Criticism of Jordan Peterson thread v3

[Unknown Pleasures]

Yeah Peterson is a walking contradiction and dyson destroyed him, but he wins by default just by being JP (similar to the trump lovers t)

Holy shit, what fucking horrible commentary.

The problem with the commentator and the fellow tasked with debating Peterson, is that Peterson's views are much more nuanced. He incorporates a lot of variables in his analysis concurrently, whereas his "opponent" and the fool giving his commentary have no sense of nuance, but instead try to diminish the conversation to the lowest common denominator.

It's why Peterson has to say so often "that's not what I'm saying." If he was in the room with the youtube commentator, he'd be saying "that's not what I'm saying" a ton of times. People so often misrepresent his nuanced views with some generic simpleton bullshit statements.

 

[Gandhi]

No one else is suggesting solutions though. In the absence of other solutions or any recognition of the issue at all of course the individuals who are affected are going to band together based on common interest and attempt to make demands of society or at least make their grievances heard.

That's one way change in our societies happens. Its why Peterson is so popular, he's given a voice to these men. If you want to diffuse the appeal of a man like Peterson then you need to address the same grievances he is in an alternate way but none of Peterson's critics seem interested in that, they all seem to be more interested in finding ways to find him guilty by association with this or that unpleasant actor and to malign his fans. The NYT hit piece is a perfect example of that.

That’s true especially in the age of the internet. That’s also true for all kinds people that are having social issues and find a poisenouse common cause to band together over.

I don’t know how you can deal with it other than try to improve people on an individual level. And some people just can’t be helped. On this point I probably agree with @EndlessCritic ’s point that we are always going to have these types and there is nothing you can do for some of them. If they want to change then there are ways society could be a better help.

 

[Tiny]

Holy shit, what fucking horrible commentary.

The problem with the commentator and the fellow tasked with debating Peterson, is that Peterson's views are much more nuanced. He incorporates a lot of variables in his analysis concurrently, whereas his "opponent" and the fool giving his commentary have no sense of nuance, but instead try to diminish the conversation to the lowest common denominator.

It's why Peterson has to say so often "that's not what I'm saying." If he was in the room with the youtube commentator, he'd be saying "that's not what I'm saying" a ton of times. People so often misrepresent his nuanced views with some generic simpleton bullshit statements.

Typically they try to put words into his mouth as well.

"So what you are saying is..." and then proceed to invent their own twist on the topic which has nothing to do with what JP is saying at all.

And then they get outraged at that view point...lol

 

[dontsnitch]

In this instance regarding white privledge. The battle was over before it began. Once you try to start a debate with the ideology that your opponents cant have a fucking voice of opinion based off of some self constructed ideology...you've lost.

I didn't watch the whole thing, but it's never proper to make arguments personal. The problem is that part of reason the white privilege argument carries weight is precisely because you can use it for personal attacks.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Yep, and when he starts to try to get into the details of a topic, people try to back out of the nuanced conversation, and shift to a new topic and begin by misrepresenting his views, and repeat ad nauseum.

It's like people who try to debate Chomsky and go to "you're a communist" or "you just hate america" when Chomsky starts dropping the knowledge.

Exact same thing... "Jordan, you're just an angry white man." "Jordan, you hate women." Yay, I won the debate by saying that!!!

What a load of horse shit.

 

[The ScorpioN]

Who is that and what did Sam Harris say?


So is this guy suggeatinf make that illegal? Force women to be each have 1 man only?

Harris dared to retract the accusation that Molyneux is a holocaust denier, after one of his podcast guests said as much and Harris didn’t know enough about Molyneux to deny it. Because Molyneux told him he accepts the mainstream historical narrative of the holocaust.

I know, the horror. You can’t even accuse people of holocaust denying anymore without getting called on it. Sam Harris alt-right confirmed.

 

[Gandhi]

I mostly stay out of Peterson threads these days, but I'm a chime in.

Peterson blames feminism, but, he doesn't solely blame it, and more importantly he distinguishes between first and third wave feminism.

To simply say he blames feminism could be taken to mean something irrational, but it's more precise to say that he blames the more radical aspects within the movement that today calls itself feminism.

To be honest, this entire conversation confuses me. I like Peterson, he's a good writer with insights. I don't understand his God-like following nor those that insist he's dangerous or stupid.

Yeah that is fair enough, although I think he gives way to much weight to these third wave types. Imo it is not dissimilar to how the Alt right trolls for feminazi, and Muslim rage porn. It’s there and it’s BS, but I don’t think it’s defining our society.

But before I even dive into that I am still trying to settle that he is actually blaming feminists and is being at all prescriptive. I have been told that JP is just describing the status quo (polygamy laws) and the above is absurd.

 

[Tiny]

I didn't watch the whole thing, but it's never proper to make arguments personal. The problem is that part of reason the white privilege argument carries weight is precisely because you can use it for personal attacks.

Exactly why JP responded the way he did.

There are two take aways here about the "evil white man" comment.

- it's a racist attack which JP couldn't respond to in kind because HE would come out looking the villain. Blacks can get away with it, whites can't. Irony considering they are debating "white privilege" lol.
- it's a fucking debate and ya typically don't resort to personal attacks in debates because then the debate just devolves into a child's conversation.

So JP summed up that idiotic statement with "that's a hell of a thing for you to have said to me"

To which Dyson repeats the same idiotic comment not aware that he comes off as a child for having said it in the first place.

 

[unimackpass]

Would you prefer genetic monogamy?



These smear pieces tell more about the writers than about Peterson.

It also tells us more about the people that believe them than about Peterson. Hordes of zombies out there are just waiting to pounce on anything negative about him because “They can’t handle the the truth!”

Holy shit, what fucking horrible commentary.

The problem with the commentator and the fellow tasked with debating Peterson, is that Peterson's views are much more nuanced. He incorporates a lot of variables in his analysis concurrently, whereas his "opponent" and the fool giving his commentary have no sense of nuance, but instead try to diminish the conversation to the lowest common denominator.

It's why Peterson has to say so often "that's not what I'm saying." If he was in the room with the youtube commentator, he'd be saying "that's not what I'm saying" a ton of times. People so often misrepresent his nuanced views with some generic simpleton bullshit statements.

This describes the nature of most of the criticism towards Peterson. It’s fundamentalism in nature which reveals the lack of comprehension the “party of science” has compared to the average Joe. Their sophistication has dumped them down beyond stupid.

 

[Seaside]

Harris dared to retract the accusation that Molyneux is a holocaust denier, after one of his podcast guests said as much and Harris didn’t know enough about Molyneux to deny it. Because Molyneux told him he accepts the mainstream historical narrative of the holocaust.

I know, the horror. You can’t even accuse people of holocaust denying anymore without getting called on it. Sam Harris alt-right confirmed.

i have read your response 3x and still cannot understand what you are saying.

So i get that Harris is defending this molyneux guy from the common accusation that he (molyneux) is holocaust denier.

But i dont understand the rest i keep reading it and it makes no fucking sense to me.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Exactly why JP responded the way he did.

There are two take aways here about the "evil white man" comment.

- it's a racist attack which JP couldn't respond to in kind because HE would come out looking the villain. Blacks can get away with it, whites can't. Irony considering they are debating "white privilege" lol.
- it's a fucking debate and ya typically don't resort to personal attacks in debates because then the debate just devolves into a child's conversation.

So JP summed up that idiotic statement with "that's a hell of a thing for you to have said to me"

To which Dyson repeats the same idiotic comment not aware that he comes off as a child for having said it in the first place.

Yeah, he seemed to have gotten some cheers from the Peterson haters the first time he said it.

Then the second time, it didn't go so well for him.

The shitty commentator's and others spin is that Peterson taking offense to it means 1) Peterson is fragile, and 2) a hypocrite since he is so "pro free speech" given the gender pronouns view.

Of course reality is that 1) Peterson takes offense because it's juvenile and below par for a mature debate, and 2) Peterson isn't asking that his opponent's speech be AGAINST THE LAW and not be allowed to say it, only that it is speech of such low value that it would be better to avoid it and carry on a debate maturely.

 

[The ScorpioN]

i have read your response 3x and still cannot understand what you are saying.

So i get that Harris is defending this molyneux guy from the common accusation that he (molyneux) is holocaust denier.

But i dont understand the rest i keep reading it and it makes no fucking sense to me.

Bad wording. My bad.

Sam Harris's guest said Molyneux is a holocaust denier.

At the time Harris didn't know enough about Molyneux to either confirm nor deny.

Molyneux (I'm assuming) heard the podcast, and told Sam Harris he accepts the mainstream historical narrative of the holocaust.

Sam Harris apologized for publishing the accusation and edited the parts of the podcast where those accusations were made.

Sam Harris is now alt-right.

 

[Seaside]

Bad wording. My bad.

Sam Harris's guest said Molyneux is a holocaust denier.

At the time Harris didn't know enough about Molyneux to either confirm nor deny.

Molyneux (I'm assuming) heard the podcast, and told Sam Harris he accepts the mainstream historical narrative of the holocaust.

Sam Harris apologized for publishing the accusation and edited the parts of the podcast where those accusations were made.

Sam Harris is now alt-right.

oh yeah that sounds dumb. And i guess you saying to some leftists if person is accussed of holocaust denial or anything even if they are not denialist it just sticks and they are forever guilty.

Yeah Peterson is a walking contradiction and dyson destroyed him, but he wins by default just by being JP (similar to the trump lovers t)

peterson guy just give me weird wrong feeling me wrong way. He just seems like an angry nerd who sucks with women and is compensating for something. I like sam harris and all the old might make right philosophers of the previous centuries way more than this guy. Peterson i think probably is hiding his real views on things he just throw me off.

 

[Tiny]

Yeah, he seemed to have gotten some cheers from the Peterson haters the first time he said it.

Then the second time, it didn't go so well for him.

The shitty commentator's and others spin is that Peterson taking offense to it means 1) Peterson is fragile, and 2) a hypocrite since he is so "pro free speech" given the gender pronouns view.

Of course reality is that 1) Peterson takes offense because it's juvenile and below par for a mature debate, and 2) Peterson isn't asking that his opponent's speech be AGAINST THE LAW and not be allowed to say it, only that it is speech of such low value that it would be better to avoid it and carry on a debate maturely.

couldn't agree more!

 

[Seaside]

My misunderstanding of the extent of Canadian polygamy law aside....

I can't see how enforced monogamy is defined as anything except forcing women to select a partner and to limit that to 1 man apiece. Especially, when the goal is to make sure that we don't end up with angry single men.

There is no concern about angry single women unable to find mates and the cost to society that they might create. There's also no emphasis on men only having 1 partner, not cheating, etc. I find that an interesting lack of emphasis.

The "reason" to enforce monogamy is to give some men something that they might not otherwise earn on their own but the restrictions are all stated in terms of limiting female action, not male. It's not surprising that some people might start wondering about unspoken intent.

from little i have read religions did this especially catholicism making up that God is against men having more than 1 wife or concubine. Islam and older real christanity and judaism did not have this. Basically in old times women who say were 4/10 would prefer to share a much higher status men then to get stuck with 4/10 husband.

Is that sound right? If women hypergamous like some say. If anything enforced monogamy by like catholic church or islam in some countries which only let upper class men have up to 4 wives but most men get there 1 wife. If anything that benefits lower status men at expense of women who if not for enforced social and economic condition would prefer to NOT have sex and be with lower status men of their same looks range but rather hold out and share higher value male. If you look at it from the darwinian view point this enforced monogamy may pacify society but it is dygenic because it allows the lowest men to reproduce which is counter to the view so many these alt right guys seem have about redpill might make right.

Maybe men insecurity in this department causes them and people certain people to get all religious about women being whores and needing men control etc. It these type of guys who talk about end of world because promiscuity even though that is the human normal.

 

[Andy Capp]

https://twitter.com/jbporcleric?lang=en
Best twitter account ever.

Cool, but are they all pronouncements by Peterson or are they just quoted to sound like things he might say?

 

[dontsnitch]

Yeah that is fair enough, although I think he gives way to much weight to these third wave types. Imo it is not dissimilar to how the Alt right trolls for feminazi, and Muslim rage porn. It’s there and it’s BS, but I don’t think it’s defining our society.

But before I even dive into that I am still trying to settle that he is actually blaming feminists and is being at all prescriptive. I have been told that JP is just describing the status quo (polygamy laws) and the above is absurd.

He definitely places a lot of weight on the radical fringe, and there is a discussion to be had about the degrees of importance to which we should place here, and I concede he could be placing too much importance in this area, that's possible. (On a side note, i think we should differentiate the degrees of importance someone places on an issue from the mileage they get out of an argument. What I mean is that jp flies all over the world to give an iteration of the same lecture like all intellectuals on tour before him. This often leads to the impression that this is all they are.)

No one is above criticism, and when you're in the public space, making complicated and nuanced arguments about the nature of existence and how to best live in the world, you're bound to screw up, and it goes without saying there will be counter arguments and disagreements. So of course there is plenty to criticize, but the vitriol and fear mongering towards this guy is not, Imo, appropriate given the arguments he has made. That's what intrigues me the most because I don't get it.

I'm not against hearing an opposing perspective to Peterson's, but too often the loudest opponents shoot themselves in the foot by saying something silly to start, like JP is unintelligent, immoral, etc.

 

[dontsnitch]

Exactly why JP responded the way he did.

There are two take aways here about the "evil white man" comment.

- it's a racist attack which JP couldn't respond to in kind because HE would come out looking the villain. Blacks can get away with it, whites can't. Irony considering they are debating "white privilege" lol.
- it's a fucking debate and ya typically don't resort to personal attacks in debates because then the debate just devolves into a child's conversation.

So JP summed up that idiotic statement with "that's a hell of a thing for you to have said to me"

To which Dyson repeats the same idiotic comment not aware that he comes off as a child for having said it in the first place.

Unlike Dyson, jp seems to be aware that personal attacks don't win over the audience.

 

[Andy Capp]

Its not so much about saving incels from their virginity as it is saving society from incel rage. Elliot Rodgers and Alek Minassian are only the most pathological examples of that kind of rage. Even when they're not lashing out, they're dead weight in a sense. They're better off integrated into society as husbands than as incels living with their parents.

I'm not surprised you feel that way to be fair, its pretty clear that incels are among the most disdained people in our society. Sometimes I joke that incel shaming is the reverse of slut shaming but the difference is no one is appalled by the former.

They're disdained because they're the worst kind of misogynist. They think they deserve to have sex with women just because they're men. It's pathetic. There may be all sorts of reasons why these guys can't get laid but no excuse whatsoever for not doing some self-examination and making the effort to improve themselves where required (with mental health treatment where required).

Anyway, like Alex Jones with his audience, whatever Peterson may actually believe, he knows he is encouraging incels and all these other "mens rights" fuckwads and it makes him disgusting IMHO.

 

[cincymma79]

Yep, and when he starts to try to get into the details of a topic, people try to back out of the nuanced conversation, and shift to a new topic and begin by misrepresenting his views, and repeat ad nauseum.

It's like people who try to debate Chomsky and go to "you're a communist" or "you just hate america" when Chomsky starts dropping the knowledge.

Exact same thing... "Jordan, you're just an angry white man." "Jordan, you hate women." Yay, I won the debate by saying that!!!

What a load of horse shit.

chomsky is a twat
america is bad then work backward
at best you can sum up his entire stance on anything as with great power comes great responsibility