Author Topic: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?  (Read 4628 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Queen LaQueefa

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7790
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #30 on: October 16, 2020, 07:16:13 pm »
Well, everything here is my opinion really.  Even when I relay facts they're facts that I *believe* are true.
Ok that's fine.  If you don't like or agree with or are offending by Jordan's opinions or behaviour that's your right.  No provincial human rights commission will haul you in front of a hearing for it.

No, he's sloppy with language AND thinking.  I think it was the Joe Rogan podcast where he was talking about imposing social rules on the collective and Rogan caught a contradiction ?  Joe Rogan.
So what you're saying is that the standard for which you set for him is perfection.  Do you hold the same standard for thinkers on the left?  That's your prerogative if you do.  He went on Joe Rogan and they didn't call each other names.  He debated a black left-wing professor during a Munk Debate and Jordan was called "a mean mad white man" in anger and very poor taste, and has to deal with the large majority of the mainstream media trying to do everything to undermine and discredit him in endless articles and interviews, so if he loses his cool once in a while i think it's understandable.  If he says something that's incorrect and you or I challenge him on it, great.  That's called civil discourse.  He's not God, he's not a saviour, he doesn't have to be right all the time, I disagree with him on things.

I also don't see him waving the flag of "civil discourse", that sounds like something you've projected on to him.  Like Ben Shapiro, I enjoy listening to him because he provides a different point of view than than the vast majority of the discourse we see, he challenges many of the "holy" assumptions that are shoved down our throats.  And he does it with an intellectual rigor missing from the vast majority of right-leaning commentators who are often a bunch of ignorant boneheads.

Also there's the ridiculous tendency to call people 'Post Modern Marxists' which sounds incorrect... like saying "Christian Athiest"
Using "cultural marxism" is a bit off as a term, but there's nothing wrong with calling people post-modern marxists if that's what they are.

Who cares about the mob ?  If they are so misguided then don't bring them up.  Trump's mob is also idiotic but I don't use them as evidence that Trump's ideas are bad.
You're the one you brought it up, i responded to you.

I would think that a public intellectual would try to help public conversations happen.  Actually, they should do that.
He is having public conversations.  He's going out and doing debates and interviews.  He hasn't called for anyone to be banned or fired or arrested, and he isn't burning cars or looting stores, and he doesn't call people names, unless "cultural marxist" or "post-modernist" is a bad name.

He fails because he's lazy and appears to offend people on purpose while trying to promote 'civil discourse'.
What are you talking about??  If his opinions are offensive to you or anyone else, that's the whole darn point.  People who interview him or write about him are offensive to him all the time, they attack him and try to discredit him constantly, as you're doing now. I've never seen him purposefully try to offend people just for its own sake, or be unreasonably "provocative".  That's just a meme.  He's not Milo.

Many people don't like his opinions, his narratives are a dangerous threat to their political agendas, and they want to take him down  Do you have anything to say about any of his actual opinions, or do you wish to keep trying to discredit him?

I have read about it, in the past, in several places.  Quick Google gave me this:
This is a leftwing "alternative" student newspaper in the most leftwing province in Canada that doesn't provide any evidence he "misgendered' anyone.  Let's see the footage.

Also, to add: I have been pretty reasonable about my reasons that he should be rejected as anything more than a marginal voice in the discussion.  The 'burn him at the stake !' comment is undermining your assertion that his opponents are unreasonable and his proponents are reasonable.
If people disagree with his opinions that's great, that's called civil discourse.  If they just "don't like him", well that's their opinion, but it means nothing.

You can "reject him" all you like, that's your right..  He isn't a marginal voice "in the discussion" (whatever that is) though, because a lot of people are listening to his arguments.  The majority which center around psychology, and about taking responsibility in your life etc. that have had very positive impacts on tens of thousands of people because they write him letters and tell him this after touring lectures.

He's denying the right of people to define their gender identity.
In what way???  Name one example.  This is a meme told to you in bad faith by the people who wish to discredit him.  And you will repeat these lies to other as you're doing now.  The tactic has worked.

The Rebels promotion of race haters, their inclusion of Proud Boys founder and Faith Goldy is a good measure of their extremism.  He signed up to raise money for himself with them.

Goldy was fired for things that happened after Jordan appeared on the Rebel.  McGinnis was on the Joe Rogan podcast, is Joe guilty by association?  Is Peterson on the far-right?

In April 2017, Peterson was denied a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) grant for the first time in his career, which he interpreted as retaliation for his statements regarding Bill C-16.[19] However, a media-relations adviser for SSHRC said, "Committees assess only the information contained in the application."[108] In response, Rebel News launched an Indiegogo crowdfunding campaign on Peterson's behalf,[109] raising C$195,000 by its end on 6 May, equivalent to over two years of research funding.
I queef, therefore I am.