Jordan Peterson

[xerx]

The Fidei Defensor of free speech strikes again by suing an author for calling his work misogynistic. For someone who promotes a philosophy of strength and adversarial behaviour, it is perverse-- though all too predictable by now-- to watch him whinge when attacked by one of the most generic criticisms levied against public figures. He could have stuck better to the principals he professes to hold, and garnered some respect, by simply writing a rebuttal. Instead, he's content to act like the infantile and authoritarian scumbag that he is.

https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/jorda...ate-manne.html

[xerx]

He claimed that drinking apple cider stopped him from being able to sleep for an entire month. Seriously. Someone should inform the people who keep world records.

Not only is this man a pseudo-scientific clown with an embarrassingly bad understanding of the subjects he lectures about, particularly history, it is also hard not to suspect him of having a questionable grip on basic reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=9Xc7DN-noAc

[timber]

Ya he is a lil bitch, so what? Who cares.

All the best people have lost a lil grip on reality. Way better than : wow you are still in the main narrative, yikes.

[Raver]

He claimed that drinking apple cider stopped him from being able to sleep for an entire month. Seriously. Someone should inform the people who keep world records.

Not only is this man a pseudo-scientific clown with an embarrassingly bad understanding of the subjects he lectures about, particularly history, it is also hard not to suspect him of having a questionable grip on basic reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=9Xc7DN-noAc

He is saying the special diet worked for him and his daughter because of their unique health problems. She was the one who recommended he try it in the first place.

He never said that it would work for everyone or even most people so you are putting what he said out of context. His daughter goes into the special diet more in this video:

[xerx]

He is saying the special diet worked for him and his daughter because of their unique health problems. She was the one who recommended he try it in the first place.

He never said that it would work for everyone or even most people so you are putting what he said out of context. His daughter goes into the special diet more in this video:

Anything is possible, but it's pretty unlikely that he couldn't sleep for a whole month since the longest recorded time is 11 days. It's a lot more likely that he slept badly but has a questionable grip on reality. Moreover, his puerile need to melodramatize his life, even to himself, is beginning to wear thin.

EDIT: his daughter had a psychedelic trip from eating soy?? LOL. Was it laced with Mescalin?

[golden]

I see dumb people

[timber]

Soy laced with mescalin.

Now that sounds like an excellent time.

[Raver]

Anything is possible, but it's pretty unlikely that he couldn't sleep for a whole month since the longest recorded time is 11 days. It's a lot more likely that he slept badly but has a questionable grip on reality. Moreover, his puerile need to melodramatize his life, even to himself, is beginning to wear thin.

EDIT: his daughter had a psychedelic trip from eating soy?? LOL. Was it laced with Mescalin?

I remember him mentioning he slept badly. Obviously noone can stay up for a whole month straight. I guess I will rewatch it later when I have the time.

[perpetuus]

Anything is possible, but it's pretty unlikely that he couldn't sleep for a whole month since the longest recorded time is 11 days. It's a lot more likely that he slept badly but has a questionable grip on reality. Moreover, his puerile need to melodramatize his life, even to himself, is beginning to wear thin.

EDIT: his daughter had a psychedelic trip from eating soy?? LOL. Was it laced with Mescalin?

It's obvious he was exaggerating. My guess would be he slept a lot less than normal. I wouldn't take everything internet people and celebrities say too literally.

[xerx]

It's obvious he was exaggerating. My guess would be he slept a lot less than normal. I wouldn't take everything internet people and celebrities say too literally.

He definitely couldn't have physically stayed awake for that long, but I don't believe it's obvious that he was exaggerating. He also believes that his month-long ordeal was caused by having a single drink of apple cider, which sounds even less plausible.

What is obvious is that he's imprecise and inarticulate when putting across his viewpoints, which forces his audience to interpret his ideas for him. Because of the way he throws out half-developed ideas, one can never be fully sure what he believes, giving him room to maneuver in case he's called out on it.

This method of discourse shifts the arena of debate away from ideas towards whether or not you're interpreting him charitably. Until I saw Jordan Peterson, I didn't think it was possible for anyone to be this dependent on his audience to reify his viewpoints for him.

[xerx]

A good summing up of one of the most intellectually vapid and laughable figures in recent history:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/...ual-we-deserve

Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say. This should be obvious to anyone who has spent even a few moments critically examining his writings and speeches, which are comically befuddled, pompous, and ignorant. They are half nonsense, half banality. In a reasonable world, Peterson would be seen as the kind of tedious crackpot that one hopes not to get seated next to on a train.

[Desert Financial]

[Singu]

Jesus, this guy's 15 minutes of fame still isn't over?

The only people that care about him are a small group of angry incels on the internet.

A good summing up of one of the most intellectually vapid and laughable figures in recent history:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/...ual-we-deserve

That sounds like Bertrand. Lol.

It also sounds like much of Jung's work and Socionics. No surprise there, since he was highly influenced by Jung.

(Does this not look like some random crappy diagram that you find on Socionics?)



So there's sort of a contradiction in people who are highly against him, and yet at the same time accept Jung's work as something valid and/or profound.

But we'd have to accept that Jung's vapid pseudo-intellectualism and generally vague and incomprehensible nonsense is what created figures like Jordan Peterson. Things like Jung and the French Postmodernism are what created these vague and incomprehensible monstrosities that people could interpret them in any way they want, and people continuously argue over "what they really meant". Which is to say that they're not actually really saying anything.

[Hope]

He has good and bad points. Same stuff with most psychologists like Freud. Plus he's obviously ethical and almost in his 60s. I dont see much difference between his ideas and the ideas of most men on his age range (like for ppl being so scandalized about him), neither I find good points on the sjw kids and ideologies he argue against. Which is more alarming to me, is to see men (and women, even sjws, yes) who criticize and laugh at him saying at the same time stupid things to women too. There is lack of congruence, common sense and self criticism (not just criticism) in society nowadays it seems.

[xerx]

(Does this not look like some random crappy diagram that you find on Socionics?)

Haha, yes! Armchair Internet "intellectual" is legitimately one of the better descriptions of Peterson. He's so badly-informed on his lecture topics, especially philosophy, history and economics, that he looks like a complete clown to anyone with a passing familiarity. For anyone coming up against these topics for the first time, Peterson is a really bad source.

Things like Jung and the French Postmodernism are what created these vague and incomprehensible monstrosities that people could interpret them in any way they want, and people continuously argue over "what they really meant". Which is to say that they're not actually really saying anything.

He is everything he claims to be against. The most charitable interpretation of Peterson is that he's a liar and obscurantist with a political agenda. The less charitable (and IMO increasingly likely) interpretation is that he may be genuinely stupid such that his vagueness sn't altogether deliberate.

[timber]

Its telling the way the NT nerds here rib into him so hard.

[timber]

Alpha NT’s are great for somethings, but others they are the literal worst.

They only seem to play with the outter chess pieces.

Paradise was lost, fellas. Outer harmony that last for eternity will never be found. Sorry to break it to you.

[Computer Loser]

He's Ti focused for sure... Focusing on how the world works and what should be done to better it.

He actually offers a lot of practical wisdom, if one's willing to listen to the core of what he's saying, things like

-Paying attention to the little things and deriving joy from them,
-Standing up straight to help your outlook/attitude
-Comparing yourself to you not others, and striving to be your best

etc etc

It's ironic people are calling him armchair internet intellectual when he's actually out there trying to help people and people are literally sitting in chairs criticizing him on the internet in this forum nit-picking stupid shit lol

[Raver]

He definitely couldn't have physically stayed awake for that long, but I don't believe it's obvious that he was exaggerating. He also believes that his month-long ordeal was caused by having a single drink of apple cider, which sounds even less plausible.

What is obvious is that he's imprecise and inarticulate when putting across his viewpoints, which forces his audience to interpret his ideas for him. Because of the way he throws out half-developed ideas, one can never be fully sure what he believes, giving him room to maneuver in case he's called out on it.

This method of discourse shifts the arena of debate away from ideas towards whether or not you're interpreting him charitably. Until I saw Jordan Peterson, I didn't think it was possible for anyone to be this dependent on his audience to reify his viewpoints for him.

So he made one hyperbolic point by exaggerating how bad he slept and suddenly he's imprecise and inarticulate? Generally speaking, from watching some of his videos he is very precise and articulate. Sure, there are moments where he is vague and hyperbolic, but let's not throw the baby out of the bathwater because of moments where he is careless over the majority of the time when he is on point.

He even said that in a podcast by Joe Rogan, which is very informal so things said there should be taken with a grain of salt. It's not like he said that at a university lecture, which is a very formal environment and much is expected from him when he is doing his job as a professor.

[Ryan]

Its telling the way the NT nerds here rib into him so hard.

Who does? I don't worship him, but I'm not going to pretend I don't like his overall message. The only thing that really irks me about him is that he is a little bit on the religious side. I'm not sure why people even bring up random stuff he says. He can be a rapist for all I care. I don't care about his life or his food choices. He is only interesting to me when he is speaking of free speech and feminism, and for that matter: he is not saying anything profound - I just think it's amusing that he got so famous and triggered a lot of people because he is willing to voice his non-mainstream opinions.

Politics are so interesting. Jordan is one of many guys who have switched from the left to the right, or somewhere in the middle, in recent years. People who have always identified with the left, don't see themselves as part of the left anymore. These aren't people who you can guilt trip or shame into voting for the left. The more the left keeps pretending that these people are at fault for having different opinions the more they will lose them. I have spoken to friends all over the world, and all of them see the left as just a useless social movement and no longer a competent party. Not just in America. I'm an atheist and I find myself agreeing with the right more often than not. Hell, I'm starting to think maybe Russia has many good things that we don't appreciate. Maybe their approach to politics isn't so bad (that is how effective Russian propaganda has been recently). If that is not alarming I don't know what is. I don't think the left is ready for the coming decades. These elections will be brutal.

It's insane how most people are blind to this.

[xerx]

So he made one hyperbolic point by exaggerating how bad he slept and suddenly he's imprecise and inarticulate? Generally speaking, from watching some of his videos he is very precise and articulate. Sure, there are moments where he is vague and hyperbolic, but let's not throw the baby out of the bathwater because of moments where he is careless over the majority of the time when he is on point.

He even said that in a podcast by Joe Rogan, which is very informal so things said there should be taken with a grain of salt. It's not like he said that at a university lecture, which is a very formal environment and much is expected from him when he is doing his job as a professor.

No, he didn't exaggerate one point. He repeatedly accused trans activists of being straight-up Maoists (they're only dumb teenagers for God's sake) and loudly declared that bill C-16 would lead to full-blown prosecution (it didn't and won't). His free speech warrior act is the reason he got famous in the first place, which he's managed to cash in on while attempting to shut down the free speech of his critics. Exaggeration isn't something incidental to him, it's the whole foundation of his public persona.

But even "exaggeration" might be too weak of a word to describe Peterson's charade. Lying might be more apt, especially with regards to bill C-16, although the less flattering alternative is that he's a complete idiot with comprehension issues. I don't think questioning the guy's intelligence ought to be controversial -- getting knocked out for a whole month from one drink of cider is the kind of fib a six year old kid would make.

[timber]

Its weird nothing t

Who does? I don't worship him, but I'm not going to pretend I don't like his overall message. The only thing that really irks me about him is that he is a little bit on the religious side. I'm not sure why people even bring up random stuff he says. He can be a rapist for all I care. I don't care about his life or his food choices. He is only interesting to me when he is speaking of free speech and feminism, and for that matter: he is not saying anything profound - I just think it's amusing that he got so famous and triggered a lot of people because he is willing to voice his non-mainstream opinions.

Politics are so interesting. Jordan is one of many guys who have switched from the left to the right, or somewhere in the middle, in recent years. People who have always identified with the left, don't see themselves as part of the left anymore. These aren't people who you can guilt trip or shame into voting for the left. The more the left keeps pretending that these people are at fault for having different opinions the more they will lose them. I have spoken to friends all over the world, and all of them see the left as just a useless social movement and no longer a competent party. Not just in America. I'm an atheist and I find myself agreeing with the right more often than not. Hell, I'm starting to think maybe Russia has many good things that we don't appreciate. Maybe their approach to politics isn't so bad (that is how effective Russian propaganda has been recently). If that is not alarming I don't know what is. I don't think the left is ready for the coming decades. These elections will be brutal.

It's insane how most people are blind to this.

its weird nothing you just said interests me at all and politics and feminsim esp. Just more chess pieces.

I used to believe in a materialist world once too. Physics /matter /chemicals /selection / narrative.

Berty is right science is reaching its limits.

What happens in a black hole? Total unknowable at the center of every galaxy

[Ryan]

You are okay, buddy?

[xerx]

It's funny that people see him as some magnet for the right wing. Jordan Peterson's weird pseudoscience and conspiracy theorising is responsible for moving me further away from right wing ideas.

The irony is that there are fantastically witty and intelligent Conservative commentators, who outclass Peterson in every way imaginable, who don't get a modicum of the attention he's stolen. It's always a pleasure to read well-articulated opinions that clash completely with my own, whereas Peterson's stuff never fails to provoke the opposite reaction.

[Computer Loser]

No, he didn't exaggerate one point. He repeatedly accused trans activists of being straight-up Maoists (they're only dumb teenagers for God's sake) and loudly declared that bill C-16 would lead to full-blown prosecution (it didn't and won't). His free speech warrior act is the reason he got famous in the first place, which he's managed to cash in on while attempting to shut down the free speech of his critics. Exaggeration isn't something incidental to him, it's the whole foundation of his public persona.

But even "exaggeration" might be too weak of a word to describe Peterson's charade. Lying might be more apt, especially with regards to bill C-16, although the less flattering alternative is that he's a complete idiot with comprehension issues. I don't think questioning the guy's intelligence is something controversial-- after all, getting knocked out for a whole month from one drink of cider is the kind of fib a six year old kid would make.

But as some people pointed out I think a lot of it is sarcasm and exaggerating to illustrate a point.

Like picturing a bunch of teen trans activists overthrowing the government is hilarious, but I don’t think JP actually sees them that way, I think it’s just a natural expression/by product/passion for getting his points across.

Ex, like underneath everything everything he says about c-16, his main point is he doesn’t want society to get to a point where we’re forced to think/speak in certain ways (like calling a he a she when you believe he is a he) or be punished for it, that’s it.

It’s like the whole grab em by the pussy thing the media used to try to take the president down. All Donald was saying is that if you’re powerful and famous girls will let you do pretty much everything especially if you’re some rockstar and they’re starstruck. But all of a sudden it morphs into “OMG HE SAYS TO GRAB GIRLS BY THE PUSSY” lol

[xerx]

But as some people pointed out I think a lot of it is sarcasm and exaggerating to illustrate a point.

Like picturing a bunch of teen trans activists overthrowing the government is hilarious, but I don’t think JP actually sees them that way, I think it’s just a natural expression/by product/passion for getting his points across.

Ex, like underneath everything everything he says about c-16, his main point is he doesn’t want society to get to a point where we’re forced to think/speak in certain ways (like calling a he a she when you believe he is a he) or be punished for it, that’s it.

It’s like the whole grab em by the pussy thing the media used to try to take the president down. All Donald was saying is that if you’re powerful and famous girls will let you do pretty much everything especially if you’re some rockstar and they’re starstruck. But all of a sudden it morphs into “OMG HE SAYS TO GRAB GIRLS BY THE PUSSY” lol

The exaggerated straw-man argument is the only point that gets expressed when someone exaggerates. Bill C-16 doesn't shut down free speech and doesn't even reference gender pronouns. He reacted to it bizarrely and pulled the pronouns thing out of his ass.

If you ogled a woman and got accused of drugging and raping her, the accuser isn't making a heroic stand against rape by "sarcastically exaggerating" what you were doing. That accuser is just a liar.

[Computer Loser]

The exaggerated straw-man argument is the only point that gets expressed when someone exaggerates. Bill C-16 doesn't shut down free speech and doesn't even reference gender pronouns. He reacted to it bizarrely and pulled the pronouns thing out of his ass.

If you ogled a woman and got accused of drugging and raping her, the accuser isn't making a heroic stand against rape by "sarcastically exaggerating" what you were doing. That accuser is just a liar.

It’s not as strawman/bizarre as you think it is.

Bill C-16 could result in jail time for Peterson if does what he says he’s going to do. While the new law doesn’t technically criminalize refusing to use someone’s preferred gender pronoun — it will likely be interpreted to result in fines for such behavior. And, as he’s explained, he will then refuse to pay the fines. Which could then result in jail time.

Even the Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies at the University of Toronto — while trying to prove that he is wrong, shows that he is correct. They state:

“Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts.”

Here is the link:

Bill C-16 – No, its Not about Criminalizing Pronoun Misuse — Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies
The title says that the bill doesn’t criminalize pronoun use — because the penalty is a fine or a “non-financial remedy” (being ordered to behave differently in the future). But what happens if you refuse to pay the fine? Or, if you defy the order of the tribunal? Eventually: They put you in jail.

NOTE: My understanding is that Peterson has no objection to people who are transgender. His main objection is being forced by law to use particular words.

[Singu]

There already is a hate speech law in Canada. They're just going to add gender identity (transgender, etc) alongside the list of color, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability, which are all protected under this law.

So if Peterson is going to complain that adding gender identity will limit free speech, then he will have to complain about all the other groups that are protected under the hate speech law. Basically, he would have to overturn the entire hate speech law if he truly cared about "freedom of speech". He is free to do so, but singling out gender identity is indeed a discrimination on its own.

So ironically, Peterson is indeed discriminating against trans-gendered people within this hate speech law.

[squark]

I think there's a pretty big difference between using racial slurs when talking to someone, and refusing to feed their delusions that they're another gender. But hey, that's just me I guess.

[Adam Strange]

It would be nice to work on the assumption that your rights stop where the other person's nose begins.

If the person with whom you are talking makes it clear that they want to be addressed as a giant sentient tomato plant, a decent respect for their opinions dictates that you address them that way. It doesn't mean that you can't have your own opinion regarding their Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, and mental state.

[squark]

It would be nice to work on the assumption that your rights stop where the other person's nose begins.

If the person with whom you are talking makes it clear that they want to be addressed as a giant sentient tomato plant, a decent respect for their opinions dictates that you address them that way. It doesn't mean that you can't have your own opinion regarding their Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, and mental state.

I think your two statements contradict each other. Insisting that everyone address me as "Your Majesty" doesn't mean they actually have to do so, because it's completely within their rights to refuse. Their nose as you put it. In other words, demanding that people address you in some way infringes on their rights, does it not?

[Ryan]

It would be nice to work on the assumption that your rights stop where the other person's nose begins.

If the person with whom you are talking makes it clear that they want to be addressed as a giant sentient tomato plant, a decent respect for their opinions dictates that you address them that way. It doesn't mean that you can't have your own opinion regarding their Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, and mental state.

Hm.

That is not the issue though. I haven't been following the gender discussion closely, but from what I understand: they want to be considered legally as their desired gender. I'm pretty sure they are deprived of certain rights. I don't know exactly how. But it's actually more complex than you allude to.

[Adam Strange]

I think your two statements contradict each other. Insisting that everyone address me as "Your Majesty" doesn't mean they actually have to do so, because it's completely within their rights to refuse. Their nose as you put it. In other words, demanding that people address you in some way infringes on their rights, does it not?

Yes, it does. They can request something, and you have the choice to comply or not. It works both ways. Their rights stop where your nose begins.

[Singu]

I think there's a pretty big difference between using racial slurs when talking to someone, and refusing to feed their delusions that they're another gender. But hey, that's just me I guess.

"Hate speech" means something like "transgenders should be killed". Why should something like "Christians should be killed" be criminalized under the hate speech law, but not "transgenders should be killed"?

It's very doubtful that Peterson would get fined for not referring to a person of their preferred gender, but let's say that he does. In the same way, I would get fined for saying "I'm not going to call you a Christian, because God doesn't exist and that's delusional". If I complained that it's so unfair and that it's some conspiratory PC-ness limiting my freedom of speech, then I think that most people would think I'm just being petty, and probably would garner no sympathy if I refuse to pay any fines and go to jail for breaking the law.

So basically, laws are laws and it doesn't really matter what I personally think or feel about religion. It's perfectly fine to think that God doesn't exist and religion is delusional, but I'm not allowed to say "Christians should be killed". That is of course, if there is a hate speech law, which there is in Canada.

[Adam Strange]

Hm.

That is not the issue though. I haven't been following the gender discussion closely, but from what I understand: they want to be considered legally as their desired gender. I'm pretty sure they are deprived of certain rights. I don't know exactly how. But it's actually more complex than you allude to.

The issue IS more complex than what I stated. I would add that some personal rights need to be abrogated to group interests. Vaccinations, for example, where the refusal of a few people to get vaccinated endangers the whole group.
Most laws are disputes between where the boundary between personal and public benefit lies.

[squark]

Yes, it does. They can request something, and you have the choice to comply or not. It works both ways. Their rights stop where your nose begins.

Alright, we're in agreement on that then. Sounded to me like you were saying otherwise.

[timber]

You are okay, buddy?

Yup all good.

[WVBRY]

Vaccinations, for example, where the refusal of a few people to get vaccinated endangers the whole group.

A few people choosing not to get vaccinated does not endager the rest of the group if the rest of the group is already vaccinated.

I think mandatory vaccination, like they voted on in France is monstrous. How does the government decide you have to put something in your body you don't want to? It actually has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with private interests influencing government policy. But regardless of the motive, it is actually scary.

Many doctors actually spoke out against the fact the vaccines if France posed health problems when combined (I think there was like 11 vaccines given to babies all in one go) and they were accused of being anti-vaxxers. But their arguement was not that vaccines are bad, but that combining those 11 vaccines into one bundle poses health risks.

I am not anti-vaccine, but I don't think the government should decide who gets to put something in their body and who doesn't. Like, I said people not getting vaccinated is only a problem for others who are not vaccinated.

[ouronis]

A few people choosing not to get vaccinated does not endager the rest of the group if the rest of the group is already vaccinated.

I think mandatory vaccination, like they voted on in France is monstrous. How does the government decide you have to put something in your body you don't want to? It actually has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with private interests influencing government policy. But regardless of the motive, it is actually scary.

Many doctors actually spoke out against the fact the vaccines if France posed health problems when combined (I think there was like 11 vaccines given to babies all in one go) and they were accused of being anti-vaxxers. But their arguement was not that vaccines are bad, but that combining those 11 vaccines into one bundle poses health risks.

I am not anti-vaccine, but I don't think the government should decide who gets to put something in their body and who doesn't. Like, I said people not getting vaccinated is only a problem for others who are not vaccinated.

Jimmy can put his own possessions into his body; you can't. That's stealing.

I'm going to trust my safety to the government over meth-head Stacy down the street that bites apples at Kroger and gives the populace Hep A.

[xerx]

It’s not as strawman/bizarre as you think it is.

...

Bill c-16 extends existing legislation to gender identity. This is bill c-16:

Prohibited grounds of discrimination
(1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/e...6/royal-assent

That's literally it. How a future court "might" interpret gender identity is irrelevant. A future court could just as easily choose to interpret age as a social construct. If you want complete legal certainty, don't live in a country with an Anglosaxon code of law.

Even if a court did someday declare that pronouns = gender identity, the threshold to get charged under the existing criminal code is really, really high. Hate crimes against sexual orientation are already legislated against in the same way and no one gets charged just for calling someone a fag--t.