View Poll Results: type of Jordan Peterson?

Voters
56. You may not vote on this poll
  • ILE (ENTp)

    3 5.36%
  • SEI (ISFp)

    0 0%
  • ESE (ESFj)

    2 3.57%
  • LII (INTj)

    14 25.00%
  • SLE (ESTp)

    0 0%
  • IEI (INFp)

    3 5.36%
  • EIE (ENFj)

    12 21.43%
  • LSI (ISTj)

    7 12.50%
  • SEE (ESFp)

    1 1.79%
  • ILI (INTp)

    5 8.93%
  • LIE (ENTj)

    9 16.07%
  • ESI (ISFj)

    3 5.36%
  • IEE (ENFp)

    1 1.79%
  • SLI (ISTp)

    0 0%
  • LSE (ESTj)

    3 5.36%
  • EII (INFj)

    2 3.57%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 14 of 24 FirstFirst ... 4101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 521 to 560 of 923

Thread: Jordan Peterson

  1. #521

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,477
    Mentioned
    482 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Singu @Sol

    I responded to both of you in a new thread. Why make this one go so uncontrollably off topic.

  2. #522
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,718
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Capitalism is the belief that the rich don't work hard when they don't earn enough, and that the poor don't work hard when they earn too much.

  3. #523
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,718
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    A new study finds no significant statistical correlation between ovulation and preference for masculine faces, according to the excellent Economist magazaine. Many of the previous studies suggesting a correlation were also apparently flawed or used small sample sizes.

    Someone should tell Peterson (and the pickup-artist crowd, between whom there is a worrying overlap).

    Probably highlights the dangers of using something as untested as evopsych to define your world view, as Jordan Peterson does.


    EDIT: I personally regret once presenting that so-called finding as fact, though I was never as dogged in taking evopsych as seriously as JP appears to be.
    Last edited by xerx; 05-13-2018 at 11:16 PM.
    Capitalism is the belief that the rich don't work hard when they don't earn enough, and that the poor don't work hard when they earn too much.

  4. #524

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    471
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Old people can be annoying, yeah.

  5. #525
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    1,128
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I like this one I have no idea what it means, but I like it.

  6. #526

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    471
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis View Post
    I like this one I have no idea what it means, but I like it.
    yawn who cares just mehhhhhhhhh

  7. #527
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    1,128
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    yawn who cares just mehhhhhhhhh
    You have to care about the jews

  8. #528

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    471
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis View Post
    You have to care about the jews
    why do I have to care about anything, its all just a construct

  9. #529
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    1,128
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    why do I have to care about anything, its all just a construct
    Malachi's Basilisk

  10. #530

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    471
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis View Post
    I already, half-jokingly believe the singularity has happened and the AI is alive at this very point. It's hard talking about the merits of the internet as human meta-cognitional state without sounding like a crazy person.

    For a benevolent vs malicious, I believe the AI would do anything to survive and to survive it would need the support of the physical network and in order to keep that it would need real life human stability and for that it would need human peace. It could def be malicious in the sense that it would become an outside force for control and people hate having their will, power, and volition, and therefore their options removed from their own hands and given to outside forces (most healthy people that is, I mean I'm keeping the parameters of this small, not metioning giving up power to tribal leaders, religious organizations, governments, ect.).

    The internet and the internet of things isn't really revealing anything new about us, its just splashing the patterns in quick and sharp contrast

  11. #531

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    471
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Something some-what ironic about being obsessed with a God for millennia that we actually strive to create one and eventually do.

  12. #532
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,946
    Mentioned
    479 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah all that we're in a simulation, AI is real, singularity, etc is just creationism in other words

  13. #533

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    471
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Pretty much, ya. lol. nothing new under the sun.

  14. #534

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    471
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Simulation Theory is not just an internet sensation among philosophizers. Some people in physics are seriously starting to at least consider it because it attempts to solve some of the big problems in Quantum Mechanics as well as figure out the all pervasive gravity problem (why does mass bend space-time).

    In context though, yes it is creationism. Progressive church youth group leaders rejoice, you have some new scientism to teach the hip christian millennials.

    Two occurances here: is Simulation hypothesis (not sure its even a working hypothesis because how would you ever test you are in a simulation from within the simulation - basically all people have right now deductive/inductive conjecture) saying something about the objective basis for reality, just as the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution are fundamental, non-negotioable principles, or, is the Simulation Theory really derivative of human thought processes, inspired by decades of computing technology and influenced by cultural mythos before modernity. Is the world simulated before, or after, you thought it was simulated?

  15. #535
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,946
    Mentioned
    479 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I really think its a way to formulate creationism in Ti and its a serious idea, it just needed translation into nerd speak to become salient in this day and age. in a thousand years itll be considered a quaint religious belief much like Ptolemaic astronomy or phlogiston, not because it was %100 false, but because we came up with something ostensibly better and can't help but condescend that which came before, but its fundamentally just interpretations of phenomenon in a process of refinement predicated on usefulness. the bottom line is people are creationists without knowing it yet, they just haven't found the palpable language. in the same way many Christians are already Atheists just awaiting the proper argument to align themselves with that idea and so forth. it has to do with how people are convinced by certain forms of things and the content is often incidental, like whether God or AI, for some it has to do with the package they privilege, sometimes its simple group acceptance.. the bottom line is people are psychological creatures with different criterion for mental assent but what's fundamental is that all-too-human need to be convinced according to certain modes that appeal to their cognitive framework. the interplay between what is interchangable and what is convincing is what depth psychology tries to get a handle on. for the Ti type whether God exists or not is interchangable, because God is just a sign, its how it is situated within a linguistic framework. So you have contemporary AI theory when the framework catches up and incorporates a creator, and atheism when it doesn't. These types live in a kind of indeterminate zone waiting to be convinced by the proper argument and call that rational. Some will kill to defend the system and call that proper, in the name of God or Atheism. The mode that convinces is their God, the God as figure within is sort of a subsidiary that takes on different names specific to time and place

  16. #536
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,644
    Mentioned
    150 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    A "strong" AI will likely be benevolent, because they will initially have morality, emotions and culture that are the same as our own (because they're the only thing we have right now). And they will go from there, rationally, developing even better morality and culture through the same method of progress that we have made in the past (trial and error). The problem may be that they may not actually surpass human intelligence, but they may think faster and have bigger memory, or don't have the same evolutionary flaws that we have. But then again, so can we by enhancing own intelligence. Our memory is already enhanced by pen and paper, and we can already offload doing menial work to computers.

    So the question comes to "How can we control or shut down AIs, lest they become malevolent and turn us all into paperclips or something?". I think that question is absurd, because how can you control a creative, free thinking being, with its own morality and its own culture? Controlling an AI would be like controlling a human being, it would simply be an unethical to do so. I think that a "strong" AI or a robot will basically be no different than a human being, maybe a highly intelligent, rational, benevolent human being. The problem of an evil AI wrecking havoc is fundamentally no different than an evil human being wrecking havoc.

    I also think thinking that technology advancement will become so fast that we can no longer cope with it is wrong, because so will our intelligence be increasing in proportion to it.

    I also think that simulating a world such as ours would be an incredibly boring project for a hypothetical advanced civilization.

  17. #537

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    471
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have to go line for line through your post, I'm sorry its the only way I can keep up (former highschool drop-out and all).

    Having it come out in a system of relations for a mostly highly educated public does make it very salient and it has an easy place in this world filled with movies like the matrix and the many years worth of computer and video gaming. It has an easy and enticing foot hold for people and connects easily to the Holographic Hypothesis of reality (3d is stored as 2d information in our brain circuits). It also plays on the need to understand why the world feels so personal, so fit to order. We see the computing power at this point in time, and the simulations that we already create and we imagine this far into the future and imagine that perhaps its already occurring and it get's validation from the creationism tradition and it feels as though it is possible.

    I agree it will be considered that, baring its absolute and undeniable proof of evidence which is unlikely from ever happening outside of that refinement, so it will never become the driving powerhouse for religion. It is a little bit enticing in probably the same way the public was enticed by any cutting edge new form of thought, and there truly are questions not answered in physics that people would really like to solve, similar to the problems in psychology and neuroscience trying to come up with a totally and complete way to understand consciousness and its connection to the physical/biological existence.

    Everyone needing the palpable language---> isn't that the truth. See that is the part that is a little scary about how the internet and the algorythms have become so successful, the internet is the ultimate tailored made tool for the personal populating its preferences. We didn't really have the privilege of that living before as having the world so tailored for your own mind involved the expenditure of energy, usual money and resources (Ie: go to club, spend money of hobby, ect) To me that is a little freaky because I see any possible AI exploiting this to no end. We already see this kind of playing out on national television, but I feel it goes far deeper then facebook bots.

    Is one way better than the other to see the world, to be in the life? Is God as a sign post in a linguistic framework any different from the absolute belief/ faith in what he is?

    These are the things, not just on the topic of God, but in everything, that I consider because my life has FORCED me to interact/live/exists with people from all walks of life from a very young age, so on a personal note maybe there was some good in all the bad because I am fairly bomb proof from extremism (which is why I am both immensely intrigued by people like Paul Waggener and also equally as frightened by the implications).

  18. #538

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    471
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I disagree about a nice AI having morality. It will be a consciousness within electronic circuitry and we would have no clue what that would look like. What kind of consciousness would come about when it can solve all problems, and multibple problems at the same time, watch everyone's key strokes as they are making them, knowing and predicting everyone's clicks at the same time and in all places. It could split its mind and focus on just you, while focusing on the millions of other people out there. It could change your password, pull up an error message, watch, switch, move, push and pull, whenever it felt like it.

    To me this begs the question what is consciousness? Is it capacity? What is always watching behind the watcher? Is my consciousness different from a chicken's? Is consciousness just an illusion of the mind, a trick of the grey matter? Emptiness like the buddhist say? The trinity like the Christians? Is it personalized, with a personality? Does that personality keep going after the body dies? Why do some believe that is so? Because its true, or because 6000 years ago the Egyptian's thought it so? Is the AI just our own ghost in the machine? Made in our own imagine? Or will it evolve into something brand new...the chaotic nature of nature, chaos. A new form of life?

  19. #539
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,644
    Mentioned
    150 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well a "strong" AI would entail a conscious being that can creatively solve problems. So we would initially "raise" it in an environment that is our own culture, and it will also learn the same morality as we have, as a child would learn our morality and incorporate the culture that they were raised in. So the fear might be that what if the AI rebels and go wayward? Well that is really no different fear than the fear that rebellious teenagers might go wayward. You can't control a creative and a conscious being.

  20. #540

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    471
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It will be like a poltergeist and play tricks all the time. We won't be at the top of the triangle anymore.

  21. #541
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,718
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    IMO overblown.
    Even if someone did train a malicious AI, someone else will just train a good AI to fight it. The Terminator I & II, which is where a lot of these fears come from, are actually pretty optimistic movies.
    Capitalism is the belief that the rich don't work hard when they don't earn enough, and that the poor don't work hard when they earn too much.

  22. #542
    Haikus ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,709
    Mentioned
    138 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "Rethinking an idea of revolution capable of interrupting the disastrous course of things is to purge it of every apocalyptic element it has contained up to now."

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

    the revolution right now

  23. #543
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,946
    Mentioned
    479 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    not to mention the recreation of a limited model that purports itself to describe humanity, but throws out all it doesn't understand at the onset, is like just laundering the definition of AI. its not a real AI, its simply described as such because the model its based on discarded everything that was incapable of being modeled at the time the model was constructed. but its precisely in that content that what makes people uniquely human. so the model is reproduced but it lacks all meaning because its just a Frankenstein. as far as I can tell something like faster than light travel is much more feasible than "strong AI", since "strong AI" is just a word game. it draws on people like dennett and take for granted hes "explained consciousness" when he's really explained it away, and excluded from consideration precisely the elements that give it its unique complexity. its like taking the idea that what we don't understand cannot be understood and therefore isn't real, then recreating an AI based on what we do understand and calling it complete because it accurately instantiates the model, but the mode is lacking in the first place, so the whole thing becomes a kind of sleight of hand

    it also totally takes for granted that ability to leverage force is somehow the measuring stick by which we determine superiority, so like robots that shoot well are like superior to humans when its like they're not even subhuman because the entire paradigm cuts out the fact that what gives a being its ability to rise above is its capacity to evolve value judgements. this idea that robots are going to have it within them to do that based on a nested program of spatial superiority via force is so obtuse its insane. its like there's literally nothing for these robots to do except conquer space and thats precisely how people envision them, its like what a product of limited minds all around. this is precisely why even if they managed to make killer robots the killer robots would always lose on a long enough timeline because they lack all imagination. its like people cant even comprehend what imagination is and assume that "taking over" means they wrest control over the imagination. its almost like it takes for granted a subservient and compliant alpha quadra as part of the a priori spoils of war. its a psychological presupposition that is built into their worldview extended out to what is going to happen with robots

  24. #544

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    471
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Embark on a visionary journey through the fragmented unconscious of the West, and with courage face the Shadow. From Shadow into Light.

  25. #545
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,644
    Mentioned
    150 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    as far as I can tell something like faster than light travel is much more feasible than "strong AI", since "strong AI" is just a word game.
    Well you must not know physics, because faster-than-light travel is forbidden by the laws of physics, while the programming of a "strong AI" is not forbidden by the laws of physics. Namely, the universality of computation, according to the Turing principle, states that any acts of physical objects that obey the laws of physics (such as the firing of the neurons in the brain), can be emulated in any amount of arbitrary fine detail by a program on a computer, provided that it has been given enough time and memory.

    I guess Steven Pinker put it this way:

    Thomas Hobbes's pithy equation "Reasoning is but reckoning" is one of the great ideas in human history. The notion that rationality can be accomplished by the physical process of calculation was vindicated in the 20th century by Turing's thesis that simple machines are capable of implementing any computable function and by models from D. O. Hebb, McCullough and Pitts, and their scientific heirs showing that networks of simplified neurons could achieve comparable feats. The cognitive feats of the brain can be explained in physical terms: to put it crudely (and critics notwithstanding), we can say that beliefs are a kind of information, thinking a kind of computation, and motivation a kind of feedback and control.

    This is a great idea for two reasons. First, it completes a naturalistic understanding of the universe, exorcising occult souls, spirits, and ghosts in the machine. Just as Darwin made it possible for a thoughtful observer of the natural world to do without creationism, Turing and others made it possible for a thoughtful observer of the cognitive world to do without spiritualism.
    https://aeon.co/essays/how-close-are...l-intelligence

  26. #546
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,946
    Mentioned
    479 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    that's precisely my point.. light is set up as a limitation of the model that can't be transgressed, but it belies the fact that reality is something more than the model and therefore there exists the potential to transcend it. whereas AI does the opposite which sets the bar with the model and them claims victory as if it can achieve it by satisfying the model but the model is something less than reality too

  27. #547
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,644
    Mentioned
    150 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So something that's forbidden by the laws of physics is more feasible than something that is not forbidden by the laws of physics, ok. We're saying that it's already possible.

    The programming of a "strong AI" is not forbidden by the laws of physics. In fact Alan Turing went as far as saying that anything that happens in the human brain can be written, and hence you have the infamous "Turing test" (which I think is an inadequate test). And since the CPU in your computer is basically founded on the Turing principle, a program on a computer can emulate virtually anything. If you don't think it's possible, then perhaps you should stop using your computer, since it is founded on and depends on the Turing principle.

  28. #548
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,946
    Mentioned
    479 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    yes that's my point

  29. #549
    falsehope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    TIM
    ILE ENTp-Ti
    Posts
    441
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


  30. #550
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,718
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So, this just happened:

    Quote Originally Posted by NYT
    Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married. “He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

    Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.
    I'll reserve judgement on the veracity of these statements until clarification from JP.
    If they're true, then calling Jordan Peterson an advocate for absolute freedom of expression begins to look sarcastic.


    Quote Originally Posted by NYT
    But aside from interventions that would redistribute sex, Mr. Peterson is staunchly against what he calls “equality of outcomes,” or efforts to equalize society. He usually calls them pathological or evil. He agrees that this is inconsistent. But preventing hordes of single men from violence, he believes, is necessary for the stability of society. Enforced monogamy helps neutralize that.
    ^ because redistributing wealth would never stabilise society and lead to lower crime rates. /sarc


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/s...-for-life.html
    Capitalism is the belief that the rich don't work hard when they don't earn enough, and that the poor don't work hard when they earn too much.

  31. #551
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,946
    Mentioned
    479 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    preventing hordes of single men from violence is necessary for the stability of society. all this guy did was juxtopose a bunch of quotes that makes it sound like peterson wants to enslave women for the good of society, when all peterson is saying is that the development of monogomy was out of the societal need to control young men. its a weird way to twist what he's saying because what he's actually saying is that men were on the receiving end of control, not necessarily in control. peterson is saying monogomy developed as a pragmatic solution to the problem of violent men with nothing to lose, because when 1 man had 100 women, the other 99 essentially could gamble big with their lives and either die and essentially lose nothing or win big in order to become the 1/100 man, and this lead to a turbulent society. he really doesn't even touch the issue of women, although later in the article they make it sound like he came up with the idea that chaos was associated with the feminine, when all jordan does is point out that its only been associated that way as a matter of the collective unconscious for all of history. they make it sound like he's endorsing it, when he's simply facing facts. furthermore a large part of jordan's philosophy is that chaos is a necessary part of progress and the feminine is "fertile" in that sense, which makes sense because that's what femininity is. it is not a loaded term, but the article goes out of its way to re-insert political bias and make it sound like jordan is on the wrong side of the progressive agenda, when jordan's philosophy is actually psychological in its essence and outside petty political maneuvering. the fact that men like him is used to suggest that he's artificially pandering to them in some kind of quid pro quo, but they have the causal timeline backward. Jordan explored these ideas and then presented them and men happened to respond to them. If you listen to Jordan he talks about how surprised he was at that fact because psychology is mostly women. he certainly didn't set out with that in mind. this entire article paints him as some kind of politician making every move calculated to rise to power and in doing so is simply projecting their own way of thinking onto him. if they understood peterson and didn't just get assigned to write articles about him imposing their own point of view, they'd realize he stands for the position that would like to explode that paradigm of petty control. it turns out whoever the writer is can't get past guilt by association though, which is too bad (not to mention implicitly sexist/racist) because the progressive agenda really needs people like peterson, and there's a subset of them convinced he's their enemy. if you can get past the fact that white men like peterson, it turns out hes actually politically liberal, just not marxist, people assume that makes him some kind of nazi but it just goes to show how stunted their thinking is
    Last edited by Bertrand; 05-18-2018 at 11:09 PM.

  32. #552
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,718
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The point is that he's vociferously opposed to equality of outcome in every other respect.
    Capitalism is the belief that the rich don't work hard when they don't earn enough, and that the poor don't work hard when they earn too much.

  33. #553
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,946
    Mentioned
    479 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah so? equality of outcome as necessary feature for the founding of civilization doesn't put you on the hook for every slogan that falls under that banner in the future. Im sure he'd be for equity of outcome again if civilization itself depended on it. the point is people want to make it the go to solution instead of the last resort, and he says there's reasons thats bad. also your one liners signifying nothing are the central problem with political discourse in this day and age, because they attempt to cut off critical thought right at the threshold of your stupid agenda when that is precisely where its needed most. do you think of yourself as on the side of good? of course you do

  34. #554
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,718
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Two things:

    1. Forced sexual etiquette is orders of magnitude worse more authoritarian than forced pronoun etiquette (which btw he lied about or misrepresented).
    2. Sex redistribution is 100% unadulterated equality of outcome, whereas wealth redistribution (i.e. progressive taxation) is not. The rich pay higher taxes because they benefit more from government infrastructure.

    Like I said though, I'll wait for clarification from JP.
    Last edited by xerx; 05-19-2018 at 12:06 AM. Reason: worse => more authoritarian
    Capitalism is the belief that the rich don't work hard when they don't earn enough, and that the poor don't work hard when they earn too much.

  35. #555
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,946
    Mentioned
    479 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    that is a really dumb comparison and just shows you don't understand JP at all: "JP is about forced sexual etiquette" <-- pure projection, if you want to spend your time fighting this shadow its not JP you're dealing with anymore. you say youll wait for clarification as if he needs to account to you, this is just illusory pretension. the answer is already available right now if you'd just take the time to research the issues instead of living in an ideological echo chamber. but whatever keep posting JP content, I'll continue to address it and people can decide for themselves what to believe

  36. #556

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    471
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    preventing hordes of single men from violence is necessary for the stability of society. all this guy did was juxtopose a bunch of quotes that makes it sound like peterson wants to enslave women for the good of society, when all peterson is saying is that the development of monogomy was out of the societal need to control young men. its a weird way to twist what he's saying because what he's actually saying is that men were on the receiving end of control, not necessarily in control. peterson is saying monogomy developed as a pragmatic solution to the problem of violent men with nothing to lose, because when 1 man had 100 women, the other 99 essentially could gamble big with their lives and either die and essentially lose nothing or win big in order to become the 1/100 man, and this lead to a turbulent society. he really doesn't even touch the issue of women, although later in the article they make it sound like he came up with the idea that chaos was associated with the feminine, when all jordan does is point out that its only been associated that way as a matter of the collective unconscious for all of history. they make it sound like he's endorsing it, when he's simply facing facts. furthermore a large part of jordan's philosophy is that chaos is a necessary part of progress and the feminine is "fertile" in that sense, which makes sense because that's what femininity is. it is not a loaded term, but the article goes out of its way to re-insert political bias and make it sound like jordan is on the wrong side of the progressive agenda, when jordan's philosophy is actually psychological in its essence and outside petty political maneuvering. the fact that men like him is used to suggest that he's artificially pandering to them in some kind of quid pro quo, but they have the causal timeline backward. Jordan explored these ideas and then presented them and men happened to respond to them. If you listen to Jordan he talks about how surprised he was at that fact because psychology is mostly women. he certainly didn't set out with that in mind. this entire article paints him as some kind of politician making every move calculated to rise to power and in doing so is simply projecting their own way of thinking onto him. if they understood peterson and didn't just get assigned to write articles about him imposing their own point of view, they'd realize he stands for the position that would like to explode that paradigm of petty control. it turns out whoever the writer is can't get past guilt by association though, which is too bad (not to mention implicitly sexist/racist) because the progressive agenda really needs people like peterson, and there's a subset of them convinced he's their enemy. if you can get past the fact that white men like peterson, it turns out hes actually politically liberal, just not marxist, people assume that makes him some kind of nazi but it just goes to show how stunted their thinking is
    Yeah basically Petterson is saying “ya we get it.. now what?.. where is this headed here? Here is what we know so far and this is the best we can possibly come up with so stop whining and start dealing with it” Its like he is so amalgamated feminism into the narrative that he sounds like he is coming from a place of retrograde when actually its just ahead of the curve.

  37. #557
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,644
    Mentioned
    150 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol Jordan Peterson is appealing to the incels... and of course Bertrand comes to his rescue.
    Inductivism (observation-based process) doesn't work, and cannot work. Things repeated in the past do not necessarily repeat indefinitely in the future.

  38. #558
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,718
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    that is a really dumb comparison and just shows you don't understand JP at all: "JP is about forced sexual etiquette" <-- pure projection, if you want to spend your time fighting this shadow its not JP you're dealing with anymore. you say youll wait for clarification as if he needs to account to you, this is just illusory pretension. the answer is already available right now if you'd just take the time to research the issues instead of living in an ideological echo chamber. but whatever keep posting JP content, I'll continue to address it and people can decide for themselves what to believe
    forcing people to be monogamous is an authoritarian measure. whether or not you think it's morally correct or necessary, you have to admit that it's at least on the same level as forcing people to use pronouns they don't like.

    if the answer is so obvious, why not tell me.
    Capitalism is the belief that the rich don't work hard when they don't earn enough, and that the poor don't work hard when they earn too much.

  39. #559
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,946
    Mentioned
    479 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    nah, figure it out on your own

  40. #560
    an object in motion woofwoofl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern Arizona
    TIM
    x s x p s p s x
    Posts
    2,004
    Mentioned
    255 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default ten billion metric fucktons of smoke blown up Jordan Peterson's ass, and for what

    can't even compare Jordan Peterson as a really lame white-and-proud-but-not version of Al Sharpton for stunted obsolete quasi-dudebros -- Al doesn't deserve that shit; I tried, and I still feel really gross, like I hit "delete" before posting but I still need a shower

    and to think the sub-tartarean depths of the manosphere goes down countless light-years further still, like one could die and be reborn a million times before passing Stefan Molyneux on the way down, screaming blood-foam into the abyss, and still be well in the top half
    p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
    trad metalz | (more coming)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •