Canadian Politics Today

Beyond Politics => General Discussion => Topic started by: Montgomery on October 08, 2020, 01:37:31 pm


Title: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 08, 2020, 01:37:31 pm
Is he still the darling of the right or is he now just a hasbeen fool.

Jordan could never get past his apparent Christian belief in a god and not being a Christian. Or vice versa, depending on how he tried to explain the issue away?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 08, 2020, 02:06:56 pm
Search it up... lots of hits for him when you search...
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 08, 2020, 02:37:37 pm
Search it up... lots of hits for him when you search...

I'm probably as up to date on Jordan as anyone here but searching doesn't answer the question for me. There are lots of pros and cons on him. My best reference on him would be on the way Sam Harris has exposed his problem on his belief/disbelief in a god and christianity.

Sam credits him with high intelligence  and I have to agree on that. The problem is, people of high intelligence can be very wrong on some issues due to political leaning and much more importantly, childhood indoctrination that is so very pwerful.

That's the reason why a brin surgeon, for instance, can be a Christian believer. Much the same as a duckling can believe that the coyote is it's mother if it's imprinted on the coyote.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 08, 2020, 04:41:14 pm
I don't believe people are right or wrong, but different opinions they have are.  So like you say, I agree with him on some things and disagree on others.

He's been very ill recently, so he's been out of the spotlight for awhile.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 08, 2020, 07:11:12 pm
I'm probably as up to date on Jordan as anyone here but searching doesn't answer the question for me. There are lots of pros and cons on him. My best reference on him would be on the way Sam Harris has exposed his problem on his belief/disbelief in a god and christianity.

I listened to that, I think.  Harris (and most intellectuals) tower over him and are kind enough to let him off the hook.  I think because he brings a lot of exposure to whatever channel he is in.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 08, 2020, 07:12:20 pm
The big problem with Peterson is he has to moralize on everything.  He quotes Nietzsche and adds "that's good" to stuff he agrees with.  Gee, thanks Jordan...
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 08, 2020, 11:46:36 pm
The big problem with Peterson is he has to moralize on everything.  He quotes Nietzsche and adds "that's good" to stuff he agrees with.  Gee, thanks Jordan...

Nietzsche literally moralized everything.  His books were called "On the Genealogy of Morality" and "Beyond Good and Evil".

But i see what you're saying.  I think to be an academic, you can't be an activist.  You need to look at things objectively, or else it becomes much easier to run into confirmation bias, and then your research is just worthless lies.  From an academic sense, "Hitler did X and that's bad" isn't nearly as important as "Hitler did X because of Y and Z".

Peterson's perspectives on psychology are 1000x more interesting than his political views.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 09, 2020, 08:13:52 am
Nietzsche literally moralized everything.  His books were called "On the Genealogy of Morality" and "Beyond Good and Evil".

Dissecting morality isn't moralizing ?  What are you talking about ?  It's called "BEYOND" Good and Evil, right ?

Quote
But i see what you're saying.  I think to be an academic, you can't be an activist.  You need to look at things objectively, or else it becomes much easier to run into confirmation bias, and then your research is just worthless lies.  From an academic sense, "Hitler did X and that's bad" isn't nearly as important as "Hitler did X because of Y and Z".

Well, I didn't think of it that way but what you wrote makes sense.  I do think academics can be free to moralize, but their primary goal is to assess and provide a landscape for thought and discussion.

Quote
Peterson's perspectives on psychology are 1000x more interesting than his political views.

I actually think there's lots of room right now for a moralist of his ilk.  But he isn't the guy.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 09, 2020, 11:19:47 am
Nietzsche literally moralized everything.  His books were called "On the Genealogy of Morality" and "Beyond Good and Evil".

But i see what you're saying.  I think to be an academic, you can't be an activist.  You need to look at things objectively, or else it becomes much easier to run into confirmation bias, and then your research is just worthless lies.  From an academic sense, "Hitler did X and that's bad" isn't nearly as important as "Hitler did X because of Y and Z".

Peterson's perspectives on psychology are 1000x more interesting than his political views.

Yes, but consider that Jordan's reputation rests largely on his inability to say what he means on being a Christian believer or not. For a highly intelligent individual, that's completely unacceptable.

Harris had the stake ready to drive into his devious heart but must have seen good reasons to allow him to survive. Perhaps Harris was thinking of his value as a 'moralist', as is being hinted at by MH.

I agree with MH in that if we're to have a moralist then the person who takes on the job will have to start from a less flawed position than Jordan's. He can never doubletalk his way out of his Christian/atheist positions.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 15, 2020, 01:04:00 am
Dissecting morality isn't moralizing ?  What are you talking about ?  It's called "BEYOND" Good and Evil, right ?
Well, "beyond" meaning the world isn't black and white, God vs Satan.  He was a philosopher, their job is often to moralize.

Quote
Well, I didn't think of it that way but what you wrote makes sense.  I do think academics can be free to moralize, but their primary goal is to assess and provide a landscape for thought and discussion.
Is moralizing different than activism?  I don't know.  Some fields you need to moralize, like philosophy, or theology.  It's hard to be a good ie: historian for example when you have a activist agenda and start looking for certain things and ignoring others.  The same with science.  Copper is better at conducting electricity than iron because it is, not because a researcher wants it to be.

Sometimes moralizing is unavoidable, we're human, so you can just try to be as objective as possible.  I took a course on the Israel-Palestine conflict once.  Obviously the subject can be controversial and heated.  The prof was great, she always reminded us to "put our scholar caps on" and look at the issue as academics. It removes your emotional bias and personal moralizing/ideology from the issue.  I'll never forget that.  We all see things from different perspectives based on our life experiences and identity etc.  If you can only look at reality through your own lens you'll often miss a lot.

Quote
I actually think there's lots of room right now for a moralist of his ilk.  But he isn't the guy.

I think he's just a guy among many.  We don't need a saviour, we just need civil discourse.  People like him are important because they express intelligent arguments that are counter to the politically correct moral "consensus".  You need brave people like that, even if they're sometimes wrong.  Ideas that are accepted but never challenged can be dangerous.  History is filled with examples.

Socrates was executed for "corrupting the youth".  Jesus was nailed to a cross.  Who are we crucifying today?  What are our holy beliefs that only heretics question?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 15, 2020, 09:15:21 am
Well, "beyond" meaning the world isn't black and white, God vs Satan.  He was a philosopher, their job is often to moralize.

Right, but he is known chiefly as the person who killed 'God' and morality by dissecting it and breaking it down as a human need.

Quote
Is moralizing different than activism?  I don't know.  Some fields you need to moralize, like philosophy, or theology.  It's hard to be a good ie: historian for example when you have a activist agenda and start looking for certain things and ignoring others.  The same with science.  Copper is better at conducting electricity than iron because it is, not because a researcher wants it to be.

'Activism' is different, but I see what you are saying.  It has come to mean fighting for identity politics and the onboard morality it contains.  I think that the primary goal of an academic is/should be knowledge.

Quote
Sometimes moralizing is unavoidable, we're human, so you can just try to be as objective as possible.  I took a course on the Israel-Palestine conflict once.  Obviously the subject can be controversial and heated.  The prof was great, she always reminded us to "put our scholar caps on" and look at the issue as academics. It removes your emotional bias and personal moralizing/ideology from the issue.  I'll never forget that.  We all see things from different perspectives based on our life experiences and identity etc.  If you can only look at reality through your own lens you'll often miss a lot.

Yes, and politics is difficult between it sits between "pure" knowledge and emotions.  But if it drifts one way or the other then a correction happens.

Quote
I think he's just a guy among many.  We don't need a saviour, we just need civil discourse.  People like him are important because they express intelligent arguments that are counter to the politically correct moral "consensus".  You need brave people like that, even if they're sometimes wrong.  Ideas that are accepted but never challenged can be dangerous.  History is filled with examples.

Socrates was executed for "corrupting the youth".  Jesus was nailed to a cross.  Who are we crucifying today?  What are our holy beliefs that only heretics question?

The thing is, he had a foothold in being a contrarian in the service of "civil discourse" and he blew it.  All he would have had to do is be a little more careful with his language.  Did he deserve to be demonized ?  I would say not, but he was the one who blew it.  You can blame the mob, but I don't blame a dog who bites me I blame the master, the leash maker, my wife, you, Waldo... anybody else... but the dog and myself...
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on October 15, 2020, 11:30:46 am
Quote
Did he deserve to be demonized ?  I would say not, but he was the one who blew it.

This is a contradictory statement.  You’re trying to have your ‘woke’ and eat it too.  He didn’t deserve it, but it was his fault.   

For all the faults I find with the guy, he’s all about civil discourse.  The ‘woke’ activists are the a-holes who can’t handle any disagreement with the positions that they hold sacred.  Their allies, like yourself, make excuses for them, even when they’re clearly in the wrong. 
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 15, 2020, 11:40:30 am
This is a contradictory statement.  You’re trying to have your ‘woke’ and eat it too.  He didn’t deserve it, but it was his fault.   

Ok.  If he was a minimally competent academic, he wouldn't be here.

Quote
For all the faults I find with the guy, he’s all about civil discourse.  The ‘woke’ activists are the a-holes who can’t handle any disagreement with the positions that they hold sacred.  Their allies, like yourself, make excuses for them, even when they’re clearly in the wrong.

I disagree.  He wants to be civil, but he misgenders people ... makes unconsidered statements.... he isn't being civil, he is denying people their rights, associating with extremists and overstating his case.  Nice that he wants to be 'civil' but he should lead by example.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on October 15, 2020, 11:46:06 am
Ok.  If he was a minimally competent academic, he wouldn't be here.

I disagree.  He wants to be civil, but he misgenders people ... makes unconsidered statements.... he isn't being civil, he is denying people their rights, associating with extremists and overstating his case.  Nice that he wants to be 'civil' but he should lead by example.

“Misgendering”  is the discussion.  Why should people have to obey to use a bunch of made-up words?

What extremists does he associate with?  Be specific.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 15, 2020, 11:54:53 am
“Misgendering”  is the discussion.  Why should people have to obey to use a bunch of made-up words?

I think that people have to agree to a set of rules in order to engage in the discussion.  Jordan misgenders people who are in the discussion, which is offensive to the people who are in the discussion.  He is looking for the right to use whatever pronouns he wants, but he should be respectful in the discussion itself.

Otherwise, I guess it would be ok for other people in the discussion to call him fascist, idiot or whatever they like.  (It's not)

Quote
What extremists does he associate with?  Be specific.

The Rebel is a far-right publication that promotes objectionable views.  He jumped into bed with them early on, because they promised to raise money for him.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 15, 2020, 11:55:33 am
Like I say, there is room and even a need for someone like him... early on I had hoped he would be the guy.  But he's not.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on October 15, 2020, 12:09:16 pm
I think that people have to agree to a set of rules in order to engage in the discussion.  Jordan misgenders people who are in the discussion, which is offensive to the people who are in the discussion.  He is looking for the right to use whatever pronouns he wants, but he should be respectful in the discussion itself.

Otherwise, I guess it would be ok for other people in the discussion to call him fascist, idiot or whatever they like.  (It's not)

If anyone thinks that it is a societal norm to use the term ‘zhe’ or another made up term, it’s not.  Hence the discussion about it. 

Quote
The Rebel is a far-right publication that promotes objectionable views.  He jumped into bed with them early on, because they promised to raise money for him.

You’ve gone from ‘extremist’ to ‘objectionable’.  Do you think those two terms are synonymous?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Dia on October 15, 2020, 12:47:41 pm
If anyone thinks that it is a societal norm to use the term ‘zhe’ or another made up term, it’s not.  Hence the discussion about it. 


Language changes all the time, so if a word became commonly used it wouldn't be a 'made-up term' - I suppose the people who're interested in having a third pronoun to indicate non-gender are hoping for that outcome.

I don't mind calling people what they prefer, so if I met someone that wanted me to refer to them as "zhe', I would try to accommodate that even if I thought it was a bit weird or something.  Also, does spoken 'zhe' sound much like spoken 'she'?

Of course, you might ask me if I'd refer to someone as a pumpkin, if zhe asked me to.  And yes, for the time I was with them, I probably would - unless it was my job to talk them out of referring to themselves as a pumpkin, or if I was on an internet forum in which disagreement was the point of the discussion.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 15, 2020, 12:58:34 pm
If anyone thinks that it is a societal norm to use the term ‘zhe’ or another made up term, it’s not.  Hence the discussion about it. 

You have stepped over my point to make your own.  He misgendered people personally while talking to them.  I'm not saying he refused to say 'zhe'.
 He called someone by a word they didn't want to be called by.  That is another reason he's out of consideration for being in this discussion, for many.

Quote
You’ve gone from ‘extremist’ to ‘objectionable’.  Do you think those two terms are synonymous?

Extremists are a subset of the set of objectionable people.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 15, 2020, 12:59:20 pm
I think that people have to agree to a set of rules in order to engage in the discussion.  Jordan misgenders people who are in the discussion, which is offensive to the people who are in the discussion.  He is looking for the right to use whatever pronouns he wants, but he should be respectful in the discussion itself.

Otherwise, I guess it would be ok for other people in the discussion to call him fascist, idiot or whatever they like.  (It's not)

The Rebel is a far-right publication that promotes objectionable views.  He jumped into bed with them early on, because they promised to raise money for him.

There are many problems with Jordan's behaviour as a debater. Among them are his tendency to raise his voice in an attempt to belittle his opponents. But his big problem is the one he's attempting to build his reputation upon. He's trying to be the atheist and the believer at the same time and then he tries to invent some highly intelligent nuanced explanation for how that is possible. It just isn't of course but his fans are patient with him enough that they will wait in expectation of him delivering a satisfactory explanation. It will 'never' come.

And so that makes their Jordan just a flash in the pan who will never become a Richard Dawkins or a Sam Harris or even a Christopher Hitchens. If anyone thinks otherwise then they are obliged to state just what Jordan has contributed to society.

I'll watch him again on a utube video but it will only be to see somebody like Sam Harris destroy him.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 15, 2020, 01:01:18 pm
There are many problems with Jordan's behaviour as a debater. Among them are his tendency to raise his voice in an attempt to belittle his opponents. But his big problem is the one he's attempting to build his reputation upon. He's trying to be the atheist and the believer at the same time and then he tries to invent some highly intelligent nuanced explanation for how that is possible. It just isn't of course but his fans are patient with him enough that they will wait in expectation of him delivering a satisfactory explanation. It will 'never' come.

 :D

Quote
And so that makes their Jordan just a flash in the pan who will never become a Richard Dawkins or a Sam Harris or even a Christopher Hitchens. If anyone thinks otherwise then they are obliged to state just what Jordan has contributed to society.

I'll watch him again on a utube video but it will only be to see somebody like Sam Harris destroy him.

I saw him with all of those people and they were SO gentle with him.  My suspicious is that they recognize he brings a giant flock of new curious people to wherever he goes and they want a piece of that.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on October 15, 2020, 01:04:12 pm

Extremists are a subset of the set of objectionable people.

So they’re not synonymous? 

Do you think The Rebel are extremists then?

When I think of ‘extremist’ I think of someone who uses or promotes violence to meet their goals.  Maybe you are using ‘extremist’ in another manner, but I don’t think we should be using a term that, in general usage, refers to people who use or promote violence to refer to people who we just disagree with. 

It’s a tactic that the cancel-culture ‘woke’ folks use often, and you seem to be using it too.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 15, 2020, 01:08:12 pm
:D

I saw him with all of those people and they were SO gentle with him.  My suspicious is that they recognize he brings a giant flock of new curious people to wherever he goes and they want a piece of that.

I think that's a good explanation for the reason why highly intelligent people like Sam will debate him. But I wouldn't condemn Sam or any of them for doing what they do with Jordan. It's a perfectly legitimate way of getting an audience to which they can provide enlightenment. After all, there sit thousands of Christians who are listening carefully to real facts being presented by Sam and company.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 15, 2020, 01:10:23 pm
So they’re not synonymous? 

No.

Quote
Do you think The Rebel are extremists then?

Yes.

Quote
When I think of ‘extremist’ I think of someone who uses or promotes violence to meet their goals.  Maybe you are using ‘extremist’ in another manner, but I don’t think we should be using a term that, in general usage, refers to people who use or promote violence to refer to people who we just disagree with. 

I think an extremist is someone with extreme views, such as someone who promotes racial hatred or similar views.

Quote
It’s a tactic that the cancel-culture ‘woke’ folks use often, and you seem to be using it too.

Your mileage may vary, I guess.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on October 15, 2020, 01:13:58 pm
I think that's a good explanation for the reason why highly intelligent people like Sam will debate him. But I wouldn't condemn Sam or any of them for doing what they do with Jordan. It's a perfectly legitimate way of getting an audience to which they can provide enlightenment. After all, there sit thousands of Christians who are listening carefully to real facts being presented by Sam and company.

Petersen’s crowd is a bunch of Christians?   I don’t think you’re reading the room very well.

While Petersen’s take on religion is that it is a necessary cultural phenomenon (for lack of a better term), he never comes out and actually says that God is a real entity.   That’s not a Christian perspective at all.  I think his fans are more about being non-PC, free-speech advocates than they are about being Christians.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 15, 2020, 01:24:54 pm
Petersen’s crowd is a bunch of Christians?   I don’t think you’re reading the room very well.

While Petersen’s take on religion is that it is a necessary cultural phenomenon (for lack of a better term), he never comes out and actually says that God is a real entity.   That’s not a Christian perspective at all.  I think his fans are more about being non-PC, free-speech advocates than they are about being Christians.

I didn't suggest that Jordan's crowd are a bunch of Christians. They're more wannabe intellectuals than that, even though many are expectant Christians.
I think that Jordan offers an expectation for them that their faith can be plausible in the face of evidence that proves it just isn't. They think that Jordan's explaining, doubletalk, and hairsplitting  can make religous faith work.  But of course it never can.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on October 15, 2020, 01:32:21 pm
I didn't suggest that Jordan's crowd are a bunch of Christians. They're more wannabe intellectuals than that, even though many are expectant Christians.
I think that Jordan offers an expectation for them that their faith can be plausible in the face of evidence that proves it just isn't. They think that Jordan's explaining, doubletalk, and hairsplitting  can make religous faith work.  But of course it never can.

I actually agree with you on this, but you also said ‘there sit thousands of Christians’.   I don’t think that’s accurate at all.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 15, 2020, 01:38:25 pm
I actually agree with you on this, but you also said ‘there sit thousands of Christians’.   I don’t think that’s accurate at all.

Well, you can make it as accurate as you think it fits the description. And also note that many come to see Jordan be taken down by opponents of the caliber of Sam Harris.
How is the crowd split? 50/50 or 60/40 for Harris?
I would attend to see Harris or even better still for me would be Dawkins!  Poor dear Jordan.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 15, 2020, 09:07:23 pm
This is a contradictory statement.  You’re trying to have your ‘woke’ and eat it too.  He didn’t deserve it, but it was his fault.   

For all the faults I find with the guy, he’s all about civil discourse.  The ‘woke’ activists are the a-holes who can’t handle any disagreement with the positions that they hold sacred.  Their allies, like yourself, make excuses for them, even when they’re clearly in the wrong.

Jesus Christ...we agree on something!
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 15, 2020, 09:10:22 pm
Jesus Christ...we agree on something!

You're both wrong if you think that the guy who insults people is about 'civil discourse'.

"Jeez, what is wrong with these n***s that they refuse to discuss civilly??"
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 15, 2020, 09:20:44 pm
Right, but he is known chiefly as the person who killed 'God' and morality by dissecting it and breaking it down as a human need.
He killed God but didn't kill morality.  He said God was dead and isn't the maker of our morality any more, we have free will and logic to make our own morality, and this will cause nihilism before you begin to build your moral system based on what you believe is right and wrong, not what the Bible or Church says.

Quote
'Activism' is different, but I see what you are saying.  It has come to mean fighting for identity politics and the onboard morality it contains.  I think that the primary goal of an academic is/should be knowledge.

Yes but also things like climate science.  Even if your hypothesis is wrong you need to report all the data, and not conveniently ignore the data that disproves your "denier" or "alarmist" agenda.
 
Quote
Yes, and politics is difficult between it sits between "pure" knowledge and emotions.  But if it drifts one way or the other then a correction happens.

I think politics is still hard even everyone agrees 100% on all the facts, because people with different moralities (philosophies/ideologies) will still disagree on how to solve whatever problem they're looking at.

Quote
The thing is, he had a foothold in being a contrarian in the service of "civil discourse" and he blew it.  All he would have had to do is be a little more careful with his language.  Did he deserve to be demonized ?  I would say not, but he was the one who blew it.  You can blame the mob, but I don't blame a dog who bites me I blame the master, the leash maker, my wife, you, Waldo... anybody else... but the dog and myself...

He didn't blow it, that's just your opinion.  He's still very popular, he hasn't been working publicly because he's been hospitalized and very sick the last year or so.  He's more careful with his language than anyone, he talks about that all the time, because if he says something in just the wrong way people will slay him for it, because to many people he's the enemy and they're waiting to jump on him on any stumble.  The mob (left or right) attacks anyone who counters their agenda.  It's information warfare out there.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 15, 2020, 09:22:14 pm
Like I say, there is room and even a need for someone like him... early on I had hoped he would be the guy.  But he's not.

He's just a guy, he's not a saviour.  His opinions don't have to 100% have to match yours or mine.  That's the whole point.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 15, 2020, 09:33:36 pm
Ok.  If he was a minimally competent academic, he wouldn't be here.
Because his views offend you?  He's a heretic!  Burn him at the stake!

Quote
I disagree.  He wants to be civil, but he misgenders people
When did he do that?  Link?

Quote
...makes unconsidered statements.... he isn't being civil, he is denying people their rights, associating with extremists and overstating his case.  Nice that he wants to be 'civil' but he should lead by example.
Whose rights is he denying?  His whole argument is that the government is denying HIS rights by enforcing compelled speech.  He's never said he'd not use someone's preferred pronoun, but that the government shouldn't force him to.  I can't name another example of compelled speech in law, can you?

Which extremists is he associating with?  People who happen to follow him on twitter, which is out of his control?  I think you've bought into to the BS social media spin about this guy and not actually what's going on.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 15, 2020, 09:37:48 pm
Language changes all the time, so if a word became commonly used it wouldn't be a 'made-up term' - I suppose the people who're interested in having a third pronoun to indicate non-gender are hoping for that outcome.

I don't mind calling people what they prefer, so if I met someone that wanted me to refer to them as "zhe', I would try to accommodate that even if I thought it was a bit weird or something.  Also, does spoken 'zhe' sound much like spoken 'she'?

Of course, you might ask me if I'd refer to someone as a pumpkin, if zhe asked me to.  And yes, for the time I was with them, I probably would - unless it was my job to talk them out of referring to themselves as a pumpkin, or if I was on an internet forum in which disagreement was the point of the discussion.

I agree it's best to use pronouns that people prefer typically, but that's not Peterson's argument.  Do you think the government should compel us by law to do so?  And if we refuse the punishment is fines, being sued, or men with guns and clubs throwing us in jail.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 15, 2020, 09:40:28 pm
There are many problems with Jordan's behaviour as a debater. Among them are his tendency to raise his voice in an attempt to belittle his opponents.
[/quote]
My only criticism with his behaviour is that at times he can have a short temper and he can lose it on occasion, and so acts less civil.  But it's not like academics on the left are Jesus.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 15, 2020, 09:44:27 pm
So they’re not synonymous? 

Do you think The Rebel are extremists then?

When I think of ‘extremist’ I think of someone who uses or promotes violence to meet their goals.  Maybe you are using ‘extremist’ in another manner, but I don’t think we should be using a term that, in general usage, refers to people who use or promote violence to refer to people who we just disagree with. 

It’s a tactic that the cancel-culture ‘woke’ folks use often, and you seem to be using it too.

I agree, an extremist is someone who uses violence.

The Rebel are really weird illogical people with a fair share of bad arguments who smear a lot with low-brow journalism, but they aren't extremists.  They don't hurt anyone.   They aren't even radicals.  They're just kinda immature and dumb.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 15, 2020, 09:47:27 pm
I didn't suggest that Jordan's crowd are a bunch of Christians. They're more wannabe intellectuals than that, even though many are expectant Christians.
I think that Jordan offers an expectation for them that their faith can be plausible in the face of evidence that proves it just isn't. They think that Jordan's explaining, doubletalk, and hairsplitting  can make religous faith work.  But of course it never can.

This is just nonsense.  I listen to a lot of Jordan's stuff and I'm an athiest.  He does talk about Christianity though and is a Christian but he talks more about Christian mythmaking etc and the moral value and lessons in their stories and whatnot.

I didn't know you were a wannabe intellectual if you listen to the man's perspectives.  Thanks!  Like squiggy said i think you're reading the room wrong.  You clearly are a staunchly leftwing and don't like his views, therefore he and people who listen to him are simpleton retardos to you.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 15, 2020, 09:55:17 pm
The Rebel is a far-right publication that promotes objectionable views.  He jumped into bed with them early on, because they promised to raise money for him.

I think they're just FOX News Canada.  They're definitely strongly rightwing but I wouldn't say far-right, they're right on the edge.  They aren't fascists.  Ezra Levant is Jewish.  His name is Ezra Levant lol.  He's fired someone who made far-right comments.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 16, 2020, 09:29:17 am
He killed God but didn't kill morality.

Yes, you are correct.  What he did was dissect it and see it as a human activity that meets human needs, and framed it as you said correctly.  I wasn't careful enough in my language there.


Quote
Yes but also things like climate science.  Even if your hypothesis is wrong you need to report all the data, and not conveniently ignore the data that disproves your "denier" or "alarmist" agenda.

Well... maybe but I don't think Richard Lindzen or Michael Mann are normally referred to as 'activists'.  They are primarily scientists and if someone tags them as 'activists' I suspect it's an effort to discredit them.  I agree with your principle of intellectual honesty.  Both of these scientists, I'm sure, know the perils of lying.
 
Quote
I think politics is still hard even everyone agrees 100% on all the facts, because people with different moralities (philosophies/ideologies) will still disagree on how to solve whatever problem they're looking at.

Agreed.

Quote
He didn't blow it, that's just your opinion. 

Well, everything here is my opinion really.  Even when I relay facts they're facts that I *believe* are true.

Quote
He's still very popular,

Ok but being popular is under the bar for being able to facilitate discussions such as the ones he tries to broker.  Rush Limbaugh is also 'popular'.

Quote
  He's more careful with his language than anyone, he talks about that all the time, because if he says something in just the wrong way people will slay him for it, because to many people he's the enemy and they're waiting to jump on him on any stumble.

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.  Also there's the ridiculous tendency to call people 'Post Modern Marxists' which sounds incorrect... like saying "Christian Athiest"

Quote
The mob (left or right) attacks anyone who counters their agenda.  It's information warfare out there.

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.

He's just a guy, he's not a saviour.  His opinions don't have to 100% have to match yours or mine.  That's the whole point.

I would think that a public intellectual would try to help public conversations happen.  Actually, they should do that.  He fails because he's lazy and appears to offend people on purpose while trying to promote 'civil discourse'. 

Because his views offend you?  He's a heretic!  Burn him at the stake!
When did he do that?  Link?

I have read about it, in the past, in several places.  Quick Google gave me this:
https://thetalon.ca/the-post-truth-politics-of-jordan-petersons-gender-nonbinary-pronoun-debate/

On November 19th, 2016 Dr. Peterson engaged in a debate with UBC’s Dr. Mary Bryson, Senior Associate Dean and Professor in the Faculty of Education, who is gender nonbinary and uses the pronouns “they/them.” ... Peterson repeatedly misgendered Dr. Bryson, referring to them as “she” and “her.


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.

Quote
Whose rights is he denying?  His whole argument is that the government is denying HIS rights by enforcing compelled speech.

He's denying the right of people to define their gender identity.  He has never been compelled to use a specific word or phrase by the government.

Quote
Which extremists is he associating with?   

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.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 16, 2020, 11:55:22 am
This is just nonsense.  I listen to a lot of Jordan's stuff and I'm an athiest.  He does talk about Christianity though and is a Christian but he talks more about Christian mythmaking etc and the moral value and lessons in their stories and whatnot.

And many, if not most are Christians I believe. The political right are Christians believers more often than not.

I didn't know you were a wannabe intellectual if you listen to the man's perspectives.  Thanks!  Like squiggy said i think you're reading the room wrong.  You clearly are a staunchly leftwing and don't like his views, therefore he and people who listen to him are simpleton retardos to you.
[/quote]

I'm definitely leftist as that pertains to Canadian standards but not leftwing. If I was an American you could correctly say I'm leftwing.
I don't consider anybody to be retarded due to their political leaning. But I do consider many rightist views to be wrongheaded and incorrect. Not all, but it would take a calm and nuanced conversation to sort out my pros from my cons.

I'm a bit disappointed in you when you use a word like 'retardos'. However, for now at least I'm still interested in building bridges with you.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham 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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
I have read about it, in the past, in several places.  Quick Google gave me this:
https://thetalon.ca/the-post-truth-politics-of-jordan-petersons-gender-nonbinary-pronoun-debate/
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 16, 2020, 07:25:45 pm
And many, if not most are Christians I believe. The political right are Christians believers more often than not.
Well that's pretty weak evidence.

Quote
But I do consider many rightist views to be wrongheaded and incorrect. Not all, but it would take a calm and nuanced conversation to sort out my pros from my cons.
Sure so do I, and same here.

Quote
I'm a bit disappointed in you when you use a word like 'retardos'. However, for now at least I'm still interested in building bridges with you.

I only use the colloquial use of such words because I am hilarious and enjoy offensive comedy.  I have nothing against actual retards.  (Again, that's a bad taste joke).

I enjoy building bridges with anyone who is willing to put their hand out to meet halfway, i'm glad you have.  I will never call you, personally, a retardo.  That's the last time I will use that word.  In this thread.  For the rest of today.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 16, 2020, 08:22:05 pm
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.

I don't think I said I dislike or disagree with him, and if I did then fine but it's beside the point.

Quote
So what you're saying is that the standard for which you set for him is perfection.

Hahahaha.  Joe Rogan !

Quote
Do you hold the same standard for thinkers on the left?

I believe so.  But there's nothing like a Peterson on the left as far as I can see. 

Quote
...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.

Well, it's not though.  What people say matters and it's hard to step back from that.  Hillary Clinton called her opponents 'deplorables' and lost a large swath of voters.  And it's not the media undermining him and discrediting him if he does it himself.

Quote
If he says something that's incorrect and you or I challenge him on it, great.  That's called civil discourse.

No - civil discourse is being CIVIL.  You can't call people the n-word or call them women if they're not and so on.  You didn't talk about that in your definition.

Quote
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 don't think being God or a saviour was ever on the table.  The question is does he hold water as a reasonable public intellectual who has earned the attention of a critical mass of "the" public ?  That's a high pedestal, but - no - he doesn't do it.

Quote
I also don't see him waving the flag of "civil discourse", that sounds like something you've projected on to him.

I think others on this thread said it about him, which is why I commented on it.

Quote
  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. 

Listen to Sam Harris then.  I disagree with him quite a bit on lots of things, but he is immensely thoughtful and precise with his language and ideas.

Quote
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.

You are misunderstanding something here: a *commentator* and an *intellectual* are very far apart and have been since ... well the 80s or early 90s I would say. 

In case you missed it: there is no leftist intellectual who is in the ballpark of what I'm calling for either.

Quote
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.

It's an oxymoron, though, right ?  Post-modernism is post-Marxism.  The Marxists I know of are anti-woke. 

Quote
You're the one you brought it up, i responded to you.

I used it because I felt you were tacitly referring to the mob, or at least popular whims, with your statements on page 1:

"Socrates was executed for "corrupting the youth".  Jesus was nailed to a cross.  Who are we crucifying today?  What are our holy beliefs that only heretics question?"

Quote
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.

Your bar is too low.  A public intellectual needs to be held to a higher standard than "not burning cars", seriously.

Quote
What are you talking about??  If his opinions are offensive to you or anyone else, that's the whole darn point.

He insults people to their face, is my point.  Not "he says things to which people take offense".

Quote
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.

But he does.


Quote
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 been very clear as to why he's to be rejected as a public intellectual.

1. He insults people on purpose
2. He aligns himself with The Rebel, an anti-intellectual and anti-human endeavour that exists to disunify people and spread falsehoods
3. He's sloppy with his language and his thinking

I'm not saying he should be killed, or that I dislike him personally.  I'm saying he's unfit to lead public discussions, except to continue to sow disunity and extend the culture war.  At the beginning of his career as a public intellectual, it wasn't so.  And as time goes on, he shows himself to be a poor thinker, a hypocrite in terms of his moral stance and his didactic advice to others.. and kind of a sad individual to boot.

Quote
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.

I gave you a source.  Do you want another one ?  Does this mean that if there is evidence of what I claim, you will change your opinion on him somewhat ?  I would like to know if I'm just on a wild goose chase, given that I gave you a cite already.

Quote
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 keep missing the other option - that his reasoning and his thinking is flawed.  Whether or not people like him, or his opinions is beside the point really.  I respect people with whom I disagree, if their opinions have enough basis to be reasonably close to valid.

Quote
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. 

He's marginal because he isn't generally acceptable.  It's like saying Rush Limbaugh is an important voice in the trans rights debate because he has millions of listeners.

 
Quote
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?

The Rebel didn't have Gavin McInnes and Faith Goldy as guests - they worked there.  It's a ****-slinging organization and doesn't deserve to be considered legitimate.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 18, 2020, 06:58:15 pm
The Rebel didn't have Gavin McInnes and Faith Goldy as guests - they worked there.  It's a ****-slinging organization and doesn't deserve to be considered legitimate.

We can say anything we like about anyone.  We can say Peterson hangs out with Nazis every weekend and throws up the salute, but that has nothing to do with the merit of his individual arguments.  Attacking the character, tone, motives, and who he may have associated with on one occasion, these are ad hominem arguments.  This fallacy is designed to discredit the person making the argument, and not the argument itself.  And it's fine to not like him personally, it's just not as interesting.

I find it a lot more interesting talking about his arguments about post-modernists dominating academia, and the causes of the gender wage gap., and how people have to grow up and take more responsibility in order to better their lives.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 18, 2020, 07:15:41 pm
We can say anything we like about anyone.  We can say Peterson hangs out with Nazis every weekend and throws up the salute, but that has nothing to do with the merit of his individual arguments.

Ok, but we haven't spoken about any of his individual arguments here, either.

Quote
  Attacking the character, tone, motives, and who he may have associated with on one occasion, these are ad hominem arguments.

Again, we're not talking about his arguments we are talking about the man and where he fits in, as some kind of public figure.

Quote
  This fallacy is designed to discredit the person making the argument, and not the argument itself.  And it's fine to not like him personally, it's just not as interesting.

See above.

Quote
I find it a lot more interesting talking about his arguments about post-modernists dominating academia, and the causes of the gender wage gap., and how people have to grow up and take more responsibility in order to better their lives.

Well... some of those are arguments and some of it is that self-help stuff he puts out there, but sure.  I think that a public moralist would be a great thing right now, and a Canadian conservative would be a perfect fit to host some kind of consensus-building on whatever moral commonality we have these days.

But he's not it.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 18, 2020, 10:03:03 pm
Well... some of those are arguments and some of it is that self-help stuff he puts out there, but sure.  I think that a public moralist would be a great thing right now, and a Canadian conservative would be a perfect fit to host some kind of consensus-building on whatever moral commonality we have these days.

But he's not it.

People aren't interested in consensus building, largely, which is unfortunate.  I don't think that's what Peterson has been doing or even tried to do either, at least with his political arguments.  He's been often a political activist essentially, based on issues where in his perception the left is going too far in some cases.  So in that sense, you're right.  He's not going to bring anyone together.  Because when you fight for your rights or other people's rights, very often the people who oppose you will hate you and try to destroy you.

We're in an ideological war in an era of divisive identity politics.  The left, as is their job, is pushing for the rights of the oppressed (Women, racial minorities, LGBT etc.) because sometimes the right goes too far.  This is good in general, but there's times when the left goes too far pushing back and where they infringe on the rights of those who have traditionally held power, such as white people, straight and cis people, and men etc. 

Any decent person wants women to have the same employment opportunities as men, the question is in how that's achieved?  Do you install gender quotas in fields where there is a gender disparity?  Some schools and employers have.  So then some feminists argue that if say 80% of engineers or IT professionals are men, that shows some kind of gender discrimination against women, which needs to be rectified with quotas that deny men with more merit of a job and give it to women.  Well if you're going to discriminate against someone, you need more evidence than unequal gender numbers in the workforce.  You need to show it is due to discrimination, and not due to different choices women are making.  Peterson has always argued for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.  But some feminists don't want to hear that, and they get very angry, because it's a threat to their interests, and in their view their rights.  And if you put forward arguments and data that show that not all gender disparities in the workforce are due to discrimination, people will get angry and call you a sexist etc.  And some of these people will try to cancel you and get your speeches shut down etc.  Because it's war.  And when you're Peterson and you get your back up against these kinds of constant attacks and insinuations I guess sometimes you can lose your temper and not be as civil as you should be.

I don't listen to Peterson because he's got the magic answers to everything, I listen because he brings educated opinions often with data that make arguments against opinions and policies most other people are too afraid to question because we're all too politically correct and afraid to be called a sexist/racist/transphobe and lose our jobs and friends for it etc and become the pariah he's become.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 19, 2020, 09:20:31 am
People aren't interested in consensus building, largely, which is unfortunate.

Well, the alternative is to grumble forever until the status quo changes, ignore people who have problems with the law, or war I guess.

You are saying that our liberal society can't solve this problem.  Ok.

Quote
  I don't think that's what Peterson has been doing or even tried to do either, at least with his political arguments.  He's been often a political activist essentially, based on issues where in his perception the left is going too far in some cases.  So in that sense, you're right.  He's not going to bring anyone together.  Because when you fight for your rights or other people's rights, very often the people who oppose you will hate you and try to destroy you.

But convincing people who are in the middle is part of consensus building.  If he's preaching to the converted, and that's all he ever intends to do he's even more useless than I suspected.  But I doubt that he's doing that.


Quote
We're in an ideological war in an era of divisive identity politics.  The left, as is their job, is pushing for the rights of the oppressed (Women, racial minorities, LGBT etc.) because sometimes the right goes too far.  This is good in general, but there's times when the left goes too far pushing back and where they infringe on the rights of those who have traditionally held power, such as white people, straight and cis people, and men etc. 

Well thanks for the play-by-play.  Yes, I have been alive for more than 30 years (I picked George Bush Sr.'s calling out 'political correctness' as the start of this) so ... yes I'm aware of the landscape here.  What (I think) Peterson represented, at the start, was the opportunity to revisit our principles and move the discussion forward.

Quote
Any decent person wants ....

And now you are getting into the discussion of the arguments themselves.  That's fine but not as interesting as a way forward IMO.

Quote
  Peterson has always argued for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.  But some feminists don't want to hear that, and they get very angry, because it's a threat to their interests, and in their view their rights.

That's one facet of a very long and unsolvable fog of social issues. 

Quote
I don't listen to Peterson because he's got the magic answers to everything, I listen because he brings educated opinions often with data that make arguments against opinions and policies most other people are too afraid to question because we're all too politically correct and afraid to be called a sexist/racist/transphobe and lose our jobs and friends for it etc and become the pariah he's become.

Ok.  I for one don't like to listen to editorialists with whom I agree, at least not too much.  It's pretty clear that a moral case will always fail in this environment, where there are no principles or central leaders.  You said it yourself: people aren't interested in consensus building.

That is where the moralists should focus their criticism - on an expanding set of people who refuse to listen to others.  Peterson covers some of that, but - again - he's not the guy. 

 
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 19, 2020, 12:28:04 pm


I don't listen to Peterson because he's got the magic answers to everything, I listen because he brings educated opinions often with data that make arguments against opinions and policies most other people are too afraid to question because we're all too politically correct and afraid to be called a sexist/racist/transphobe and lose our jobs and friends for it etc and become the pariah he's become.

As with so many rightists of Jordan's ilk, he restrains himself so he can remain at least politically correct enough when in a debate with Sam Harris for instance. But he always is able to convince me that he wants to go much further if he was able to gain momentum with a change in the political atmosphere.

What is it about the rightist political agenda that can be considered acceptable in the 21st. century? What does Jordan seriously promote that could be acceptable for Canada?

Can you accept that Canada is getting it closer to being right about most issues than any other country in the world? If so then you'll understand that's a big challenge to rightists such as Jordan.

Otherwise, it's been an interesting discussion on Jordan from all who have taken part.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 19, 2020, 11:40:59 pm
As with so many rightists of Jordan's ilk, he restrains himself so he can remain at least politically correct enough when in a debate with Sam Harris for instance. But he always is able to convince me that he wants to go much further if he was able to gain momentum with a change in the political atmosphere.

It's interesting to be critical of a guy for things he's never said.

Quote
What is it about the rightist political agenda that can be considered acceptable in the 21st. century? What does Jordan seriously promote that could be acceptable for Canada?

Not allowing the radical left minority to morally bully us into accepting unreasonable proposals just because we'd be unfairly labelled a racist or sexist or homophobe if we disagreed.  That's one example.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 20, 2020, 12:11:35 pm
It's interesting to be critical of a guy for things he's never said.

Not allowing the radical left minority to morally bully us into accepting unreasonable proposals just because we'd be unfairly labelled a racist or sexist or homophobe if we disagreed.  That's one example.

Good for you on coming up with something! But that which you imply contains no specifics and to provide those is where the questioning begins.

Can you do that? I think the best choice would be on the 'racist' accusations so let's go there. However, if you disagree then we can go with either of the others.

And fwiw, I do believe that the left can be guilty of doing the same thing and then possibly being unfairly labelled. Can you provide the example in the context in which Jordan has raised it and pursued it? We may have some common ground on this if you can fill the bill, so to speak.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 20, 2020, 01:39:46 pm
Can you do that? I think the best choice would be on the 'racist' accusations so let's go there. However, if you disagree then we can go with either of the others.

And fwiw, I do believe that the left can be guilty of doing the same thing and then possibly being unfairly labelled. Can you provide the example in the context in which Jordan has raised it and pursued it? We may have some common ground on this if you can fill the bill, so to speak.

Any decent person wants women to have the same employment opportunities as men, the question is in how that's achieved?  Do you install gender quotas in fields where there is a gender disparity?  Some schools and employers have.  So then some feminists argue that if say 80% of engineers or IT professionals are men, or there is any gender disparity in any field where women are the minority, that shows some kind of gender discrimination against women, which needs to be rectified with quotas that deny men with more merit of a job and give it to women.  Well if you're going to discriminate against someone, you need more evidence than unequal gender numbers in the workforce.  You need to show it is due to discrimination, and not due to different choices women are making.  Which Peterson argues.  Peterson has always argued for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.  But some feminists don't want to hear that, and they get very angry.  Peterson argues some of it may be due to discrimination, or it may also or only involve differences in career choices.

He argued the data shows women more often prefer working with people, and men more often refer working with things (there are always many exceptions of course).  There are more female medical doctors than male, for instance.  And psychologists, social workers, teachers, and nurses etc.  So to look at gender disparities we need to look at multiple variables and not just one variable by crying "sexism" every time.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 20, 2020, 02:33:29 pm
Any decent person wants women to have the same employment opportunities as men, the question is in how that's achieved?  Do you install gender quotas in fields where there is a gender disparity?  Some schools and employers have.  So then some feminists argue that if say 80% of engineers or IT professionals are men, or there is any gender disparity in any field where women are the minority, that shows some kind of gender discrimination against women, which needs to be rectified with quotas that deny men with more merit of a job and give it to women.  Well if you're going to discriminate against someone, you need more evidence than unequal gender numbers in the workforce.  You need to show it is due to discrimination, and not due to different choices women are making.  Which Peterson argues.  Peterson has always argued for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.  But some feminists don't want to hear that, and they get very angry.  Peterson argues some of it may be due to discrimination, or it may also or only involve differences in career choices.

He argued the data shows women more often prefer working with people, and men more often refer working with things (there are always many exceptions of course).  There are more female medical doctors than male, for instance.  And psychologists, social workers, teachers, and nurses etc.  So to look at gender disparities we need to look at multiple variables and not just one variable by crying "sexism" every time.

I think you've very ably restated Jordan's case for him and I have to commend you for that!

But wait!

Quote
Any decent person wants women to have the same employment opportunities as men,..............

First of all, is that really true? And secondly, is that the real point of contention here?

So first, is it true that employers correct the inequity in pay for equal work done?  No, they do not in many cases if not most.

And second, the 'employment opportunity' to which you speak isn't the property of the left to correct. So assuming that it actually does exist, it becomes the property of employers to correct.

Social responsibility is the property of the left and is so by definition. "Socialism".  A socially responsible person won't, or shouldn't, make accusations based on preferences being different between men and women.  The extent to which it exists is a given in my opinion and I would criticize any person claiming social responsibility if they don't take that into consideration.

If an employer chooses a man for the job over a woman then in some cases his choice will be justified. For the sake of the conversation I'll refer to a ditchdigger. First, the woman doesn't want the job and secondly she isn't physically capable of doing the job. And so discrimination isn't a  valid issue to hold against an employer.

But let's now take the example of an employer consistently choosing men over women for  engineering jobs.  That can be validly called discrimination unless the employer can make a case for it not being so.

In either case, it's not the left making the decisions, it's the rightist.  The leftist, or at least the true leftist will do the socially responsible thing and not discriminate. After all, it's the leftist that makes an issue over discrimination.

Unfortunately, your explanation still lacks the specific case upon which Jordan is motivated to object to the claim of discrimination.

I hope you'll see that I still don't totally disagree with what you've stated on Jordan's behalf, I've just questioned whether or not his talking point is valid.

And now to the point, or at least the point as I see it. Jordan is trying to justify unequal pay for equal work and he fails to lay the responsibility for correcting that wrong on the employer. Or, as you also suggest, not laying the blame squarely on the employer who is guilty of discrimination. Supposing that does happen?

Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 20, 2020, 02:36:00 pm
Any decent person wants women to have the same employment opportunities as men, the question is in how that's achieved?  Do you install gender quotas in fields where there is a gender disparity?  Some schools and employers have.  So then some feminists argue that if say 80% of engineers or IT professionals are men, or there is any gender disparity in any field where women are the minority, that shows some kind of gender discrimination against women, which needs to be rectified with quotas that deny men with more merit of a job and give it to women.

Is this actually a widespread belief ?  It seems like our open marketplace of ideas is actually highlighting the phenomenon and maybe doing something about it with messaging.  Who is doing this and how is it going really ?

Quote
  Well if you're going to discriminate against someone, you need more evidence than unequal gender numbers in the workforce.  You need to show it is due to discrimination, and not due to different choices women are making.  Which Peterson argues.  Peterson has always argued for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.  But some feminists don't want to hear that, and they get very angry.  Peterson argues some of it may be due to discrimination, or it may also or only involve differences in career choices.

That's interesting.  But this is also not a field where he can garner an audience of people who don't already follow him.

Quote
He argued the data shows women more often prefer working with people, and men more often refer working with things (there are always many exceptions of course).  There are more female medical doctors than male, for instance.  And psychologists, social workers, teachers, and nurses etc.  So to look at gender disparities we need to look at multiple variables and not just one variable by crying "sexism" every time.

Wow.  Another completely specious argument from Peterson.  "Women prefer working with people"... answers it all... wow.

Anyway, he's back now... supposedly better again...
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 20, 2020, 02:45:59 pm


Wow.  Another completely specious argument from Peterson.  "Women prefer working with people"... answers it all... wow.

Anyway, he's back now... supposedly better again...

I too suspected that to be a specious point but I didn't jump on it because I see more important issues on which to jump on Jordan. I truly believe Jordan's real issue is in defending unequal pay for women for equal work. If he said so then that would make him honest. He could at least state some justifications for employers in some instances. For example, if a woman persists in demanding equal pay for packing 100 pound sacks of potatoes around then she will have to be content with less pay.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 20, 2020, 02:52:21 pm
jump on Jordan.

Jump on Jordan would be a great talk show.  WKRP in Cincinatti's Gordon Jump (who played Mr. Carlson) could sit in a swivel chair, on a 1970s TVO set and postulate on Jordan.

Quote
I truly believe Jordan's real issue is in defending unequal pay for women for equal work. If he said so then that would make him honest. He could at least state some justifications for employers in some instances. For example, if a woman persists in demanding equal pay for packing 100 pound sacks of potatoes around then she will have to be content with less pay.

Yeah, except... they hire weaker men to work beside stronger men too.  What does it matter to legislate such things really ?  Women make less money anyway and there's no way to balance that, assuming the maternity part is not the reason.

I would rather educate people through positive shaming, and eliminate secrecy and superstition in pricing and wages, then have the government top off people. 

Could Peterson even step into a conversation where math is involved though ?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 20, 2020, 03:02:49 pm
Jump on Jordan would be a great talk show.  WKRP in Cincinatti's Gordon Jump (who played Mr. Carlson) could sit in a swivel chair, on a 1970s TVO set and postulate on Jordan.

Yeah, except... they hire weaker men to work beside stronger men too.  What does it matter to legislate such things really ?  Women make less money anyway and there's no way to balance that, assuming the maternity part is not the reason.

I would rather educate people through positive shaming, and eliminate secrecy and superstition in pricing and wages, then have the government top off people. 

Could Peterson even step into a conversation where math is involved though ?

To be completely honest, I would hire a man instead of a woman if I suspected that maternity leave would be a consideration. I've been a small business owner and my business wouldn't have survived that.

But there's an answer for that issue too. Give men maternity leave benefits. Or run a business that doesn't include maternity leave.
Capitalism allows for that. No union and no minimum wage scale.

I'm not a capitalist, I'm a socially responsible capitalist.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on October 20, 2020, 04:25:05 pm

Wow.  Another completely specious argument from Peterson.  "Women prefer working with people"... answers it all... wow.

You don’t think career preferences are different between women and men?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 20, 2020, 05:12:27 pm
I hope you'll see that I still don't totally disagree with what you've stated on Jordan's behalf, I've just questioned whether or not his talking point is valid.

And now to the point, or at least the point as I see it. Jordan is trying to justify unequal pay for equal work and he fails to lay the responsibility for correcting that wrong on the employer. Or, as you also suggest, not laying the blame squarely on the employer who is guilty of discrimination. Supposing that does happen?

The problem is Jordan has never made such an argument.  He's said that sometimes people including women are discriminated against and that's wrong.  His problem is with people who whenever they see a gender discrepancy in favour of men it is automatically assumed to be caused by discrimination.  And sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.  And sometimes it is and also involves other factors.

To say the gender wage gap never involves discrimination is wrong, and to do it's completely due to discrimination is wrong.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 20, 2020, 05:21:37 pm
Wow.  Another completely specious argument from Peterson.  "Women prefer working with people"... answers it all... wow.

Anyway, he's back now... supposedly better again...

No it doesn't explain everything, but it might explain why more men go into engineering and more women go into medicine etc.

Of course, more women graduate from university, but few say men are being discriminated against in this regard.  Personal preference is a variable that matters.

So is having babies and spending less time in the workplace thus, or being more agreeable in contract negotiations.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 20, 2020, 05:23:32 pm
The problem is Jordan has never made such an argument.  He's said that sometimes people including women are discriminated against and that's wrong.  His problem is with people who whenever they see a gender discrepancy in favour of men it is automatically assumed to be caused by discrimination.  And sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.  And sometimes it is and also involves other factors.

No, Jordan wouldn't want to call it that. So in reality Jordan isn't making any point worth defending.

To say the gender wage gap never involves discrimination is wrong, and to (say)do it's completely due to discrimination is wrong.
[/quote]

That's not really saying very much. I think that Jordan wants to say a lot more, and will do so if he gets some wind behind him. I'm not at all impressed with his schtick and you haven't provided anything to change my mind. He's likely in it for the money and not much else.

There's really nothing of any importance in the conservative or Conservative agenda that they can go forward with anymore. Certainly not healthcare reform but if you have something to propose I'm always interested in hearing it.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 20, 2020, 05:27:17 pm
I truly believe Jordan's real issue is in defending unequal pay for women for equal work.

He doesn't do that.  He says there's more than one variable in a multi-variable analysis.  But even saying that makes someone a sexist these days.

Here he talks about the wage gap and other gender issues:

https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=316
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 20, 2020, 05:32:47 pm
No, Jordan wouldn't want to call it that. So in reality Jordan isn't making any point worth defending.

To say the gender wage gap never involves discrimination is wrong, and to (say)do it's completely due to discrimination is wrong.


That's not really saying very much. I think that Jordan wants to say a lot more, and will do so if he gets some wind behind him. I'm not at all impressed with his schtick and you haven't provided anything to change my mind. He's likely in it for the money and not much else.

There's really nothing of any importance in the conservative or Conservative agenda that they can go forward with anymore. Certainly not healthcare reform but if you have something to propose I'm always interested in hearing it.

Yes you think he has an evil agenda based on things you think he wants to say but never does.  So he brings actual research and data to many of his claims, and you bring "hidden agendas" and totally unproven claims based on things created in your own mind.

This is what people said about Harper before he was elected and it never happened.  I'm not saying i'm a fan of Harper btw, but I'm saying people project a lot of BS based on zero evidence.  To you, all conservatives are just nefarious fools.  No point in having a discussion with those prejudicial assumptions.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 20, 2020, 05:43:04 pm
He doesn't do that.  He says there's more than one variable in a multi-variable analysis.  But even saying that makes someone a sexist these days.

Here he talks about the wage gap and other gender issues:

https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=316

It's the agenda of employers whose interest is making more profit. Some are inscrutable enough to stoop pretty low.

In my final analysis, Jordan lost me when he attempted to say he's not a Christian but he believes in the Christian god. Or however he tries to frame it. Sam Harris got him on that one too. And that's the reason he, a very intelligent person, would be more interested in being the darling of the right for the money in it.

You see Gorgeous, a darling of the right can't possibly be an atheist. He loses half his support if he tries that.
But a very intelligent person such as Jordan can't possibly be a Christian believer when he presumes to be able to debate very intelligent opponents like Sam.

Big problem for rightists of all schticks! They're disqualified before they even start!

And please! Don't even try to tell me that Christianity isn't the property of the right for the most part.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 20, 2020, 05:51:18 pm
Yes you think he has an evil agenda based on things you think he wants to say but never does.  So he brings actual research and data to many of his claims, and you bring "hidden agendas" and totally unproven claims based on things created in your own mind.

This is what people said about Harper before he was elected and it never happened.  I'm not saying i'm a fan of Harper btw, but I'm saying people project a lot of BS based on zero evidence.  To you, all conservatives are just nefarious fools.  No point in having a discussion with those prejudicial assumptions.

Conservatism is nefariously foolish until they can present an alternative agenda to socially responsible capitalism, as is practiced in Canada. The challenge to you will always remain the same.

See my other post on the right owning religion and how that doesn't work for anybody trying to carry on a decent conversation that doesn't involve the supernatural.

The modern world has outgrown religious nonsense but the US still hangs on. That, sadly, means we've outgrown conservatism too.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 20, 2020, 06:58:39 pm
No it doesn't explain everything, but it might explain why more men go into engineering and more women go into medicine etc.

It might, but a professor should know about things like cause, correlation, and such.  This kind of speculation doesn't help the argument at all.  If there are differences in physiology that could explain inclinations to areas of knowledge, the assessment and analysis must be fathoms deeper than what he offers here.

If you agree with his thesis, even, he's doing it a disservice by presenting it with only surface level evidence.

 
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 22, 2020, 03:16:13 pm
Conservatism is nefariously foolish until they can present an alternative agenda to socially responsible capitalism, as is practiced in Canada. The challenge to you will always remain the same.

See my other post on the right owning religion and how that doesn't work for anybody trying to carry on a decent conversation that doesn't involve the supernatural.

The modern world has outgrown religious nonsense but the US still hangs on. That, sadly, means we've outgrown conservatism too.

I have no problem with people who believe in God or are religious in their personal lives, I have a problem when they try to ram it down everyone's throats and it makes for bad policy that most people don't want, like say Andrew Scheer.  I would suspect you feel the same i hope.

I am also for "socially responsible capitalism".  Meaning capitalism where there is robust regulations to protect people and the environment from greed & exploitation and an adequate social safety net for those in need.

I am also for responsible government budgets & spending, people taking personal responsibility for their own actions, general law and order, standing up to foreign actors with bad intentions against Canada or otherwise take advantage of our kindness etc.  Which is to say, i'm a moderate.

Saying "progressivism is bad" or "conservatism is bad" is too vague for me.  There's a thousand political stances under those umbrellas, I'd rather deal with those on a case-by-case basis than start over-generalizing.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 22, 2020, 03:23:18 pm
It might, but a professor should know about things like cause, correlation, and such.  This kind of speculation doesn't help the argument at all.  If there are differences in physiology that could explain inclinations to areas of knowledge, the assessment and analysis must be fathoms deeper than what he offers here.

If you agree with his thesis, even, he's doing it a disservice by presenting it with only surface level evidence.

He references studies in the research literature.  He has a PhD in clinical psychology, he's not making stuff up.  I'm not sure he references physiology, but he does talk about the nature vs nuture debate a bit if I recall.  His focus is on career preference.

You're asking him for evidence but you keep making up things he supposedly says without evidence.  If your opinions of him are based on what twitter says about him rather than what he actually says then i'm not interested in that convo.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on October 22, 2020, 03:37:44 pm
He references studies in the research literature.  He has a PhD in clinical psychology, he's not making stuff up.  I'm not sure he references physiology, but he does talk about the nature vs nuture debate a bit if I recall.  His focus is on career preference.

Yeah, but so what ?  He cites a study and then uses it to explain a complex cultural phenomenon... the 2nd part - the part he added - is loose and unsubstantiated.

Quote
You're asking him for evidence but you keep making up things he supposedly says without evidence. 

Like what ?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 22, 2020, 05:12:50 pm
I have no problem with people who believe in God or are religious in their personal lives, I have a problem when they try to ram it down everyone's throats and it makes for bad policy that most people don't want, like say Andrew Scheer.  I would suspect you feel the same i hope.

I feel much the same but that which you consider 'ramming it down everybody's throats could mean something quite different from what it means to me. I have some problems with even religions still existing for a few reasons, even though I'm not actively working to eliminate it. I think we're probably pretty close to agreement on that.

Quote
I am also for "socially responsible capitalism".  Meaning capitalism where there is robust regulations to protect people and the environment from greed & exploitation and an adequate social safety net for those in need.

I could say the same thing on that.

Quote
I am also for responsible government budgets & spending, people taking personal responsibility for their own actions, general law and order, standing up to foreign actors with bad intentions against Canada or otherwise take advantage of our kindness etc.  Which is to say, i'm a moderate.

Agreed, as long as the devils aren't in the details.

Quote
Saying "progressivism is bad" or "conservatism is bad" is too vague for me.  There's a thousand political stances under those umbrellas, I'd rather deal with those on a case-by-case basis than start over-generalizing.

Yes, I basically agree but! I have a lot of difficulty with trying to determine what 'conservatism' actually means now in this 21st. century. Can conservatives actually lay claim to some political philosophy as theirs? What could it be for you, supposing you consider it to be something?

'Progressivism' is an erroneous term that seems to me to be used in a wrong context by mostly Americans. In my opinion 'progress' can't become a derogatory term.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 22, 2020, 05:41:03 pm
Yes, I basically agree but! I have a lot of difficulty with trying to determine what 'conservatism' actually means now in this 21st. century. Can conservatives actually lay claim to some political philosophy as theirs? What could it be for you, supposing you consider it to be something?

"Conservatism" is too broad a term for it to mean much of anything to judge good vs bad.  It could mean social conservatism, economic conservatism, libertarianism, rightwing populism, evangelicalism etc.

I share some conservative views, even some social conservative views, and yet i'm an atheist and don't like the GOP at all.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 22, 2020, 05:58:52 pm
"Conservatism" is too broad a term for it to mean much of anything to judge good vs bad.  It could mean social conservatism, economic conservatism, libertarianism, rightwing populism, evangelicalism etc.

I share some conservative views, even some social conservative views, and yet i'm an atheist and don't like the GOP at all.

I'm not asking what it could mean, I'm specifically asking for some particular political platform that can be considered their property.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 23, 2020, 01:30:32 pm
Last night I watched the utube video on Peterson and Dillahunty's conversation. (debate)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgAoQBgM558

It's a little long at 1hr. and 45 but I don't regret spending the time on it. I was quite surprised to see how poorly Jordan performed against Dillahunty, who probably can't be said to be Jordan's intellectual equal. So I had to wonder if Jordan was ill or becoming ill, or there was some other reason for his poor performance?

Frankly, Jordan appeared to be sarcastic and mocking of Dillahunty at times and was quite remarkably put down on one occasion by Dillahunty.

For those fans of Jordan Peterson who care to watch this, maybe they can come up for an opinion on why Jordan performed so badly. And of course that is, if they perceive that he did perform badly.

It was almost  as if Peterson was trying to demonstrate that he was lowering himself in some way by even recognizing Dillahunty as a debating opponent.

However, considering the topic being discussed, there's little doubt that Dillahunty knows his stuff as well as anyone and that begs the question on whether or not Peterson was just completely outclassed?

If anybody can afford the time to watch this one, I would find your comments very interesting. What could possibly be the reason why Peterson allowed himself to be so completely outclassed by Dillahunty?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 23, 2020, 04:00:46 pm
If it turns out that nobody has the time to do the whole hour and three-quarters, here's a six and a half minute vid on some of the highlights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryHEBDnAnjw

What the hell had gone wrong with Jordan? Or is that the best he has to offer on religion/God debates?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 25, 2020, 02:33:03 pm
Too bad nobody has enough confidence in Jordan Peterson to defend him now.

He would be finished if it wasn't for the value he is to debaters who are in it for the money. His religious convictions and the fact that he couldn't reconcile that with reality has been his downfall. Possibly also his mental breakdown too.

Will he try to make a comeback? Right now he looks like death warned over.

It that's it for this thread, thanks to those who contributed. I've learned something from it on Peterson.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 27, 2020, 06:22:44 pm
How delightful that none of his supporters want to defend the **** anymore! He's literally fallen off the rails and it wont be a surprise if we hear about his accidental ............................ whatever?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 27, 2020, 06:34:11 pm
How delightful that none of his supporters want to defend the **** anymore! He's literally fallen off the rails and it wont be a surprise if we hear about his accidental ............................ whatever?

He can be an ****, i'll agree with that.  I think his chief value in the public realm is as it long has been:  a clinical psychologist.  He's helped thousands upon thousands of people with his book and lectures, they thank him all the time for helping turn their lives around.  A lot of young men too.  Our boys and men are in crisis.  Killing each other, killing other innocent people, filling up our jails, committing suicide and other "deaths of despair" through substance abuse.  For many, he's the no-nonsense father figure they needed but never had.

Weird to have a discussion about somebody if all you feel is hatred for them.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on October 27, 2020, 06:45:50 pm
He can be an ****, i'll agree with that.  I think his chief value in the public realm is as it long has been:  a clinical psychologist.  He's helped thousands upon thousands of people with his book and lectures, they thank him all the time for helping turn their lives around.  A lot of young men too.  Our boys and men are in crisis.  Killing each other, killing other innocent people, filling up our jails, committing suicide and other "deaths of despair" through substance abuse.  For many, he's the no-nonsense father figure they needed but never had.

Weird to have a discussion about somebody if all you feel is hatred for them.
I welcome your balls back! He should have stuck with being a clinical psychologist. He's made a mess of his position of being the debater who was to be the darling of the right.

And all the other positive you attribute to him are debatable at best. He after all owned none of it what wasn't already owned by sincere and socially responsible people.

I very much doubt that he'll be back.

As to me discussing somebody I feel hatred and disgust toward? It's the norm of course and it is applied to Trump, Biden, Trudeau, Horgan, and others by you as much as anyone else.

And now if you want to get a true picture of Peterson, take a chance on watching the full video in which Dillahunty destroyed him completely.

And fwiw, it was in a time in which Peterson couldn't be claiming mental issues!
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on November 05, 2020, 12:33:10 pm
Hey Monty

I happened to come across this in my YouTubular travels:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnIAAkSNtqo

It's JP testifying as to why he hates girly-men (I am paraphrasing ;) )

Anyway, good news is that I thought his initial and main point was not as crazy as I had suspected.  He indicated that his concerns about forced pronouncement laws were based on a post on the Ontario HRC site ... uh ... that was taken down.  Ok, benefit of the doubt and all that so 1/2 a point for him.

And after that his argument goes to **** pretty quickly.   Something about social constructs not being a good basis for legislating against descrimination.   ???  So ... religion, race, creed, heritage shouldn't be protected against discrimination... I ... guess ... ?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on November 05, 2020, 02:15:00 pm
Hey Monty

I happened to come across this in my YouTubular travels:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnIAAkSNtqo

It's JP testifying as to why he hates girly-men (I am paraphrasing ;) )

Anyway, good news is that I thought his initial and main point was not as crazy as I had suspected.  He indicated that his concerns about forced pronouncement laws were based on a post on the Ontario HRC site ... uh ... that was taken down.  Ok, benefit of the doubt and all that so 1/2 a point for him.

And after that his argument goes to **** pretty quickly.   Something about social constructs not being a good basis for legislating against descrimination.   ???  So ... religion, race, creed, heritage shouldn't be protected against discrimination... I ... guess ... ?

Awwww gee MH, I hate the sound of his voice and I've already found it easy to come to the conclusion that he's phony, albeit an educated one. So please, please can you direct me to the times for the important parts that you feel we should all be aware of?

And also, there isn't anybody who is going to stand with Jordan anymore. You just strengthen the negative opinions against him.

The Peterson agenda is impossible in my opinion because intelligent people need to distance themselves from the god delusions, while still having to hold up the bible part of Christianity. If he was to take his beliess outside of mainstream Xtian bullshit, he would at least get himself on a few more debate stages.

Anyway, a bit of help with the important parts? I just cannot stomach a full hour plus of that miserable psychotic loser.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on November 05, 2020, 02:36:52 pm
I bailed out after the first four minutes...
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on November 05, 2020, 10:10:00 pm
I bailed out after the first four minutes...

Soooooooo!
You tried to get me to watch it for you.

If you bailed in the first 4 minutes, I would bail even faster now that I know how big a dink that guy is.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on November 06, 2020, 06:18:26 am
Soooooooo!
You tried to get me to watch it for you.

If you bailed in the first 4 minutes, I would bail even faster now that I know how big a dink that guy is.

I put it out there for you, like a tray of crackers with bird **** on them.  Try or do not try... there is no dooo... Only creamy cracker curiosity, there is.

In other words, don't complain about the **** I offer you...
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on November 06, 2020, 11:24:02 am
I put it out there for you, like a tray of crackers with bird **** on them.  Try or do not try... there is no dooo... Only creamy cracker curiosity, there is.

In other words, don't complain about the **** I offer you...

O.k. you win this time. I heard out Brown up to about 12 minutes.
People like Peterson are probably more interested in replaying videos like this one and jerking off over it for the vainglorious pleasure he gets from seeing and hearing his image. Not because he has any moral priorities he needs to uphold.

Him and his little men lined up behind him have gained courage from the Trump regime the other side of the border and are only intent in promoting the same extremist right agenda in Canada. Hopefully Jordan will soon go extinct.

On the brighter note, you may have stirred some Peterson supporter to feeling like he/she needs to support his views here.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on November 06, 2020, 11:36:47 am
On the brighter note, you may have stirred some Peterson supporter to feeling like he/she needs to support his views here.

Instead of trying to cajole “Petersen supporters” out of the woodwork, why don’t you take a topic you disagree with him about and make a post about it?

You seem to have a cult-of-personality obsession with the guy in the opposite way his followers do....   just because Petersen said something doesn’t make it wrong...   the ideas stand up, or not, on their own merit.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on November 06, 2020, 12:36:37 pm
Instead of trying to cajole “Petersen supporters” out of the woodwork, why don’t you take a topic you disagree with him about and make a post about it?

You seem to have a cult-of-personality obsession with the guy in the opposite way his followers do....   just because Petersen said something doesn’t make it wrong...   the ideas stand up, or not, on their own merit.

And so what do you think we should talk about here on this thread? Shirley we can agree on that at least! You could start by suggesting there's something good about Peterson!
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on November 06, 2020, 12:38:27 pm
And so what do you think we should talk about here on this thread? Shirley we can agree on that at least! You could start by suggesting there's something good about Peterson!

It’s not my thread.  Why should I have to come up with a topic of discussion?  I made a suggestion that might get you some more responses.  Do it, or not.  I don’t really care. 

And don’t call me Shirley.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Montgomery on November 06, 2020, 12:45:11 pm
It’s not my thread.  Why should I have to come up with a topic of discussion?  I made a suggestion that might get you some more responses.  Do it, or not.  I don’t really care. 

And don’t call me Shirley.

I'm just going to have to ignore you completely if you have nothing to contribute. Actually I've already said too much that encourages your bad behaviour here on this thread.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on November 06, 2020, 12:55:37 pm
I'm just going to have to ignore you completely if you have nothing to contribute. Actually I've already said too much that encourages your bad behaviour here on this thread.

Sounds good to me.

I will continue to point out your issues with facts and logic in your posts.  Feel free to ignore my truth-bombs.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on February 21, 2021, 12:50:41 pm
Just found this.... 15 minutes in and Peterson is getting owned by the GQ person and not enjoying it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZYQpge1W5s
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on February 23, 2021, 11:09:56 am
i love how the "women are chaos" guy got absolutely scammed by his own daughter and almost died because she's an even bigger nutjob than he is.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 04, 2021, 11:10:53 pm
Jordan now has 2 books in the top 10 best sellers on Amazon.ca.

His books aren't political, they're essentially basic psychology self-help books about life.  I heard someone say that Jordan is like a father-figure for people who didn't have a strong father figure growing up, which I think is a big part of his appeal.  He says things people need to hear about psychology and life, things that a compassionate mother or female teacher sometimes may not say, and people need to hear these things, especially men.

His political opinions people can easily disagree on and I get people who don't like him for that.  But to see the millions he's helped as a popular psychologist and to deny that work and appeal I think is either inhuman or someone just doesn't understand it.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on March 05, 2021, 04:46:55 am
I'm all for self-help.

Stephen Covey changed my life, but his system was a little more strategic than Peterson's 12 rules.

And also, I don't agree that you have to be perfect before criticizing.  That rule, and the one about precise language are ones Peterson himself doesn't follow.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: cybercoma on March 05, 2021, 06:40:40 am
Because that's what we need from academics, father figures who tell people what the need to hear.  ::)
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on March 05, 2021, 08:51:18 am
Because that's what we need from academics, father figures who tell people what the need to hear.  ::)

Richard Wolff not included in this exhortation.... check him out
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 05, 2021, 10:35:28 am
Jordan now has 2 books in the top 10 best sellers on Amazon.ca.

His books aren't political, they're essentially basic psychology self-help books about life.  I heard someone say that Jordan is like a father-figure for people who didn't have a strong father figure growing up, which I think is a big part of his appeal.  He says things people need to hear about psychology and life, things that a compassionate mother or female teacher sometimes may not say, and people need to hear these things, especially men.

His political opinions people can easily disagree on and I get people who don't like him for that.  But to see the millions he's helped as a popular psychologist and to deny that work and appeal I think is either inhuman or someone just doesn't understand it.

If it wasn't for his political opinions, no one would know who this doofus is and his book would be just another self help tome in the bargain bin at Indigo.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: cybercoma on March 05, 2021, 11:01:14 am
If it wasn't for his political opinions, no one would know who this doofus is and his book would be just another self help tome in the bargain bin at Indigo.
It's embarrassing **** coming from an academic.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 05, 2021, 11:23:49 am
It's embarrassing **** coming from an academic.

The best part of his whole schtick is how he rails against postmodernism without apparently having the slightest understanding of what it is.

Actually, scratch that: the best part is the time he claimed to have had a sip of apple juice and fallen into a month long depression as a result.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: cybercoma on March 05, 2021, 11:45:15 am
No idea about postmodernism, no idea what Marxist theory is, no idea about a lot of things other than the perfume of his own farts.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on March 05, 2021, 12:51:54 pm
1. The best part of his whole schtick is how he rails against postmodernism without apparently having the slightest understanding of what it is.

2. ... the best part is the time he claimed to have had a sip of apple juice and fallen into a month long depression as a result.

1. Zizek joshing with him, then putting him on the hook for this bit of imbicilitry during their debate, then letting him off the hook was perfect.  Like a Slovenian cat playing with a mouse

2.  ???
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 05, 2021, 01:01:21 pm
Because that's what we need from academics, father figures who tell people what the need to hear.  ::)

He's a clinical psychologist with many decades of practice helping people in counseling sessions helping solve their real-world problems, this isn't just theory.  There's no reason he can't put some of that advice into book form instead of having to pay $200 a session for private counseling.

What kind of book targeted at a mass audience would you like a clinical psychologist to write?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: cybercoma on March 05, 2021, 01:04:40 pm
I know very well who Jordan Peterson is and I also know that he's someone who steps far outside his area of expertise on a regular basis.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 05, 2021, 01:06:42 pm
I'm all for self-help.

Stephen Covey changed my life, but his system was a little more strategic than Peterson's 12 rules.

And also, I don't agree that you have to be perfect before criticizing.  That rule, and the one about precise language are ones Peterson himself doesn't follow.

I agree with you.

But I think his point is also that it's hard to preach about how the world should be run when you're a 20 y/o student who still lives with your parents and haven't accomplished anything.  I mean when I was 20 I had all the answers but I really didn't know much about the world other than what I read in a book, so my grand ideas for saving the world at the time were pretty naive.

But as you say, people should still have a voice and be free to speak out.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 05, 2021, 01:08:02 pm
If it wasn't for his political opinions, no one would know who this doofus is and his book would be just another self help tome in the bargain bin at Indigo.

Yes I agree, the political opinions made him famous.  But I think we can distinguish between his politics (nobody agrees on politics) vs his academic work and PhD practice.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: cybercoma on March 05, 2021, 01:10:21 pm
Yes I agree, the political opinions made him famous.  But I think we can distinguish between his politics (nobody agrees on politics) vs his academic work and PhD practice.
His self-help book isn't academic work. That's been my point here.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 05, 2021, 01:11:40 pm
The best part of his whole schtick is how he rails against postmodernism without apparently having the slightest understanding of what it is.

I disagree with that.  Postmodernism is the underpinning of modern critical theory (modern identity politics, intersectionalism) etc.

But I'm not trying to discuss his politics, which are obviously divisive.  My point is on his self-help and psychological work, which is what he's actually trained in as an academic.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 05, 2021, 01:13:47 pm
I know very well who Jordan Peterson is and I also know that he's someone who steps far outside his area of expertise on a regular basis.

In terms of his political opinions, many times yes, but that's fine everyone can have a political opinion and we're free to disagree with them.  As I said, I get why people don't like his politics, they're free to discredit those opinions.

I'm trying to discuss his psychology, which has been helpful to millions and has nothing to do with criticizing identity politics.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 05, 2021, 01:17:54 pm
His self-help book isn't academic work. That's been my point here.

It's based on his practice as a PhD.  He's not trying to submit it to an academic journal where cites are needed after every sentence.  It's a book, not an academic article he's submitting to a journal and never claimed it as such.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on March 05, 2021, 01:18:43 pm

But I think his point is also that it's hard to preach about how the world should be run when you're a 20 y/o student who still lives with your parents and haven't accomplished anything.  I mean when I was 20 I had all the answers but I really didn't know much about the world other than what I read in a book, so my grand ideas for saving the world at the time were pretty naive.

But as you say, people should still have a voice and be free to speak out.

People get self-help from all kinds of sources, even THE BIBLE FFS.  So unless the book is written to expressly do harm, or misrepresent I'm ok with people getting what they can from it.

That said, he's an example of why fame is a problem, he's a lousy academic, he's a hypocrite, and he talks like Kermit.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: cybercoma on March 05, 2021, 01:20:16 pm
In terms of his political opinions, many times yes, but that's fine everyone can have a political opinion and we're free to disagree with them.  As I said, I get why people don't like his politics, they're free to discredit those opinions.

I'm trying to discuss his psychology, which has been helpful to millions and has nothing to do with criticizing identity politics.
Here's someone I greatly respect in the space of cognitive science and philosophy. Read his take on Peterson's bestseller:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/hot-thought/201802/jordan-peterson-s-flimsy-philosophy-life

It articulates far better than I ever could why Peterson's book is ham-fisted and not at all academically rigorous.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 05, 2021, 01:27:11 pm
People get self-help from all kinds of sources, even THE BIBLE FFS.  So unless the book is written to expressly do harm, or misrepresent I'm ok with people getting what they can from it.

Quote
That said, he's an example of why fame is a problem, he's a lousy academic, he's a hypocrite, and he talks like Kermit.

I think the problem is many times he's not speaking as an academic, so what are you judging him on?  He has no expertise in Marxism.  But it's possible to separate the academic from the political commentator, which is my whole point.  I mean he has tons of lectures on youtube in classes on his field of expertise, so you have issues with these, or just him mouthing off about identity politics in some interview?

I'm trying to separate the psychologist from the political pundit, which is hard because he's both.  Jonathan Haidt isn't as political, he speaks on the differences between because ie: conservatives and liberals psychologically, because that's literally an area he studies as an academic.  Jordan has no expertise on transgender human rights laws.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 05, 2021, 01:32:44 pm
Here's someone I greatly respect in the space of cognitive science and philosophy. Read his take on Peterson's bestseller:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/hot-thought/201802/jordan-peterson-s-flimsy-philosophy-life

It articulates far better than I ever could why Peterson's book is ham-fisted and not at all academically rigorous.

You just resent Peterson because his politics are antithesis to yours. There's nothing he could say in any book that wouldn't make you want to discredit him, because you vehemently dislike him.  Typical culture war stuff.  I mean I get that, but to deny how helpful his book has been to people because well I dislike the man, is sociopathic.  Hiding your agenda behind "well he's missing some footnotes here and there" is BS.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: cybercoma on March 05, 2021, 01:41:32 pm
You just resent Peterson because his politics are antithesis to yours. There's nothing he could say in any book that wouldn't make you want to discredit him, because you vehemently dislike him.  Typical culture war stuff.  I mean I get that, but to deny how helpful his book has been to people because well I dislike the man, is sociopathic.  Hiding your agenda behind "well he's missing some footnotes here and there" is BS.
That's what you got from that review?

You didn't even read it.

So really, don't come at me about not having an open mind.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: cybercoma on March 05, 2021, 01:46:35 pm
Also, I think another thing to be aware of is the concerted effort by conservatives to artificially inflate their book sales through bulk buying schemes that push them up the NYT bestsellers list. More information on that here:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/474662-the-myth-of-the-conservative-bestseller

"Bulk buys ensure success regardless of whether anyone is remotely interested in the book. They allow those with the necessary resources to conjure up an illusion of grassroots popularity."

Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 05, 2021, 01:47:38 pm
I disagree with that. Postmodernism is the underpinning of modern critical theory (modern identity politics, intersectionalism) etc.

But I'm not trying to discuss his politics, which are obviously divisive.  My point is on his self-help and psychological work, which is what he's actually trained in as an academic.

Yes and he doesn't understand any of it.

Quote
You just resent Peterson because his politics are antithesis to yours. There's nothing he could say in any book that wouldn't make you want to discredit him, because you vehemently dislike him.  Typical culture war stuff. I mean I get that, but to deny how helpful his book has been to people because well I dislike the man, is sociopathic. Hiding your agenda behind "well he's missing some footnotes here and there" is BS.

Has anyone denied that or is it simply a banal observation that doesn't need to be addressed? After all lots of people have found happiness and fulfillment in reading The Secret or joining cults, but that's not the only criteria we use for assessing something.

at the end of the day people hate Peterson because his "advice" is little more than platitudes and his public persona is that of a grifting weirdo who regularly steps out of his narrow field of expertise into places he has no business opining on. Oh and many of his fans are freaks too.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on March 05, 2021, 01:59:48 pm
i love how the "women are chaos" guy got absolutely scammed by his own daughter and almost died because she's an even bigger nutjob than he is.

Peterson has claimed you need a supernatural, mystical experiences to quit smoking!   His views on Christianity are simply bizarre...  From what I can tell, he doesn’t believe in actual god, but thinks people should live like they believe in a Christian god. 

The man is a crackpot.  I find his non-political ideas WAY worse than his political views on free speech. 

Based on interviews and debates I have heard him in, I wouldn’t believe a single word the man says about how one should live their life.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 05, 2021, 02:21:57 pm
Yes and he doesn't understand any of it.

Really?  Which part?  Be specific.

Current critical theory and intersectional identity politics in the universities comes out the french postmodernism movement in the 1960's, which is all he really says.  Most people in university in the humanities will be introduced to postmodern theory (Foucault, Derrida etc).  That's really most of what he says about postmodernism.  I happen to like postmodernism and critical theory, it's pretty brilliant, but it's also been politicized, which causes social conflict.

As for "cultural Marxist", it's an odd term i don't use, but he means that Marxism is about using equality of outcome to destroy oppressive power structures in economics.  Culturally, this is being done by postmodernists (today's "woke") who are in favour of equality of outcome instead of merit with race/gender quotas etc so that everyone needs to be the same regardless of merit, and any discrepancies in a the workplace or student admissions etc in group identity numbers is seen as being due to oppression.  I mean that's 2021 to a tee.

Some may agree (include many posters on this forum) with that critical theory/postmodern approach, and it does have some merit because racism/sexism oppression clearly occurs.  You guys just don't agree with politics, because he's anti-postmodernism and you guys are clearly postmodernists so you seek to discredit him.  Yay culture war.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 05, 2021, 02:27:42 pm
I can tell you right now that most of the rightwing folks on MLW are anti-postmodernists.  Resisting the reform of oppressive power structures is in the interests of old white men like those guys.  Consequently, folks on the left, which are a bunch of the people on this forum like black dog and cyberc, are postmodernists, and fight for more equal outcomes among identity groups through whichever means.  And there's nothing wrong with that in general.  But this is what the culture war is all about.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: cybercoma on March 05, 2021, 02:40:10 pm
I'm not looking for equal outcomes. I'm looking to eliminate barriers altogether, which isn't immediately possible in most cases. That means I'm looking for equitability not equality in the interim. In any case, I think this completely misses the point that post-modernism isn't something that you create or happens. It's something that exists or has always existed. It's a theory that describes how things are. A massive oversimplification of post-modernism is that there are multiple perspectives on things and how those things appear depends on where you're coming from. Think of the young lady-old hag picture or the duck and bunny picture. That's not something that's created. It's just a way of conceptualizing how things are.

Edit to add: Taking what I said above, that makes the whole "anti-postmodernist" thing a bit bizarre. As bizarre as say being "anti-gravity." That's great that you don't believe in gravity but do you have a better explanation that's testable and observable in a scientifically rigorous way? But then again, what more can you expect from a crowd who "doesn't believe" in "evolution" because it's "just a theory."
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on March 05, 2021, 03:02:26 pm
   Consequently, folks on the left, which are a bunch of the people on this forum like black dog and cyberc, are postmodernists, and fight for more equal outcomes among identity groups through whichever means.   

A fallacy.  There is a strong left anti-woke... the idea of painting ALL left as "Work" is a FOX & Friends programming directive.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 05, 2021, 03:35:45 pm
A fallacy.  There is a strong left anti-woke... the idea of painting ALL left as "Work" is a FOX & Friends programming directive.

Not all left are woke i agree.  Sguiggy isn't woke.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on March 05, 2021, 03:39:30 pm
Not all left are woke i agree.  Sguiggy isn't woke.

From Laverne & Shirley ?  I always took him to be an Eisenhauer guy.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 05, 2021, 04:01:19 pm
I'm not looking for equal outcomes. I'm looking to eliminate barriers altogether, which isn't immediately possible in most cases. That means I'm looking for equitability not equality in the interim. In any case, I think this completely misses the point that post-modernism isn't something that you create or happens. It's something that exists or has always existed. It's a theory that describes how things are. A massive oversimplification of post-modernism is that there are multiple perspectives on things and how those things appear depends on where you're coming from. Think of the young lady-old hag picture or the duck and bunny picture. That's not something that's created. It's just a way of conceptualizing how things are.

Edit to add: Taking what I said above, that makes the whole "anti-postmodernist" thing a bit bizarre. As bizarre as say being "anti-gravity." That's great that you don't believe in gravity but do you have a better explanation that's testable and observable in a scientifically rigorous way? But then again, what more can you expect from a crowd who "doesn't believe" in "evolution" because it's "just a theory."

What I mean by a "postmodernist" is someone who believes the theory and uses those concepts in how they frame the world in their own minds, and then uses these concepts to form policy and hiring practices etc.  ie: By breaking people down into different groups, who all have different levels of power and influence and perspectives, and applying different values to different groups based on perceived current or historical oppressed status, and treating people differently based on their perceived level of power based on their group status.

An anti-post-modernist is somebody who doesn't believe in the validity of this theoretical framework, and/or doesn't believe in its use for policy, at least not consciously, preferring the status quo, which naturally benefits groups who have more power, like men or white people or straight or rich people.  Peterson doesn't seem to have a very good view of postmodernism, which I disagree with him on since I find the theory brilliant (yes, we're simplifying the theory, it can be broad and vague), for me it's all about how far you take it.

Postmodernism isn't quite the same as gravity.  Gravity is a scientific phenomenon you can prove in a lab with specific physical laws.  Postmodernism is a theoretical framework created by the human mind as a lens to view and explain the social world, no different than any other philosophical theory, which is not hard science, but social science and not proven by hard maths and physics.

I think most people's problem on the left with Peterson's take on postmodernism is that he doesn't like how much it has dominated thought in the humanities in academics and by extension greater society, while many on the progressive left disagree with him.  Cyber you're an academic university type and seem to agree with much of the recent postmodern critical theory coming out of the universities, things like microaggressions and whatnot.  So I understand why you don't agree with Peterson.  You guys are on 2 opposing sides of the culture war, and it's become a very bitter war.  I find myself kind of in the middle, I can empathize with both sides, and don't want to be too extreme either way.  I style myself a 90's or 2000's leftist on a lot of things, which is more a Bill Maher liberal type thinking and not so much 2021 woke.  Trouble is if you're me or Bill Maher you seemed pretty progressive left-wing in 2002, but now those same thoughts seem conservative in comparison to 2021 progressiveness.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 05, 2021, 04:52:05 pm
Really?  Which part?  Be specific.

Well for starters, he frequently ties postmodernism together with Marxism. The notion that a school of thought that rejects grand narratives and one that is centred around a single grand narrative are compatible and complementary is hilarious.

here's (https://viewpointmag.com/2018/01/23/postmodernism-not-take-place-jordan-petersons-12-rules-life/) a good breakdown of his failures to understand PoMo thought. Here's (https://notesonliberty.com/2018/05/27/jordan-petersons-ignorance-of-postmodern-philosophy/) another.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on March 05, 2021, 05:29:12 pm
What I mean by a "postmodernist" is ...

It already means something !  Pick a new word.  Peterson picked "Postmodern Marxist"... which is a silly oxymoron but HE'S an academic so it looks worse on him than you.

Just say "woke" - we all know what it means. 
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 05, 2021, 07:11:16 pm
Well for starters, he frequently ties postmodernism together with Marxism. The notion that a school of thought that rejects grand narratives and one that is centred around a single grand narrative are compatible and complementary is hilarious.

There's a strong history of Marxist thought in universities in France.  Pol Pot was educated in a French university and was turned onto Marxism there.  You're telling me Derrida wasn't a Marxist at some point?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specters_of_Marx

The links between Marxism, postmodernism, and university academia are pretty clear. 
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on March 05, 2021, 07:23:23 pm
He already conceded that he was winging it, in his discussion with Zizek
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on March 05, 2021, 08:52:09 pm
There's a strong history of Marxist thought in universities in France.  Pol Pot was educated in a French university and was turned onto Marxism there.  You're telling me Derrida wasn't a Marxist at some point?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specters_of_Marx

The links between Marxism, postmodernism, and university academia are pretty clear.

What are the links between French Marxist philosophers and current university academia, other than Peterson’s crackpot assertions?  I’m dying to know.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 05, 2021, 10:20:35 pm
There's a strong history of Marxist thought in universities in France.  Pol Pot was educated in a French university and was turned onto Marxism there.  You're telling me Derrida wasn't a Marxist at some point?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specters_of_Marx

The links between Marxism, postmodernism, and university academia are pretty clear.

They're completely antithetical philosophies dude.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 06, 2021, 01:57:48 am
He already conceded that he was winging it, in his discussion with Zizek

Where?  Show us the specific link.

I just watched this debate of them.  Zizek concedes the point that Marxists turned to postmodernism when it was becoming clear in the 1960's that Marxism in practice (Stalin, Mao) had been disasterous.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 06, 2021, 02:07:17 am
They're completely antithetical philosophies dude.

In what way?  Be specific.

How is breaking down power structures by race, gender etc. using critical social theory any different than breaking down power structures by economic class?  Marxism is postmodernism in the sphere of economics.  Both theories break down an oppressor/oppressed dynamic.  Critical race theorists and Marxist are both fighting for the oppressed classes over the powerful and destroying power hierarchies.  How are they ANY different besides the oppressed groups they local on?

Find me a critical postmodern theorist and how many of them are also anti-capitalists and/or Marxist sympathizers?  Darn well all of them.  Not saying there's anything wrong with that,  but
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 06, 2021, 02:15:06 am
What are the links between French Marxist philosophers and current university academia, other than Peterson’s crackpot assertions?  I’m dying to know.

They literally conceptualized postmodernism and critical theory.  Scholars like Foucault and Derrida.  Critical race and gender theory is kind of a big deal in today's universities.  In the humanities fields it is an obsession, for better or worse.  There's academics that criticize Classics like Homer and Plato because some claim they are sexist racist white supremacist works.  There's high school teachers literally removing these ancient works from class curriculum for these reasons:  https://greekcitytimes.com/2020/12/31/teacher-proud-removing-homer/

The roots of intersectionalism comes from critical theory and postmodern philosophy.  Microaggressions don't just come from thin air, they have intellectual underpinnings.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on March 06, 2021, 05:41:37 am
Where?  Show us the specific link.

I just watched this debate of them.  Zizek concedes the point that Marxists turned to postmodernism when it was becoming clear in the 1960's that Marxism in practice (Stalin, Mao) had been disasterous.

https://youtu.be/Wsz6ijXWS3A

When Zizek brings up Foucault at the end, Peterson's word game is up... but then our slobbering, charming, kind-of Marxist uncle moves on rather than going for the kill.

The strategy for him, I was convinced, was to win over the audience and not the so-called debate.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on March 06, 2021, 05:43:41 am
And because we all seem to be following intellectual honesty here, Peterson was clear that he was playing with language. He conceives that there are no postmodern Neo marxists but that he "associates them".

Maybe it's honest, maybe he got caught.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 06, 2021, 01:19:48 pm
In what way?  Be specific.

How is breaking down power structures by race, gender etc. using critical social theory any different than breaking down power structures by economic class?  Marxism is postmodernism in the sphere of economics.  Both theories break down an oppressor/oppressed dynamic.  Critical race theorists and Marxist are both fighting for the oppressed classes over the powerful and destroying power hierarchies.  How are they ANY different besides the oppressed groups they local on?

Find me a critical postmodern theorist and how many of them are also anti-capitalists and/or Marxist sympathizers?  Darn well all of them.  Not saying there's anything wrong with that,  but

Postmodernism and critical theory aren't the same thing even if the latter does borrow from the former. You're moving the goalposts.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 06, 2021, 01:21:40 pm
Where?  Show us the specific link.

I just watched this debate of them.  Zizek concedes the point that Marxists turned to postmodernism when it was becoming clear in the 1960's that Marxism in practice (Stalin, Mao) had been disasterous.

So they abandoned Marxism for a different ideology and you think that makes Petersons's point that postmodernism and marxism are the same thing? Come on.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on March 06, 2021, 03:25:24 pm
Postmodernism and critical theory aren't the same thing even if the latter does borrow from the former. You're moving the goalposts.

I can't tell if he's saying they're the same thing, or - as Zizek asks - if he is saying there are people who are calling themselves that.  The 2nd option would be more tenable... if he had any examples.  He doesn't, though.  He goes with something weak like "the reason *I* associate them... ".  And Zizek lets him off the hook by saying he knows what he means, and agreeing with him.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 06, 2021, 03:57:51 pm
So they abandoned Marxism for a different ideology and you think that makes Petersons's point that postmodernism and marxism are the same thing? Come on.

He never said they're the same thing, that's a strawman.

Zizek, a Marxist, even tells Peterson in the video MH posted that he agrees with the main point he's trying to say.  He just asks "where are all these Marxist postmodernists"?  Uhmm has he been inside a university classroom in the last 10 years?

Critical social theory, postmodernism, and intersectionality have all built on each other over the last 100 years.  I would say postmodernism is the least political of the three theories.  As you say, postmodernism would actually reject Marxism as a meta-narrative.  It's really more accurate to call progressives today intersectionalists or critical social theorists, or people using postmoderism in a political way (which is a bastardization of postmodernism).  Even intersectionality isn't inherently political.  Breaking down some social phenomena by race, gender etc is simply a way of seeing things through different lenses and breaking down humans into different variables.  But people inevitably put a value judgement on variables they see as oppressed categories (racial minorities, women etc) vs the privileged (male, white).  Intersectionality is a popular theory increasingly seen in university classrooms over the last 10 years, and IMO has been politicized, with oppression and privilege being added to its definition and co-opted by feminists and other groups for political agendas, for better or worse.  I think it describes today's "woke" ideology very well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

"Intersectionality is an analytical framework for understanding how aspects of a person's social and political identities combine to create different modes of discrimination and privilege. Examples of these aspects include gender, caste, sex, race, class, sexuality, religion, disability, physical appearance,[1][2] and height.[3] Intersectionality identifies multiple factors of advantage and disadvantage."

So anyways, we can argue about definitions and terms, and we can argue that Peterson should use term X over term Y, but as Zizek says he knows the point that Peterson is trying to make.  I'm not arguing he can't make his point better.  He could maybe use a better word than "cultural Marxists", but most will know what he means when using the term.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on March 06, 2021, 04:51:28 pm
Zizek is a bloody clown too.  He has 2 PhD’s in philosophy but still comes up with something monumentally stupid like supporting Trump over Clinton because the Dems aren’t running a candidate who is leftist enough for him.

Yeah, ok...  that’s a winning strategy right there. 

Both of these idiots are evidence that getting a PhD in social sciences is essentially a meaningless determiner as to your actual ability to be a rational thinker. 

Neither has anything got add to the grand conversations about society. 
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 06, 2021, 08:28:25 pm
Both of these idiots are evidence that getting a PhD in social sciences is essentially a meaningless determiner as to your actual ability to be a rational thinker. 

Neither has anything got add to the grand conversations about society.

I think anyone who goes against the zeitgeist of society will be bombarded by people who are going to try to nail them to a cross.

There's no perfect academic, they're only as good as each of their arguments.  All ideas in our society need to be questioned, but some people are determined to destroy anyone who dares, which I suppose is natural.  Again, it's a culture war to control the zeitgeist.  Cultural hegemony.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on March 06, 2021, 08:33:29 pm
1) supporting Trump over Clinton because the Dems aren’t running a candidate who is leftist enough for him.

2) Both of these idiots are evidence that getting a PhD in social sciences is essentially a meaningless determiner as to your actual ability to be a rational thinker. 

3)Neither has anything got add to the grand conversations about society.
1) Well... how much he "supported" is a question.  He sort of backtracked and just said he hoped Trump would win as it would hasten a leftist resurgence.  How did that go now ?  :D

2) You really think a lot of yourself, I am starting to figure out.

3) Of course not, because YOU haven't ascended yet.  Let's go Squid - get on the podium !
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 07, 2021, 01:17:48 pm
So anyways, we can argue about definitions and terms, and we can argue that Peterson should use term X over term Y, but as Zizek says he knows the point that Peterson is trying to make.  I'm not arguing he can't make his point better.  He could maybe use a better word than "cultural Marxists", but most will know what he means when using the term.

Jews?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on March 07, 2021, 04:33:28 pm

2) You really think a lot of yourself, I am starting to figure out.

True, I do not have self esteem issues, and I try and be a sceptic and a rational thinker.


Quote
3) Of course not, because YOU haven't ascended yet.  Let's go Squid - get on the podium !

I never inferred that anyone should listen to my advice on a given topic, nor do I hold myself up as an expert.   

These guys do, and yet if you look at their own actions with a critical eye, they clearly are a couple of idiots. 
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: cybercoma on March 08, 2021, 06:49:40 pm

The links between Marxism, postmodernism, and university academia are pretty clear.
only to those who have no idea what Marxism and postmodernism are. They’re mutually exclusive. You can’t be a Marxist, who believes in a grand narrative, and a postmodernist, which REJECTS grand narratives.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: cybercoma on March 08, 2021, 06:51:26 pm
Jews?
Frankfurt School! They’re controlling everything!
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 08, 2021, 09:23:54 pm
only to those who have no idea what Marxism and postmodernism are. They’re mutually exclusive. You can’t be a Marxist, who believes in a grand narrative, and a postmodernist, which REJECTS grand narratives.

Not sure I agree with all he's saying here, but from the horses mouth:

https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/postmodernism-definition-and-critique-with-a-few-comments-on-its-relationship-with-marxism/

Quote
It’s not as if I personally think that postmodernism and Marxism are commensurate. It’s obvious to me that the much-vaunted “skepticism toward grand narratives” that is part and parcel of the postmodern viewpoint makes any such alliance logically impossible. Postmodernists should be as skeptical toward Marxism as toward any other canonical belief system.

So the formal postmodern claim, such as it is, is radical skepticism. But that’s not at all how it has played out in theory or in practice. Derrida and Foucault were, for example, barely repentant Marxists, if repentant at all. They parleyed their 1960’s bourgeoisie vs proletariat rhetoric into the identity politics that has plagued us since the 1970’s. Foucault’s fundamental implicit (and often explicit) claim is that power relations govern society. That’s a rehashing of the Marxist claim of eternal and primary class warfare. Derrida’s hypothetical concern for the marginalized is a version of the same thing. I don’t really care if either of them made the odd statement about disagreeing with the Marxist doctrines: their fundamental claims are still soaked in those patterns of thought.
...
So: postmodernism, by its nature (at least with regard to skepticism) cannot ally itself with Marxism. But it does, practically. The dominance of postmodern Marxist rhetoric in the academy (which is a matter of fact, as laid out by the Heterodox Academy, among other sources) attests to that. The fact that such an alliance is illogical cannot be laid at my feet, just because I point out that the alliance exists. I agree that it’s illogical. That doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 08, 2021, 09:47:11 pm
Not sure I agree with all he's saying here, but from the horses mouth:

https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/postmodernism-definition-and-critique-with-a-few-comments-on-its-relationship-with-marxism/

Jordan Peterson: "Then again, coherence isn’t one of (postmodernists) strong points."

Also Jordan Peterson:

 (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/73/9b/d1/739bd16f897ac350af2bbf45f633e233.png)
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 08, 2021, 09:52:10 pm
Frankfurt School! They’re controlling everything!

Marx and many critical theorists from the Frankfurt School were Jewish, but I don't think there was a "Jewish conspiracy", I think it's simply that there were lots of Jews in Germany pre-WWII and many of them were well-educated.

Critical theory from the Frankfurt School is pretty much mainstream leftist thought.  Add intersectionalism and you have 2021 in a nutshell.  Critical theory is Marxism expanded to all social spheres beyond economics:

"Critical theory: Marxist-inspired movement in social and political philosophy originally associated with the work of the Frankfurt School. Drawing particularly on the thought of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, critical theorists maintain that a primary goal of philosophy is to understand and to help overcome the social structures through which people are dominated and oppressed.".

https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-theory

Not sure I agree with Peterson's focus on postmodernism over critical theory and intersectionality.  But there would be no postmodernism without critical theory, and there would be no intersectionalism without those 2 prior philosophies.  And a lot of these 3 theories have links with Marxism, in the case of postmodernism in its philosophical roots and some of its theorists maybe rather than the theory itself.  Most university students graduate as intersectionalist Marxist sympathizers.  Many are socialists, feminists, critical race theorists etc.  I graduated uni with this thinking too.  It's very clear that these philosophies absolutely dominate universities in recent years, and have spread into wider society.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 08, 2021, 09:54:24 pm
Marx and many critical theorists from the Frankfurt School were Jewish, but I don't think there was a "Jewish conspiracy", I think it's simply that there were lots of Jews in Germany pre-WWII and many of them were well-educated.

Critical theory from the Frankfurt School is pretty much mainstream leftist thought.  Add intersectionalism and you have 2021 in a nutshell.  Critical theory is Marxism expanded to all social spheres beyond economics:

"Critical theory: Marxist-inspired movement in social and political philosophy originally associated with the work of the Frankfurt School. Drawing particularly on the thought of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, critical theorists maintain that a primary goal of philosophy is to understand and to help overcome the social structures through which people are dominated and oppressed.".

https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-theory

Not sure I agree with Peterson's focus on postmodernism over critical theory and intersectionality.  But there would be no postmodernism without critical theory, and there would be no intersectionalism without those 2 prior philosophies.  And a lot of these 3 theories have links with Marxism, in the case of postmodernism in its philosophical roots and some of its theorists maybe rather than the theory itself.  Most university students graduate as intersectionalist Marxist sympathizers.  Many are socialists, feminists, critical race theorists etc.  I graduated uni with this thinking too.  It's very clear that these philosophies absolutely dominate universities in recent years, and have spread into wider society.

lmao the absolute state of this.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 08, 2021, 10:07:44 pm
If you go to university in recent years and you're an sympathetic person (aka decent human being) it's very hard not to graduate as an intersectional Marxist sympathizer given that most every course in the social sciences and other fields are going to teach about intersectionalism and Marxist lenses.  The actual validity of those philosophies is a discussion for another day.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on March 09, 2021, 06:25:31 am
... are going to teach about intersectionalism and Marxist lenses.   

You are falling into the Peterson trap by putting these two together.  Remember above ?  Where I showed you when we dismantled the term "post modern Marxism" ?

Really it's "woke" people, and "woke" is a question of degrees of wokeness... you can't stop it, since you are more "woke" than your grandparents were
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: cybercoma on March 09, 2021, 10:00:38 am
lmao the absolute state of this.
Intersectionalist Marxist sympathizers lmao

No thanks, I’m full. I’ll pass on the word salad and stick to the realm of meaning.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 09, 2021, 10:06:26 am
If you go to university in recent years and you're an sympathetic person (aka decent human being) it's very hard not to graduate as an intersectional Marxist sympathizer given that most every course in the social sciences and other fields are going to teach about intersectionalism and Marxist lenses.  The actual validity of those philosophies is a discussion for another day.

Gonna need some kinda citation for that one!

The largest field of study at postsecondary institutions in Canada is "business, management and public administration" followed by "architecture, engineering and related technologies." The humanities is a distant fifth with about 45,000 grads a year. You might get a taste of what you're talking about in sociology, you're certainly not getting a intersectional Marxist whatever indoctrination in fields like law or economics or (lol) engineering.

So: let's see some proof.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 09, 2021, 10:07:25 am
Intersectionalist Marxist sympathizers lmao

No thanks, I’m full. I’ll pass on the word salad and stick to the realm of meaning.

Don't venture out there without a map, there are Chaos Dragons everywhere!

GG is doing peterson's thing of throwing enough gobbeldydgook to make it look like the fundamental argument ("woke bad!") has some actual intellectual credibility.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 09, 2021, 02:42:56 pm
Intersectionalist Marxist sympathizers lmao

No thanks, I’m full. I’ll pass on the word salad and stick to the realm of meaning.

Don't shoot the messenger.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 09, 2021, 02:46:58 pm
Gonna need some kinda citation for that one!

The largest field of study at postsecondary institutions in Canada is "business, management and public administration" followed by "architecture, engineering and related technologies." The humanities is a distant fifth with about 45,000 grads a year. You might get a taste of what you're talking about in sociology, you're certainly not getting a intersectional Marxist whatever indoctrination in fields like law or economics or (lol) engineering.

So: let's see some proof.

That's why I said the social sciences, nothing you said is relevant to what I said.  Re-read what I wrote.  No sh!t they don't learn about Marxism in engineering lol.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 09, 2021, 02:49:17 pm
Don't venture out there without a map, there are Chaos Dragons everywhere!

GG is doing peterson's thing of throwing enough gobbeldydgook to make it look like the fundamental argument ("woke bad!") has some actual intellectual credibility.

I never even said woke bad.  I said woke popular.

Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 09, 2021, 02:51:39 pm
That's why I said the social sciences, nothing you said is relevant to what I said.  Re-read what I wrote.  No sh!t they don't learn about Marxism in engineering lol.

You literally said "most university students graduate as intersectionalist Marxist sympathizers."

Derp.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 09, 2021, 02:52:26 pm
I never even said woke bad.  I said woke popular.

You don't need to say it when it comes through loud and clear in your posts. Also, "woke bad" is pretty much Lobsterboys' whole stance.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 09, 2021, 02:59:26 pm
Intersectionalist Marxist sympathizers lmao

No thanks, I’m full. I’ll pass on the word salad and stick to the realm of meaning.

Are you saying the majority of university students in the social sciences don't graduate as ardent intersectionalists or Marxist sympathizers/socialists?  Did you?  Do you believe in and support intersectionalism, critical theory through lenses like feminism and critical race theory?  Do you sympathize with Marxism or socialism?  You are an NDP national pharmacare supporter are you not?

Did they teach you more about classic liberalism in university, or more about anti-neoliberalism and intersectionalism, critical theory, Marxist lenses etc?  I know the answer because I went to university.

Just own your sh!t.  As I said, don't shoot the messenger.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 09, 2021, 03:00:43 pm
You literally said "most university students graduate as intersectionalist Marxist sympathizers."

Derp.


If you go to university in recent years and you're an sympathetic person (aka decent human being) it's very hard not to graduate as an intersectional Marxist sympathizer given that most every course in the social sciences and other fields are going to teach about intersectionalism and Marxist lenses.  The actual validity of those philosophies is a discussion for another day.

Derp
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 09, 2021, 03:01:57 pm

If you go to university in recent years and you're an sympathetic person (aka decent human being) it's very hard not to graduate as an intersectional Marxist sympathizer given that most every course in the social sciences and other fields are going to teach about intersectionalism and Marxist lenses.  The actual validity of those philosophies is a discussion for another day.

Derp

Did you or did you not say "most university students graduate as intersectionalist Marxist sympathizers?"

Do you think "most" university students are in the social sciences and humanities or do you just like being wrong?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 09, 2021, 03:05:12 pm
You don't need to say it when it comes through loud and clear in your posts. Also, "woke bad" is pretty much Lobsterboys' whole stance.

Then own your sh!t.  You think woke good.  That's why you don't like Peterson.  You can make up all the reasons you want, but you'll never like him no matter what he says because you and him are opponents in the cultural war.  No different than cyberc.

Peterson says woke bad, which is obviously debatable, but he also says universities are woke mills.  He's not wrong.  If you think woke good, then you should embrace it.  Who cares if the label for woke is "postmodern cultural marxism" or something else, woke is woke.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 09, 2021, 03:13:12 pm
Then own your sh!t.  You think woke good.  That's why you don't like Peterson.  You can make up all the reasons you want, but you'll never like him no matter what he says because you and him are opponents in the cultural war.  No different than cyberc.

You've got it exactly backwards. I don't think Peterson is wrong because he's anti-woke, I think he's anti-woke because he's wrong and very, very stupid, which leads him to make fantastical claims.

Quote
Peterson says woke bad, which is obviously debatable, but he also says universities are woke mills.  He's not wrong.  If you think woke good, then you should embrace it.  Who cares if the label for woke is "postmodern cultural marxism" or something else, woke is woke.

You're begging the question. If he's right, you certainly haven't shown it here.

Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 09, 2021, 03:28:14 pm
Well can we all agree that "cultural Marxism" is a stupid term at least?  Like Zizek I get what Peterson and others mean by the term, but it just isn't a good term.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 09, 2021, 03:41:12 pm
Well can we all agree that "cultural Marxism" is a stupid term at least?  Like Zizek I get what Peterson and others mean by the term, but it just isn't a good term.

Isn't the fact that Peterson loves the term an indication that he might not be the brain genius he's advertised as?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 09, 2021, 06:31:20 pm
Isn't the fact that Peterson loves the term an indication that he might not be the brain genius he's advertised as?

He's a good psychologist but in his political commentary he has no expertise so he's just a guy with opinions.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: cybercoma on March 09, 2021, 08:22:01 pm
He's a good psychologist but in his political commentary he has no expertise so he's just a guy with opinions.
opinions that he tries to peddle as expertise.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 10, 2021, 10:11:46 am
He's a good psychologist but in his political commentary he has no expertise so he's just a guy with opinions.

Again, he's not famous for his clinical practice.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 10, 2021, 01:48:28 pm
opinions that he tries to peddle as expertise.

In what way?  By going on tv shows and giving his opinion?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 10, 2021, 02:17:13 pm
In what way?  By going on tv shows and giving his opinion?

While claiming expertise he doesn't have (like in that BBC interview when he claimed to be an evolutionary biologist).

****, even his cultural Marxism rigamarole is outside of his wheelhouse as a clinical psychologist.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on March 10, 2021, 02:20:39 pm
While claiming expertise he doesn't have (like in that BBC interview when he claimed to be an evolutionary biologist).

****, even his cultural Marxism rigamarole is outside of his wheelhouse as a clinical psychologist.

What about Philosophy ?  He comments on Nietzsche and at least once I recall him adding "and that's good" after Peterson blessed Nietzsche with his approval of a piece.... JFC
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on March 10, 2021, 02:29:19 pm
You actually don’t need letters behind your name to give an opinion on something.   The opinion will rise or fall on its own merits. 

However, Petersen’s arguments often fail (the whole cultural Marxism mislabeling), are often word salad nonsense (his views on religion) and he demonstrates a severe lack of critical thinking (the all-meat diet fiasco).
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on March 10, 2021, 02:32:37 pm
However, Petersen’s arguments often fail (the whole cultural Marxism mislabeling), are often word salad nonsense (his views on religion) and he demonstrates a severe lack of critical thinking (the all-meat diet fiasco).

I agree and I find it shocking.  When you pair it with the uncritical support of people who don't know the conventions of academic rigour it becomes annoying. 

It's all annoying, because there are plenty of smart people who like him because he offers self-help to the lost, too.  So his flock, and his body of work, and people who tolerate him and who think he's ok is a mish-mash... he's .... nothing.  Just the outline of what a public intellectual could be if he had broad appeal, and was careful with his words and thinking.

Just a shame. 

Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 10, 2021, 02:41:23 pm
You actually don’t need letters behind your name to give an opinion on something.   The opinion will rise or fall on its own merits. 

However, Petersen’s arguments often fail (the whole cultural Marxism mislabeling), are often word salad nonsense (his views on religion) and he demonstrates a severe lack of critical thinking (the all-meat diet fiasco).

You do, however, need to be an evolutionary biologist if you claim to be evolutionary biologist.

Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on March 10, 2021, 02:45:51 pm
You do, however, need to be an evolutionary biologist if you claim to be evolutionary biologist.

I think so too....   but I don’t tend to hold it against someone when they mis-speak, which is likely what happened. 

Especially if one is on the pills and eating an all meat diet. 
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 10, 2021, 02:54:00 pm
I agree and I find it shocking.  When you pair it with the uncritical support of people who don't know the conventions of academic rigour it becomes annoying. 

It's all annoying, because there are plenty of smart people who like him because he offers self-help to the lost, too.  So his flock, and his body of work, and people who tolerate him and who think he's ok is a mish-mash... he's .... nothing.  Just the outline of what a public intellectual could be if he had broad appeal, and was careful with his words and thinking.

Just a shame.

He should be more careful with his words, I agree.  I don't understand the meat diet bashing, his health problems were due to prescription benzo withdrawal reaction.  This is another case of those who don't like him seeking to discredit him by any means they can, even if spreading lies.

It's also interesting to compare him to another public intellectual like Noam Chomsky.  Chomsky's academic expertise is linguistics, yet he's more known for his political commentary.  I think Chomsky is just a guy who is very well read and keeps informed on the news.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on March 10, 2021, 02:57:29 pm
1. I don't understand the meat diet bashing, his health problems were due to prescription benzo withdrawal reaction.

2. It's also interesting to compare him to another public intellectual like Noam Chomsky.  Chomsky's academic expertise is linguistics, yet he's more known for his political commentary.  I think Chomsky is just a guy who is very well read and keeps informed on the news.
1. He's kind of a ridiculous figure, and unfortunately people are bashing him when he is down in every way.  I will admit to ridiculing his voice.
2. Chomsky would never have been a shadow of what Peterson's potential is.  He could have been a cross between Dr. Phil and a public intellectual... if he were smarter, more empathetic, more careful with words etc.

They would love to have somebody like that to put on TV.  Chomsky can't get arrested.  Another one I really like is Dr. Richard Wolff... a friendly, avuncular Marxist...
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 10, 2021, 03:01:41 pm
Hey i just learned Peterson has a BA in political science LOL.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on March 10, 2021, 03:12:03 pm
Hey i just learned Peterson has a BA in political science LOL.

Nothing for therapy ?  I think you used to be able to call yourself a therapist without credentials.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: cybercoma on March 12, 2021, 09:59:15 am
You actually don’t need letters behind your name to give an opinion on something.
I agree with you but come on, man. Clearly he's using his role as an academic to promote himself and try to give his opinions more weight. If he was just giving personal opinions and not throwing his profession around, we wouldn't even know him as a university professor or clinical psychologist. How many times have you heard his profession mentioned, yet we never see any of his peer-reviewed academic work referenced. It's asinine, honestly.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on March 18, 2021, 10:32:00 pm
"Information is the continuity of the doorway to truth”

"Death exists as unique bliss, I just can't understand"

(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wisdomofpeterson.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F03%2FJP_anim11_calc.gif&hash=1b8c5e210268dc9f33bd0d4695a8d23267874755)

http://www.wisdomofpeterson.com/
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 19, 2021, 03:09:12 pm
H8ters gonna h8.  Maybe you should attend one of his lectures and learn how to be a man instead of a bitter old snarky internet troll.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 19, 2021, 03:54:40 pm
H8ters gonna h8.  Maybe you should attend one of his lectures and learn how to be a man instead of a bitter old snarky internet troll.

The best description I've ever heard of JP is that he's a dumb person's idea of a smart person. But hey as the Simpsons said:

(https://frinkiac.com/meme/S07E03/338887.jpg?b64lines=U3R1cGlkIGJhYmllcyBuZWVkIAp0aGUgbW9zdCBhdHRlbnRpb24uIA==)
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on March 19, 2021, 04:37:00 pm
The best description I've ever heard of JP is that he's a dumb person's idea of a smart person. But hey as the Simpsons said:

It’s shocking how many white guys find his word salad nonsense to be somehow intelligible. He’s the patriarch of the intel movement.  If anyone learns “how to be a man” from this crackpot, they’re doing it wrong.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 19, 2021, 10:21:54 pm
The best description I've ever heard of JP is that he's a dumb person's idea of a smart person. But hey as the Simpsons said:

H8ers gonna h8.

Peterson Rule for Life #2784:  Being bitter and resentful is a winning strategy for life, and this forum is filled with winners.

I really don't understand why some of you guys are so angry.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 19, 2021, 10:23:44 pm
Wait I figured it out:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on March 20, 2021, 05:24:45 am
I really don't understand why some of you guys are so angry.

I get why people get angry over JP.  We NEED a voice of this tone, but to unify us and bring everyone together.  Instead, we get another toxic disappointment, a faux intellectual who charms the ignorant and - rather than unify - reinforces their chauvinism.

the so-called postmodern neo Marxists are on a war footing because they have seen the entire structure of western publics works to marginalize those outside the center.  They are angry but they don't aspire to be what Peterson is doing, ie. a voice that is broadly influential.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: eyeball on March 20, 2021, 11:29:33 am
the so-called postmodern neo Marxists are on a war footing because they have seen the entire structure of western publics works to marginalize those outside the center.
Hmm...they've seen its still the innies vs the outies? How pedestrian.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 20, 2021, 12:12:32 pm
H8ers gonna h8.

Peterson Rule for Life #2784:  Being bitter and resentful is a winning strategy for life, and this forum is filled with winners.

I really don't understand why some of you guys are so angry.

That you think this muppet voiced pillhead grifter is a genius says a lot more about you than us TBH.

Once again, it's obvious you're not interested in actually understanding why people have beef with this knucklehead.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: the_squid on March 20, 2021, 01:21:21 pm
H8ers gonna h8.

Peterson Rule for Life #2784:  Being bitter and resentful is a winning strategy for life, and this forum is filled with winners.

I really don't understand why some of you guys are so angry.

You’re taking disagreeing vehemently on an Internet forum made for debating these things with a person being angry.   
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 20, 2021, 05:24:05 pm
That you think this muppet voiced pillhead grifter is a genius says a lot more about you than us TBH.

Once again, it's obvious you're not interested in actually understanding why people have beef with this knucklehead.

Did I say he's a genius?  I know full well why people don't like his political opinions, and that's fine, I don't agree with all of them either, people will never agree on anyone's political opinions.  Here's how I started this convo, and of course the h8ers went right away to trying to discredit his psychology self-help by railing at his political opinions.  I wanted to talk about his self-help and all i get is FAKE ACADEMIC KERMIT GRIFTER cuz h8ters gonna h8.

Jordan now has 2 books in the top 10 best sellers on Amazon.ca.

His books aren't political, they're essentially basic psychology self-help books about life.  I heard someone say that Jordan is like a father-figure for people who didn't have a strong father figure growing up, which I think is a big part of his appeal.  He says things people need to hear about psychology and life, things that a compassionate mother or female teacher sometimes may not say, and people need to hear these things, especially men.

His political opinions people can easily disagree on and I get people who don't like him for that.  But to see the millions he's helped as a popular psychologist and to deny that work and appeal I think is either inhuman or someone just doesn't understand it.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 20, 2021, 05:25:22 pm
You’re taking disagreeing vehemently on an Internet forum made for debating these things with a person being angry.

No I'm taking consistently poisonous bitter replies as coming from poisonous bitter people.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 21, 2021, 12:01:40 pm
Did I say he's a genius?  I know full well why people don't like his political opinions, and that's fine, I don't agree with all of them either, people will never agree on anyone's political opinions.  Here's how I started this convo, and of course the h8ers went right away to trying to discredit his psychology self-help by railing at his political opinions.  I wanted to talk about his self-help and all i get is FAKE ACADEMIC KERMIT GRIFTER cuz h8ters gonna h8.

ah bloo bloo bloo ****.

Want to talk about his self-help books? They suck. You'd be better off reading Marie Kondo instead, at least she has practical advice without the faux intellectual hard on for hierarchies.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on March 21, 2021, 12:47:19 pm
@graham

I will repeat:


I get why people get angry over JP.  We NEED a voice of this tone, but to unify us and bring everyone together.  Instead, we get another toxic disappointment, a faux intellectual who charms the ignorant and - rather than unify - reinforces their chauvinism.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 21, 2021, 04:30:07 pm
ah bloo bloo bloo ****.

Want to talk about his self-help books? They suck. You'd be better off reading Marie Kondo instead, at least she has practical advice without the faux intellectual hard on for hierarchies.

That's weird that you read a book by someone you despise.  We all know you didn't read it and have no idea what you're talking about.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 21, 2021, 04:56:39 pm
@graham

I will repeat:


I get why people get angry over JP.  We NEED a voice of this tone, but to unify us and bring everyone together.  Instead, we get another toxic disappointment, a faux intellectual who charms the ignorant and - rather than unify - reinforces their chauvinism.

He can be an ass, this is undeniable.  Sometimes his arguments are wrong, and sometimes even stupid.  I refer mainly to his political arguments.  I don't in any way hold his political opinions up to be in any way flawless.  He's also not the ideal academic, because a true ideal academic would be far less political and try to be more objective.  But sometimes he says things which need to be said, and most are afraid to say it because they'll be attacked like Peterson is.  He can also lose his temper sometimes, he's a pretty intense dude even when calm.  I think when you're attacked constantly on many tv programs you appear on, which is already a stressful environment, losing one's temper becomes even more likely.  If the standard is perfection, then he isn't that at all.

I don't think his role is to be a unifier.  Sure that would be nice.  The role he has chosen is to make unapologetic arguments that are contrary to the modern mainstream liberal paradigm, which of course will make you a lot of enemies from those who buy hard into the paradigm.

He has helped millions of people with his psychology/self-help stuff, this is by far his most valuable contribution.  A lot of it is to simply grow up and take responsibility in one's life. For those that refuse to do so or enable others to not do so I guess I can see why they might not like him for that.

None of this will change the way anyone sees him, people have made up their minds.  H8ers gonna h8.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on March 21, 2021, 05:12:39 pm
He can be an ass, this is undeniable.  Sometimes his arguments are wrong, and sometimes even stupid.  I refer mainly to his political arguments.  I don't in any way hold his political opinions up to be in any way flawless.  He's also not the ideal academic, because a true ideal academic would be far less political and try to be more objective.  But sometimes he says things which need to be said, and most are afraid to say it because they'll be attacked like Peterson is.  He can also lose his temper sometimes, he's a pretty intense dude even when calm.  I think when you're attacked constantly on many tv programs you appear on, which is already a stressful environment, losing one's temper becomes even more likely.  If the standard is perfection, then he isn't that at all.

Ok.

Quote
I don't think his role is to be a unifier.  Sure that would be nice.  The role he has chosen is to make unapologetic arguments that are contrary to the modern mainstream liberal paradigm, which of course will make you a lot of enemies from those who buy hard into the paradigm.

I'm just trying to explain why people get upset with him.

Quote
He has helped millions of people with his psychology/self-help stuff, this is by far his most valuable contribution.  A lot of it is to simply grow up and take responsibility in one's life. For those that refuse to do so or enable others to not do so I guess I can see why they might not like him for that.

If it helps a single person then good.  It's still 'iffy' and sketchy if he doles out advice and doesn't take it.  But ok.

Quote
None of this will change the way anyone sees him, people have made up their minds.  H8ers gonna h8.

I stand by my reason as to why h8trs h8 P8rson
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 21, 2021, 05:18:23 pm
I'm just trying to explain why people get upset with him.

He's a culture warrior and it's a culture war.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on March 21, 2021, 07:25:47 pm
He's a culture warrior and it's a culture war.

You're not getting it.

Who do the Trumpys hate more: John McCain or AOC ?  Mitt Romney or Oprah Winfrey ?

The turncoats are the ones that are hated.  Peterson is inside the fort - a U of T academic ? 
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 21, 2021, 09:31:05 pm
You're not getting it.

Who do the Trumpys hate more: John McCain or AOC ?  Mitt Romney or Oprah Winfrey ?

The turncoats are the ones that are hated.  Peterson is inside the fort - a U of T academic ?

He's hated because people don't like his politics. All the people who hate him greatly dislike his political opinions. Transphobe anti-feminist upholding the white patriarchy.  Most people use the "he's not a great academic" as a cover to discredit him because they hate him.  Most people don't give a crap about lazy academics if they're fighting on their side of the culture war.  Hence Peterson and Michael Eric Dyson are celebs and then fight when they get in a room together because they say dumb and rude things as angry sword-carrying culture warriors...and their minions get angry and pile on.

CULTURE WAR.

100% of the people who like Jordan have right or center-right leanings, and 100% of the people who hate him have left or center-left leanings.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on March 21, 2021, 10:22:30 pm
That's weird that you read a book by someone you despise.  We all know you didn't read it and have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't need to eat s**t to know it's bad.

His self help stuff is trite and the rest of his schtick is toxic.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: waldo on April 02, 2021, 11:06:12 am
Alberta's new K-6 curriculum... If you need further evidence that this is really f**ked up, it's been endorsed by the stupidest man alive (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ex5mlwfVEAEMLzv?format=jpg&name=medium).

a true reveal twitter thread... showcasing some of Peterson's finest - video lasts forevah!

https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1331505661817937921
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on July 20, 2021, 08:01:59 pm
I bought Jordan's 10 rules book, was a good price, put it on the shelf for future perusing.  His book is filled with psychology citations/footnotes.  It is not a political book.

I still maintain that his political opinions are just one man's opinions, people will like or dislike them based on their political leanings so take them or leave them whatever (he has no formal academic expertise on politics), but his work as a clinical psychologist is fantastic if not brilliant and can and have helped and/or saved many, many people.  H8ers gonna H8 but the proof is in the pudding, meaning the countless who thank him for his work and the impact it has had on his life.

People will disagree, but IMO his work as a clinical psychologist makes him the most important public intellectual of the 21th century thus far.,simply based on the lives he's turning around  People should try to forget his politics and listen to what he has to say in his field of expertise.

I will not respond to criticisms of him based on his political positions because its boring and besides my point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJrEaLYacwc
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on July 20, 2021, 08:11:41 pm

I still maintain that his political opinions are just one man's opinions, people will like or dislike them based on their political leanings so take them or leave them whatever (he has no formal academic expertise on politics), but his work as a clinical psychologist is fantastic if not brilliant and can and have helped and/or saved many, many people.  H8ers gonna H8 but the proof is in the pudding, meaning the countless who thank him for his work and the impact it has had on his life.

How would you know that unless he treated someone you knew ?

Quote
People will disagree, but IMO his work as a clinical psychologist makes him the most important public intellectual of the 20th century thus far.,simply based on the lives he's turning around  People should try to forget his politics and listen to what he has to say in his field of expertise.

The 20th century... thus... far.... uh...

I can accept that he's a good doctor but ... intellectually, no.
Quote
I will not respond to criticisms of him based on his political positions because its boring and besides my point.

Nobody should criticize anyone based on POSITIONS.  I trust that almost any position is held by someone somewhere smarter than you or me.

I have been listening to this (again) ... these people are intellectuals.  Note how they don't descend into a pissing match even though their positions are extremely different.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4Jcl7tmt9k&t=1s
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on July 20, 2021, 09:56:45 pm
How would you know that unless he treated someone you knew ?

Reviews of his book from verified buyers on Amazon, Youtube comments, comments from him during interviews etc.

Quote
The 20th century... thus... far.... uh...
21st century, correct my error.

Quote
I have been listening to this (again) ... these people are intellectuals.  Note how they don't descend into a pissing match even though their positions are extremely different.

He's not often a good debater on political topics.  Your criticism is fair.  Depending on his mood he tends to get agitated/angry easily.  Maybe some of this is due to him being a prof and used to being on a pulpit for decades rather than being legitimately questioned regularly.  I think some of it is also the nature of discussing politics, which is more personal and activist in nature.  Discussing politics can get very emotional and people get defensive easily ("religion and politics" as they say). I think people with an academic background in political science and similar subjects tend to be better at looking at political issues from an academic perspective rather than an activist perspective since that's how they're trained.  In political discussions he's positioned himself as a culture warrior rather than an academic.

People don't even want to listen to the academics on political issues.  You get accused of the 'all sides" argument and people want you to draw a line in the sand.  If you want to properly study ie: fascism or Donald Trump it's irrelevant whether you're for it or against it personally, that will just insert personal bias into your research.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on July 20, 2021, 10:26:10 pm
I have been listening to this (again) ... these people are intellectuals.  Note how they don't descend into a pissing match even though their positions are extremely different.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4Jcl7tmt9k&t=1s

Here's what i'm talking about.  Listen to this question and the response by Peterson, the whole clip should run about 4-5 minutes.  It's about attaining happiness, it's not about politics.  The answer is insightful.  This is the type of stuff that has helped many people:

https://youtu.be/qsHJ3LvUWTs?t=6968
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on July 21, 2021, 05:00:58 am
Ok, I think that the only thing that you are saying that I question is any evidence of brilliance.

So if you are saying it on the basis of online reviews of his self help books, I can't buy in.  Sure, it's great to have a program that is helpful to people but there are a lot of lost souls out there.  And as I said above, what we really need is someone who can both help these lost souls as well as unify.

But also you have given me a video, where I can judge for myself.  I will look at it.

I have a friend, far to the left of me and older, who moved to Vancouver Island and he started writing to me about JP.  Because I only know about his fumbling political statements I fought him.  But maybe there's something there.

I did one self help program: Seven Habits of Effective People by Covey.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on July 21, 2021, 02:17:36 pm
Here's what i'm talking about.  Listen to this question and the response by Peterson, the whole clip should run about 4-5 minutes.  It's about attaining happiness, it's not about politics.  The answer is insightful.  This is the type of stuff that has helped many people:
 

I suppose so.  But who ?  People who are lost, no doubt.  So it's a good bit of self-help for people adrift in a damaged society.

Do JP's own fans feel they need this advice ?  Or are they applauding him for telling other people to do it ?

He also falls on the same rocks that other moralists have: his own moral failing.

But I'll give you that this is the best part of his schtick.  I am also very sad that he made the very bad decision to get famous first as a political figure because that cut out the possibility for him to provide the greatest utility as a unifier.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Black Dog on July 21, 2021, 03:29:13 pm
I bought Jordan's 10 rules book, was a good price, put it on the shelf for future perusing.  His book is filled with psychology citations/footnotes.  It is not a political book.

I still maintain that his political opinions are just one man's opinions, people will like or dislike them based on their political leanings so take them or leave them whatever (he has no formal academic expertise on politics), but his work as a clinical psychologist is fantastic if not brilliant and can and have helped and/or saved many, many people.  H8ers gonna H8 but the proof is in the pudding, meaning the countless who thank him for his work and the impact it has had on his life.

People will disagree, but IMO his work as a clinical psychologist makes him the most important public intellectual of the 21th century thus far.,simply based on the lives he's turning around  People should try to forget his politics and listen to what he has to say in his field of expertise.

Did every other public intellectual die?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on July 23, 2021, 05:24:16 pm
He also falls on the same rocks that other moralists have: his own moral failing.

And what would that be?

Quote
But I'll give you that this is the best part of his schtick.  I am also very sad that he made the very bad decision to get famous first as a political figure because that cut out the possibility for him to provide the greatest utility as a unifier.

He didn't decide to get famous.  He spoke his mind and everyone else made him famous.

He's not a unifier, that's not his M.O.  If that's your randomly made-up measuring stick he will keep disappointing you.  Do we need a unifier?  Sure.  But that's not the role he's made for himself.  He's a rockstar, in that he's standing up to authority and rebelling against the zietgeist, even if it means some people who defend it get uncomfortable or offended, and he dares to sometimes look like an arse while being constantly attacked.  Is there no room for someone to have the balls to have an opinion progressives don't agree with?  Why not?  If he's wrong sometimes, so what? He threatens the hegemony of the mainstream do-gooders and so they absolutely flip out and make up all sorts of BS about him.  Like "his diet made him sick" and all this nonsense you yourself have bought into.

There's no point in convincing you of anything here because it's pointless.  You have a long record of defending the social and cultural positions of whatever we're told is "correct" to us by the mainstream politically correct do-gooders.  You have been "socially conditioned":  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conditioning  If everyone were this compliant to authority it would be a gloomy world indeed.  Maybe myself and kimmy and Peterson and whomever else don't want to just shut up and obey.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on July 23, 2021, 05:47:15 pm
There are plenty of people who oppose progressives. 

He is touted as the voice we need right now.  Maybe that's not his fault.  But we need someone to unify.

But then again, the progressive voices are going to win out anyway,. Via revenge of the cradle.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: wilber on July 23, 2021, 06:23:58 pm
What are they going to win?
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on July 23, 2021, 10:44:33 pm
What are they going to win?

The culture.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: wilber on July 24, 2021, 12:24:16 pm
The culture.

Which they will have to live with.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on July 24, 2021, 02:14:34 pm

1. There's no point in convincing you of anything here because it's pointless.  You have a long record of defending the social and cultural positions of whatever we're told is "correct" to us by the mainstream politically correct do-gooders. 

2. You have been "socially conditioned":  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conditioning  If everyone were this compliant to authority it would be a gloomy world indeed.  Maybe myself and kimmy and Peterson and whomever else don't want to just shut up and obey.

1. Weird take.  It's like "you have a long history of agreeing with the mainstream whether it's vaccines, or believing that Trump lost the election" talks about who agrees with your opinions, not whether they can be justified.

2. I didn't write him off entirely,  I only assessed his overall worth as an intellectual.  You say "no, he's a self-help guy" and I say "ok, fine well he's better at that anyway".  And now here you say "he's a rebel and pisses people off" as though that is worth anything on its own.  It sounds pretty immature to me. 

What is the point of discussing social and cultural matters ?  To come to a mutual understanding... to move past these things.. it is NOT to define entrenched camps that can snipe and each other back and forth.  There's no precedent for us deciding to do that, yet in the culture wars media keeps framing things that way so that they can prosper from facilitating the fight.

At this point, anybody who is sick of pointless fighting (dicks in spas ? really ? we can't work that one out with a few towels ? some signs ?  list of rules ? ) should put a time or space limit on people who can't work it out. 

Peterson's initial framing of the disagreements around pronounce etc. could have been of great service to fixing the mire we're in now.  So, yes, I guess I do blame him for opting to become whatever he is now.

Also, if he was a drug addict or whatever it kind of negates his whole "lead by example...  work on yourself" schtick down to the nub.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on July 24, 2021, 02:15:48 pm
Which they will have to live with.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean they won't. 

And... those other people who complain about Communism and group think today mostly have no idea.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: wilber on July 24, 2021, 03:27:49 pm
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean they won't. 

And... those other people who complain about Communism and group think today mostly have no idea.

Group think is for lazy people who don't want to think for themselves.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on July 24, 2021, 03:41:11 pm
Group think is for lazy people who don't want to think for themselves.

Sure, except it's also a necessary element of social cohesion.  If people didn't think police had authority, laws were valid, or voting mattered we would have problems.  This is happening in the US with the Qanon and Sovereign Citizen movement.

I was going to write 'mob thinking' but wanted to be more polite.  Except, I shouldn't be.  Some of the thinking I read from thoughtful young progressives is illiberal and vengeful. 
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: wilber on July 24, 2021, 03:48:15 pm
It doesn't have to be Q or Sovereign for group think to have a downside. The line between group and mob is a very blurred one. We need to be careful that inclusiveness doesn't result in just replacing one excluded group with another. All change isn't progress.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on July 24, 2021, 03:56:31 pm
It doesn't have to be Q or Sovereign for group think to have a downside. The line between group and mob is a very blurred one. We need to be careful that inclusiveness doesn't result in just replacing one excluded group with another. All change isn't progress.

It's not even that.  The millennial generation have been poorly served by our system.  They will not abide by anything that the older generation holds precious.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: wilber on July 24, 2021, 04:07:21 pm
It's not even that.  The millennial generation have been poorly served by our system.  They will not abide by anything that the older generation holds precious.

That's not what I'm talking about. Eventually every generation has to take responsibility for its own mistakes, it can't keep blaming dead people.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on July 24, 2021, 04:15:39 pm
That's not what I'm talking about. Eventually every generation has to take responsibility for its own mistakes, it can't keep blaming dead people.

What mistakes do you think the millennials have made ?  Given that they are only starting to show their political power, I am expecting you to say 'none'.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: wilber on July 24, 2021, 04:55:31 pm
What mistakes do you think the millennials have made ?  Given that they are only starting to show their political power, I am expecting you to say 'none'.

If they are only starting to show their power they are only starting to make their mistakes.

Every generation thinks it is smarter than the one before and the one that came after.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on July 24, 2021, 07:04:02 pm
What mistakes?

I don't think any of the issues that are on the table assume any superior or interior intelligence.  Were the low tuitions of the past a dumb policy?  Economic policy involves winners and losers and the millennials are on the Short End.

As for identity politics, as I say it's more important to come up with a compromise and move on
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: wilber on July 25, 2021, 12:40:00 am
What mistakes?

I don't think any of the issues that are on the table assume any superior or interior intelligence.  Were the low tuitions of the past a dumb policy?  Economic policy involves winners and losers and the millennials are on the Short End.

As for identity politics, as I say it's more important to come up with a compromise and move on

Every generation makes mistakes. Humans are humans and all are a product of their time. To think one has some kind of moral superiority is just arrogance. Millennials may have got the short end of the stick but no one intended to put them there, certainly not their parents or grand parents.
Title: Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
Post by: MH on July 25, 2021, 05:02:08 am
Well it sounds like someone made a mistake then.