All things relating to Jordan Peterson

DickSwiveller Returns · 15-07-2018 10:38am

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You would, would you? Did you listen to today's interview? His shrill emotional shrieking against Ireland's most famously perpetually unprepared interviewer doesn't bode well.

Would still dismantle a gender studies professor. My dog could.

DickSwiveller Returns · 15-07-2018 10:40am

roddy15 wrote: »

I wouldn't say Peterson or Shapiro are the pinnacles of common sense and science though. Go watch Peterson and Dillahunty together a few months ago, after I watched that I just can't like the guy. In fact, a lot of the stuff Peterson has parroted makes about as much sense as the "SJWs" people here are attacking.

Now sure people might watch the more sensible parts of Peterson, his interview with Cathy Newman or his rather innocent statements about cleaning up rooms but that isn't the whole story here and once you start digging as I did over the last few months you quickly realise Peterson isn't the person his almost cult-like following seems to suggest.

I might expand my thoughts on him some other time, depends on the reaction to this honestly.

I think the fame has gone to Peterson's head and he thinks he's an expert in lots of different fields. I wish he would stick with the psychology and opposing left wing ideologues. The religious stuff is very tedious.

professore · 15-07-2018 8:05pm

Was at the 3 Arena with my wife last night. First thing she said was there must be some other event on at the same time as she couldn't believe the crowd - to be honest I couldn't either.

Really enjoyed the evening, debate was good and I thought Sam Harris and Douglas Murray were great. The Pangburn guy was a pain though and badly organised.

Peterson rambled a bit too much IMO but made some good points.

The male/female ratio was somewhere between 80% to 90% male. That's not what people have been saying online but this is the reality.

Eric Cartman · 15-07-2018 10:12pm

professore wrote: »

Was at the 3 Arena with my wife last night. First thing she said was there must be some other event on at the same time as she couldn't believe the crowd - to be honest I couldn't either.

Really enjoyed the evening, debate was good and I thought Sam Harris and Douglas Murray were great. The Pangburn guy was a pain though and badly organised.

Peterson rambled a bit too much IMO but made some good points.

The male/female ratio was somewhere between 80% to 90% male. That's not what people have been saying online but this is the reality.

I was there too and can agree with that ratio, but its politics/political based discussion, the interest curve is just that way.

that said I felt some of it got quite rambly in places and unfortunately I was sitting quite near some 'neckbeard' type character for whom a shower and deodorant were lacking. A few lads with trump hats and flags that thought it was going to be a lot more 'right wing rhetoric' than philosophical discussion.

15-07-2018 10:15pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I was there too and can agree with that ratio, but its politics/political based discussion, the interest curve is just that way.

Maybe there needs to be gender quotas then...

Brae100 · 15-07-2018 10:18pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep, though this is a defining feature of anybody who reaches cult like status. People just love their personal, philosophical and political "messiahs" and will them into positions of moral authority that nobody can hold for very long, while detractors scream feet of clay at them. Most such messiahs have a few very sensible points to make and that would be that, and great, if it was left at that, but people want to believe in more. Can't be a very comfortable position to be in. He seems aware of it mind you. I read where he noted that his current position is untenable in the longterm and he'll say or do something, likely off the cuff and unguarded and that will be his end in the spotlight.

I get all that, but why the hatred? He is offering nothing more than the likes of Tony Robbins, but he never got this sort of grief. JBP is being de-platformed and accused of being an alt-right misogynist. Why? What's going on here?

Eric Cartman · 15-07-2018 10:21pm

Brae100 wrote: »

I get all that, but why the hatred? He is offering nothing more than the likes of Tony Robbins, but he never got this sort of grief. JBP is being de-platformed and accused of being an alt-right misogynist. Why? What's going on here?

he explained it pretty well, on the right hand side of the political scale you have the first click of 'id like to pay less taxes' and after that it falls off a cliff into being a nazi , on the left nobody ever decided where the cliff edge is so you can go pretty far before being an extremist. So everyone on the left just sees the cliff and for fear of nazi's ever coming back they label everyone even vaguely on the right as a nazi so if they fall off that short cliff then everyone was prepared.

15-07-2018 10:24pm

Brae100 wrote: »

I get all that, but why the hatred? He is offering nothing more than the likes of Tony Robbins, but he never got this sort of grief. JBP is being de-platformed and accused of being an alt-right misogynist. Why? What's going on here?

He made a TV interviewer look retarded. Most news/opinion shows these days are incredibly leftist and/or feminist especially when there's a woman in the seat (plenty of male presenters waving that flag too), and I suspect he receives so much negative attention, because they don't want to have to interview him.

Doing so would require them to have their facts properly researched, and that would have them highlighting the inequalities that they don't want to show. So, it's just easier for them to downplay, backstab (after interview remarks) or insult him.

Danzy · 15-07-2018 10:39pm

Peterson has disagreed and the Left, as it has become more and more Middle Class has become puritanical in its attitude to those who commit heresy.

That he is such a highly cited Professor, who has taught in two of the finest Psychology Depts in the world, makes it worse. That he is articulate, strangely charismatic and compelling in awkward passion further adds to it.

They have all the answers and analysis, the issue is settled and here is this gangly canuck with a take that people are responding to.

The crazy thing is much of what he says would not have raised an eyebrow for the left thirty years ago. Back when you were more likely to have lads with dirt under the nails at the meeting.

He is undermining their entire world view, how they conceive themselves, their faith, who they imagine themselves to be.

It cannot be stressed enough how the Left today has become like a religion, a community of believers in a world of Sin.

It is a great tragedy as people need a Left that is relevant andand mu h of what has made Europe great was off the back of the Left.

professore · 16-07-2018 9:38am

Brae100 wrote: »

I get all that, but why the hatred? He is offering nothing more than the likes of Tony Robbins, but he never got this sort of grief. JBP is being de-platformed and accused of being an alt-right misogynist. Why? What's going on here?

He first sprung to widespread "fame" when he objected to bill C16 which forced by law that people address trans and others such as furries (or people taking the piss pretending to be one of these groups) by their preferred pronouns. Rightly in my opinion, he objected to being forced by law to speak in a certain way. It was interpreted as some sort of transphobic attack. Since the trans are high up on the oppression hierarchy, he had committed the cardinal sin of seeming to attack them.

Never mind that the same people condemning him have no issue publically actually attacking "cisgendered white men" and blaming them as a group for everything that is wrong in society.

People like me and lots of others was listening to his excellent YouTube psychology lectures when he was just a humble professor for over a year before this happened - and there was NOTHING like this or political in there - unless you think saying that a lot of women in high paying careers choose to ease back and have children in their 30s is somehow sexist and controversial. He was actually very fair and balanced to both men and women. My daughter thinks he's great for example and she's not a shrinking violet. If you like blaming everything and everyone except yourself for your problems, and believe you have all the rights and someone else has all the responsibilities then he's not for you. If you think you should get your **** together and make something of yourself then he will sound like a breath of fresh air.

I was quite amazed how he was portrayed by the media. Made me wonder if anything you read can be trusted and that actually Donald Trump has a point about "fake news".

ancapailldorcha · 16-07-2018 10:39am

I'm noticing that there seems to be a disturbing trend of people seeming more and more inclined to sign upto cults centred around people like Donald Trump, Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk to the point where they seem intent on outsourcing their own thinking to these figures. Anyone who dissents gets set upon and any actual debate about what they say is forbidden.

professore · 16-07-2018 10:41am

Just had a thought - he could use bill C16 to force people by law to refer to him as "The Patriarchial Ruler of all womankind" and they would have to comply

:D:D

maximoose · 16-07-2018 10:42am

Just added a Dublin date to his tour, Olympia on 21st Oct

professore · 16-07-2018 10:44am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm noticing that there seems to be a disturbing trend of people seeming more and more inclined to sign upto cults centred around people like Donald Trump, Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk to the point where they seem intent on outsourcing their own thinking to these figures. Anyone who dissents gets set upon and any actual debate about what they say is forbidden.

That's human nature. It's no different than the cults around feminism, LGBTQ+, celebrity culture etc.

I would distinguish between people who agree with many of the ideas of a particular figure or ideology and someone who slavishly follows everything they say.

I'm not sure if the likes of Peterson or Musk have anything approaching an ideology. Maybe you have a point though. When people are marching down the street shouting catchy lobster slogans or getting to Mars then I'll start to worry about it.

ancapailldorcha · 16-07-2018 10:54am

professore wrote: »

That's human nature. It's no different than the cults around feminism, LGBTQ+, celebrity culture etc.

I would distinguish between people who agree with many of the ideas of a particular figure or ideology and someone who slavishly follows everything they say.

I'm not sure if the likes of Peterson or Musk have anything approaching an ideology. Maybe you have a point though. When people are marching down the street shouting catchy lobster slogans or getting to Mars then I'll start to worry about it.

The ideologies you mention are a set of beliefs. I was referring to specific figures.

I'd also stress that Peterson himself has no interest in such a cult as I see it. It's a chunk of his followers.

16-07-2018 11:16am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm noticing that there seems to be a disturbing trend of people seeming more and more inclined to sign upto cults centred around people like Donald Trump, Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk to the point where they seem intent on outsourcing their own thinking to these figures. Anyone who dissents gets set upon and any actual debate about what they say is forbidden.

This is it..the whole cult of personality..it appears people struggle to think for themselves..or is it something to do with the whole identity politics..it becomes something by which they define themselves..

ancapailldorcha · 16-07-2018 11:17am

Deleted User wrote: »

This is it..the whole cult of personality..it appears people struggle to think for themselves..or is it something to do with the whole identity politics..it becomes something by which they define themselves..

Identity politics is likely helping to fuel it as is hyper-individualism. People feel lost because of the latter and besieged because of the former.

Danzy · 16-07-2018 11:17am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm noticing that there seems to be a disturbing trend of people seeming more and more inclined to sign upto cults centred around people like Donald Trump, Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk to the point where they seem intent on outsourcing their own thinking to these figures. Anyone who dissents gets set upon and any actual debate about what they say is forbidden.

There is a push back against the Left and self described progressives. It certainly would be a mistake to replicate their tactics and approach as that has only brought electoral disaster to the Left.

Debate is not forbidden, outside of Antifa trust fund kids who is blocking debates or disrupting talks. Who outside of Middle Class activists who have taken over the Left view No Platforming as a valid and positive tactic, well, maybe shock jocks or several Youtube commentators who became famous off it?

If there is a problem and I think there is more than there was, it is on all sides of politics at the moment. People are separating in to camps.

Nationalists vs Internationalists/Globalists, Old status quo vs newer forces, to a smaller degree Left vs Right.

ancapailldorcha · 16-07-2018 11:19am

Danzy wrote: »

There is a push back against the Left and self described progressives.

Debate is not forbidden, outside of Antifa trust fund kids who is blocking debates or disrupting talks. Who outside of Middle Class activists who have taken over the Left view No Platforming as a valid and positive tactic?

If there is a problem and I think there is, it is on all sides of politics at the moment. People are separating in to camps.

Nationalists vs Internationalists, Old status quo vs newer forces, etc etc

You've only called out one side though.

Danzy · 16-07-2018 11:25am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You've only called out one side though.

True, the problem for the last decade was largely on the Left though, as it sunk deeper in to a cultish miasma and took positions so far removed from its base and history that it found itself sharing views with extreme Libertarians and CEOs.

Maybe the Pendulum has now swung the other way that the Priest like mob will be on the other side for the next decade.

16-07-2018 11:27am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Identity politics is likely helping to fuel it as is hyper-individualism. People feel lost because of the latter and besieged because of the former.

I dunno..Is it something to do with having so much information available?..its something that seems to be affecting the psyche..I say identity politics, but its prevalent on a more subtle level throughout society..like, people defining themselves by what music they listen to in their mid to late teens, and almost building their personalities around it..I'm probably not explaining this properly but it seems like something has happened, maybe a result of identity politics and consumerism..

ancapailldorcha · 16-07-2018 11:31am

Danzy wrote: »

True, the problem for the last decade was largely on the Left though, as it sunk deeper in to a cultish miasma and took positions so far removed from its base and history that it found itself sharing views with extreme Libertarians and CEOs.

Maybe the Pendulum has now swung the other way that the Priest like mob will be on the other side for the next decade.

It was to be fair but then the right, the former side of pragmatism and utility then decided to go one further with its own set of identity politics.

ancapailldorcha · 16-07-2018 11:33am

Deleted User wrote: »

I dunno..Is it something to do with having so much information available?..its something that seems to be affecting the psyche..I say identity politics, but its prevalent on a more subtle level throughout society..like, people defining themselves by what music they listen to in their mid to late teens, and almost building their personalities around it..I'm probably not explaining this properly but it seems like something has happened, maybe a result of identity politics and consumerism..

I suspect it's a mix of so much information to the point where it's meaningless, a lack of direction and greater purpose and a feeling being completely ignored by a political elite. Then there's the fact that people's incomes have dropped relative to their parents. It's a recipe for an unhappy generation which makes for fertile ground for insidious ideologues not that I would count Peterson among them of course. He's much more benign in my opinion.

professore · 16-07-2018 11:36am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You've only called out one side though.

We don't get to hear far right people dominating every media outlet and chat show.

ancapailldorcha · 16-07-2018 11:38am

professore wrote: »

We don't get to hear far right people dominating every media outlet and chat show.

Pretty much every tabloid is right wing. Then there's the people like Ben Shapiro doing the rounds. There is no shortage of far right opinion. It's everywhere.

16-07-2018 11:38am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I suspect it's a mix of so much information to the point where it's meaningless, a lack of direction and greater purpose and a feeling being completely ignored by a political elite. Then there's the fact that people's incomes have dropped relative to their parents. It's a recipe for an unhappy generation which makes for fertile ground for insidious ideologues not that I would count Peterson among them of course. He's much more benign in my opinion.

Yeah, but what I'm trying to get at is how, with all that, they come across something they agree with, and it becomes something that they define themselves by, and just the tendency to completely identify with it then..anyway..nevermind..

Danzy · 16-07-2018 11:41am

As choice develops, it drives individualism.

Every add now, is "your car, your life", " your hair, your choice".

Add in we are the first generation, probably in history where God is dead and thanks to Science we can't believe, even if we wanted to.
That is going to have profound psychological impact.

Neoliberalism and much of the Left are actively against the idea of nationality, the Nation State, so the group identity is being dissolved as well, probably for the first time in history, replaced with individualism or the pretense of Multiculturalism, that we are all just economic units.

Something that is an innate response is being challenged economically and socially.

Things can only be bottled up for so long.

Given the changes in societies, say England, can a unitary "we" ever return, I doubt it.

So two psychologically important pillars, possibly the two most important ones for mental well being, the why of life and where do I fit in to it are being broken down.

Of course people on both sides are going to double down, they have two competing visions for what the future should be.

It is less Left and Right than other things, as the Banker and the Anarchist can be on the one side on one issue, and a Socialist Party and the majority of the Working Class be opposed on it.

Left and right are taking a seat back.

DeadHand · 16-07-2018 11:51am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm noticing that there seems to be a disturbing trend of people seeming more and more inclined to sign upto cults centred around people like Donald Trump, Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk to the point where they seem intent on outsourcing their own thinking to these figures. Anyone who dissents gets set upon and any actual debate about what they say is forbidden.

I wouldn't agree.

I'm yet to see a serious example of Peterson's followers attempting to forbid "any actual debate." Can you provide any?

Anti-Peterson people on the other hand... There have been several attempts by official organisations to no platform the good doctor and even more efforts by unofficial, shrieking "activists" to disrupt his events and to intimidate and deter both speakers and attendees. One such gentle champion of human rights turned up to a talk armed with a garrote.

Peterson's media critics enjoy an enormous platform(being most of the mainstream media) and unlimited airtime to attack him- despite which none has yet managed to land a convincing blow.

What does get tiresome is his constant misrepresentation in the media, both social and official. Many who lambast Peterson have no obvious understanding of his work beyond what they have apparently gleaned from their own echo chambers: Leftist/feminist sources and/or the mainstream media (it's becoming increasingly difficult to discern the difference).

You see it a lot on these boards, with people who have clearly never read a page of his books or watched a minute of his lectures telling everyone else what a fraud and creep he is. Those are the only people I've observed outsourcing their opinions around this topic.

DeadHand · 16-07-2018 12:02pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Pretty much every tabloid is right wing. Then there's the people like Ben Shapiro doing the rounds. There is no shortage of far right opinion. It's everywhere.

And all that's set against a few tabloids and YouTube videos in Ireland and the UK is almost every other newspaper, every state broadcaster and every private broadcaster.

Come off it, there's comprehensive left wing dominance in the mainstream media.

As was highlighted by the shameful, ignorant way Peterson was treated by the BBC and RTE- nominally impartial, public media organisations which have in reality become powerful vehicles for "progressive" propaganda.

ancapailldorcha · 16-07-2018 12:03pm

DeadHand wrote: »

I'm yet to see a serious example of Peterson's followers attempting to forbid "any actual debate." Can you provide any?

Something I've noticed online. Not got any to hand.

DeadHand wrote: »

Anti-Peterson people on the other hand... There have been several attempts by official organisations to no platform the good doctor and even more efforts by unofficial, shrieking "activists" to disrupt his events and to intimidate and deter both speakers and attendees. One such gentle champion of human rights turned up to a talk armed with a garrote.

Do you really need to use language like "Gentle Champion of human rights?"

The good doctor is not above underhanded tactics himself.

DeadHand wrote: »

Peterson's media critics enjoy an enormous platform(being most of the mainstream media) and unlimited airtime to attack him- despite which none has yet managed to land a convincing blow.

As does Peterson himself. He's getting a lot of coverage as well. Balance seems fair enough here.

DeadHand wrote: »

You see it a lot on these boards, with people who have clearly never read a page of his books or watched a minute of his lectures telling everyone else what a fraud and creep he is. Those are the only people I've observed outsourcing their opinions around this topic.

Where have I said this?

DeadHand · 16-07-2018 12:06pm

As for the doctor himself, I don't think any objective person who has studied his core messages could have any problem with them: his teaching are simple and revolve around telling the truth, behaving honourably, taking responsibility and standing up for yourself and your loved ones. He does have his bizarre tangents, which are more a product of his endless curiosity, pondering nature and eccentricity than the signs of a dangerous mind.

There's nothing radical or aggressive in what he peddles.

I believe he is a fundamentally good man with a reasonable, important, timely message that has been thrust into the limelight due to the insane, deceitful condition Western society is in danger of being dragged into.

He stands out because of the backdrop.

He's not the messiah. He should be listened to but he would be the first to protest that he should not be slavishly followed. He gets some things wrong but he gets a hell of a lot right and that's resonating with people who are sick of being told how to talk and think.

ancapailldorcha · 16-07-2018 12:11pm

Cultists have a habit of disregarding teachings they find.. inconvenient.

Like I said, this is very little to do with the man himself, it's some of the people who've followed him who have since latched onto him.

DickSwiveller Returns · 16-07-2018 12:13pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Cultists have a habit of disregarding teachings they find.. inconvenient.

Like I said, this is very little to do with the man himself, it's some of the people who've followed him who have since latched onto him.

Yes but this happens with many so-called public intellectuals. Type Christopher Hitchens in to youtube and read some of the comments from his worshipers. It's enough to make you blush.

DeadHand · 16-07-2018 12:29pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Something I've noticed online. Not got any to hand.

So you have nothing.

I've not noticed anything of the sort online. Granted, I doubt I spend as much time online as you do but my point that anti-Peterson elements have been far more censorious than pro-Peterson people remains unchallenged.

Do you really need to use language like "Gentle Champion of human rights?"

Yes. Isn't English fun? Don't attempt to moderate my language, please, that was the cause of all this trouble.

The good doctor is not above underhanded tactics himself.

Can you give examples of his "underhanded tactics"? To me, he seems a sincere commentator, honest to the point of his own detriment.

In any case, I don't ever recall Peterson bringing a lethal weapon to a seminar nor do I recall any of his followers doing likewise or being encouraged by him to do likewise.

To attempt to equate him with that deranged terrorist is laughable.

As does Peterson himself. He's getting a lot of coverage as well. Balance seems fair enough here.

He does, despite the occasionally violent and always venomous efforts of his opponents, because his message resonates so strongly with people that even a media that, for the most part, despises him ideologically cannot ignore him. Instead they set him up for constant character ambush and fail every time.

Where have I said this?

I didn't claim you said this, it was a general observations. I wouldn't lay that charge on you individually, you're an excellent, reasoned contributor.

ancapailldorcha · 16-07-2018 12:42pm

DeadHand wrote: »

So you have nothing.

If you want to interpret it that way then sure. You have nothing either by that measure.

DeadHand wrote: »

Yes. Isn't English fun? Don't attempt to moderate my language, please, that was the cause of all this trouble.

I asked you a question. That's all.

DeadHand wrote: »

Can you give examples of his "underhanded tactics"? To me, he seems a sincere commentator, honest to the point of his own detriment.

Thought I posted a link. Mea cupla.

DeadHand wrote: »

In any case, I don't ever recall Peterson bringing a lethal weapon to a seminar nor do I recall any of his followers doing likewise or being encouraged by him to do likewise.

To attempt to equate him with that deranged terrorist is laughable.

To be honest, this is the sort of thing I was talking about above. Taking any sort of criticism in the most abject, confrontational manner imaginable so that you can erect an absurd strawman. Peterson himself extols the virtue of precision with words but you clearly didn't read that bit.

DeadHand wrote: »

I didn't claim you said this, it was a general observations. I wouldn't lay that charge on you individually, you're an excellent, reasoned contributor.

Thanks.

tritium · 16-07-2018 1:21pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm noticing that there seems to be a disturbing trend of people seeming more and more inclined to sign upto cults centred around people like Donald Trump, Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk to the point where they seem intent on outsourcing their own thinking to these figures. Anyone who dissents gets set upon and any actual debate about what they say is forbidden.

If it’s a trend it’s not a recent one. Twitter has been a pretty good lens for seeing the cult like behaviour within society and it has touched all sides, but it greatly predates even that.

The unquestioning acceptance of badly researched views or indeed plain old lies by adherents on the left and the right is remarkably toxic to reasoned debate, and that sort of nonsense dates back to the citing of things like Koos’ 1 in 4 rubbish and possibly earlier. It became a headline idea when Trump, a master of “fake news” started whining about “fake news” by his detractors but to be honest we’ve been exposed to this garbage for decades.

In Peterson’s defence at least he seems to put the statistics out there in a relatively raw and unadulterated form and allow others to challenge them.

tritium · 16-07-2018 1:26pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It was to be fair but then the right, the former side of pragmatism and utility then decided to go one further with its own set of identity politics.

Yep, pretty much. Trump has maybe made it particularly obvious but it’s been building for a while. We now appear to be engaged in a race to the bottom of the barre between the two extremes.

jobbridge4life · 16-07-2018 1:35pm

klqhz513ec7rai wrote: »

In your opinion ... I hold a different one

Oh of course, different 'opinion' or not it doesn't change the shrieking emotional flop that presented itself on radio just days ago.

DeadHand · 16-07-2018 1:38pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If you want to interpret it that way then sure. You have nothing either by that measure.

I asked you a question. That's all.

Thought I posted a link. Mea cupla.

To be honest, this is the sort of thing I was talking about above. Taking any sort of criticism in the most abject, confrontational manner imaginable so that you can erect an absurd strawman. Peterson himself extols the virtue of precision with words but you clearly didn't read that bit.

Thanks.

I have quite a bit actually, the attempts both unofficial and official to deplatform Peterson are well documented and more tangible than your own “I’ve seen some stuff on the internet that I can’t produce right now”.

The article you linked is a hatchet job of one of the legion aimed at Peterson. He’s strongly critical of certain college course and professors- with good reason in my opinion. Once the article mentions “violent rhetoric” in relation to this criticism it’s value and purpose becomes clear.

I see no “underhanded tactics” in his attack, he is forthright and clear in his condemnation. I’m inclined to believe he has a point when I observe the grotesque dimensions identity politics and the cult of victim hood has developed in the USA and Canada (coming to a street near you soon).

I pointed out that at least one of Peterson’s opponents has brought a murderous weapon to one of his lectures, your response was Peterson also uses “underhand tactics” (a statement you’re yet to back up with evidence) ie. he is somehow just as bad.

The point was absurd in that Peterson and his followers have not engaged in any violence, much less equipped themselves for fatal violence.

No straw man there, your argument was ludicrous and well below your own standard, in my opinion.

ancapailldorcha · 16-07-2018 2:09pm

So you're playing the fake news card and not bothered posting any links. Fair enough. I'd better leave it there.

RIGOLO · 16-07-2018 2:16pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So you're playing the fake news card and not bothered posting any links. Fair enough. I'd better leave it there.

So your playing the 'oh your playing the fake news card ' ... yes indeed best to leave it.
These days all discussions are ending in a few stock phrases being thrown out by the left, its why things have worked out the way they have.

DeadHand · 16-07-2018 3:19pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So you're playing the fake news card and not bothered posting any links. Fair enough. I'd better leave it there.

Your link is, in my opinion, a hysterical propaganda piece about as worthful as Cathy Newman’s interrogation of Peterson and her later play for victim hood.

Anything I’ve posted in this discussion is easily verified and a matter of recorded fact and my own thoughts thereon: no pressing need for links, much less those from dubious, ideologically driven sources like that which you produced.

Try googling: “Peterson woman with garrote” and it will take you to library loads of material detailing violent opposition to him and efforts to deplatform him.

In contrast, there will be nothing significant detailing attempts to silence the opposition to Peterson, which is huge and loud, because there hasn’t been any; despite your nebulous, unsubstantiated claim to the contrary.

ancapailldorcha · 16-07-2018 3:44pm

It's clear that you want an echo chamber. I have no interest in doing your research for you. You dismissed my link because it didn't fit your agenda so there's no point in engaging further because you seem to react badly to any criticism of Peterson whatsoever.

ligerdub · 16-07-2018 3:57pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm noticing that there seems to be a disturbing trend of people seeming more and more inclined to sign upto cults centred around people like Donald Trump, Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk to the point where they seem intent on outsourcing their own thinking to these figures. Anyone who dissents gets set upon and any actual debate about what they say is forbidden.

Because perhaps they see value in what they are saying. President Trump isn't known for being particularly academic or introspective, so perhaps the inclusion of him there among the others is a quasi slur on the other two in that regard.

I don't think anybody is outsourcing thinking to anybody, but perhaps more interesting is the fact that they are thinking and considering a viewpoint. It stands to me that the real sheep here are the ones who turn the news on at night and take that as gospel.

I know I'll get the standard "fake news" retort, as if the media are a reliable informant to the masses. I don't buy it. It's clearly evident that pretty much every tv news channel we have in this country (and from the UK) are ardent supporters of the EU, feminism, Hillary Clinton, LGBTQWERTY+ etc. You can't move for this sort of stuff on RTE these days. Not everything critical is fake news, but there is some dishonest media and fake news, and it's always critical of the same people.

There is also a degree of social cost to sticking the head above the parapet and perhaps suggesting that introducing positive discrimination policies may potentially be harmful to society, so it's pretty clear why a lot of people are reluctant to do so, even if they think it. You only need to look at the other side of this in years gone by where people were afraid to speak up against the church for example. The number of people is small by design, to make them seem like outliers, against the general prevalence of the populace. We have seen time and again that this really isn't the case in reality.

There is no problem with debating people with these views, the frustration comes from deliberate misrepresentations, which are largely thrown out willy nilly by the media, and then used as if it were a legitimate argument against them. Case in point, the "here come the lobsters" piece on RTE last week.

Trump, Peterson, Farage, and a small number of others stand-out because they are the nominated "others" that the consensus brigade are more than happy to put in the middle of the shame circle.

In the case of Trump he sort of relishes it, and I can understand it to a degree. It goes way too far though, and the character assassinations go way beyond the ammunition that is legitimately available on such characters. An example of this, anyone who goes outside the circle is "alt-right", whether they are or not. Here's a hint......they aren't.

DeadHand · 16-07-2018 6:06pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's clear that you want an echo chamber. I have no interest in doing your research for you. You dismissed my link because it didn't fit your agenda so there's no point in engaging further because you seem to react badly to any criticism of Peterson whatsoever.

Nope, wouldn’t agree with that.

On the contrary, it’s clear to me that you’re frustrated that you can’t manufacture your own echo chamber. I’m more than willing to debate Peterson’s critics (I have and do when I feel they misrepresent the man as they so often do), you’re the one proclaiming “fake news” and announcing disengagement: the equivalent of picking up the ball and going home. It’s you that is “reacting badly”.

Dissent rankles you.

I’ve done my research in that I’ve digested Petersen’s work as best I could and formed an opinion on it I believe to be accurate.

I don’t need you to do any research for me and never asked you to. I suggested a simple, quick means to access other sources for the established, widely known facts I referred to in response to your complaint about my lack of links. Do it or don’t, I couldn’t care less.

I dismissed your link because it’s as weak as sh!t.

I’ve neither the time or inclination to stay here all evening and thoroughly analysis the text but let’s just glance at the early part thereof: “Peterson came to public notoriety last year after refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns while interacting with transgender students.”

Almost immediately, a falsehood.

Peterson never refused to address anyone as anything. He protested against and refused to accept a law enforcing compelled speech. In fact, he is on record as saying he would use a transgendered person’s preferred pronouns if asked personally. He had no beef with Trans people and he hasn’t said a harsh word against them; it was the law itself and those pushing it he had issue with.

Therefore, your “journalist”, within the first few paragraphs, is either lying or ignorant. Either way it undermines the credibility of the article which continues in the same disingenuous vein, highlights being the hysterical characterization of Peterson’s speeches as “violent tinged” and “violent rhetoric”, as if the man was addressing goose stepping masses at Nuremberg instead of delivering data led, sometimes impassioned but always reasoned lectures.

If you want me to respect your links, find better, objective sources.

Pug160 · 16-07-2018 7:52pm

One other thing I've been thinking about, which maybe hasn't been touched upon, (at least not in this thread) is the possibilty that some of Peterson's critics and detractors are people who actually agree with most of what he believes and says, but have a certain degree of envy because he has managed to reach out to such a large audience, whilst they have not. It's an emotion that few would ever admit to, yet it can influence the best of people. What percentage is anyone's guess, but there would presumably be at least a small minority in that camp.

DeadHand · 16-07-2018 8:56pm

Pug160 wrote: »

One other thing I've been thinking about, which maybe hasn't been touched upon, (at least not in this thread) is the possibilty that some of Peterson's critics and detractors are people who actually agree with most of what he believes and says, but have a certain degree of envy because he has managed to reach out to such a large audience, whilst they have not. It's an emotion that few would ever admit to, yet it can influence the best of people. What percentage is anyone's guess, but there would presumably be at least a small minority in that camp.

There’s certainly a huge amount of saltiness (to borrow a gaming term) and jealousy involved. Peterson has achieved an audience and depth of genuine, public admiration that his detractors could only dream of.

In my opinion, what upsets them most is that it was achieved by defying establishment dogmas they themselves are too cowardly to challenge, but plenty brave enough to enforce- that being the socially safer option in these totalitarian times.

I have no doubt that the self satisfied virtue signallers of today would, if they were in 1940s Ireland, be just as ardent about snuffing out opposition to the Catholic Church then as they are about quelling dissent against the “liberal” agenda today.

Peterson has committed a successful, ongoing heresy, and so must be destroyed.

People form herds and find safety therein- sometimes the direction of the herd changes, but it’s still a herd. The wayward rebels will always be attacked by the conformists. Yet, the rebels are needed- this is what makes Peterson so essential: it’s not so much his genius and it certainly isn’t his origianality- it’s the context he toils in.

SkepticQuark · 16-07-2018 9:04pm

DeadHand wrote: »

There’s certainly a huge amount of saltiness (to borrow a gaming term) and jealousy involved. Peterson has achieved an audience and depth of genuine, public admiration that his detractors could only dream of.

In my opinion, what upsets them most is that it was achieved by defying establishment dogmas they themselves are too cowardly to challenge, but plenty brave enough to enforce- that being the socially safer option in these totalitarian times.

I have no doubt that the self satisfied virtue signallers of today would, if they were in 1940s Ireland, be just as ardent about snuffing out opposition to the Catholic Church then as they are about quelling dissent against the “liberal” agenda today.

Peterson has committed a successful, ongoing heresy, and so must be destroyed.

People form herds and find safety therein- sometimes the direction of the herd changes, but it’s still a herd. The wayward rebels will always be attacked by the conformists. Yet, the rebels are needed- this is what makes Peterson so essential: it’s not so much his genius and it certainly isn’t his origianality- it’s the context he toils in.

Except for the fact that Peterson parrots classic Christian apologetics while his cult following in a lot of cases atheist or agnostic themselves seem to ignore or actually try to reconcile his beliefs with their own views, for fear of realising Peterson isn't the perfect person they seem to think he is.

Anyone who starts trying to explain that a "genuine" atheist would be a murderer isn't preaching values of those who criticise the Catholic Church I'm sorry to tell you. I'd also add that such claims you'd normally hear from the likes of Ray Comfort definitely should detract from the "genius" label you seem to want to apply to him.

Oh, I forgot the other thing, his whole you can't quit smoking "without a mythical experience" and proceeded to claim this was some sort of scientific fact backed by evidence when it really sounds like pseudoscientific bull**** which Dillahunty then proceeds to call out.

Danzy · 16-07-2018 9:05pm

Exactly. Peterson has committed the ultimate in thought crime, he is credible, articulate, increasingly listened to and he challenges the established orthodoxy in politics, to a degree on the Liberal right and centre and to a very large degree on the Left.

The Left hunts heretics while the right hunts converts.

Peterson comes across as a little bit Aspergers, he doesn't quite get that some people will broach an argument from emotional rather than researched points of views and will junk established science because it clashes with their political analysis.

It is why he has to be labelled as Alt Right, a Nazi, a Zionist, and on and on.

He is undermining the faith that is the modern Left.

The modern Left would do well to look at the Church in Ireland, it tried the same attitude and people eventually stopped listening.Looking at their voter base turning away from them all over Europe, it is easy to see history repeat itself.

A pity as we need a movement that will stand up for the have nots in society.

Pug160 · 16-07-2018 9:42pm

Oh sure, I think there must be some kind of cognitive dissonance going on with Peterson, but the fact he's religious and has made a few curious claims is certainly no basis for completely disowning him. You could pick faults with anyone if you tried hard enough, but the sensible thing to do is to read and listen to everything with objectivity. Someone mentioned Christopher Hitchens earlier. He supported the Iraq War, right? That was not a popular position to take, but I'm guessing it didn't diminish his reputation as an intellectual. There is probably a ''fly in the ointment'' with everyone - it shouldn't be a big deal.

All things relating to Jordan Peterson

Comments