View Poll Results: type of Jordan Peterson?

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

    4 5.33%
  • SEI (ISFp)

    0 0%
  • ESE (ESFj)

    2 2.67%
  • LII (INTj)

    18 24.00%
  • SLE (ESTp)

    0 0%
  • IEI (INFp)

    5 6.67%
  • EIE (ENFj)

    17 22.67%
  • LSI (ISTj)

    7 9.33%
  • SEE (ESFp)

    1 1.33%
  • ILI (INTp)

    6 8.00%
  • LIE (ENTj)

    14 18.67%
  • ESI (ISFj)

    3 4.00%
  • IEE (ENFp)

    1 1.33%
  • SLI (ISTp)

    0 0%
  • LSE (ESTj)

    4 5.33%
  • EII (INFj)

    2 2.67%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 18 of 29 FirstFirst ... 814151617181920212228 ... LastLast
Results 681 to 720 of 1127

Thread: Jordan Peterson

  1. #681
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domr View Post
    If you are going around talking about how bad the left is and promoting religion then you are right-wing and OG at that. Even the alt-right does not promote religion.
    Well, he is talking about the extreme left specifically and as for being pro religion, I agree that it is generally associated with conservative values and merging the state and religion.

    However, I don't see how even leftists are exempt being pro-religion so it is not a stretch for a centrist to be as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by domr View Post
    Classical liberalism was merely a response to the issues of their day. No one follows 19th century ideology anymore because we have 21st century issues.
    That is why I can buy classical liberalism as being centrist today as modern liberalism has shifted more to the left.

    However, to say classical liberalism is akin to conservatism is inaccurate as they are different.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  2. #682
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,815
    Mentioned
    279 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007 View Post
    Writes CO2 as C02 (yes, with zero).
    LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

    amazing! nice catch!!!!!!

  3. #683
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domr View Post
    I would love to continue this conversation but I cannot talk to intuitive types that have not developed their sensation.
    By focusing on theory instead of reality, this conversation will not go anywhere.
    Well, my sensing used to be even worse in the past, lol. Anyways, this kind of topic is bound to develop into a theoretical circle jerk of one's own beliefs anyways so I agree that it is a fruitless endeavor for that reason. Almost everyone is guilty of that in some form.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  4. #684
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    484 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    he's pro religion in the same way Jung is, which is to say the religious establishment looks at him like a gnostic heretic. but he promotes the good side of religion which is to say to find the meaning in mythological interpretations and use it to better the self and the world

  5. #685
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domr View Post
    Again more out of control intuition. There is nothing inherently bad about intuition but you have to be sure that the assumptions you are making at valid, which you are not.
    Even if what you are saying is true, I don't see how that makes you more right than me in this argument. All it means is that you are a better debater, but regardless in the end this is a classic ad hominem distracting from the main point, which is the argument itself.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  6. #686
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    484 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I mean the entire premise is that religion isn't bad, and if that appeals to conservatives that's not bad either, because his mode of interpreting religion and explaining why it isn't bad is itself a "liberal" i.e.: higher in openness version of religion, i.e.: a psychological approach to myth. in that way he stands to push religion in a progressive direction, so to characterize him as somehow capitulating or serving "conservative" religious agenda is not accurate. he is in fact planting the seeds for their annihilation inasmuch as the "conservative" agenda is a power structure rooted in the status quo. he doesn't need to "oppose" himself to religion per se, he's simply trying to capture what is good about it and cleave off the rest. this is far better than trying to simply deny the legitimacy of all religious thinking because it alienates a massive swath of people for no good reason (and abandons any accumulated wisdom in the tradition). this goes back to my thing about conflict for its own sake, and not being about that. you don't need to destroy religion when you can take whats good about it and bring it into the 21st century. that's only an "appeal" to conservatives on the most shallow level. its really an appeal to them not in their political capacity but as humans. there's an intersection of mindsets here, but the kill all religion way of thinking is just as conservative inasmuch as its rooted in an essentially 19th century mindset. true that mindset is opposed to a 14th century mindset so superficially appears more progressive, but what peterson stands for is an actual 21st century mindset. this is what people who assume he's just another televangelist get wrong about him

  7. #687

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,465
    Mentioned
    247 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Out of curiosity, I looked up the general consensus online on JBP and classical liberalism and it seems to be that generally speaking aside from a few outliers that think he is a left or right winger that both classical liberalism and JBP are centrist nowadays.

    So I will concede that he is possibly not a left winger, but a centrist instead. However, to say he is a right winger, far right or even centre right is certainly a stretch. I might even possibly be a centrist myself despite having an ample amount of leftist views.

    Regardless, it displays the level of subjectivity and the arbitrary nature of the left wing - right wing dichotomy based on the differing viewpoints from a variety of political stances.
    There's no way that this kind of thing is "centrist". He wants to go back to the good ol' days of 50's traditional gender roles, where men were men and women were women, although he does it in a way to pretend that this is all "objective" and "academic" - such as that these traditional gender roles are based on timeless mythologies. Or worse, it somehow has to do with lobsters.



    Bertrand is an extremely confused individual, and that's why he continuously rambles about Socionics and Jordan Peterson on a forum such as this one.
    Quote Originally Posted by A.Augustinavichiute
    The goal of our work is to try to penetrate into the models of the psyche projected by Jung, to show which positions and categories can be considered completely proved and irrefutable.
    https://translate.google.com/transla...t.html&prev=_t

  8. #688
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    484 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    worrying that he appeals to conservatives is itself a conservative viewpoint in light of peterson's actual message which is to rise above that way of thinking about the issue

    and yeah a 7 year old video of a intuitive thinking type is unhip, news at 11. if people want to disregard the insights he does have because of some corny video that's fine but lets not pretend they're meeting him on the field of ideas. if you watch his actual classroom lectures then you start to get an idea where all this is coming from

  9. #689
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    1,395
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    yeah he's totally a (center) right winger
    Who gives a shit what he is, I was clarifying for Raver since he seemed not to know JP was a racist bible-thumper.

  10. #690
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    484 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah I personally don't care that he's racist or a bible thumper, the important thing is to accurately state where he lies on the right-left spectrum vis-a-vis "classic liberalism"

  11. #691
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    1,395
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    yeah I personally don't care that he's racist or a bible thumper, the important thing is to accurately state where he lies on the right-left spectrum vis-a-vis "classic liberalism"
    Gotcha. I don't get it, but there ya go, I suppose.

  12. #692
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,815
    Mentioned
    279 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hm. I just voted LII for him earlier but I'm changing my typing of him to EII.

    I find it highly unlikely that an LII would write "C02" with a zero and consistently use data so poorly as squark pointed out earlier on in the thread. Fail Ti role IMO. EII final and confirm.

  13. #693

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,465
    Mentioned
    247 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the more you look into Jordan Peterson, the more you'll find that he's a typical chauvinist, a nationalist, a radical right-winger.

    Jordan Peterson quotes:

    “Men have to toughen up,” “Men demand it, and women want it.”

    “consciousness is symbolically masculine and has been since the beginning of time.”

    “the soul of the individual eternally hungers for the heroism of genuine Being.”

    “In the West, we have been withdrawing from our tradition-, religion- and even nation-centred cultures.”

    “Culture, is symbolically, archetypally, mythically male” “Chaos—the unknown—is symbolically associated with the feminine.”

    “feminists avoid criticizing Islam because they unconsciously long for masculine dominance.”

    “Maybe it’s not the world that’s at fault. Maybe it’s you. You’ve failed to make the mark.”

    “Compassion as a vice” “Toughen up, you weasel.”

    “@GreggHurwitz it’s good that you consumed the liquor this time instead of letting some Indian steal it . . .”

    http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03...ist-mysticism/
    Quote Originally Posted by A.Augustinavichiute
    The goal of our work is to try to penetrate into the models of the psyche projected by Jung, to show which positions and categories can be considered completely proved and irrefutable.
    https://translate.google.com/transla...t.html&prev=_t

  14. #694
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    3,446
    Mentioned
    232 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis View Post
    He isn't?
    I mean... HE MAKES MUSIC TOO *_* how cool is this!

  15. #695
    fka lungs ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 6 sp/sx
    Posts
    14,219
    Mentioned
    778 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    I had a couple videos sitting on my youtube front page for awhile with titles like "Peterson DESTROYS hysterical feminists!" that I was quickly scrolling past in disgust for weeks, and last night I finally watched them and wasn't really surprised to find that I didn't feel slapped by ideological bullshit by what he has to say in them, its just that his fanboys frame them in this annoying way and title the videos like that because they're just as assured about his right wing ideology matching theirs as lefties are. Not that there was nothing in those videos I disagreed with. Maybe I'm just so used to triggered and sandwich jokes that being able to mentally engage actual ideas makes me roll over lol.

    Probably where there's smoke there's fire but even if that's the case i don't even see what there is to gain by labeling him as an argument in and of itself.

  16. #696

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    793
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Doesnt even find the time to shave before an interviene, cannot close his shit properly, never worked in business and never earned a cent in the real economy, still preaches perfect order and super hard work.
    facical stubble is extremely common in Canada and his facial hair is no-where near out of the common ordinary. so try again, bucko.

  17. #697

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    793
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    bertrand, clean your room, bud.

  18. #698
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,412
    Mentioned
    216 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    facical stubble is extremely common in Canada and his facial hair is no-where near out of the common ordinary. so try again, bucko.
    r u trying to justify your and peeperson´s laziness?
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  19. #699

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    793
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    r u trying to justify your and peeperson´s laziness?
    haha! nooooooooo

    actually i clip my scruff with clippers as close to skin as possible these days.

  20. #700
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    1,395
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here's comments from his ama on Reddit https://www.reddit.com/user/drjordanbpeterson/comments

  21. #701
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    5,973
    Mentioned
    698 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here's an article on Peterson in today's Toronto Star: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018...dangerous.html

  22. #702
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    484 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    oh look an article comparing him to billy graham, just like I mentioned earlier

  23. #703

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,465
    Mentioned
    247 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    Here's an article on Peterson in today's Toronto Star: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018...dangerous.html
    Huh interesting, that does make him appear more like a cult leader or a demagogue than a genuine researcher or a "justice warrior". Something that many people are now realizing and pointing out.

    I've seen his kind of demagoguery trick more than enough times, where he gets a fair amount of loyal and faithful followers, and he lets them do the bidding of attacking and harassing anyone that might disagree with him or criticize him. They often pick convenient and defenseless scapegoats, often minorities, liberals and women. Sometimes they pick powerful but universally loathed people (like the media, again scapegoats) to give the impression that they're fighting against some "enemies" for a noble cause.

    This kind of thing is especially troubling:

    I discovered while writing this essay a shocking climate of fear among women writers and academics who would not attach their names to opinions or data which were critical of Jordan. All of Jordan’s critics receive nasty feedback from some of his followers, but women writers have felt personally threatened.
    Quote Originally Posted by A.Augustinavichiute
    The goal of our work is to try to penetrate into the models of the psyche projected by Jung, to show which positions and categories can be considered completely proved and irrefutable.
    https://translate.google.com/transla...t.html&prev=_t

  24. #704
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,356
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    JBP:

    Right-wing, rightist

    A general descriptive term for any of several otherwise rather different, conservative, reactionary or fascist political ideologies, the common denominator of which is their qualified or enthusiastic support for the main features of the current social and economic order, accepting all (or nearly all) of its inequalities of wealth, status and privilege (or even in some cases support for a return to an earlier, even more inegalitarian and hierarchical political-economic order).

    Right wing ideologies tend to emphasize the values of order, patriotism, social cohesion, and a personal sense of duty that makes the individual citizen who “knows his place” responsive to discipline from his political and social superiors. In America, the term has a somewhat more derogatory flavor than in Europe.
    http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/right-wing

  25. #705
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,851
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The whole Jordan Peterson thing is just so boring and always have been. If you like Jung (who really is kind of cool) there are thousands of people who've made Jungian inspired stuff, most of which is way cooler than Jordan Peterson. Yeah, getting into stuff other people like is cool too, but there's other Jungian stuff that other people like. There are plenty of groups of people who just don't care about Jordan Peterson and are even considered relevant. How do we have so little to do with our time that Jordan Peterson is important? Solamen miseris socios habuisse doloris.

  26. #706

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    793
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ya I'm like so above this basic shit like I'm studying like philosophy and Jordan is just so basic like I talk about what he talks about like just for fun on friday nights with my college buddies its like not even a big deal.


  27. #707
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,356
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


  28. #708
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,574
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    After having watched some videos of JP, I think he is Ti-ISTj.

  29. #709
    fka lungs ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 6 sp/sx
    Posts
    14,219
    Mentioned
    778 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is kind of a dump of thoughts that I don't want to parse, so yeah-

    I wasn't happy with my phrasing before when I said I disagreed with him sometimes. As far as the scientific articles he cites, I don't have the background and the savvy to evaluate their merits and, as far as I know, they're pretty well accepted, so I just take them at face value as I'm listening. Its more about how he chooses to frame things, for example when he talks about women in the workplace and his experiences with unhappy female lawyers I don't think he's wrong, I just think the majority of women in the workplace are there to pay the bills and get by and feed their kids whereas in his framing of the subject its like women are there to compete with men! and get ahead! Which is, like, weird, and doesn't really portray the motivations of most women and is -cough- a divisive and provocative framing of the issue, even if that isn't his intention. Its about where he chooses to shine the light and where he doesn't. The other night I watched a video (I'm not going to look for it - I've been in the habit of watching a handful of videos of his a night lately and I really enjoy most of them, but anyway there are a ton in my history to dig through) where within the space of about 5 minutes in response to questions from an interviewer he says that 1) there is not really fire to the smoke of feminists complaints and that they're motivated primarily by resentment and envy, and 2) that young disgruntled men are upset for good reasons, because of the culture and society. I mean... this is probably an annoying and wishy washy centrist thing to say but obviously there is some legitimate grievance and some shitty resentment coming from both groups - on the level of the individual! Which is the important thing, right? In my eyes this is a pretty obvious example of how he's influenced by certain ideological underpinnings even though he unequivocably denies it. Though to be fair, another person might see it as just an accurate portrayal of reality that shouldn't be viewed through the dirty lens of identity politics (eh, I don't think that's really fair, since it deviates from the emphasis on individuality he promotes). On that note, I'd like someone to explain to me in a balanced way that I can understand why I'm wrong in my perception that left wing ideas are widely considered to be ideological and right wing ideas are widely considered to be neutral perception. It seems to me like a matter of PR and nothing else. If I see one more article about how left wing rhetoric fuels right wing extremism I swear lol! I have definitely been "pushed" into left wing and extreme feminist rhetoric by constant trolling from anti feminists and the right wingers surrounding me etc but that's my own fucking responsibility, I have to be accountable for my own words, the public at large expects me to hold myself accountable. I can't cross my arms and pout and say "the right wing made me do it!" which is exactly what the right wing is doing with the enabling and support of the moderate left. I seem to be alone in this view so I'm open to correction and feedback.

  30. #710

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,465
    Mentioned
    247 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's like yes, JP is not a fan of feminism and we get that, but I think that he's being too much of a reactionary when he suggests that we should just "go back" to the old days of traditional gender roles, when things were much more simpler and predictable. But I don't think that we can "go back" to it, because there are still some merits to feminism, and that's why it has been adopted to some degree, and it has been so culturally ingrained in the Western culture that going back to it isn't going to be possible. So I think the solution isn't to "go back" to something previous, but come up with a new solution. I have no idea what this solution is going to look like, because it's still a work in progress and nobody has come up with a solution so far. But I do think that it has to be done. Probably the work of the left and the "feminists" is to actually come up with this solution, somehow.

    So what I'm wondering is, is there a merit to saying men should be men and women should be women, or is this all just a bunch of nonsense, and something that we shouldn't really bother with?
    Quote Originally Posted by A.Augustinavichiute
    The goal of our work is to try to penetrate into the models of the psyche projected by Jung, to show which positions and categories can be considered completely proved and irrefutable.
    https://translate.google.com/transla...t.html&prev=_t

  31. #711

  32. #712
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ashlesha View Post
    This is kind of a dump of thoughts that I don't want to parse, so yeah-

    I wasn't happy with my phrasing before when I said I disagreed with him sometimes. As far as the scientific articles he cites, I don't have the background and the savvy to evaluate their merits and, as far as I know, they're pretty well accepted, so I just take them at face value as I'm listening. Its more about how he chooses to frame things, for example when he talks about women in the workplace and his experiences with unhappy female lawyers I don't think he's wrong, I just think the majority of women in the workplace are there to pay the bills and get by and feed their kids whereas in his framing of the subject its like women are there to compete with men! and get ahead! Which is, like, weird, and doesn't really portray the motivations of most women and is -cough- a divisive and provocative framing of the issue, even if that isn't his intention. Its about where he chooses to shine the light and where he doesn't. The other night I watched a video (I'm not going to look for it - I've been in the habit of watching a handful of videos of his a night lately and I really enjoy most of them, but anyway there are a ton in my history to dig through) where within the space of about 5 minutes in response to questions from an interviewer he says that 1) there is not really fire to the smoke of feminists complaints and that they're motivated primarily by resentment and envy, and 2) that young disgruntled men are upset for good reasons, because of the culture and society. I mean... this is probably an annoying and wishy washy centrist thing to say but obviously there is some legitimate grievance and some shitty resentment coming from both groups - on the level of the individual! Which is the important thing, right? In my eyes this is a pretty obvious example of how he's influenced by certain ideological underpinnings even though he unequivocably denies it. Though to be fair, another person might see it as just an accurate portrayal of reality that shouldn't be viewed through the dirty lens of identity politics (eh, I don't think that's really fair, since it deviates from the emphasis on individuality he promotes). On that note, I'd like someone to explain to me in a balanced way that I can understand why I'm wrong in my perception that left wing ideas are widely considered to be ideological and right wing ideas are widely considered to be neutral perception. It seems to me like a matter of PR and nothing else. If I see one more article about how left wing rhetoric fuels right wing extremism I swear lol! I have definitely been "pushed" into left wing and extreme feminist rhetoric by constant trolling from anti feminists and the right wingers surrounding me etc but that's my own fucking responsibility, I have to be accountable for my own words, the public at large expects me to hold myself accountable. I can't cross my arms and pout and say "the right wing made me do it!" which is exactly what the right wing is doing with the enabling and support of the moderate left. I seem to be alone in this view so I'm open to correction and feedback.
    I agree with you for the most part. Anyways, JBP mentioned it in a video of his and the reason the perception is that the far left get criticized, while the right is left alone has mostly do with the far left mentality being dominated by the acadamia and the media for whatever reason.

    It is not so much that the right is correct, but rather that far right ideas are unanimously discredited by the media, academia and the public as fringe looney ideas, while the far left gets accepted and welcomed into many circles.

    JBP's argument appears to be that the far left deserves just as much criticism for their wacky ideas as the far right does, which I agree with. JBP calls himself a classical liberal, but from what I have read into it, it seems like a copout from calling himself a centrist or a libertarian.

    I guess it is his way of appearing non-ideological by using an outdated ideology that can be intepreted in a numerous amount of ways. Anyways, I guess I would affiliate myself as centrist or a left leaning libertarian if I was forced to, but I personally don't like labels as it oversimplifies people's generally complex beliefs.

    On one issue I am left wing, another I am centrist and another I am right wing so I don't like to pigeonhole myself into one mindset and prefer to be flexible. The only people that really bother me are extremists of any side. Far leftists and far rightists are both extremely annoying to me for different reasons.

    Far rightists bother me because they use hate and fear to justify atrocious beliefs and actions and far leftists bother me because they use the moral high ground to justify their ludicrous beliefs and actions.

    They are really just two sides of the same coin. I don't mind people in the center left like yourself or people on the center right because they are able to see multiple sides of an issue and respect them even though they settle with one of them in the end.

    They are not so much driven by ideology, but rather the beliefs and values given by their overall mentality and life experiences, which is completely understandable.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  33. #713
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,574
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ashlesha View Post
    This is kind of a dump of thoughts that I don't want to parse, so yeah-

    I wasn't happy with my phrasing before when I said I disagreed with him sometimes. As far as the scientific articles he cites, I don't have the background and the savvy to evaluate their merits and, as far as I know, they're pretty well accepted, so I just take them at face value as I'm listening. Its more about how he chooses to frame things, for example when he talks about women in the workplace and his experiences with unhappy female lawyers I don't think he's wrong, I just think the majority of women in the workplace are there to pay the bills and get by and feed their kids whereas in his framing of the subject its like women are there to compete with men! and get ahead! Which is, like, weird, and doesn't really portray the motivations of most women and is -cough- a divisive and provocative framing of the issue, even if that isn't his intention. Its about where he chooses to shine the light and where he doesn't. The other night I watched a video (I'm not going to look for it - I've been in the habit of watching a handful of videos of his a night lately and I really enjoy most of them, but anyway there are a ton in my history to dig through) where within the space of about 5 minutes in response to questions from an interviewer he says that 1) there is not really fire to the smoke of feminists complaints and that they're motivated primarily by resentment and envy, and 2) that young disgruntled men are upset for good reasons, because of the culture and society. I mean... this is probably an annoying and wishy washy centrist thing to say but obviously there is some legitimate grievance and some shitty resentment coming from both groups - on the level of the individual! Which is the important thing, right? In my eyes this is a pretty obvious example of how he's influenced by certain ideological underpinnings even though he unequivocably denies it. Though to be fair, another person might see it as just an accurate portrayal of reality that shouldn't be viewed through the dirty lens of identity politics (eh, I don't think that's really fair, since it deviates from the emphasis on individuality he promotes). On that note, I'd like someone to explain to me in a balanced way that I can understand why I'm wrong in my perception that left wing ideas are widely considered to be ideological and right wing ideas are widely considered to be neutral perception. It seems to me like a matter of PR and nothing else. If I see one more article about how left wing rhetoric fuels right wing extremism I swear lol! I have definitely been "pushed" into left wing and extreme feminist rhetoric by constant trolling from anti feminists and the right wingers surrounding me etc but that's my own fucking responsibility, I have to be accountable for my own words, the public at large expects me to hold myself accountable. I can't cross my arms and pout and say "the right wing made me do it!" which is exactly what the right wing is doing with the enabling and support of the moderate left. I seem to be alone in this view so I'm open to correction and feedback.
    I think you're totally right.

    Resentment from both feminist and anti-feminists can be legitimate, but the problem is that the people who fall into these camps usually frame the issue as one of groups vs groups, when it is usually their own individual frustrations, fears, setbacks etc talking. Not that it is wrong to experience these frustrations, fears, and setbacks, but framing it as an us vs them issue is not going to solve something that exists (in my opinion) on an individual level. "What problem/s are you trying to addres and solve" is a good question for both feminists and anti-feminists alike, usually the problem is one that exists on an individual scale and not on a social one. There are some exceptions though, for example, men losing custody of their children because they are men, or women being payed less in some places than their male collegues for the same work, and if it was kept to that, the movements themselves would be alot less controversial. Fact is, alot of feminists and anti-feminists alike seem to have alot of anger, and need to sort themselves out if they want to improve the world. Finding a scapegoat isn't a solution, and unless there is a concrete issue that can be solved through civil and political action (like by changing an unjust law, for example) going after the other side only adds to the poison. I'm not sure if that's the same thing you're talking about though...I got kinda lost in my own process lol.

    I do also agree (and I think you are talking about this) that people cannot blame "the other side" for being pushed into a political position. I too got tired of constant trolling and having opinions shoved down my throat, except it was from the left, but that isn't a reason to blame them for my classical liberal positions, which I am responsible for. Fact is, even if I hadn't had a shitty experience with some leftists in college, I wouldn't be left wing because it just doesn't resonate with me. You cannot simply react to stuff like a ping pong ball bouncing from one side to the other, lol.

  34. #714
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,574
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I agree with you for the most part. Anyways, JBP mentioned it in a video of his and the reason the perception is that the far left get criticized, while the right is left alone has mostly do with the far left mentality being dominated by the acadamia and the media for whatever reason.

    It is not so much that the right is correct, but rather that far right ideas are unanimously discredited by the media, academia and the public as fringe looney ideas, while the far left gets accepted and welcomed into many circles.

    JBP's argument appears to be that the far left deserves just as much criticism for their wacky ideas as the far right does, which I agree with. JBP calls himself a classical liberal, but from what I have read into it, it seems like a copout from calling himself a centrist or a libertarian.

    I guess it is his way of appearing non-ideological by using an outdated ideology that can be intepreted in a numerous amount of ways. Anyways, I guess I would affiliate myself as centrist or a left leaning libertarian if I was forced to, but I personally don't like labels as it oversimplifies people's generally complex beliefs.

    On one issue I am left wing, another I am centrist and another I am right wing so I don't like to pigeonhole myself into one mindset and prefer to be flexible. The only people that really bother me are extremists of any side. Far leftists and far rightists are both extremely annoying to me for different reasons.

    Far rightists bother me because they use hate and fear to justify atrocious beliefs and actions and far leftists bother me because they use the moral high ground to justify their ludicrous beliefs and actions.

    They are really just two sides of the same coin. I don't mind people in the center left like yourself or people on the center right because they are able to see multiple sides of an issue and respect them even though they settle with one of them in the end.

    They are not so much driven by ideology, but rather the beliefs and values given by their overall mentality and life experiences, which is completely understandable.
    I agree here too.

    I dislike the extremes for the same reasons you do.

    Personally, I call myself a classical liberal because I lean libertarian but libertarianism and many libertarians are generally too extreme, radical, and ideological I find.

  35. #715
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avebury View Post
    I agree here too.

    I dislike the extremes for the same reasons you do.

    Personally, I call myself a classical liberal because I lean libertarian but libertarianism and many libertarians are generally too extreme, radical, and ideological I find.
    Yeah, libertarianism is a broad term too. You can have left-leaning libertarians and right-leaning ones and then there are the extreme ones that lean towards anarchy, which I am far away from. I guess that's why I call myself a left-leaning libertarian or a centrist if I had to choose. Classical liberalism could work too, but honestly the problem with it is that it's an outdated term that can be easily misinterpreted IMO.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  36. #716
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,574
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Yeah, libertarianism is a broad term too. You can have left-leaning libertarians and right-leaning ones and then there are the extreme ones that lean towards anarchy, which I am far away from. I guess that's why I call myself a left-leaning libertarian or a centrist if I had to choose. Classical liberalism could work too, but honestly the problem with it is that it's an outdated term that can be easily misinterpreted IMO.
    Yeah, and to make it even more confusing, when people say left or right libertarian, I think they mean left or right on political spectrum and libertarian (anti-authority) on the same spectrum. Left and right on the political spectrum/compass are measure only economics, and mean something different than traditonal left vs right (even if there are some overlapping themes between "left" on political compass and "left" in traditional terms).

    Yeah...political labels are just such a confused area lol. You're probably right to stay away from them.

  37. #717
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avebury View Post
    Yeah, and to make it even more confusing, when people say left or right libertarian, I think they mean left or right on political spectrum and libertarian (anti-authority) on the same spectrum. Left and right on the political spectrum/compass are measure only economics, and mean something different than traditonal left vs right (even if there are some overlapping themes between "left" on political compass and "left" in traditional terms).

    Yeah...political labels are just such a confused area lol. You're probably right to stay away from them.
    Exactly, I'm a big fan of the political compass as I think it's the best way to look at politics where I always test somewhere on the libertarian left. The simple left-right dichotomy is too simple, but even the political compass has its flaws as well and it should be taken with a grain of salt as well. Extremists of the left of the right are usually portrayed as being on too far into the authoritarian side, but it could even be interpreted as anyone that is too far away from the center:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  38. #718
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    1,395
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think anybody who identifies themselves as not being ideologically-motivated is inviting the fruits of hubris. I don't like the claim to neutrality, it's extremely disingenuous, so I tend to agree with criticisms of him from this end.

  39. #719
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis View Post
    I think anybody who identifies themselves as not being ideologically-motivated is inviting the fruits of hubris. I don't like the claim to neutrality, it's extremely disingenuous.
    Well, I'm not sure if you're talking about myself or JBP or anyone in general, but in case you're referring to me. I've identified myself as centrist or left-libertarian if I was forced to choose. On the simple, left-right scale I end up as centrist, but on the political compass I end up as left-libertarian, so take your pick I guess.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  40. #720
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,574
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Exactly, I'm a big fan of the political compass as I think it's the best way to look at politics where I always test somewhere on the libertarian left. The simple left-right dichotomy is too simple, but even the political compass has its flaws as well and it should be taken with a grain of salt as well. Extremists of the left of the right are usually portrayed as being on too far into the authoritarian side, but it could even be interpreted as anyone that is too far away from the center:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass
    Political compass is imo better than traditional left vs right because it adds another dimension, but yeah, it isn't perfect either.

    I usually score as right and libertarian on political compass.

Posting Permissions

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