knights and agendas (from minorities) driving policy for the majority. It's an age of misinformation, and confusion...

Culture war is the term that comes to mind.

Deleted User wrote: »

So what has he achieved? Very little, except that he stands out as one of the more reasonable opponents of both feminist/SJW agendas, and PC movements.

I tend to look at the area(s) of male rights/anti-pc, and consider the progression of those who fight against the movements. The first few generations of speakers were muppets. Extremists. Full of hate, bile, or out to trigger responses. Milo springs to mind. Very interesting, but a complete troll. Alienated his supporters as much as his opponents. And there's a pile of other similar speakers who were borderline nutjobs, but still raised the issues that shouldn't be spoken of.... because many of those topics were taboo due to the influence of feminists/sjw aggression. Next we have Peterson, and while he's not perfect, he's a more logical and reasonable face for the movement. And the person who replaces him will be even better.

Personally, I'd imagine Peterson is part of a movement that is evolving. His value is that the movement is moving away from the likes of Milo, or MTGOW and giving a more reasonable image, and far more focus on logical thinking.

There's way worse than Peterson. The one thing that I think he's complete unreasonable with is his climate change denialism. That aside, he's just some guy with opinions to me.

I'd also question your usage of the term "movement". I was part of a few online ones until I realized that all these people cared about was whining and moaning. The Damascene moment for me was on a mens' rights page where a woman described her struggle to open up a Men's Shed in her area. Not one of the feckers ever offered to help. No offer of a donation, a hand with painting or anything like that. Zip. Nada.

Dyr · 14-02-2020 4:36pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If people want to see him as a sacred cow who should never be criticised then that's their call. The thread is not about him so I'm not going to go any further with this. I was just dropping whatever examples first entered my head in my above post.

So the first example to enter your head was a bull**** one that you won't defend, why not try again? Gwan.

14-02-2020 7:13pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'd also question your usage of the term "movement". I was part of a few online ones until I realized that all these people cared about was whining and moaning. The Damascene moment for me was on a mens' rights page where a woman described her struggle to open up a Men's Shed in her area. Not one of the feckers ever offered to help. No offer of a donation, a hand with painting or anything like that. Zip. Nada.

I'd use the term movement in the same way as someone would say "feminism". A wide range of organisations with different beliefs, but all promoting a common element of male/female rights. To boost the need for public recognition of those needs.

I'm part of a few smaller organisations for male rights but they're pretty minor, and don't have much influence (mostly helping each other with legal fees, advice, moral support etc). I tend to shy away from the bigger groups because there tends to be more extremists, politics, and massaging each others bitterness involved.

I see it as a "movement" similar to how feminism developed over time. Feminism has gone through many stages of evolution, and so too do these male groups and the messages to be promoted. The circumstances and the environment is different and so there's different challenges involved. I'd see Peterson's contribution to be that he encouraged others to speak out against the injustices that society pushes against males... which is definitely a positive, since many people previously felt obliged to stay quiet out of fear of being targeted. He's just another person who has been a positive step for the "movement" to get away from extremist or emotionally bitter idiotic bitching.

Agree with everything else you said.

Tony EH · 14-02-2020 7:16pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's horrific, if true.

I wonder what his next book will be about...

Anyone know what's the story with going to Russia for treatment?

Free healthcare?

Tony EH · 14-02-2020 7:23pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Ahh I dunno FT. Ignoring Peterson for a while I could never get with this notion that someone is, or should be a perfect reflection of their works. The message isn't always the man. It often isn't. I mean Ghandi was a pervert with a god complex, Martin Luther King was a philanderer. Many of the greatest geniuses of humanity that moved us forward as a species in science, philosophy, art were as people complete weirdos and pricks. To the degree that it often seems to be a prerequisite.

I understand your point Wibbs, but if someone is making a living preaching to folk and telling them how to live their lives, while living a dubious existence themselves, it sours the message to a very large degree.

Hypocrites aren't trusted for a valid reason.

BTW, I don't think Jordan Peterson can really be mentioned in the same para as the other people you've highlight. I don't think he's really done all that much.

super_furry · 14-02-2020 9:02pm

So her dad is sick with addiction issues and the headcase daughter, who preaches to the world about only eating beef, carts him off to Russia where he ends up in a coma, suffers neurological damage and no-one has heard from him.

Honestly I'd be worried for the poor man. He's not being looked after by people with his best interests at heart.

14-02-2020 9:07pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Preaching to people what to do with their lives and then getting hooked on benzos himself. That's not a guy to be telling anyone how to do anything.

I'd be more interested in someone who has made mistakes than a saint, or someone who pretends to be perfect. It's one of things that always bothered me about priests/nuns when I was a teen. That unrealistic belief that they knew/understood everything without any real personal experience of what it entailed.

Anyway, I would suggest that everything he spoke about with regards to addiction would be taken from modern psychology rather than his own discoveries/theories. He made a big deal about being a psychologist... for him to go nuts talking about stuff that isn't backed by the organisations involved would have been professional suicide..

But sure, I'd strongly hesitate to follow many of his ideas for how people should live.. It runs counter to my own experiences in life, but then, we are all individuals and lead different lives.

14-02-2020 9:11pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Getting yourself hooked on drugs is a mess in most people's book.

Not mine. Now if he was shooting up Heroin, or doing Meth, my opinion would change... but getting addicted to prescription drugs? He joins a rather large percentage of the US population.

Tony EH · 14-02-2020 9:13pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Not mine. Now if he was shooting up Heroin, or doing Meth, my opinion would change... but getting addicted to prescription drugs? He joins a rather large percentage of the US population.

That doesn't make it any less messy though.

14-02-2020 9:18pm

How long was he on them?..he was surely taking the prescribed dose..he was going through some difficult times, and as soon as he realised he was developing a physical issue with them he tried to address it..At least you're not going on about his diet..be thankful for small mercies I suppose..

14-02-2020 9:20pm

Tony EH wrote: »

That doesn't make it any less messy though.

In what way messy?

Wouldn't it have been worse if he turned into an alcoholic? that would seem far messier, and yet, it's something tolerated far more for some public figures.

Tony EH · 14-02-2020 9:24pm

Deleted User wrote: »

In what way messy?

Wouldn't it have been worse if he turned into an alcoholic? that would seem far messier, and yet, it's something tolerated far more for some public figures.

An addiction to any drug is messy. An addict loses control over their actions in favour of the drug, which grows to have a major influence on the addicts life.

He's in Russia right now going through experimental procedures to get him off of the benzos.

If that's not messy, then I don't know what is.

QueenRizla · 14-02-2020 9:27pm

Was the induced coma the withdrawal treatment? Or was he put in a coma because of pneumonia? What caused the pneumonia? I’m confused about what happened.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 14-02-2020 10:35pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

He strikes me as a very smart man, and he could certainly afford the best, maybe he reckons the Russians are the ones to provide it.

Seems to me that every 2nd American is addicted to something because of their doctors. Their whole system seems to be based on a pill for every ill, even when the ill is other pills!

Some very smart people can be absolute dopes when it comes to personal health problems.

The most prominent being Steve Jobs. Now before anyone says he had pancreatic cancer which is swiftly fatal and therefore he had nothing to lose - no. He had a much more rare type of pancreatic cancer that carries a much higher survival rate than the common-or-garden one. It’s not for certain that he would have survived had he gone with conventional treatment but he would have had a decent shot at it. Instead he went for alternative medicine, otherwise known as woo and gave himself no chance.

Junkyard Tom · 14-02-2020 11:10pm

I think that people with reactionary views were desperate for a champion with a degree of credibility -- Peterson was a good man for the job, being a Professor and all. Peterson is the personification of an 'appeal to authority' fallacious stance. Peterson is a Professor who has written books, and you're just some dude on the internet, what would you know?

14-02-2020 11:13pm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

you're just some dude on the internet, what would you know?

I'm considering putting this in my sig..

El_Duderino 09 · 15-02-2020 12:12am

Tony EH wrote: »

Free healthcare?

Through pure coincidence I was chatting with someone who was at an academic conference in the UK today. They said they heard at the conference that the Russian mafia/crime gangs have pumped billions into the addiction services in Russia because their people's addictions have gotten to the point of threatening their crime organisations.

So as a consequence the Russian health service is now among the best in the world at dealing with drug addiction. If true, that's probably why Peterson has gone there.

El_Duderino 09 · 15-02-2020 12:21am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not mine. Now if he was shooting up Heroin, or doing Meth, my opinion would change... but getting addicted to prescription drugs? He joins a rather large percentage of the US population.

The acceptable, middle class drugs to be addicted to. Heroine or meth are poor people drugs only for scumbags and poor people. Professors and Canadian Jesus would only get hooked on a Classy, prescription drugs, because he's got righteous opinions.

Never a thought that people get addicted to drugs for basically the same reasons - to escape pain. Nope, Peterson's drug addiction is worthy of sympathy, heroine and met addicts aren't. So bloody predictable.

I wonder how he'll deal with it in the next book. Will he advocate for greater socially funded addiction services to help addicts of all kinds? Pfft, of course not. That's not what his audience wants to hear. But it will be Interesting to see how he deals with it without advocating for any kind of social services.

El_Duderino 09 · 15-02-2020 12:26am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How long was he on them?..he was surely taking the prescribed dose..he was going through some difficult times, and as soon as he realised he was developing a physical issue with them he tried to address it..At least you're not going on about his diet..be thankful for small mercies I suppose..

A lot of irrelevant assumptions in that post. How do you know he was taking the prescribed dose? How do you know he got help as soon as he realised he was dependent? Why are those invented details even relevant?

Why invent the details?

15-02-2020 12:45am

Tony EH wrote: »

An addiction to any drug is messy. An addict loses control over their actions in favour of the drug, which grows to have a major influence on the addicts life.

He's in Russia right now going through experimental procedures to get him off of the benzos.

If that's not messy, then I don't know what is.

I'm addicted to tobacco, and I have been for almost two decades. I haven't lost control over my actions. I have friends who are addicted to various other drugs including cocaine and/or prescription drugs. As with many people out there, I became borderline addicted to Alcohol when I was in my 20's. I sought help. I was still capable of deciding what was right for me, and how I should go about getting that help.

You're making a sweeping statement about both addicts and the drugs/addictions that they partake in. There's a thing called willpower. You can be addicted to something and still be able to lead a relatively normal life. Not everyone becomes a shell of a person.

Your idea of what is messy is far different from mine. He went to Russia... so what? Why would it be better for him to get treatment in the US or Canada, considering he's using private care? You're making assumptions about his state of mind, and degree of addiction based on what...? Yup. Absolutely nothing. Peterson has a long history of talking about his depression.. and the fact that he does so, shows that he's willing to reveal other aspects of his vulnerabilities..

Tony EH · 15-02-2020 12:55am

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm addicted to tobacco, and I have been for almost two decades. I haven't lost control over my actions. I have friends who are addicted to various other drugs including cocaine and/or prescription drugs. As with many people out there, I became borderline addicted to Alcohol when I was in my 20's. I sought help. I was still capable of deciding what was right for me, and how I should go about getting that help.

You're making a sweeping statement about both addicts and the drugs/addictions that they partake in. There's a thing called willpower. You can be addicted to something and still be able to lead a relatively normal life. Not everyone becomes a shell of a person.

Your idea of what is messy is far different from mine. He went to Russia... so what? Why would it be better for him to get treatment in the US or Canada, considering he's using private care? You're making assumptions about his state of mind, and degree of addiction based on what...? Yup. Absolutely nothing. Peterson has a long history of talking about his depression.. and the fact that he does so, shows that he's willing to reveal other aspects of his vulnerabilities..

You're not standing on stages telling people how to live their lives.

The point is hypocrisy. Not drug addiction.

Don't go around telling people to "clean up their room", when your own is in a state.

15-02-2020 1:10am

Tony EH wrote: »

You're not standing on stages telling people how to live their lives.

How do you know?

The point is hypocrisy. Not drug addiction.

The point is that you want to use his addiction to discredit him.

Don't go around telling people to "clean up their room", when your own is in a state.

Ahh but his "room" was clean when he started doing all this... and he's had a long run before this addiction occurred or became a problem.

Considering what happened to him, I can be sympathetic about him breaking down and getting addicted to something. Nobody should have to be "strong" all the time.

Regardless, we're not going to agree on this. Let's move on.

15-02-2020 1:10am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A lot of irrelevant assumptions in that post. How do you know he was taking the prescribed dose? How do you know he got help as soon as he realised he was dependent? Why are those invented details even relevant?

Why invent the details?

Was that not pretty much what happened though?.. anyway..carry on.. yourself and Tony can go mad telling each other what a charlatan he is.. telling people how to live.. the cheek of him..you'd swear he was basing it on years of clinical experience..

Tony EH · 15-02-2020 1:25am

Deleted User wrote: »

The point is that you want to use his addiction to discredit him.

If someone engages in a hypocritical manner, then they'll be called on it. It's the hypocrisy of the matter that's the salient point, not his addiction. Even if it's a relatively mild hypocrisy.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh but his "room" was clean when he started doing all this... and he's had a long run before this addiction occurred or became a problem.

Considering what happened to him, I can be sympathetic about him breaking down and getting addicted to something. Nobody should have to be "strong" all the time.

Regardless, we're not going to agree on this. Let's move on.

Not clean now though, so the message becomes a bit tainted.

But look, as far as I'm concerned, I don't really care that much about Peterson either way. I've never been that interested in his output and have never found any of his "self help" yap all that much to write home about, but I'd be willing to lend him an ear now and again.

But, he's really just some guy who's made a name for himself by mainly talking to people that agree with him. Unlike his acolytes, though, I don't he's the second coming.

But, yeh, we're probably not going to find any common ground on this matter, except to say that we both can sympathise and wish him a speedy recovery...for what it's worth.

El_Duderino 09 · 15-02-2020 1:42am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Was that not pretty much what happened though?..

I've no idea about the details of what happened and neither do you.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

anyway..carry on.. yourself and Tony can go mad telling each other what a charlatan he is.. telling people how to live.. the cheek of him..you'd swear he was basing it on years of clinical experience..

This is embarrassing nonsense

AllForIt · 15-02-2020 3:04am

Of course Peterson is not the latest greatest Philosopher of our age - he's a clinical psychologist for a start.

His clinical psychology is what he does best - which influences his view that if one is going to complain about some social issue whether it be a feeling of unequal pay for women or whatever - if your going to complain about it you have to have your own house in order first - rather than blaming society for you ills. That is one of the strongest points he has ever made imo. You can extrapolate that across any social injustice complaint. I.e. if you feel you didn't get a job because you are black...are you sure you did everything right in the first place. People are far to quick to scream discrimination these days imo.

What weirds me out on this thread is the idea that he went about himself deliberately to make himself controversial and consequently to make money for notoriety. He came to prominence because of speaking out against his University where they enforced the nations policy on hate speech - for which the transgender pronoun issue encompass's.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37875695 . It was at that point in 2016 that he came to wider prominence. He defends his position in this TV debate I think very well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc This was before the wider world ever heard of him. So to suggest he engaged in all this just to further himself when he clearly is very passionate about the issue of free speech is just nonsense. And I think the issue of forced speech is something we should be concerned about - it's tantamount to controlled speech.
Also the idea he's in any way anti-transgender is also nonsense. No evidence for that at all.

Why I think so many ppl seem to hate his guts is his comments on equal pay. As shown in that now infamous C4 interview. And as a result they won't argue his points instead claim he's being pro male, one sided, making money by focusing on one (male) demographic, and profiting off this. Feminist's done like him one little bit.

I think it is good that someone like JP has moved into a more open public space rather than those types of intellectual's living in more privileged exclusive circles where their thoughts would get less exposure. Let's see more people like JP reaching to a much wider audience, and I think that would be beneficial for wider society.

I have never everyone agree with one person. JP talks nonsense when he brings God into things and I'm baffled how he can be a competent clinical psychologist and bring God into the equation at the same time. Completely baffled by that. But that's the thing about humans and human opinion - you'll never figure it out. But at least he's played a part in opening public discussion about issues in a way no one else ever has.

El_Duderino 09 · 15-02-2020 3:32am

AllForIt wrote: »

Of course Peterson is not the latest greatest Philosopher of our age - he's a clinical psychologist for a start.

His clinical psychology is what he does best - which influences his view that if one is going to complain about some social issue whether it be a feeling of unequal pay for women or whatever - if your going to complain about it you have to have your own house in order first - rather than blaming society for you ills. That is one of the strongest points he has ever made imo. You can extrapolate that across any social injustice complaint. I.e. if you feel you didn't get a job because you are black...are you sure you did everything right in the first place. People are far to quick to scream discrimination these days imo.

Yeah that's dead clever a'nall. But it doesn't actually cover the situation, does it?

Don't like the situation you're in? Then get Your own house in order before complaining. If that applies to everyone than it surely applies to the Irish rebellion against colonial rule. If everyone in Ireland didn't have their house in order, then they had no business looking for independence...

In case you haven’t noticed, his system assumes the situation is preferable as it is. And that narrative suits his audience of conservative American men. Same can be applied to any change or revolution such as the American revolution or civil rights movement in America or Northern Ireland, but obviously he’d never actually make that point because it’s not what his people want to hear.

It’s a message for those who either are wealthy, think they’re wealthy, think they’re going to be wealthy or are afraid that meritocracy would make them less wealthy.

The message of “don’t change unless you’re perfect”, is a great message to sell to a conservative audience.

El_Duderino 09 · 15-02-2020 3:48am

Salbanza4 wrote: »

His message doesn't assume the situation is preferable, he doesn't stop banging on about ways people should change.

You have let your personal hatred for him cloud your judgement. You hate him because he stirs up old wounds to your ego that have never healed.

.
Ah, it's my personal rereg troll. My biggest fan. Lol.

El_Duderino 09 · 15-02-2020 3:53am

Salbanza4 wrote: »

Saying lol all the time only makes you appear even less masculine.

You'll be gone in a bit because you're a troll. So what would I care? Lol.

El_Duderino 09 · 15-02-2020 3:56am

Salbanza4 wrote: »

As if you don't care, you are seething :pac:

Furious, I am. Night. Lol.

AllForIt · 15-02-2020 5:00am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah that's dead clever a'nall. But it doesn't actually cover the situation, does it?

Don't like the situation you're in? Then get Your own house in order before complaining. If that applies to everyone than it surely applies to the Irish rebellion against colonial rule. If everyone in Ireland didn't have their house in order, then they had no business looking for independence...

In case you haven’t noticed, his system assumes the situation is preferable as it is. And that narrative suits his audience of conservative American men. Same can be applied to any change or revolution such as the American revolution or civil rights movement in America or Northern Ireland, but obviously he’d never actually make that point because it’s not what his people want to hear.

It’s a message for those who either are wealthy, think they’re wealthy, think they’re going to be wealthy or are afraid that meritocracy would make them less wealthy.

The message of “don’t change unless you’re perfect”, is a great message to sell to a conservative audience.

That was hard to read.

He's speaking to the privileged rich now is he?

What's 'his system'?

Zubeneschamali · 15-02-2020 7:09am

QueenRizla wrote: »

Was the induced coma the withdrawal treatment?

Yes, the idea is to put the patient in a coma for a week so that they miss the worst physical effects of withdrawal.

I learned all about it on the documentary series House M.D., maybe the Russian clinic did too.

Zubeneschamali · 15-02-2020 7:11am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How do you know he got help as soon as he realised he was dependent?

Earlier in the thread we had quotes from his daughter saying explicitly that he did not.

Instead he tried to quit on his own using will power.

Zubeneschamali · 15-02-2020 7:14am

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh but his "room" was clean when he started doing all this... and he's had a long run before this addiction occurred or became a problem.

Yes indeed, there he was, a Professor, lecturer and celebrity author, on top of the world pontificating about his 12 rules for living.

And look where his rules got him.

Zubeneschamali · 15-02-2020 7:16am

Deleted User wrote: »

you'd swear he was basing it on years of clinical experience..

That, of course, is what he wants you to think. He has dressed up a few fireside banalities and conservative talking points as 12 rules, but wants you to think that his clinical experience gives his advice real authority.

Because this gig pays way better than actually applying himself to clinical practice.

Zubeneschamali · 15-02-2020 7:20am

AllForIt wrote: »

His clinical psychology is what he does best - which influences his view that if one is going to complain about some social issue whether it be a feeling of unequal pay for women or whatever - if your going to complain about it you have to have your own house in order first - rather than blaming society for you ills.

Again, there is nothing about his qualifications in clinical psychology which lends any weight to this idiotic notion that you can't wish for society to improve (i.e. "complain") unless your own house is in order.

And if that were true, then no-one should listen to Peterson, since his house is demonstrably on fire.

Woke Hogan · 15-02-2020 8:03am

Salbanza4 wrote: »

There is no hypocrisy, he doesn't claim to be infallible. If you have to be perfect to give advice then nobody can give advice.

And you have to be perfect, in order words "tidy your room," before you can make any attempt to change the power structures in society, right? That's the gist of what he says, after all.

Brian? · 15-02-2020 8:04am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Was that not pretty much what happened though?.. anyway..carry on.. yourself and Tony can go mad telling each other what a charlatan he is.. telling people how to live.. the cheek of him..you'd swear he was basing it on years of clinical experience..

Hold up there. Having years of clinical experience does not entitle him to tell everyone how to live. It entitles him up treat patients 1 to 1.

It definitely doesn’t entitle him to any deference when he expresses opinions on economics or politics, which is where he really made it big.

If I get a PhD in engineering, am I allowed to tell people how to raise kids?

15-02-2020 8:38am

Brian? wrote: »

Hold up there. Having years of clinical experience does not entitle him to tell everyone how to live. It entitles him up treat patients 1 to 1.

It definitely doesn’t entitle him to any deference when he expresses opinions on economics or politics, which is where he really made it big.

If I get a PhD in engineering, am I allowed to tell people how to raise kids?

Well, he's not really insisting that you live by his standards.. he's giving an educated opinion on what makes a good life as he sees it..

Well, like..Chomsky studied linguistics..does he have a right to give his political opinion?..jesus christ..does anyone have a right to give their opinion on anything really?..if you have a phd in engineering of course you can tell people how to raise kids..and people can listen to you if they want?..

It's not like he's basing his political ideas on a few youtube videos..he has seriously considered these things..jesus christ like..the real question here is how and why he became so popular..and how and why he drew such fervent opposition..

Like, the mad Peterson heads are an product of the whole identity politics world..where you can't just listen to some dude's opinions on youtube..you have to become a fan, buy the tshirt, and it becoming a part of your identity..but the vicious anti Peterson heads, like really..what is he saying to draw such vitriol?..he's trying to give people a deeper understanding of the role religion has played in our world over the ages..he's trying to suggest people bear some responsibility in their lives, and stand up straight etc..he's trying to warn people about the dangers of totalitarianism in all it's forms..

like.."he wants you to think that his clinical experience gives his advice real authority."

For the love of god..how is this in any way negative..is it just that your world view finds it threatening?

15-02-2020 8:40am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes indeed, there he was, a Professor, lecturer and celebrity author, on top of the world pontificating about his 12 rules for living.

And look where his rules got him.

Ahh, well, his rules... aren't really rules to follow for a lifestyle. They're either basic common sense or just his own ramblings. I found 12 rules to be rather shallow and useless overall as a guide towards, well, anything.

Have you read the book?

The truth is though that following any amount of rules set out by other people is not going to guarantee a wonderful life. Life has a habit of throwing curve balls.

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Comments