The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

[Armbars]

she was just an angry little news reporter. Not really much of a debate, she had some generic obvious questions he was able to answer with answers she had no comeback to.

 

[Spider Ricco]

I am aware, but I'd have to find and link articles etc. I was curious about Peterson after he appeared on the JRE (before I stopped Subbing). His work is lazy, he cherry picks and often misrepresents studies he cites. For example, his handling of C-16 was lazy, he didn't research the law at all or he purposely lied.

I find the man truly repulsive, just a bunch of alt-right bigotry and misogyny dressed up and presented as academic inquiry. As much as the right loathes education, there are few things bigots like more than any academic who gives them cover for their base bigotry, think the bell-curve etc. That's all Peterson is.

You're aware of nuttin

 

[Happiness]

Yeh, your intellect knows no bounds.

Good one champ.

 

[Bald1]

make sure you tag me when you do. I've only recently started listening to him and I find him pretty fascinating. I'm not an alt-righter by any stretch so I'd like to know whats up before I start recommending others to view him.

Happiness is either misinformed or a bald faced liar. Full stop. I've seen Peterson on Rogan, Rubin, Gaad Saad (all long form interviews) and a handful of other programs. There's no misogyny or bigotry there at all. The video in this thread is an accurate representation of his positions. Guaranteed.

 

[TheGreatA]

Happiness is either misinformed or a bald faced liar. Full stop. I've seen Peterson on Rogan, Rubin, Gaad Saad (all long form interviews) and a handful of other programs. There's no misogyny or bigotry there at all. The video in this thread is an accurate representation of his positions. Guaranteed.

It depends on the standards of misogynism and bigotry.

He has criticized the direction of the modern feminist/LGBT movement, so he is definitely a bigot/misogynist by some standards atleast.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Happiness is either misinformed or a bald faced liar. Full stop. I've seen Peterson on Rogan, Rubin, Gaad Saad (all long form interviews) and a handful of other programs. There's no misogyny or bigotry there at all. The video in this thread is an accurate representation of his positions. Guaranteed.

Thats my belief until proven otherwise. I don't even see reason to be suspicious, and I was looking the first few videos I viewed.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

It depends on the standards of misogynism and bigotry.

He has criticized the direction of the modern feminist/LGBT movement, so he is definitely a bigot/misogynist by some standards atleast.

He could not support PETA terrorism, that doesn't mean he hates animals.

 

[Bald1]

It depends on the standards of misogynism and bigotry.

He has criticized the direction of the modern feminist/LGBT movement, so he is definitely a bigot/misogynist by some standards atleast.

I criticize my government, that doesn't mean I hate my country. I criticize Islam, that doesn't mean I hate Muslims. Hell, I'm critical of myself, yet have nothing but love for me.

This idea that valid criticism equals hate has got to go. How else are we to improve if not thorough analysis of areas we're deficient in? Now I realize "valid" might vary with each observer, but that's why we need to scrutinize - in order to find objective truths.

 

[Gunny]

@Happiness I say this, not to be a jerk but in the interest of providing accurate feedback so that you can grow - your performance in this thread is the Warroom equivalent of Caleb Starnes vs. Nate Quarry.

It’s like, if I were Caleb’s coach I might advise him - how ‘bout next time don’t show up to the fight just to run away for three rounds, refusing to engage and ultimately alienating the entire universe of UFC fans by flipping off your understandably frustrated opponent as if somehow he has done you an injustice. That would be the wrong thing to do...

 

[oldshadow]

I watched the video and his points were well made and reasonable. I don't know anything eles about him but per the video he appears intelligent and made his points clear and well supported if you research.

She was lost and not prepared if she wanted to dispute anything he said.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

That "debate" was dumb. It was basically just a shitty interview where they discussed a few topics in the purview of the gender wage gap, but neither person was actively defending a position that was far away from the other.

He was asked if the gender pay gap exists. He said yes, but it isn't solely based on gender, there are a multitude of factors that contribute to it. Well, yes, of course that's true, but then he singles out agreeableness and disagreeableness which may apply to some jobs but not others. Not all jobs allow you to realistically negotiate for your salary. He knows this. He even said that the prejudice of the people at the top does contribute to the pay gap. So he believes in the pay gap, and he believes gender does play a role. So then he rails against equality of outcomes, which no one realistically advocates for. Equality of opportunities is generally what people advocate for. So what's he really arguing against at that point?

He's saying all that to the news channel four audience, but if he was among his fans and they asked him about the pay gap, he would answer them "A pay gap that is solely caused by the gender doesn't exist." which is, you'll note, technically the same answer he gave news channel four but carefully tailored to sound like his fans want it to. He's not about to give them a lecture about the prejudice of the promotion board and the potential value of an organization promoting feminine traits (he did mention that medicine was thriving and quite feminine, so it stands to reason that he would probably consider the feminine traits in such industries as positive).

My guess is that he probably cares about the issues some, but he probably cares a great deal more about the money and fame that he gets by framing his beliefs to fit the mold of a certain online mindset. In this video specifically (I haven't seen many other videos of his) I don't think he's saying what a lot of his fan-posters think he's saying. Also, the interviewer was pretty shit.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Edit

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Has anyone seen this? It backs up what I was able to view on twitter as well.

There was no 4chan alt right threat campaign against Cathy Newman. In contrast, there were more threats made toward Peterson and his followers.

https://hequal.wordpress.com/2018/0...han-vice-versa/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

 

[TheGreatA]

He could not support PETA terrorism, that doesn't mean he hates animals.

From the point of view of a PETA terrorist, it might. From the point of view of a feminist/transgender rights activist, Peterson's criticism of such movements probably means that he hates women/sexual minorities. After all, it is important for feminists/LGBT activists to claim exclusive rights to representing femalehood/sexual minorities. Therefore, to the people who support such movements, criticizing feminism/LGBT activism means that one must be in direct conflict with females or sexual minorities.

I criticize my government, that doesn't mean I hate my country. I criticize Islam, that doesn't mean I hate Muslims. Hell, I'm critical of myself, yet have nothing but love for me.

This idea that valid criticism equals hate has got to go. How else are we to improve if not thorough analysis of areas we're deficient in? Now I realize "valid" might vary with each observer, but that's why we need to scrutinize - in order to find objective truths.

I don't think the objective truth is really a point of importance to these sorts of movements, or the activists involved, nor has it ever been claimed to be. Any truth that may run contrary to their interests, is a truth that cannot be allowed to see the light of day.

 

[Exception]

I love how the stupid bitch had to have Peterson try and stop the bleeding once her stupidity and SJW side were shown to the whole world instead of just their normal, uneducated viewership.

 

[Exception]

You claim:


Then say you can't be bothered researching to find examples of your claim because you find Peterson repugnant and boring


Then say there are many examples if you look, even though you haven't cause you don't wanna do the research and THEN say the problem with the right is that they don't know how to research or source information properly.


Mind blown.

Lmfao. It's like you're arguing with a wall.

 

[sangreporsangre]

Trump winning did that to a lot of folks it seems. I follow Bill Maher on Facebook and watched his show every week but after Trump won he just went off the deep end. Now every post of his is something about trump or sharing these weird drawings from some “artist” who draws a bunch of anti-trump cartoony pictures. Sad!

Ok but why some random Kiwi? I get somebody from the other side of the world criticizing or clowning on Trump, but the obsession from someone who isn't American is disturbing.

 

[TheGreatA]

That "debate" was dumb. It was basically just a shitty interview where they discussed a few topics in the purview of the gender wage gap, but neither person was actively defending a position that was far away from the other.

He was asked if the gender pay gap exists. He said yes, but it isn't solely based on gender, there are a multitude of factors that contribute to it. Well, yes, of course that's true, but then he singles out agreeableness and disagreeableness which may apply to some jobs but not others. Not all jobs allow you to realistically negotiate for your salary. He knows this. He even said that the prejudice of the people at the top does contribute to the pay gap. So he believes in the pay gap, and he believes gender does play a role. So then he rails against equality of outcomes, which no one realistically advocates for. Equality of opportunities is generally what people advocate for. So what's he really arguing against at that point?

He's saying all that to the news channel four audience, but if he was among his fans and they asked him about the pay gap, he would answer them "A pay gap that is solely caused by the gender doesn't exist." which is, you'll note, technically the same answer he gave news channel four but carefully tailored to sound like his fans want it to. He's not about to give them a lecture about the prejudice of the promotion board and the potential value of an organization promoting feminine traits (he did mention that medicine was thriving and quite feminine, so it stands to reason that he would probably consider the feminine traits in such industries as positive).

My guess is that he probably cares about the issues some, but he probably cares a great deal more about the money and fame that he gets by framing his beliefs to fit the mold of a certain online mindset. In this video specifically (I haven't seen many other videos of his) I don't think he's saying what a lot of his fan-posters think he's saying. Also, the interviewer was pretty shit.

I don't think that is necessarily the case anymore.

I've certainly met many, many people who argue for an equality of outcomes. Any inequality in outcome, between differing groups of people, is seen as evidence of on-going oppression, which ought to be addressed with heavy-handed regulation on the part of the state, down to the most minimal detail (including people's choices of words).

 

[panamaican]

I don't think that is necessarily the case anymore.

I've certainly met many, many people who argue for an equality of outcomes. Any inequality in outcome, between differing groups of people, is seen as evidence of on-going oppression, which ought to be addressed with heavy-handed regulation on the part of the state, down to the most minimal detail (including people's choices of words).

That's a bit of an over-simplification. People see inequality of outcomes and then dig into the source. If it's tied to inequality of opportunities then they start trying to regulate the opportunities.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

I don't think that is necessarily the case anymore.

I've certainly met many, many people who argue for an equality of outcomes. Any inequality in outcome, between differing groups of people, is seen as evidence of on-going oppression, which ought to be addressed with heavy-handed regulation on the part of the state, down to the most minimal detail (including people's choices of words).

In canada we've seen this on the legistlative level.