Jordan Peterson - The Intellectual We Deserve

[Deleted member 457759]

I like it when I see intellectually dishonest closet leftists hurl their flatfooted criticisms at Peterson, void of any real substance. It shows how desperate they are.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Jordan Peterson is no different than the people who insisted that indigenous peoples were savages,.

Lol!!!!!

Peterson is racist!!!! Derp derp derp

 

[Andy Capp]

It's a hard thing to describe in the first place. There has to be some part of the way men interact that is based on the potential for violence- even if the violence rarely comes into play, I expect that it's an important parameter that has shaped our interactions. And all men know the feeling of frustration that comes with those interactions with women.

If Peterson would have thought to say "And that's a good reason to have a shortcut called 'Never hit a woman'" then he wouldn't have put it into that frustrated, I'm-bad-with-women autistic edgelord context.

Please elaborate for someone only familiar with Peterson as a windbag to whom I pay little attention. What are "those interactions with women"?

 

[Fawlty]

Please elaborate for someone only familiar with Peterson as a windbag to whom I pay little attention. What are "those interactions with women"?

When they act in a way that would likely lead to a fight between two men. You know, extreme provocation/disrespect, yelling, getting physical.

Now in this case Peterson is talking about a woman who is defaming and protesting him in a really nasty way, so it's more like wanting to punch the Westboro Baptists. So he was a little out of line by bringing up the gender stuff in this case, imo. He's clearly got some issues with women that come out now and then when he speaks.

 

[Andy Capp]

When they act in a way that would likely lead to a fight between two men. You know, extreme provocation/disrespect, yelling, getting physical.

Now in this case Peterson is talking about a woman who is defaming and protesting him in a really nasty way, so it's more like wanting to punch the Westboro Baptists. So he was a little out of line by bringing up the gender stuff in this case, imo. He's clearly got some issues with women that come out now and then when he speaks.

Now and then...

 

[Fawlty]

Now and then...

lol

Okay I give him too much benefit of the doubt. His frog children are terrible with women and they love that they can identify with this guy over that, I think.

 

[Harry Flashman]

lol

Okay I give him too much benefit of the doubt. His frog children are terrible with women and they love that they can identify with this guy over that, I think.

Just as his male critics are very good with women, swapping fashion tips as friend zone lifers.

 

[helltoupee]

Lol!!!!!

Peterson is racist!!!! Derp derp derp

View attachment 356313

He's not racist because his kind (mindset) were dragged into the 21st century by those god awful liberals. However, make no mistake, his brand of fear mongering is not new, and like searching for the devil's mark, will eventually be seen as antiquated, backwards nonsense.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

He's not racist because his kind (mindset) were dragged into the 21st century by those god awful liberals. However, make no mistake, his brand of fear mongering is not new, and like searching for the devil's mark, will eventually be seen as antiquated, backwards nonsense.

He's a classical liberal first of all, so he wasn't "dragged" anywhere. Nice delusional tactic to reverse reality though. It is he that is dragging people to the future.

 

[Fawlty]

I like it when I see intellectually dishonest closet leftists hurl their flatfooted criticisms at Peterson, void of any real substance. It shows how desperate they are.

This thread has lots of substantive criticism. Maybe you should read.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

This thread has lots of substantive criticism. Maybe you should read.

It amounts too "he doesn't sound like a liberal Marxist". Platitudes and frivolous BS.

 

[luckyshot]

I like it when I see intellectually dishonest closet leftists hurl their flatfooted criticisms at Peterson, void of any real substance. It shows how desperate they are.

See post #159.

Respond with substance.

Consider it a dare.

 

[helltoupee]

He's a classical liberal first of all, so he wasn't "dragged" anywhere. Nice delusional tactic to reverse reality though. It is he that is dragging people to the future.

Right.

The classic liberal notion that government was created by individuals to protect themselves from one another is so congruent with Peterson's arguments about gender pronouns and discrimination law.

 

[ultramanhyata]

You have to prove they exist and you also have to provide a better alternative. In both cases you can't.

Show me a Peterson video in which he discusses the importance of standing up to and challenging immoral systems and institutions and gives advice on the best way for every individual to go about doing that.

 

[ultramanhyata]

That's because, as I mentioned in my original response to you, there isn't a contradiction. I'm good, but even I can't deal with the nonexistent

This is nonsense. And a weak intellectual out that shows me you have been indoctrinated by Peterson, not educated by him.

 

[ultramanhyata]

@Bullitt68

So, thanks for posting all those conversations.

I don’t have time to listen to all of them, but. Did listen to a good bit of the Russell Brand one. A lot of the conversation focused on inequality. Frustrating listen, IMO.

1. Peterson says inequality is a huge problem, one that the left isn’t nearly pessimistic enough about ( a favorite critique of his).

2. Yet he also thinks a certain level of inequality is necessary. Ok, fine. A certain level. But what about extreme inequality? Peterson starts talking about the relative size of stars in galaxies and trees in the woods.

3. When Brand presses, ok, but shouldn’t we try to level it out with social systems, Peterson basically says, no because only war and pestilence reliably create equality... Which completely ignores the empirical fact that many societies ( specifically Scandanavian socialist democracies and Peterson’s own Canada) HAVE succeeded in leveling inequality to a FAR greater degree than much of the rest of the world.

Like, why won’t he look at empirical evidence that compare different social models instead of insisting on his ideological position and supporting it with “evidence” cherry picked from essentially unrelated anecdotes and completely different disciplines?

It really does border on willful ignorance.

JP's take on wealth inequality in a nutshell (no joke):

Oh, it's a massive, massive problem. Bigger than even many of its most strenuous critics realize. But the dangers inherent in trying to offset it with some sort of applied human intervention are even greater than the problem itself. So just letting it lay is probably the best possible approach.

 

[RubberGuard5]

JP's take on wealth inequality in a nutshell (no joke):

Oh, it's a massive, massive problem. Bigger than even many of its most strenuous critics realize. But the dangers inherent in trying to offset it with some sort of applied human intervention are even greater than the problem itself. So just letting it lay is probably the best possible approach.

Why is that so controversial? His premise number 2 may be not true, but it's certainly for debate. Certain types of human intervention did produce horrible results in the past.

 

[luckyshot]

JP's take on wealth inequality in a nutshell (no joke):

Oh, it's a massive, massive problem. Bigger than even many of its most strenuous critics realize. But the dangers inherent in trying to offset it with some sort of applied human intervention are even greater than the problem itself. So just letting it lay is probably the best possible approach.

Why is that so controversial? His premise number 2 may be not true, but it's certainly for debate. Certain types of human intervention did produce horrible results in the past.

And others haven’t... like for example the places with the highest quality of life in the world right now...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/27/us-news-world-report-10-countries-with-the-best-quality-of-life.html

1. Canada
2. Denmark
3. Sweden
4. Norway
5. Australia
6. Switzerland
7. Finland
8. Netherlands
9. New Zealand
10. Germany

It has been established over the last 20 years that the Northern European model of socialist democracy undeniably produces the most positive societal outcomes.

The real fucking insult is that Peterson is sitting there in socialist and happy Canada preaching the “dangers of socialism” to his (largely) American audience that doesn’t enjoy things like the guaranteed healthcare and affordable education that Peterson and his fellow Canadians TAKE FOR GRANTED.

 

[IDL]

JP's take on wealth inequality in a nutshell (no joke):

Oh, it's a massive, massive problem. Bigger than even many of its most strenuous critics realize. But the dangers inherent in trying to offset it with some sort of applied human intervention are even greater than the problem itself. So just letting it lay is probably the best possible approach.

Well if you are trying to apply Marxist based ideology to produce equality then sure it can quite easily be worse (when viewing previous attempts to do so in the 20th century and the death and misery this caused)

I really don't think he is against measures to mitigate the problems of inequality in a general sense, while acknowledging that there will always be inequality (the only way to theoretically get rid of it is through absolute tyranny). Rather, it is that you have to be very careful and things can quite easily be made worse (cure being worse than the disease). So the devil is in the details.

He is obviously sympathetic to the negative aspects of too much inequality.

 

[RubberGuard5]

And others haven’t... like for example the places with the highest quality of life in the world right now...

Sure. The question raised is whether there is a down side of pursuing quality of life as an ultimate goal. For example, will innovation be stiffled?