All things relating to Jordan Peterson

08-07-2018 1:38pm

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

The actual content of what you said is an interesting one about two people getting heavy with each other on the street and been rattling in the head. On one side I think we need some sort of social decorum to interact with each other on a daily basis. On another side, I think is that just my nature expunging from me that has been shaped by my life in rather a conservative way toward people showing affection. What is so wrong with two people feeling horny for each other and showing it and why do I even think of that in a negative way when it is displayed in public.

It gets weirder again if we break down the social walls a little further. Let's say we were OK with two people having sex in a park in full public view. Would it also then be OK to watch those two people. Would you watch?

Won't somebody think of the children.

Because for society to function there needs to be limits on the acceptable behavior of it's members. Generalised measures of acceptance for types of behavior because without those limits, it gives encouragement to anarchy, and civil unrest.

We don't live in a society of limited views... and allowing complete freedom to people to behave whatever way they wish will guarantee conflict between those who feel strongly enough about it. Even for those who don't feel strongly enough to act out, it creates resentment that their values are not being taken into consideration.

It also begs the question, that if certain forms of behavior are allowed to become available, why are others not allowed? Why can't I, with my religious or masochistic tendencies, whip myself to bloody shreds in the park? Why is two people screwing more agreeable than my right to express myself through self-mutilation? And how are my belief that self-mutilation is wrong when you consider transgender operations to be acceptable?

Society needs to have limits. It's a Pandora's box waiting to be opened, and honestly, I feel the lid is being opened as we speak, with no consideration to how it will affect society in the near future.

Don't get me wrong. I am very open-minded on most issues. I just believe that people should do these things in the privacy of their own home, and not push their views/behavior on to others who have no wish to observe them.

WhiteMemento9 · 08-07-2018 1:45pm

I agree but I think the logic of acceptability falls down with regards to two people showing some eager affection for each other on the street. Why do we think of sex, love etc in such a refrained way that, that is deemed unacceptable? That seems more of a deep seeded conservative viewpoint with what we deem as acceptable levels of affection than making society function normally.

08-07-2018 1:50pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm inclined to see it as much more of a good thing than a bad thing. The caveat is that then erosion of traditional bodies of collectivism and the promotion of individual agency and liberty aren't inherently linked. The Catholic Church has largely been crippled by the child abuse scandal, the banks nearly crashed the economy only to be bailed out by the state, trade unions have had their snouts in the trough for some time now, MP's have had the recent expenses scandal and so on...

Originally, I would have agreed with you, but I don't see that many positive changes occuring. Oh, sure it is good that we have SSM, or that Gay people are not being arrested in the streets for being gay... but it seems to me that there is too much of a rush to tear down the boundaries of the past rules/expectations, and very little being provided to replace them.

I'm one of those people who thrives on complete freedom.. but very few people I've met are the same as me. Most of those I know need the security of rules, regulations, social conventions, etc. They need to know where the walls are to avoid the sense of being lost.

Pretty much. Membership of some of the bodies I mention above imply participation in a higher cause which can help one feel fulfilled and purposeful. A trade union employee might see themselves as the guardian of their members' rights and welfare against an avaricious and uncaring employer for example. All this has been replaced by consumer capitalism which amounts to little more than "Buy this thing and you'll be happy". Of course, there's always another thing and reality never meets expectation.

Totally agree.

This is largely an online phenomenon, largely confined to certain sites and social media which is itself inherently anathema to the idea of civilised, mature debate. Most people, I've found don't subscribe to many "-isms" if any. If it transpired that, say a toy company had used a harmful variety of paint only a small few would argue for the state to nationalise it or to have a bonfire of toy and paint regulations. They'd just expect the firm to issue a recall and pay compensation where necessary.

I think a certain few troublemakers are intent on pushing the idea that we're losing our free speech for their own personal gain. It's was Peterson's own stance against Bill C-16 which fuelled his rise to prominence. I don't think he was expecting this but now that he is in this position, it suits him to try and make as much hay out of this as possible. Ditto for various professional trolls among whom I would not count Peterson.

This was largely an online phenomenon. I've seen a number of people here on boards say the same thing, and for the most part, I agree with you. For Ireland. But it is changing. The division between the Internet and our RLs is diminishing everyday. The ease of access to the internet through phones, tablets, etc is making the ideas there far more accessible to the general public, and with the loss of respect for traditional media, people are turning to the Net for opinions... [There's also the educational angle, in that these ideas are making its way into Irish Universities]

I came back to Ireland last year (I'd been gone for mostly a decade with a few short holidays back), and have spent the time meeting old friends, old loves, relations, etc. Or travelling to places I knew from before both in Ireland and in Europe.

And the range of conversations I've had has been rather broad, along with the conversations I've overheard in cafes, bars, etc. This "Internet Think" is here. It's being spoken about commonly, as is the feminist angle of things. The Gender wage gap, the need for gender diversity, Transgender rights, etc, these are all being talked about, and the opinions of online authors are being used to justify opinions...

So, no, I don't think it's simply an online phenomenon anymore.

Wanderer78 · 08-07-2018 1:59pm

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Gonna have to throw me a link or two there for starvation in developed countries.

id probably direct you to the work of people such as joe stiglitz, richard wolff and kate raworth for such info, plenty of others doing similar research though

ancapailldorcha · 08-07-2018 2:06pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Originally, I would have agreed with you, but I don't see that many positive changes occuring. Oh, sure it is good that we have SSM, or that Gay people are not being arrested in the streets for being gay... but it seems to me that there is too much of a rush to tear down the boundaries of the past rules/expectations, and very little being provided to replace them.

I'm one of those people who thrives on complete freedom.. but very few people I've met are the same as me. Most of those I know need the security of rules, regulations, social conventions, etc. They need to know where the walls are to avoid the sense of being lost.

Right but in the case of SSM, the boundary was replaced. The constitution was amended to eliminate the reference to sex. The limit of marriage being between two people remains intact.

Individual liberty shouldn't be compromsied simply because some individuals can't handle it. Gay marriage being illegal wasn't helping anyone.

Deleted User wrote: »

This was largely an online phenomenon. I've seen a number of people here on boards say the same thing, and for the most part, I agree with you. For Ireland. But it is changing. The division between the Internet and our RLs is diminishing everyday. The ease of access to the internet through phones, tablets, etc is making the ideas there far more accessible to the general public, and with the loss of respect for traditional media, people are turning to the Net for opinions...

I came back to Ireland last year (I'd been gone for mostly a decade with a few short holidays back), and have spent the time meeting old friends, old loves, relations, etc. Or travelling to places I knew from before both in Ireland and in Europe.

And the range of conversations I've had has been rather broad, along with the conversations I've overheard in cafes, bars, etc. This "Internet Think" is here. It's being spoken about commonly, as is the feminist angle of things. The Gender wage gap, the need for gender diversity, Transgender rights, etc, these are all being talked about, and the opinions of online authors are being used to justify opinions...

So, no, I don't think it's simply an online phenomenon anymore.

I think it is still largely online. You are right of course in pointing out that people are discarding traditional media in favour of online opinions and these are consequently spreading. The internet makes it easier for people to inform themselves but it does come with the caveat of echo chambers.

However, I've found that the polarisation effect of the internet and social media in particular rapidly dissipates when engaging most people in real life. People might be getting opinions from it but not with the same zeal as online bloggers, activists and the like.

08-07-2018 2:23pm

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

Wake up for a start and be alive. Actually embrace the here and now and live. Much of what I mean is talked about in that Harris video I posted where people never truly connect with the present moment and end up living life in the future or the past. The movement to fix it will only happen when enough people are awake to see a change is needed. At the moment there is an acceptance that things are this way and it is the best we can achieve. That needs to change. People can't look at the world and see what we are doing is crazy and we are doing a terrible job of caring for people in the world. They can't do that because they are so consumed with their own lives in this age of ME. Trying to find happiness in all the wrong places, sleeping walking through life.

Well.. I actually recommend drugs, and living outside of your home country for at least 2-3 years. See a bit of other cultures completely different from your own. Take a breather. Relax, and reappraise what is important in your life.

And then commit yourself to seeking what you want. No hedging. No pissing about. No losing your focus because of other peoples needs. Be selfish. Look to your needs and those you care about, and ignore the rest.

But.. that's not going to happen.

Agree with it all but if people could see the joy that it brings to care about the collective. To actually see pain and suffering and not think of it as some logical exercise towards their brain of computing, "oh that is sad". Instead let the pain in and show genuine compassion and understanding it relates to all the other feelings in life you don't experience because you dull the pain, you dull everything to live like that. Being a good person is its own reward.

Um,.. nah. I'm not going down this road with you because it's a thread in itself.

You are on shaky ground with me here. I don't believe people should be able to just say what they want. I agree the ability to do so is incredibly freeing for you personally but it should always come with a caveat of caring and understanding of the people around you are just trying to get through this life thing. Many with little understanding that you have as a person. Jim Carey recently came to this realisation and he showed up at some fashion event deriding the whole thing as one of the most vacuous things we are doing on planet earth. He may be right but he comes at things from what I can see of having lived in a money bubble with little understanding of how hard and difficult life is for many people. He doesn't know those people he is talking to. He doesn't know their struggle. What gives him the right to judge without that knowledge.

Consequences... It comes down to recognising that there are consequences to your actions, and that you bear responsibility for those actions. Oh, sure, you cannot assume complete responsibility since you have zero control over what the other person thinks or how the respond, but you can factor these things into the decision making process, and make a choice. And bear the responsibility for that choice.

I did a full year of 100% honesty. I lost the vast majority of friends I had at the time, and gained a minority of people who appreciated the honesty. A very slim number of people accepting it.... because people don't really want honesty from others. The key is to decide when being honest benefits you the most, and just keep quiet the remainder of the time.

As for judging others, everyone does it. Knowledge isn't a requirement. You walk down the street, any person you look at for more than 3 seconds, you've made some kind of judgment about them. Their appearance, their attitude, who they are with, etc. It's human nature to judge those around us, and pretending that's not so, is pointless. The word is full of ignorant people... because all of us are ignorant at different points in our lives. I certainly have been... and I've seen the same in others.

WhiteMemento9 · 08-07-2018 2:50pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Well.. I actually recommend drugs, and living outside of your home country for at least 2-3 years. See a bit of other cultures completely different from your own. Take a breather. Relax, and reappraise what is important in your life.

And then commit yourself to seeking what you want. No hedging. No pissing about. No losing your focus because of other peoples needs. Be selfish. Look to your needs and those you care about, and ignore the rest.

But.. that's not going to happen.

I agree that both things are useful tools

People are so lost in this world though with the pressure of work, need to survive etc it becomes a rat race where it is hard to gain traction out of that bubble and that life consumes you on a path to places you maybe think you want but from what I have experienced and seen, those roads don't lead anywhere good.

I'm not with you on the being selfish thing. I think if we all cared a little more we could cause change. One of the main problems with the world is that the good people stay quiet far too often and it is the assholes who end up running the show which is why so many things are ****ed up. Someone once said all it takes for bad people to do bad things is for good people to stand by and say nothing. I understand the feeling of helplessness but that inner voice gnaws quite badly at me as a person when I put the head down and work towards my own selfish goals

Deleted User wrote: »

Consequences... It comes down to recognising that there are consequences to your actions, and that you bear responsibility for those actions. Oh, sure, you cannot assume complete responsibility since you have zero control over what the other person thinks or how the respond, but you can factor these things into the decision making process, and make a choice. And bear the responsibility for that choice.

I did a full year of 100% honesty. I lost the vast majority of friends I had at the time, and gained a minority of people who appreciated the honesty. A very slim number of people accepting it.... because people don't really want honesty from others. The key is to decide when being honest benefits you the most, and just keep quiet the remainder of the time.

As for judging others, everyone does it. Knowledge isn't a requirement. You walk down the street, any person you look at for more than 3 seconds, you've made some kind of judgment about them. Their appearance, their attitude, who they are with, etc. It's human nature to judge those around us, and pretending that's not so, is pointless. The word is full of ignorant people... because all of us are ignorant at different points in our lives. I certainly have been... and I've seen the same in others.

Those would align pretty strongly with my views apart from the judging thing. I only ever judge people these days if I can't find a moral compass in them and they seem like not good people. I can usually dig enough to find reasons for that lack of empathy but it isn't always forgivable.

I will think, oh that person looks cool in those clothes etc but those are just superficial things which mean very little to me other than what I am seeing with my eyes. They are just signal to my brain that is shaped by the world but I understand in my brain I have no idea about that person. What you see with your eyes is very little in this world.

Wibbs · 08-07-2018 3:27pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

However, I've found that the polarisation effect of the internet and social media in particular rapidly dissipates when engaging most people in real life. People might be getting opinions from it but not with the same zeal as online bloggers, activists and the like.

I would suggest that rather than not showing the same zeal they're hiding it in public because they might get called on it in a face to face meeting. I have certainly heard conversations with quite extreme views from many sides of the fence. Much like how the interwebs has become, they only do so among people of similar views.

Pug160 · 08-07-2018 8:30pm

I guess I'm a little bit surprised at Peterson's detractors here. I'm not completely sure what I was expecting, but it was probably more along the lines of ''he's not my cup of tea but has some interesting things to say'', or something to that effect. It seems like the division here goes along the same lines as elsewhere. He's controversial and no one can really know for sure what his motivation truly is (he doesn't appear to be a decadent man wallowing in luxury) so we can only speculate. If he's not geniune he's a very good actor. He seems to be addressing issues that have been perhaps spiralling out of control, or bubbling under the surface at the very least. Maybe there is an element of paranoia but there are genuine concerns that a large number of people have, and if no one actually speaks up you're left with a very vocal minority perhaps. There is definitely a tolerance issue within a certain section of the left, just as there is on the right, and I think the ''when does the left go too far?'' question was a very relevant question to pose as well.

I get that there are some people who seem to be like Marmite and can be difficult to warm to, but I do think that intelligent, critical thinkers should try harder to separate an individial's opinions rather than just make their minds up before they objectively think it through. It's very rare to find someone you completely disagree with anyway. People usually have more in common than what is acknowledged. Stephen Fry (the other ''stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person is'') was able to sit down alongside Peterson and actually be on the same side of the particular debate that was going on. He would have been almost certainly criticised for that but it was an admirable thing for him to do. As for people like Sam Harris: they are unbelievably logical and well spoken and deserve all the praise they're getting. A lot of the prominent atheists and sceptics have obviously done the world a great favour in promoting that kind of rationality, but I do feel that it only goes so far at times and doesn't necessarily touch people in the way other forms of communication do. It sometimes feels as though I'm listening to a very intelligent robot.

WhiteMemento9 · 08-07-2018 11:44pm

This would be a long conversation. I don't think he is a bad actor. I actually think he is being the person he thinks he is.

Harika · 09-07-2018 8:44am

I think he wanted to come into the spotlight and the SJW and alt-right gave him the opportunity. While he might not actively pander to them and appears everywhere where he gets invited. But his audience, according to reddit is overwhelmingly single young white male, who think they have a higher IQ than average but are paid below average. https://imgur.com/a/iYVmn And when he says he is not naïve he knows exactly that those are the people he is speaking too.

Those are the people that then upload to youtube videos like “Jordan Peterson destroys SJW” while when you look at the video you see a challenging question and an answer that is thought provoking itself. I am always wondering if his audience just cheers at him for the sake of it, or how many of them are understanding what he says. Like first I wonder who of his audience knows the definition of Modernism and would be able to explain the difference between that and post Modernism.

JP is/was University professor and that’s his level and he has an opinion on topics, that he then backs up. Hilariously at other topics he is avoiding having a stance like hell especially religion:
“Do you believe in Jesus?”
“What do you mean by believe?” “What do you mean by Jesus?” blablablabla “without definition I cannot answer that”.

While he asks good questions like “When Trump gets impeached what are his followers then supposed to do?” but this is not new, so I am with Zizek who said that in a year no one will be talking about Peterson anymore or he will be lost in obscurity like Milo.

09-07-2018 9:02am

Harika wrote: »

While he asks good questions like “When Trump gets impeached what are his followers then supposed to do?” but this is not new, so I am with Zizek who said that in a year no one will be talking about Peterson anymore or he will be lost in obscurity like Milo.

TBF that's more a reflection about who we are as people, and where our interests rest, than about JP. Pretty much everyone in this area struggles constantly to stay relevant. You can see it in the Feminists who constantly have to swing between moderate and extremist opinions to keep in the public eye... Sure they have a core group of supporters, but they have to "do drama" to get new ones, who disappear after some time.

JP will retain a core group of supporters, and will likely retreat to the fringes at some point. Everyone does, as new people step up to capture peoples attention. Milo is is different because he was an acknowledged troll, and young enough to get distracted into doing other things. Oh, he'll keep trying to become relevant again, just as most authors try to get another bestseller out, but most people tired of Milo's trollish behavior rather quickly. JP will last longer simply because he is reasonable.

Harika · 09-07-2018 9:15am

Deleted User wrote: »

TBF that's more a reflection about who we are as people, and where our interests rest, than about JP. Pretty much everyone in this area struggles constantly to stay relevant. You can see it in the Feminists who constantly have to swing between moderate and extremist opinions to keep in the public eye... Sure they have a core group of supporters, but they have to "do drama" to get new ones, who disappear after some time.
<-snip->

JP is atm the champion of the alt-right and the people described above, but as he is riding only on this wave I can also see him dropping very quickly when a new champion enters the arena. It reminds me of the movie "Lo chiamavano Bulldozer" or "Uppercut" where those Italians bring each week a new champion to the arm wrestling competition with the GIs and put all their hope in him and when this one loses bring a new one in.
Sure JP will stay relevant in a niche but he will be dropped from the Alt-right as soon as he moves into a more non radical position to gain more traction and enter a level like Chomsky or Zizek.
Time will tell, where he will end up.

09-07-2018 9:22am

Harika wrote: »

JP is atm the champion of the alt-right and the people described above, but as he is riding only on this wave I can also see him dropping very quickly when a new champion enters the arena. It reminds me of the movie "Lo chiamavano Bulldozer" or "Uppercut" where those Italians bring each week a new champion to the arm wrestling competition with the GIs and put all their hope in him and when this one loses bring a new one in.
Sure JP will stay relevant in a niche but he will be dropped from the Alt-right as soon as he moves into a more non radical position to gain more traction and enter a level like Chomsky or Zizek.
Time will tell, where he will end up.

I think you're falling for these "labels" too much. Alt-right. JP represents every guy out there who is exasperated with feminism, or SJW movements. He's going to stay relevant until someone else comes along who has better charisma but also has his facts right when facing the extremists who paint all men as rapists, molesters, monsters, etc.

I'm not saying you're wrong about the alt-right angle, but JP has far more support than just them. Personally, I'd support JP because he's one of the few people out there willing to stand up to the BS coming from feminists, or women's rights movements (yes, I don't see them as the same thing anymore)

Harika · 09-07-2018 9:31am

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not saying you're wrong about the alt-right angle, but JP has far more support than just them. Personally, I'd support JP because he's one of the few people out there willing to stand up to the BS coming from feminists, or women's rights movements (yes, I don't see them as the same thing anymore)

Here I disagree, because the right is dominating the internet and by this a gigantic echo chamber has been created. And if you look at his latest book there is nothing about the gender/SJW in it. So a small fraction of him is dragged into the open to champion with it. There is far more about him than his pronoun debate.
@Mod I would be inclined to ask what BS we are talking here, but this might get too far away from the original topic and might derail the thread too far away. What you advise?

09-07-2018 9:41am

Harika wrote: »

Here I disagree, because the right is dominating the internet and by this a gigantic echo chamber has been created.

Seriously? The right is dominating the internet? I wouldn't have thought so. Oddly enough, I would have considered the "left" (although that has kinda lost its meaning) to be very well represented.

And if you look at his latest book there is nothing about the gender/SJW in it. So a small fraction of him is dragged into the open to champion with it. There is far more about him than his pronoun debate.

Well, yes, his book is about improving someones life, not about social/cultural issues.... however the vast majority of videos relating to him on YouTube or articles I've found on the internet relate to areas other than pure self-development.

@Mod I would be inclined to ask what BS we are talking here, but this might get too far away from the original topic and might derail the thread too far away. What you advise?

What BS? Gender wage gap, inequality of the genders, quotas, etc. And it's hardly moving away from the topic since that's how JP became so much more popular on the internet. By addressing these issues when students or activists queried him. The interview with JP on Channel4 was mostly about these areas.

silverharp · 09-07-2018 9:48am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I really hate this obsession with triggering. I tend to dismiss anyone who thinks it's a good thing. If you've articulated your ideas which should be logical and rational properly then you have no need to gloat about triggering people.

I don't think it's his "Clean your room" advice that's antagonising people. It's his political views which, frankly are nonsense. While I certainly wouldn't call him a professional troll, there are those like Ben Shapiro who are taking certain issues like transgender pronouns and making them out like they're the biggest thing facing modern society which is just basic whataboutery. Peterson has time to go on and on about this while ignoring actual political issues.

but there you go , Ben Shapiro pumps out much more political diatribe and he gets less heat. Peterson seems to be getting a lot of the heat because he is trying to uplift young men in a very basic way "dad advice" , the hate is disproportional and I'd say that's its down to an anti male agenda on the left.

Harika · 09-07-2018 9:56am

Deleted User wrote: »

Seriously? The right is dominating the internet? I wouldn't have thought so. Oddly enough, I would have considered the "left" (although that has kinda lost its meaning) to be very well represented.

We might agree to disagree here but:

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, yes, his book is about improving someones life, not about social/cultural issues.... however the vast majority of videos relating to him on YouTube or articles I've found on the internet relate to areas other than pure self-development.

Yeah there you see the echo bubble.

There was a good discussion with him and Matt Dillahunty but on the internet you will find mainly videos offside his interviews like "Peterson destroys SJW" "Peterson reks Feminist" and so on.

Deleted User wrote: »

What BS? Gender wage gap, inequality of the genders, quotas, etc. And it's hardly moving away from the topic since that's how JP became so much more popular on the internet. By addressing these issues when students or activists queried him. The interview with JP on Channel4 was mostly about these areas.

Why are those issues BS?

I liked the C4 interview.

09-07-2018 10:01am

Harika wrote: »

We might agree to disagree here but:

Sure, we can agree to disagree.... But what? If there's a but... perhaps prove that the Right dominates the internet?

Yeah there you see the echo bubble. There was a good discussion with him and Matt Dillahunty but on the internet you will find mainly videos offside his interviews like "Peterson destroys SJW" "Peterson reks Feminist" and so on.

How is that an echo bubble? I don't see how having videos of his interviews, debates and opinion pieces are examples of an echo bubble.

Why are those issues BS?

Because the gender wage gap has been proven to be incorrect on multiple occasions, Gender inequality since women have full legal equality, etc.

I liked the C4 interview.

Me too. He showed just how biased the interviewer was, and how unprepared she was to defend herself.

Harika · 09-07-2018 10:08am

Deleted User wrote: »

How is that an echo bubble? I don't see how having videos of his interviews, debates and opinion pieces are examples of an echo bubble.

Do you find videos called "Peterson rekt" or something like that? There are a lot of fact based videos that dissect his arguments what makes me giggle when I think again of Modernism and PostModernism and how JP is criticising latter.

Deleted User wrote: »

Because the gender wage gap has been proven to be incorrect on multiple occasions, Gender inequality since women have full legal equality, etc.

Cause it was found that the deeper you dig the pay gap is still there and so on, but to be honest that's why I asked before if we want to go down this rabbit hole. Ends for me here.

ancapailldorcha · 09-07-2018 10:14am

Pug160 wrote: »

Stephen Fry (the other ''stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person is'') ....

What do you mean by this? Fry is a highly intelligent individual. I wouldn't compare him with Peterson at all.

09-07-2018 10:26am

Harika wrote: »

Cause it was found that the deeper you dig the pay gap is still there and so on, but to be honest that's why I asked before if we want to go down this rabbit hole. Ends for me here.

Strange, since it was found the deeper you dig, the evidence denied the existence of the gender wage gap.... but then I'm starting to understand why you're critical of JP.

kubjones · 09-07-2018 11:59am

I like the man quite a bit.

Obviously everything he says needs to be taken with a grain of salt, understand that most of what he decides to talk about are things that he has a good amount of experience in. Some of the arguments in here such as "He should not be giving dating advice because he is married to his childhood sweetheart" need to also remember he has been a clinical psychologist for many years, despite not having the experience of being with several women, he has the experience of dealing with people, quotes many different pieces of literature on most of what he specializes in (oftentimes including contradicting claims between different authors) and comes to conclusions based on his experience.

But at the same time no one experience will ever be a complete understanding.

I like what he's trying to do. People need help. Despite the fact we become more and more progressive every day (which is great), humans are becoming less and less happy. He's guiding people from suicide, towards a productive and rewarding life. I think that, even if he is incorrect or unqualified to talk about certain things, he is qualified enough to talk about some things, and these things are having a positive reaction with millions of people.

Also a big thing for people in this country would be getting over his religious ideas, and absolutely justified. I think with things like this, we should only be interested in the metaphysics and expansion of meaning, and not turn to outdated doctrine for complete guidance. There is still usefulness to grasp from the past, just be aware enough to consider the good and ignore the bad.

ancapailldorcha · 09-07-2018 1:14pm

silverharp wrote: »

but there you go , Ben Shapiro pumps out much more political diatribe and he gets less heat. Peterson seems to be getting a lot of the heat because he is trying to uplift young men in a very basic way "dad advice" , the hate is disproportional and I'd say that's its down to an anti male agenda on the left.

Peterson is an academic so I suppose he is expected to be objective and analytical whereas Shapiro is just some guy who has opinions for money.

I think your talk of hate is more than a tad overblown. It's just criticism and debate for the most part.

tritium · 09-07-2018 1:35pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Peterson is an academic so I suppose he is expected to be objective and analytical whereas Shapiro is just some guy who has opinions for money.

I think your talk of hate is more than a tad overblown. It's just criticism and debate for the most part.

Well, given he’s been the subject of several hit pieces in the guardian, channel 4 embarrasses themselves really and Rte recently allowed a long opinion hit piece on him without rebuttal so far I’d say there is a fair bit of hate for him out there all right......

Oddly given some accuse this forum of being echo chamberish I’ve seem far more considered, nuanced and analytical criticism of him on here than in those more mainstream sources.

ancapailldorcha · 09-07-2018 1:47pm

tritium wrote: »

Well, given he’s been the subject of several hit pieces in the guardian, channel 4 embarrasses themselves really and Rte recently allowed a long opinion hit piece on him without rebuttal so far I’d say there is a fair bit of hate for him out there all right......

Oddly given some accuse this forum of being echo chamberish I’ve seem far more considered, nuanced and analytical criticism of him on here than in those more mainstream sources.

I'd be inclined to call that sloppy/biased journalism to be honest as opposed to hatred. Hatred is a pretty strong word.

Anyway, this image succinctly surmises my view of The Guardian at the moment:

tritium · 09-07-2018 1:59pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'd be inclined to call that sloppy/biased journalism to be honest as opposed to hatred. Hatred is a pretty strong word.

Anyway, this image succinctly surmises my view of The Guardian at the moment:

You couldn’t make it up really could you?

Wibbs · 09-07-2018 2:02pm

Summed up by advertising money talks.

Harika · 09-07-2018 2:17pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Summed up by advertising money talks.

So a labour person writes an opinion piece in The Guardian, and based on that the newspaper immediately changes their advertisement rules/settings?

tritium · 09-07-2018 10:58pm

Harika wrote: »

So a labour person writes an opinion piece in The Guardian, and based on that the newspaper immediately changes their advertisement rules/settings?

It’s possibly more the general undercurrent of hypocrisy that a paper that repeatedly lectures its readership on what the correct social view is around various isms should be is happy to take wads of cash from some of the worlds more disreputable regimes and general exponents of many of those isms at the same time.

It’s just delicious irony that it coincides so well here

Brae100 · 09-07-2018 11:28pm

The Mayor of Durham, NC (a black lesbian), has tried to de-platform him. I don't get all the hate. Is it really just because his followers are young, white males?

https://www.indyweek.com/news/archives/2018/07/06/city-council-calls-on-durham-to-resist-bigotry-recommit-to-inclusive-values-ahead-of-jordan-petersons-dpac-show?media=AMP%20HTML&__twitter_impression=true

Pug160 · 10-07-2018 7:15pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What do you mean by this? Fry is a highly intelligent individual. I wouldn't compare him with Peterson at all.

Oh I think both of them are highly intelligent. I put it in quotes as both men have been smeared by that quote (or something very similar). I'm not sure where it originated from but I know Peter Hitchens has used it against Fry. Peter is very intelligent himself so it just goes to show that it is not beyond even intellectuals to do such a thing.

professore · 10-07-2018 8:03pm

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.

Such as? I hear all about these "others" but haven't seen any. comparable to Peterson. Certainly no professors of psychology with lots of citations. No one with thousands of hours of lectures online. Plenty of nut jobs.

professore · 12-07-2018 1:23pm

Brae100 wrote: »

The Mayor of Durham, NC (a black lesbian), has tried to de-platform him. I don't get all the hate. Is it really just because his followers are young, white males?

https://www.indyweek.com/news/archives/2018/07/06/city-council-calls-on-durham-to-resist-bigotry-recommit-to-inclusive-values-ahead-of-jordan-petersons-dpac-show?media=AMP%20HTML&__twitter_impression=true

I actually think this isn't even true. While his message is attractive to rudderless young white males, his "following" if you could call it that, is from a broad spectrum of society. Young men in general like him, not just cisgendered young white men. Young women like him. Anyone fed up with the empty noise that passes for media reporting and the blatant lies we are all expected to swallow. He's too religious for my taste at times, and I don't slavishly follow everything he says - he tweeted some dodgy stuff about global warming recently for example that I didn't agree with at all - but that's OK - there is no "movement" to be kicked out of and I won't be roundly attacked by saying I don't agree on his Twitter page.

He's touring at the moment with the openly gay Jew Dave Rubin. Kinda strange for a "misogynist far right advocate". His videos on psychology were what I found the most useful in my life and relationships.

If you see any of the meetings they are full of all sorts of people. He claims that his readership as analysed by Penguin are 55% female.

jobbridge4life · 12-07-2018 1:29pm

Peterson is just a 'pick-up artist' for men who like to imagine they are a lot more intelligent than they are. Rational Men.tm

12-07-2018 3:51pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Peterson is just a 'pick-up artist' for men who like to imagine they are a lot more intelligent than they are. Rational Men.tm

Simply making such a comment shows how little you know of what's involved in the PUA scene.

Peterson is like many people online. He's given some dating/relationship advice. He hasn't invested time into designing a product/course for people to "develop" their "skills".

iptba · 14-07-2018 2:33pm

I see he is trending on Twitter. Mainly from talking on the Marian Finucane show it seems.
https://twitter.com/ardkeengrocer/status/1018098100286689280

https://twitter.com/MaryMcAuliffe4/status/1018082782680092672

Dr Mary McAuliffe
@MaryMcAuliffe4

Historian/Asst Prof @gender_ucd & @CGFS_UCD / #irishhistory #genderstudies #irishwmnhist #feminism /https://marymcauliffe.blog / @ManelWatchIre / views mine

It is not uncommon for feminists like her to go unchallenged.

iptba · 14-07-2018 2:38pm

iptba wrote: »

I see he is trending on Twitter. Mainly from talking on the Marian Finucane show it seems.
https://twitter.com/ardkeengrocer/status/1018098100286689280

https://twitter.com/MaryMcAuliffe4/status/1018082782680092672
It is not uncommon for feminists like her to go unchallenged.

Link for this segment:

https://www.rte.ie/radio1/marian-finucane/programmes/2018/0714/978637-marian-finucane-saturday-14-july-2018/?clipid=102872181#102872181
or
https://youtu.be/BvytmaD_PeQ

glic71rods46t0 · 14-07-2018 2:59pm

iptba wrote: »

I see he is trending on Twitter. Mainly from talking on the Marian Finucane show it seems.
https://twitter.com/ardkeengrocer/status/1018098100286689280

https://twitter.com/MaryMcAuliffe4/status/1018082782680092672
It is not uncommon for feminists like her to go unchallenged.

I looked at her blog, Jaysus, she's not easy on the eye ... I think she should be careful what she wishes for - I'd imagine that Peterson would destroy her on live radio

brevity · 14-07-2018 3:14pm

Wouldn't mind him having a chat with Matt Cooper - I think it could be interesting.

jobbridge4life · 14-07-2018 7:35pm

klqhz513ec7rai wrote: »

I looked at her blog, Jaysus, she's not easy on the eye ... I think she should be careful what she wishes for - I'd imagine that Peterson would destroy her on live radio

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.

glic71rods46t0 · 14-07-2018 8:08pm

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.

In your opinion ... I hold a different one

Pug160 · 14-07-2018 10:36pm

I watched it and saw a rather unremarkable interview which wasn't particularly confrontational. I'm not sure if it was intentional, but at the end she was reading out listeners' responses but didn't give him a chance to retort.

Brae100 · 15-07-2018 12:00am

I still don't get the hate. He seems to be a huge target, but why? I enjoyed his takedown of Cathy Newman for what it was, and then watched a bit more of him. There's nothing really controversial there. Why are the SJWs hell bent on taking him down? What message is he giving that so enrages them?

splinter65 · 15-07-2018 12:14am

Brae100 wrote: »

I still don't get the hate. He seems to be a huge target, but why? I enjoyed his takedown of Cathy Newman for what it was, and then watched a bit more of him. There's nothing really controversial there. Why are the SJWs hell bent on taking him down? What message is he giving that so enrages them?

They’re terrified of anyone getting a platform to tell the truth and state facts in a calm rational manner.
They’ve worked so hard to replace common sense and science with bunkum and nonsense and they’ve pretty much brain washed a huge chunk of society so when someone like Peterson or Shapiro can pack huge venues just to hear them speak then that is ultra threatening and must be halted.

DickSwiveller Returns · 15-07-2018 12:20am

Brae100 wrote: »

I still don't get the hate. He seems to be a huge target, but why? I enjoyed his takedown of Cathy Newman for what it was, and then watched a bit more of him. There's nothing really controversial there. Why are the SJWs hell bent on taking him down? What message is he giving that so enrages them?

They despise people who expose them for the nasty ideologues they are. It happens to anyone who dares speak out against them.

DickSwiveller Returns · 15-07-2018 12:27am

The right on "journalists" don't like him so he must be doing something right.

https://twitter.com/colettebrowne/status/1018083311321673728

SkepticQuark · 15-07-2018 12:44am

splinter65 wrote: »

They’re terrified of anyone getting a platform to tell the truth and state facts in a calm rational manner.
They’ve worked so hard to replace common sense and science with bunkum and nonsense and they’ve pretty much brain washed a huge chunk of society so when someone like Peterson or Shapiro can pack huge venues just to hear them speak then that is ultra threatening and must be halted.

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.

Wibbs · 15-07-2018 9:22am

roddy15 wrote: »

you quickly realise Peterson isn't the person his almost cult-like following seems to suggest.

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.

glic71rods46t0 · 15-07-2018 10:09am

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 think that might have been the C4 interview - it seems to infuriate his opposition that he doesn't hide his humanity and its basic truths (like making mistakes is human). Its fun watching the reactions of the women studies academics and others getting triggered!

All things relating to Jordan Peterson

Comments