Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 161 to 196 of 196

Thread: Thoughts on Jordan Peterson

  1. #161
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Go play with some ducks or something

  2. #162
    user title The Perpetual Now's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    466
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That Peterson is scum but I quite like Peter Jordanson.

  3. #163
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Ancapistan
    Posts
    2,379
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Peider Jorganson

  4. #164
    user title The Perpetual Now's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    466
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Peeturdson

  5. #165
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,682
    Mentioned
    189 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

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

  6. #166
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Ancapistan
    Posts
    2,379
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    As a radical myself Peterson seems completely disconnected in all ways to what they value. Peterson seems like he would prefer a world where people need to work at least 16 hours a day every day shuffling papers in an office until they die, over one where people end up revolting against that because it would cause "horrors and atrocities". I'm sorry but I will always take violence and chaos anyday over dogma and slavery. It wasn't long ago where most people simply farmed crops and hunted animals to survive and many of them were content with that way of living. Now everybody except those born and raised in the most rural of places has to put up with all this bullshit of going to school, getting enslaved in debt, getting fucked in the ass by jerk corporate bosses, and being humiliated for being a loser if you try to live minimalistically or can't find a way out of it all. On top of that, modern western society has fucked the Earth with pollution and has been exploiting those in third world countries for centuries now. Screw being a pussy over people having to kill people, bring this shit down I say.

    Peterson is partially right when he says that envy and jealously afflict some radicals and collectivists, given that they tend to choose not to play by the system at all and are therefore more prone to having to watch people rise above them in economic status. I think it would be wise for radicals and collectivist to keep themselves in check in that regard. Peterson however likes to strawman this as the main drive behind radical leftist when it really has to do with what I said above. Even if some of them are truly driven by envy, that doesn't necessarily mean their ideas are wrong and that world wouldn't be a better place if they got their way. Bad apples exist in every political group and you can't disapprove ideas just by saying the people behind those ideas are bad people without addressing the ideas themselves.
    Last edited by Muddy; 03-31-2019 at 04:24 AM.

  7. #167
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Ancapistan
    Posts
    2,379
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default




    So I suppose in Peterson's view, those people in South Korea who are being driven to suicide from having to live an accelerated version of western society should all just "grow the hell up", despite already living in extremely dogmatic and disciplined manner. After listening to Peterson more I come to the conclusion he is the exact kind of person I despise. He is bitter, defeated, drained of soul and hates people who possess vigor and solidarity unlike him. He attacks radical leftist by claiming they are motivated jealously when in fact I think he is the one being eaten within from jealously. He invested so much into the standard western capitalist way of living that he's completely lost touch with feeling happiness and excitement, and it's left him a shriveled man as result. Deep down I think he envies the revolutionaries had actually had fucking balls to make change while they where young and strong, and is trying to justify his cucked existence to himself by preaching it to others.

  8. #168
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    When you advocate the violent overthrow and deaths of many people while complaining about your numb modern malaise I automatically tune out and couldn't care less. If your ethics can't be generalized to people at large than there's no reason to take you seriously - your feelings dont matter more than some other persons. Forget about society... the reality is that nature is fundamentally harsh. Life has been very hard anywhere you look, at any point in history, in any political system... and it always will be. The very harshest times are during and after transition states.

    There are downsides to both systems, if you uproot someone from their original culture and plop them in the complete opposite culture they will experience severe culture shock, all the coping skills they'd develop in the past will be completely useless and they'll have to relearn how to function from square one. I should know, I've experienced precisely this kind of culture shock and it took me about 10 years to get my feet on the ground. But now after a decade of adjustment I'm climbing out of that hole and I've learned how to cope in this culture reasonably well. And partly what I needed was a major shift in attitude. So I don't sympathize. Why don't you be resourceful? Instead of pouring over how the system needs to be overthrown (a goal which you have very little chance of obtaining and which would likely only make your life even more hellish) put that same energy into advancing yourself where you don't have to answer to a low level boss - climb high enough to where your bosses are at least intelligent people. Snake your way into some viable skillsets, and make enough money to where you only have to work part time... minimize your living expenses. Avoid commitments... You know, be cunning. TBH you can obtain a 65k starting salary database admin job without a college degree, all you need is access to a decent library and the drive to educate yourself.

    But people will always slip through the cracks, this is unavoidable, and not everyone is cunning (though you are at least cunning enough to be intellectually musing, it's not like you're an 80 IQ felon). Yet the irony is that it was mostly the rebellious peasants that died during the russian revolution.

    If you want to die I can understand that, just have the dignity to off yourself rather than take the rest of society down with you.
    Last edited by cR4z3dr4T; 04-03-2019 at 05:16 AM.

  9. #169
    xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    5,921
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So... does anyone remember when I got criticized for calling him a grifter?


    He's shilling for an insurance Multi-level Marketing scam now: https://www.thedailybeast.com/george...any-php-agency

  10. #170
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    eyy
    Posts
    2,674
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    *wrong post

  11. #171
    xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    5,921
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Care to elaborate on this since the concept is neo marxism rather than marxism:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism

    Jordan tends to criticize neo marxist thought, not old school marxism, which are two different concepts. If you believe neo marxism has nothing to do with post modernism then explain why that is the case.

    The whole point of Postmodernism is the rejection of determinism and grand narratives. The whole point of Marxism is that human history is a highly deterministic, grand narrative. Neomarxism is just Marxism that's been updated with 20th century concepts -- the deterministic part of it is still there.

    It's hard to find two more contradictory philosophical positions than Marxism and Postmodernism.



    And that is why JBP is a clown.

  12. #172
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,682
    Mentioned
    189 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    The whole point of Postmodernism is the rejection of determinism and grand narratives. The whole point of Marxism is that human history is a highly deterministic, grand narrative. Neomarxism is just Marxism that's been updated with 20th century concepts -- the deterministic part of it is still there.

    It's hard to find two more contradictory philosophical positions than Marxism and Postmodernism.



    And that is why JBP is a clown.
    I disagree, while I acknowledge that neo-marxism and postmodernism are not exactly the same thing despite their similarities, it is wrong to say that the difference between marxism and neo-marxism is that it is merely an update with 20th century concepts. Marxism is specifically about equality of economics between the proles and bourgeouis, while neo-marxism extends that to equality of race, gender and sexual orientation. The only similarity that these two concepts share is equality, while everything else is different. I should note that there's nothing wrong with wanting equality of opportunity for people of all races, genders and sexual orientation, but this is not what neo-marxism is about.

    Striving for equality of outcome is the neo-marxist position, which is a ludicrous goal. This is why many equate neo-marxism with postmodernism because they both strive for equality of outcome. Wanting everyone to have the same result regardless of how hard they work and how much talent they have makes no sense at all. It is basically an anti-merit position when people should be given the opportunity to succeed based on merit alone instead and nothing else, which is what equality of opportunity should be about. JBP is fighting against equality of outcome, not against equality of opportunity and he's made that distinction on several interviews.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

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

  13. #173
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Ancapistan
    Posts
    2,379
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post

    Striving for equality of outcome is the neo-marxist position, which is a ludicrous goal. This is why many equate neo-marxism with postmodernism because they both strive for equality of outcome. Wanting everyone to have the same result regardless of how hard they work and how much talent they have makes no sense at all. It is basically an anti-merit position when people should be given the opportunity to succeed based on merit alone instead and nothing else, which is what equality of opportunity should be about. JBP is fighting against equality of outcome, not against equality of opportunity and he's made that distinction on several interviews.
    I can't speak for all these "neo" leftist factions, but standard Marxism at least absolutely does NOT seek to establish complete equality of outcome aka doctors earning the same as dishwashers. Instead, what Marxism seeks is to prevent wealth being gained from ownership of capital, in other words no more getting money from things like rent, inheritance, or speculative investments. Wages are determined by a job's theorized value to society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

  14. #174
    user title The Perpetual Now's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    466
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    New shit has come to light that reveals Peterson was created in a Jim Henson workshop in the late 80s. Originally intended as a guest character for Sesame Street, he would have hosted a segment in which he appeared in a classic news reporter costume and reported on shenanigans happening on the street. Early child test audiences were scared by the character and didn't really connect with the frequent tangents about Solzhenitsyn, lobsters and dragons. Henson sold the creation to NBC, who at the time were looking for a new sitcom to improve the ratings for their prime time lineup. Again, he didn't really resonate with test audiences, so they went instead with a little known stand-up named Seinfeld and sold Peterson to the Harvard University Psychology Department.

  15. #175
    user title The Perpetual Now's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    466
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is a bit of a contradiction in his thought process regarding equality of outcome. He speaks against it yet the enforced monogamy he advocates might itself be considered to be a form of a rigged equality of outcome for low value males.

    Prime example of why I think he loses credibility the more he tries to address cultural and political issues. He should stick to an emphasis on helping people self-improve (oxymoronic) and topics more directly related to his field, but I think he's gotten high on the fame and exposure he's received, so I don't see him giving up his soapbox any time soon.

    Then again, maybe it's impossible to extract the political from anything, since everything has become so intertwined with politics in the last decade. He could be symptomatic of a greater trend in the culture.
    Last edited by The Perpetual Now; 06-03-2019 at 03:33 PM.

  16. #176
    xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    5,921
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I disagree, while I acknowledge that neo-marxism and postmodernism are not exactly the same thing despite their similarities, it is wrong to say that the difference between marxism and neo-marxism is that it is merely an update with 20th century concepts. Marxism is specifically about equality of economics between the proles and bourgeouis, while neo-marxism extends that to equality of race, gender and sexual orientation. The only similarity that these two concepts share is equality, while everything else is different. I should note that there's nothing wrong with wanting equality of opportunity for people of all races, genders and sexual orientation, but this is not what neo-marxism is about.

    Striving for equality of outcome is the neo-marxist position, which is a ludicrous goal. This is why many equate neo-marxism with postmodernism because they both strive for equality of outcome. Wanting everyone to have the same result regardless of how hard they work and how much talent they have makes no sense at all. It is basically an anti-merit position when people should be given the opportunity to succeed based on merit alone instead and nothing else, which is what equality of opportunity should be about. JBP is fighting against equality of outcome, not against equality of opportunity and he's made that distinction on several interviews.
    I don't know as much about postmodernism as I'd like; I have never finished a book by Judith Butler or Foucault because their arguments were so unappealing, and the writing was so abstruse that it felt like I was reading bullshit. I do know this though: Postmodernism isn't a political ideology; if it has any coherency at all, it's a cluster of solipsistic arguments that reject philosophical foundationalism. Postmodernists tend to dismiss the existence of universal truths; they tend to be relativists who believe that meaning and morality either don't exist, or don't exist outside of individual subjective experience.

    To the extent that it's a philosophical rather than a political position, anyone from any part of the political spectrum can be a Postmodernist.

    There are right wing Postmodernists (mainly Libertarians) who view the free market as reflecting relativistic principles; they believe the notion that the value or price of a commodity is entirely subjective, which is an inherently relativistic proposition. Even if the direction of their political activism is the same, they're quite different from non-Postmodernist Conservatives who latch on to the free market as an instrument of social order -- this order is advertised as a reflection of natural hierarchies, often with a non-too subtle religious element thrown in.

    There are of course the left wing Postmodernists who JBP is referring to, but, by the same token, they're not Marxists (or Neomarxists). To be a Marxist (or Neomarxist), you have to believe that history is following a definitive trajectory as opposed to a sequence of idiosyncratically-interpretable events; you have to believe that the value of a commodity is something absolute, based on the amount of labour input, not something that's in the eye of the beholder. In my experience, Marxists are the least likely Leftists to endorse race-based identity politics, because a central theme of Karl Marx's writing is that class identity is a function of economic conditions -- they are often emphatic that working classes from all origins share the struggle against the same elite and should unite as a cohesive unit.

  17. #177
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,682
    Mentioned
    189 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    I don't know as much about postmodernism as I'd like; I have never finished a book by Judith Butler or Foucault because their arguments were so unappealing, and the writing was so abstruse that it felt like I was reading bullshit. I do know this though: Postmodernism isn't a political ideology; if it has any coherency at all, it's a cluster of solipsistic arguments that reject philosophical foundationalism. Postmodernists tend to dismiss the existence of universal truths; they tend to be relativists who believe that meaning and morality either don't exist, or don't exist outside of individual subjective experience.

    To the extent that it's a philosophical rather than a political position, anyone from any part of the political spectrum can be a Postmodernist.

    There are right wing Postmodernists (mainly Libertarians) who view the free market as reflecting relativistic principles; they believe the notion that the value or price of a commodity is entirely subjective, which is an inherently relativistic proposition. Even if the direction of their political activism is the same, they're quite different from non-Postmodernist Conservatives who latch on to the free market as an instrument of social order -- this order is advertised as a reflection of natural hierarchies, often with a non-too subtle religious element thrown in.

    There are of course the left wing Postmodernists who JBP is referring to, but, by the same token, they're not Marxists (or Neomarxists). To be a Marxist (or Neomarxist), you have to believe that history is following a definitive trajectory as opposed to a sequence of idiosyncratically-interpretable events; you have to believe that the value of a commodity is something absolute, based on the amount of labour input, not something that's in the eye of the beholder. In my experience, Marxists are the least likely Leftists to endorse race-based identity politics, because a central theme of Karl Marx's writing is that class identity is a function of economic conditions -- they are often emphatic that working classes from all origins share the struggle against the same elite and should unite as a cohesive unit.
    Well, you bring up a good point and I'll let JBP respond to this specifically:

    RELATIONSHIP TO MARXISM

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

    So the formal postmodern claim, such as it is, is radical skepticism. But that’s not at all how it has played out in theory or in practice. Derrida and Foucault were, for example, barely repentant Marxists, if repentant at all. They parleyed their 1960’s bourgeoisie vs proletariat rhetoric into the identity politics that has plagued us since the 1970’s. Foucault’s fundamental implicit (and often explicit) claim is that power relations govern society. That’s a rehashing of the Marxist claim of eternal and primary class warfare. Derrida’s hypothetical concern for the marginalized is a version of the same thing. I don’t really care if either of them made the odd statement about disagreeing with the Marxist doctrines: their fundamental claims are still soaked in those patterns of thought.

    You can see this playing out in practical terms in fields such as gender studies and social work (as well as literary criticism, anthropology, law, education, etc.).

    There are deeper problems as well. For example: Postmodernism leaves its practitioners without an ethic. Action in the world (even perception) is impossible without an ethic, so one has to be at least allowed in through the back door. The fact that such allowance produces a logical contradiction appears to bother the low-rent postmodernists who dominate the social sciences and humanities not at all. Then again, coherence isn’t one of their strong points (and the demand for such coherence can just be read as another patriarchal imposition typifying oppressive Western thought).

    So: postmodernism, by its nature (at least with regard to skepticism) cannot ally itself with Marxism. But it does, practically. The dominance of postmodern Marxist rhetoric in the academy (which is a matter of fact, as laid out by the Heterodox Academy, among other sources) attests to that. The fact that such an alliance is illogical cannot be laid at my feet, just because I point out that the alliance exists. I agree that it’s illogical. That doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

    It’s a very crooked game, and those who play it are neck deep in deceit.
    Source: https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/phil...-with-marxism/
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

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

  18. #178
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Maizistan
    TIM
    LII(?)
    Posts
    229
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Raver, no shit that Marx has influenced the humanities. If you’re involved in a field related to human culture, you have to deal with the 900-pound gorilla in the room that is Das Kapital. Sociology, philosophy, history, even theology — any field seeking the liberation of humanity has drawn from Marx because his critiques are still powerful and insightful — not because there’s a conspiracy of postmodernists to take over universities. Perhaps if Peterson actually read any work of Marx’s other than the Manifesto he’d understand this.

    Incidentally,

    They parleyed their 1960’s bourgeoisie vs proletariat rhetoric into the identity politics that has plagued us since the 1970’s.
    Lol, what are “identity politics” supposed to be? How are politics not intrinsically related to identity?
    Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 06-05-2019 at 10:44 PM.
    Cattle die; kinsmen die;
    Thyself too soon will die;
    One thing, I ween, shall never die:
    Fair fame for one who has earned.

    Cattle die; kinsmen die;
    Thyself too soon must die;
    One thing, I ween, shall never die:
    The doom over each one’s head.


  19. #179
    xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    5,921
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Well, you bring up a good point and I'll let JBP respond to this specifically:

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

    So the formal postmodern claim, such as it is, is radical skepticism. But that’s not at all how it has played out in theory or in practice. Derrida and Foucault were, for example, barely repentant Marxists, if repentant at all. They parleyed their 1960’s bourgeoisie vs proletariat rhetoric into the identity politics that has plagued us since the 1970’s. Foucault’s fundamental implicit (and often explicit) claim is that power relations govern society. That’s a rehashing of the Marxist claim of eternal and primary class warfare. Derrida’s hypothetical concern for the marginalized is a version of the same thing. I don’t really care if either of them made the odd statement about disagreeing with the Marxist doctrines: their fundamental claims are still soaked in those patterns of thought.

    You can see this playing out in practical terms in fields such as gender studies and social work (as well as literary criticism, anthropology, law, education, etc.).

    There are deeper problems as well. For example: Postmodernism leaves its practitioners without an ethic. Action in the world (even perception) is impossible without an ethic, so one has to be at least allowed in through the back door. The fact that such allowance produces a logical contradiction appears to bother the low-rent postmodernists who dominate the social sciences and humanities not at all. Then again, coherence isn’t one of their strong points (and the demand for such coherence can just be read as another patriarchal imposition typifying oppressive Western thought).

    So: postmodernism, by its nature (at least with regard to skepticism) cannot ally itself with Marxism. But it does, practically. The dominance of postmodern Marxist rhetoric in the academy (which is a matter of fact, as laid out by the Heterodox Academy, among other sources) attests to that. The fact that such an alliance is illogical cannot be laid at my feet, just because I point out that the alliance exists. I agree that it’s illogical. That doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

    It’s a very crooked game, and those who play it are neck deep in deceit.
    Source: https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/phil...-with-marxism/
    In other words, he believes that all Egalitarianism is akin to Postmodernism. If we're going to play that game of loose association, then every Conservative today is also a Postmodernist. Modern Conservative thought is a rehashing of free market radicalism after all, which presupposes that the use-value of a commodity is entirely subjective. Is JBP comfortable calling himself a "Postmodern-conservative?"

    I'll reiterate what I said earlier: Marxism is emphatic that real identity is based on material criteria like economic class -- not abstract racial / sexual / whatever criteria. Marxists tend to reject identity politics as a vehicle for rich, bourgeois moralizers, intended to deflect attention from the real struggle, which is about the control of material resources as opposed to the defense of some spiritual principle.
    Last edited by xerxe; 06-05-2019 at 02:43 PM.

  20. #180
    user title The Perpetual Now's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    466
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I do find it suspect that there's a certain segment of conservatives who hold our cultural narratives and allegories in high regard, yet are quick to criticize those they disagree with (progressives, feminists, the mainstream media, etc) for pushing their own narratives.

    I dun lived in the dirty south and there's always a social conservative nearby crying about the narratives pushed by godless liberals and the media, but then their own worldviews are so dependent on their own fragile black-and-white narratives.

  21. #181
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    TIM
    EII-Ne
    Posts
    1,239
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I am starting to realize that his whole shtick and persona is bound to cause a massive divisiveness on people's general opinion of him. Also, his political stance is obfuscated due to self-identifying himself as a classical liberal, which is an outdated term. I don't really care what his political stance is anyways. He has become one of the major voices for the anti neo-marxist movement regardless if he is a centrist or a center-right conservative. So naturally, people will either latch on to him as a messiah or scorn him as a pariah. It seems obvious now, but I focused too much on the echo chamber praising him, while there was a similar sized echo chamber demonizing him at the same time.

    I am not going to say either side is completely right or wrong as both have valid points, but I won't take the complete neutral stance either. I still like him and I think he has a lot of good knowledge that is useful even if a chunk of it is obvious and if some of it is wrong. Personally, I think the best stance is to take him with a grain of salt, but not throw the baby out of the bathwater as well. Regardless, it's nice to see these topics spelled out more lucidly and in depth by him. Also, even if he is flat out wrong on some subjects, that is the listener's job to filter it out.

    I accept now that he is simply the type of figure to be worshipped or demonized and that is the path he chose from the beginning with his gender pronoun debaucle that made him famous. So if people hate him because of his flaws then so be it as it won't make me join them in their crusade against him, but it will help me look at him more critically as a boon. Anyways, I made this thread so people can discuss this polarizing figure and his views in greater depth whether it is in a positive, negative or neutral light without involving typing him through Socionics or other typology systems.


    Alternative: he's just a simple, classic con artist, out to make a buck

  22. #182
    user title The Perpetual Now's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    466
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


  23. #183
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,682
    Mentioned
    189 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    @Raver, no shit that Marx has influenced the humanities. If you’re involved in a field related to human culture, you have to deal with the 900-pound gorilla in the room that is Das Kapital. Sociology, philosophy, history, even theology — any field seeking the liberation of humanity has drawn from Marx because his critiques are still powerful and insightful — not because there’s a conspiracy of postmodernists to take over universities. Perhaps if Peterson actually read any work of Marx’s other than the Manifesto he’d understand this.

    Incidentally,



    Lol, what are “identity politics” supposed to be? How are politics not intrinsically related to identity?
    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    In other words, he believes that all Egalitarianism is akin to Postmodernism. If we're going to play that game of loose association, then every Conservative today is also a Postmodernist. Modern Conservative thought is a rehashing of free market radicalism after all, which presupposes that the use-value of a commodity is entirely subjective. Is JBP comfortable calling himself a "Postmodern-conservative?"

    I'll reiterate what I said earlier: Marxism is emphatic that real identity is based on material criteria like economic class -- not abstract racial / sexual / whatever criteria. Marxists tend to reject identity politics as a vehicle for rich, bourgeois moralizers, intended to deflect attention from the real struggle, which is about the control of material resources as opposed to the defense of some spiritual principle.
    To be frank guys, I don't care at all what marxism is or isn't and whether he is criticizing it correctly or not. This is basically debating semantics, which I find to be a waste of time and energy. As for JBP himself, I take everything he says with a grain of salt. He makes good points on certain subjects and bad points on others and I filter out the bad to take in the good. Some people think he's good or bad all around then that is there prerogative. I listen to other intellectuals more and I don't look up to him like a guru, so it doesn't affect me much.

    Maybe conservatives praise him too highly, but I think liberals criticize him too harshly. Personally, I think the people getting triggered by him and bashing him are just giving him as much attention as those praising him. If people just ignored him then he'd fade way and become irrelevant, but I guess he benefits indirectly as much from the negative reception he is getting as he does from the positive reception and continues to stay relevant. That's a smart business move I suppose since he's trying to profit from the attention he is getting as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post


    Alternative: he's just a simple, classic con artist, out to make a buck
    So he agreed to put his name on a MBA school for a cut and that makes him a con arist? It was originally $49,000 US and it increased to $65,000 because of his name. It's pretty much in line with how much MBA programs cost, this one is overhyped and overpriced because of his name for sure, but you could say that for other MBA programs too:

    Depending on where in the world you choose to study your MBA, the cost of the program may vary.

    For example, tuition at the top business schools in the US is over US$120,000: Harvard Business School (24-month program); Stanford (24 months); The Wharton School (21 months).

    Other b-schools in the US will be slightly cheaper, including Kelley School of Business which costs around $51,182 for Indiana residents or $74,084 for non-residents/international students per year. Tuck School of Business’ MBA (21 months) is around US$70,000-$80,000.

    Some North American programs have one-year and two-year tracks, but most students opt for the longer version, which lasts on average 21 months.

    By comparison, Europe’s plentiful MBA courses may offer more value for money thanks to the course length. Typically, full MBA courses in Europe are around one-year, even 10 months at QS’ highest-ranked European MBA program INSEAD. However, INSEAD's accelerated 10-month MBA program still costs between US$100,000-$110,000, so it’s hardly cheap.
    https://www.topmba.com/admissions/fi...-will-mba-cost

    Do I think it's a good idea to move to Acton, Texas for an MBA program because Peterson agreed to profit from it just because it has his name on it? Of course not, there are better MBA schools that give more bang for the buck for sure, I definitely wouldn't go to that school or recommend anyone going to that school. However, I wouldn't call him a con artist because he seeks to make money by putting his name out there, he's more like an opportunist. I think the term con artist is thrown out there too loosely nowadays. I guess every entrepreneur is a con artist by your definition because they're "out to make a buck." So basically, JBP is pro capitalist in words and actions, big deal.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

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

  24. #184
    xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    5,921
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    To be frank guys, I don't care at all what marxism is or isn't and whether he is criticizing it correctly or not. This is debating semantics, which I find to be a waste of time and energy. As for JBP himself, I take everything he says with a grain of salt. He makes good points on certain subjects and bad points on others and I filter out the bad to take in the good. Some people think he's good or awful all around then that is there prerogative. I listen to other people and don't look up to him like a guru, so I guess that is why I don't have any issues with him.

    Maybe conservatives praise him too highly, but I think liberals criticize him too harshly. Personally, I think the people getting triggered by him and bashing him are just giving him as much attention as those praising him. If people just ignored him, he'd fade way and become a nobody, but I guess he benefits indirectly as much from the negative reception he is getting as he does from the positive reception and continues to stay relevant. Smart business move I suppose since he's trying to profit from the attention he is getting as well.
    Actually, his self-help stuff is probably OK. I don't know the exact content of his 12 rules because I don't care, but "stand up straight" seems like good advice. And if some people need or want a father figure to light a fire under their ass, then I'm happy for them.

    Criticizing someone doesn't mean that you're "triggered" by them -- are you getting triggered by people criticizing Jordan Peterson? The point is that he seems like a grifter to me, and grifters deserve to be called out.

  25. #185
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,682
    Mentioned
    189 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Actually, his self-help stuff is probably OK. I don't know the exact content of his 12 rules because I don't care, but "stand up straight" seems like good advice. And if some people need or want a father figure to light a fire under their ass, then I'm happy for them.

    Criticizing someone doesn't mean that you're "triggered" by them -- are you getting triggered by people criticizing Jordan Peterson? The point is that he seems like a grifter to me, and grifters deserve to be called out.
    Fair enough. At least you acknowledge that he does good as well with the bad. I don't mind it when people criticize him for his faults whether that be his logical inconsistencies or that he's seeking to profit as much as possible from his fame. It's just that people paint him like he is only doing bad when he does a lot of good that is ignored by them because of politics mostly, which is a tunnel visioned way of looking at him.

    I also think that those that put him on a pedestal like he is some kind of guru are guilty of tunnel vision as well when he's proven himself to be only human with flaws, which I think he would agree with. Personally, I've seen some videos of him and I like what I've heard, but his ideas are explored by others as well so I wouldn't call him that unique or extraordinary, but there is still value in what he says generally regardless.

    I don't think he's a grifter or a con-artist personally as he does seem genuinely interested in helping people rather than simply scheming from them, but I do see him as someone who's interested in making money with his fame, that is hard to deny. I consider a con-artist as someone who tricks people into believing or buying nonsense, where as he does the opposite and tries to help them, while seeking profit simultaneously.

    So I guess my point is that it is possible to want to help people and make money off of doing it at the same time. It doesn't have to be black and white where he is either a saint or guru that is trying to help people from the bottom of his heart or that he is a devil or con-artist that is seeking to make money off of people by selling snake oil. Generally, most people are in the grey area and I think he is one of them personally.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

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

  26. #186
    xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    5,921
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I don't think he's a grifter or a con-artist personally as he does seem genuinely interested in helping people rather than simply scheming from them, but I do see him as someone who's interested in making money with his fame, that is hard to deny. I consider a con-artist as someone who tricks people into believing or buying nonsense, where as he does the opposite and tries to help them, while seeking profit simultaneously.

    So I guess my point is that it is possible to want to help people and make money off of doing it at the same time. It doesn't have to be black and white where he is either a saint or guru that is trying to help people from the bottom of his heart or that he is a devil or con-artist that is seeking to make money off of people by selling snake oil. Generally, most people are in the grey area and I think he is one of them personally.
    Money from book sales and Patreon is OK -- I'm not against people making money; the MLM scheme and the Acton School of Business are borderline scams though. The beef-only diet is also dubious as hell; he's probably supplementing with vitamins under the table.

  27. #187
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,682
    Mentioned
    189 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Money from book sales and Patreon is OK -- I'm not against people making money; the MLM scheme and the Acton School of Business are borderline scams though. The beef-only diet is also dubious as hell; he's probably supplementing with vitamins under the table.
    Yeah, he's getting a little too ambitious financially when there is no need and I understand the criticism for it. The Acton School of Business just looks like a glorified and overpriced MBA program. I agree that the meat only diet is a bit weird. It's one thing to cut out carbs and eat meat and vegetables, but to cut out greens too is strange.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

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

  28. #188
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,379
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'd marry a porn star if she was Jorden Pettersson
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  29. #189
    xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    5,921
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default







    I just feel bad for the people who think JBP ever gave a shit about free speech.

    EDIT: Further Context
    Last edited by xerxe; 06-13-2019 at 11:06 PM.

  30. #190

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    646
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Him cozying up to Milo I find distasteful because I know he's finding a person he can 'heal' via the Eternal Daddy techniques. Milo bothers me to the Nth degree. I've gotten everything I can get from Petterson.

    Left his facebook group and blocked his youtube vids when they arrive in suggestions. See ya later you old genius slash miserable grump.

  31. #191

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    646
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Yeah, he's getting a little too ambitious financially when there is no need and I understand the criticism for it. The Acton School of Business just looks like a glorified and overpriced MBA program. I agree that the meat only diet is a bit weird. It's one thing to cut out carbs and eat meat and vegetables, but to cut out greens too is strange.
    Yeah he is a Canadian from northern Alberta. So its a bit of a go figure situation for him to have a few business ventures here and there. Canadians are endlessly pragmatic and always ready to make a buck. I don't fault people for this quality, but I know deltas do, cause perfection and ethics.

  32. #192

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    646
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I did one of his online tests and got some answers. Was it worth 10 bucks I paid for it? Yes. Would it be worth more? No.

  33. #193
    user title The Perpetual Now's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    466
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Mostly meat diets are really only good for you if you live in a region of extreme cold, like Siberia or northern Alaska.

  34. #194

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    646
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Perpetual Now View Post
    Mostly meat diets are really only good for you if you live in a region of extreme cold, like Siberia or northern Alaska.
    Just eat dont fuss.

  35. #195
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,243
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Peterson is just too fckin' tangential

  36. #196
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTP 7w8
    Posts
    2,726
    Mentioned
    199 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    I'd marry a porn star if she was Jorden Pettersson
    See told u u love that ILI dual

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions

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