The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

This guy makes 60k a month ranting about sjws and trans? fucking hell.

He's worth it. He's a voice for some disenfranchised males and he's encouraging them to get jobs and be responsible instead of being poor fucks living off the state.
 
No kidding. Most Right leaning people are just fucking sick of politics, just like most left leaning people. It's just the two fringes fighting each other while the rest of us get pissed when peanut butter goes up 30 cents.

Peterson is more about addressing the culture war that involves critical thinking vs propaganda and emotional appeal. I believe his passion is for people to make personal and political decisions based on all the evidence without someone tweaking it, especially concerning race and gender.

He's exposing the political and tactical games used to cause confusion and push people and society off foundational principles. He exposes how they use these tactics and publicity displays how to expose and counter them in real time while millions watch.
This infuriates people who for years have bin operating in duplicity when someone turns on the lights.
I said quite awhile ago that Peterson was going to become a big target and some in the wr that seemed interested would turn against him. No one has to be a prophet or the son of a prophet to see that coming and it's only just begun.
He will become subject to the some of the worst acidic vitriol and slander that we've seen. Same old deceptive games but ramped up to a feverish pitch. Truth will prevail in the long run.
 
https://www.thestar.com/entertainme...-bestseller-except-where-it-matters-most.html

Fake news New York Times refuses to put Jordan Peterson's book on bestseller list.

Readers in the United States seem to like him, too. It’s the No. 4 best-selling book in the U.S. overall, according to Publishers Weekly. It’s No. 1 on Amazon. It’s No. 2 on the Washington Post’s non-fiction list. It’s No. 4 on USA Today’s overall list...

Keeping that in mind, we approached the Times to ask why Peterson’s book did not make the list when it was so prominent elsewhere.

We received an email from Books Editor Pamela Paul, who wrote: “Per the Bestsellers team, we do not include books published in Canada only. Hope that helps!”

That wasn’t an answer we expected.
 
I have to ask, why are you calling people who value Petersons input "cultists"? I mean, obviously you're interested in taking part in the conversation, so why take such an adversarial approach? Apparently you know enough about the guy to realize he's anti-ideologue and prefers to hash things out in open discussions. To me, that willingness to exchange ideas puts him as far from a cult leader as possible. This is the same as calling liberals "libtards" or conservatives racists or other such negative labels. This sort of combative communication is the reason we're where we're at - no understanding due to consistently being on the offensive or defensive. No bueno man.
heres why:

I think the left attacks him so much because he presents reasonable right-leaning arguments. They are so used to people like Glenn Beck or Alex Jones that when someone comes around who actually challenges what they think it scares the shit out of them.
 
(Read your quote)
If that's true and consistent (about NYT not including books from Canada), then that's a valid reason.

Seems a bit hard to believe at face value, though.

Margaret Atwood's book The Handmaid's Tale has been on the NYT best seller list. I read into the publishing info and it was published at McClelland & Stewart Limited which is a Canadian publishing company and a division of Random House Canada.

Here is a link to Atwood's book on the best sellers list (number 4)

https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/2017/07/30/
 
Jordan Peterson's book is a bestseller — except where it matters most

Since it was published on Jan. 23, Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos has soared to the top of the charts. This week it tops the Star’s non-fiction list and other lists across Canada.

Readers in the United States seem to like him, too. It’s the No. 4 best-selling book in the U.S. overall, according to Publishers Weekly. It’s No. 1 on Amazon. It’s No. 2 on the Washington Post’s non-fiction list. It’s No. 4 on USA Today’s overall list.

We received an email from Books Editor Pamela Paul, who wrote: “Per the Bestsellers team, we do not include books published in Canada only. Hope that helps!”

Being Canadian didn’t seem to be an issue for another book that made the Times’ lists: The Hidden Life of Trees by Peter Wohlleben, from Vancouver-based publisher Greystone Books. So we went back to the Times for clarification.

The Times doesn’t say specifically where the numbers come from: “Rankings reflect unit sales reported on a confidential basis by vendors offering a wide range of general interest titles.” It cites “thousands of diverse selling locations” and mentions independent book stores, chains of varying sizes, ebook sellers, and more.
 
Jordan Peterson's book is a bestseller — except where it matters most

Since it was published on Jan. 23, Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos has soared to the top of the charts. This week it tops the Star’s non-fiction list and other lists across Canada.

Readers in the United States seem to like him, too. It’s the No. 4 best-selling book in the U.S. overall, according to Publishers Weekly. It’s No. 1 on Amazon. It’s No. 2 on the Washington Post’s non-fiction list. It’s No. 4 on USA Today’s overall list.

We received an email from Books Editor Pamela Paul, who wrote: “Per the Bestsellers team, we do not include books published in Canada only. Hope that helps!”

Being Canadian didn’t seem to be an issue for another book that made the Times’ lists: The Hidden Life of Trees by Peter Wohlleben, from Vancouver-based publisher Greystone Books. So we went back to the Times for clarification.

The Times doesn’t say specifically where the numbers come from: “Rankings reflect unit sales reported on a confidential basis by vendors offering a wide range of general interest titles.” It cites “thousands of diverse selling locations” and mentions independent book stores, chains of varying sizes, ebook sellers, and more.
I've disliked NYT for a while now due to their heavy political bias (combined with their insistence that they're completely neutral) but this just gives me one more reason.

They lack integrity. It's kind of pathetic.
 
heres why:
I've believed this for a little while. It's been very important to the appeal of liberalism over the past 20 years that they have a monopoly or overwhelming preponderance of intelligence. "If you are smart, you agree with us. If you are a dumb, tractor-riding racist, you belong with the conservatives." This simply isn't true, as there are some really smart people on both sides of the political aisle. However, at the grassroots level, this hasn't been part of the discussion. It's been all about suggesting that they are smart and reasonable while everyone else is backwards and stupid. This kind of arrogance is ultimately one of the things that disgusted me about the left, so I bailed. For what it's worth, I think a lot of their prevailing economic theories and foreign policy platforms are ultimately based around short-term gains and appeasement/relief efforts, but they never really get to the point where there's actual reform. A lot of smoke and mirrors, if you ask me.
 
I've believed this for a little while. It's been very important to the appeal of liberalism over the past 20 years that they have a monopoly or overwhelming preponderance of intelligence. "If you are smart, you agree with us. If you are a dumb, tractor-riding racist, you belong with the conservatives." This simply isn't true, as there are some really smart people on both sides of the political aisle. However, at the grassroots level, this hasn't been part of the discussion. It's been all about suggesting that they are smart and reasonable while everyone else is backwards and stupid. This kind of arrogance is ultimately one of the things that disgusted me about the left, so I bailed. For what it's worth, I think a lot of their prevailing economic theories and foreign policy platforms are ultimately based around short-term gains and appeasement/relief efforts, but they never really get to the point where there's actual reform. A lot of smoke and mirrors, if you ask me.

The reason I turned away from the left was because I found it was all image and not a lot of substance. Generally speaking, the left is more about trends and fads than serious change and reform. Being an activist, hating Trump, smearing Jordan Peterson, gender fluidity and so on are all trends on the left and if you do not follow the trends, then you cannot hang out with the popular kids. With the left it is high school all over again.

Here is a perfect example the left being more concerned about making fashion statements than creating substantial change:

Fashion at the Women’s March


Vanessa’s “yeah p*ssy” shirt made a political statement, while her net bodysuit, fur jacket, red hat, choker, and red lipstick showed her fashion sense. Put together, this looks like an alternative American themed outfit.

Vanessa-Hudgens-Womens-March-in-Los-Angeles-on-January-21-04-543x720.jpg


The Left in a nutshell:

fashion_activist_3_1024x1024.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
https://noqreport.com/2018/02/07/media-just-cant-handle-jordan-peterson/

Why the media just can’t handle Jordan Peterson

But if mainstream journalists are confounded by Trump’s ability to sidestep policy questions and respond with memeworthy insults, Peterson offers them exactly the opposite problem: he doesn’t present a target at all, but a mirror.

More profoundly gripping, though, was his later return to the issue when discussing his own future. Asked why he was afraid that things would go terribly wrong with his newfound activism and iconic stature, he responded that he was afraid of saying something inappropriate. “Why would you say something inappropriate?” Wendy queried.

“Because people make mistakes.”

That simple phrase, and the discussion that followed, not only insulated Peterson against the attacks thrown his way but tapped into the natural empathy of his audience. Everyone makes mistakes. We know this. But somehow our culture has embraced the idea that people on camera should never screw up.

Elevating the conversation reminds the audience of something we often forget – that behind the newsfeed trifles that occupy our fancy lie really big, really important questions about meaning, truth, good, evil, wisdom, honor, and faith. And so doing, it establishes a deeper connection with the audience than the interviewer is capable of duplicating.

In short, no matter what question Peterson is asked, he chooses to talk about things that matter.
 
Last edited:
Jordan is an OG. Even his shit unrelated to this left vs right/SJW cuck shit makes sense. He has an understanding of how humans function. I especially enjoy his talks on serial killers, the shadow and dealing with anxiety.
 
The reason I turned away from the left was because I found it was all image and not a lot of substance. Generally speaking, the left is more about trends and fads than serious change and reform. Being an activist, hating Trump, smearing Jordan Peterson, gender fluidity and so on are all trends on the left and if you do not follow the trends, then you cannot hang out with the popular kids. With the left it is high school all over again.

Here is a perfect example the left being more concerned about making fashion statements than creating substantial change:

Fashion at the Women’s March


Vanessa’s “yeah p*ssy” shirt made a political statement, while her net bodysuit, fur jacket, red hat, choker, and red lipstick showed her fashion sense. Put together, this looks like an alternative American themed outfit.




The Left in a nutshell:

fashion_activist_3_1024x1024.jpg

I know it's easy to beat up strawmen but in what way is this representative of 'the left', as opposed to a convenient and lazy characterisation?
 
I don't like the comparison of Peterson to Ben Shapiro. Peterson is far more ethical and honest. Shapiro is intelligent and knows how to win an argument, but not ethical at all.
 
I don't like the comparison of Peterson to Ben Shapiro. Peterson is far more ethical and honest. Shapiro is intelligent and knows how to win an argument, but not ethical at all.

Care to elaborate on this? Accusing someone of unethical behavior isn't exactly a trivial accusation, and as I can't see how Shapiro's conduct warrants such a serious charge, I think a bit of elaboration would be helpful here.
 
Care to elaborate on this? Accusing someone of unethical behavior isn't exactly a trivial accusation, and as I can't see how Shapiro's conduct warrants such a serious charge, I think a bit of elaboration would be helpful here.

I feel he uses his intelligence to argue stances like "trickle down economics works" - when in reality he's smart enough to know it doesn't really "trickle down." He's just using his debating skills to advance a cause - tax cuts for the rich.

He's a vehement climate change denier.

Very sympathetic to the Obama birther claim - no he didn't outright say it. But defended those who did. When he knows it's complete horseshit.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/91092/about-birth-certificate-benjamin-shapiro

There's a lot of things - basically I believe he is dishonest. I think he uses his intellect to rationalize and argue for wrong ideals.

Peterson on the other hand, I feel is intellectually honest and really, truly believes in the things he says.
 
I feel he uses his intelligence to argue stances like "trickle down economics works" - when in reality he's smart enough to know it doesn't really "trickle down." He's just using his debating skills to advance a cause - tax cuts for the rich.

He's a vehement climate change denier.

Very sympathetic to the Obama birther claim - no he didn't outright say it. But defended those who did. When he knows it's complete horseshit.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/91092/about-birth-certificate-benjamin-shapiro

There's a lot of things - basically I believe he is dishonest. I think he uses his intellect to rationalize and argue for wrong ideals.

Peterson on the other hand, I feel is intellectually honest and really, truly believes in the things he says.


Trickle down economics does absolutely work.

Now the term gets wrongly mixed in with crony capitalism and that does not work. But remove the gov't aspect and trickle down economics works just fine. Like in most things it is the introduction of gov't that creates the problems and protections and imbalance.
 
Back
Top