All things relating to Jordan Peterson

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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 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 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?

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.