The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

[ReAnimator Reagan]

It took me a long time of toiling in thought and trying to figure things out in a lot of areas, that I could have just gotten from Peterson without so much hassle.

If I could go back in time, I would send Peterson videos back with me!

Yeah, fuck an A if I had these videos growing up. If I had kids I would make them watch his damn videos.

For Peterson fans who are also of the mindset that engaging moderate Muslims is a mistake, or that there are none, check his most recent video on conservative principles. He argues that it's obvious that conservatives should be engaging moderate Muslims (and welcoming minority immigrants), and that there are tons of them out there to engage with.

Why should we engage them? What is the point? Why not try to talk to women instead???

Not really familiar with this guy
Could somebody recommend a best-of so I can decide if I listen to more of his stuff? Or maybe summarize his positions?
thx

So, he is a personality psychologist. If you are interested in psychology at all or how people work or even how to make your life better by not doing stupid shit, he is your guy.
Watch any video you want of him....they are all great.

 

[unimackpass]

Yeah, fuck an A if I had these videos growing up. If I had kids I would make them watch his damn videos.



Why should we engage them? What is the point? Why not try to talk to women instead???



So, he is a personality psychologist. If you are interested in psychology at all or how people work or even how to make your life better by not doing stupid shit, he is your guy.
Watch any video you want of him....they are all great.

He is saying what a lot of kids are hearing growing up in church, biblical principles. I didn't grow up any where near this kind of background, but the kids I know raised in families that were, are doing the best in life and that's by a mile.

Edited to add- Of course the main goal of life for the "new" atheists is to destroy that option in people's life. It's hilarious to watch new atheist fanboys try to engage Peterson and still hold onto what Peterson calls a idiolgy born out of bitterness. It's a beautiful thing, yes a beautiful thing.

 

[Renard]

For Peterson fans who are also of the mindset that engaging moderate Muslims is a mistake, or that there are none, check his most recent video on conservative principles. He argues that it's obvious that conservatives should be engaging moderate Muslims (and welcoming minority immigrants), and that there are tons of them out there to engage with.

Well I'm not a conservative. Fuck their backward beliefs. They come to the west because their countries have failed to thrive, leave your garbage beliefs at the door and assimilate. The lefties are no better, they accord equal importance to beliefs and customs of cultures who can't even provide running water to their citizens.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Not really familiar with this guy
Could somebody recommend a best-of so I can decide if I listen to more of his stuff? Or maybe summarize his positions?
thx

Here is a video that is only 3 and a half minutes that will give you a decent idea of what Peterson talks about. If you are interested, then I would highly recommend watching both of his discussions with Joe Rogan. His latest one on conservative principles is excellent as well.

 

[Fawlty]

Well I'm not a conservative. Fuck their backward beliefs. They come to the west because their countries have failed to thrive, leave your garbage beliefs at the door and assimilate. The lefties are no better, they accord equal importance to beliefs and customs of cultures who can't even provide running water to their citizens.

Peterson would say that they won't magically assimilate (obviously!), and that they have to be engaged by people who will offer them a place within the culture. People don't "leave their beliefs" via reverse osmosis or something.

 

[alexdlrg]

Did anyone post the video of Jordan with Sam Harris, where Jordan is completely out of his league?

Jordan has some interesting insight, but let's not get carried away with love for the guy.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Left-wing case for free speech:

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Maybe someone here can help me out with this: Peterson often makes the claim that biological sex and gender do not vary independently, which was one of his main objections to Bill C-16.

I don't understand why he thinks that's the claim being made from the other side, in fact I think their claim is much weaker than that. Is that claim that he objects to made explicitly anywhere?

 

[dontsnitch]

Maybe someone here can help me out with this: Peterson often makes the claim that biological sex and gender do not vary independently, which was one of his main objections to Bill C-16.

I don't understand why he thinks that's the claim being made from the other side, in fact I think their claim is much weaker than that. Is that claim that he objects to made explicitly anywhere?

He makes the objection because he claims the bill is inherently contradictory and has it both ways. One example he uses is that the bill claims that sexual preference is an immutable phenomenon which means that it has some biological basis, but then it (the bill) goes on to state that sexual identity, gender identity, and gender expression are entirely independent. Peterson claims that this makes the bill incoherent, which is one reason he objected to the bill.

 

[unimackpass]

This is a excellent video of his. "The religion that Dawkins argues with is a straw man that a thirteen year old would object to." Ya think.

Destroyed dumb arguments like, "religion came about to control people." "Religion is just superstition."



"Two forms of mental illness, nihilism and authoritarianism." The direction of "modern man".

Also discusses Newtonian vs Darwinian approach to truth.

 

[EndlessCritic]

Maybe someone here can help me out with this: Peterson often makes the claim that biological sex and gender do not vary independently, which was one of his main objections to Bill C-16.

I don't understand why he thinks that's the claim being made from the other side, in fact I think their claim is much weaker than that. Is that claim that he objects to made explicitly anywhere?

I have made this exact same point before. Peterson is just wrong on this one. There's no claim that they vary independently.

 

[EndlessCritic]

He makes the objection because he claims the bill is inherently contradictory and has it both ways. One example he uses is that the bill claims that sexual preference is an immutable phenomenon which means that it has some biological basis, but then it (the bill) goes on to state that sexual identity, gender identity, and gender expression are entirely independent. Peterson claims that this makes the bill incoherent, which is one reason he objected to the bill.

The bill goes on to state that sexual identity, gender identity, and gender expression are distinct. There is no claim that they vary independently (ie: not related to one another.)

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Did anyone post the video of Jordan with Sam Harris, where Jordan is completely out of his league?

Jordan has some interesting insight, but let's not get carried away with love for the guy.

Sam Harris sounded like a rigid autistic child during his discussion with Peterson.

 

[dontsnitch]

The bill goes on to state that sexual identity, gender identity, and gender expression are distinct. There is no claim that they vary independently (ie: not related to one another.)

I don't know, but my post was what Peterson stated, almost verbatim.

 

[EndlessCritic]

I don't know, but my post was what Peterson stated, almost verbatim.

No. Here's a source: http://www.torontosun.com/2016/09/29/u-of-t-prof-rips-bill-outlawing-gender-identity-discrimination

“The proposition is that these three things vary independently from one another. The problem I have with the legislation is that it is unclear whether challenging that proposition has become criminalized, and I think it is a fully challengeable proposition because I don’t think there is any evidence at all that biological sex and gender identity are actually independent,” Peterson said.

“There are exceptions, but in 98% of the cases, if you are biologically male, then your gender identity is male and if you are biologically female, your gender identity is female.”

Peterson is explicitly acknowleding in the second paragraph his own view that gender identity and biological sex are distinct. However, in the first paragraph, he is making the claim that bill C-16's proponents believe that gender and sex vary independently. It is completely unclear on what basis Peterson makes that claim.

 

[dontsnitch]

No. Here's a source: http://www.torontosun.com/2016/09/29/u-of-t-prof-rips-bill-outlawing-gender-identity-discrimination

Peterson is explicitly acknowleding in the second paragraph his own view that gender identity and biological sex are distinct. However, in the first paragraph, he is making the claim that bill C-16's proponents believe that gender and sex vary independently. It is completely unclear on what basis Peterson makes that claim.

He is making the claim because that's the language the bill uses. The bill itself claims that sexual preference is immutable, but also states that these things are all independent. Clearly these things are not independent as they have a near perfect correlation.

 

[Fawlty]

Maybe someone here can help me out with this: Peterson often makes the claim that biological sex and gender do not vary independently, which was one of his main objections to Bill C-16.

I don't understand why he thinks that's the claim being made from the other side, in fact I think their claim is much weaker than that. Is that claim that he objects to made explicitly anywhere?

I've never heard it either, but it would interesting to hear where Peterson gets this from. He tends to play a little loose with facts sometimes, according to his tendencies toward clouding objectivity with darwinist views of truth. Like people did a lot in the 20th century. Good times. It's tough to put Nietzsche back in the bottle.

 

[unimackpass]

This is a excellent video of his. "The religion that Dawkins argues with is a straw man that a thirteen year old would object to." Ya think.

Destroyed dumb arguments like, "religion came about to control people." "Religion is just superstition."

Sam Harris sounded like a rigid autistic child during his discussion with Peterson.

Harris has to control the the field on which the conversion will develop. He has a one dimensional approach to "truth" and is totally lost if he can't can't keep the conversation within that arena where he is ref, judge and jury. This is why he came across as a petulant rigid child, and why his disciples are so easily identifiable, having the same smug pretentiousness that they carry as prideful fanboys.

"... Dawkins has a thin veneer of truth "

" Dawkins big man in the sky?" Peterson- "Thats a REALLY stupid way to look at it."

Scientism- "must keep it in my dimension"

 

[unimackpass]

I've never heard it either, but it would interesting to hear where Peterson gets this from. He tends to play a little loose with facts sometimes, according to his tendencies toward clouding objectivity with darwinist views of truth. Like people did a lot in the 20th century. Good times. It's tough to put Nietzsche back in the bottle.

I've never heard it either, but it would interesting to hear where Peterson gets this from. He tends to play a little loose with facts sometimes, according to his tendencies toward clouding objectivity with darwinist views of truth. Like people did a lot in the 20th century. Good times. It's tough to put Nietzsche back in the bottle.

He discusses Nietzsche effortlessly here.

 

[Fawlty]

He discusses Nietzsche effortlessly here.

I'm aware of that. His efforts to deal with the problems Nietzsche described are a ridiculous hodgepodge of outdated ideas about truth "varying independently" with fact (yes I'm being cheeky), and a return to Christianity. He's one of my favorite YTers and I appreciate what he adds to the conversation, and he's done more help to my understanding of Nietzsche than anyone else. But he's the old man on the porch and some of his ideas are leading people in the wrong direction- toward the right wing's reviving brand of postmodernism.