User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » Jordan Peterson Page [1] 2 3, Next  
Dentaldamn
All American
9599 Posts
user info
edit post

What’s up with this?

6/22/2018 10:43:43 AM

thegoodlife3
All American
34546 Posts
user info
edit post

talking nonsense slowly in a canadian accent = $$$$

6/22/2018 10:47:06 AM

A Tanzarian
salad syrup
9032 Posts
user info
edit post

talking nonsense slowly in a canadian accent to incels= $$$$

6/22/2018 11:02:23 AM

synapse
play so hard
56319 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"The most important public intellectual in the West"


https://thefederalist.com/2018/06/22/how-jordan-peterson-missed-a-layup-on-religious-freedom/

6/22/2018 12:18:48 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
6004 Posts
user info
edit post

nothing worse than a Canadian lecturing you about bootstraps and personal responsibility.

6/22/2018 12:59:58 PM

Dentaldamn
All American
9599 Posts
user info
edit post

I just read the first 30 pages of Maps of Meaning.

He seems very concerned with the status quo and using some bullshit about myths to back it up.

6/22/2018 1:38:10 PM

adultswim
All American
8209 Posts
user info
edit post

He’s a right wing grifter who uses symbolism to and fake psychology to appeal to depressed white conservatives.

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/02/jordan-peterson-enlightenment-nietzsche-alt-right

6/22/2018 1:57:22 PM

rjrumfel
All American
21120 Posts
user info
edit post

Who is this guy? Honestly never heard of him before this thread.

I guess I'm a shitty conservative.

6/22/2018 2:40:35 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
6004 Posts
user info
edit post

I don’t know how you could miss this dude. I feel like if I watch even one video on YouTube that is slightly right-center, like barely (Joe Rogan podcast comes to mind for me), my youtube feed is immediately covered with like every 5th video being “Jordan Peterson makes lib interviewer cry.”

Shit is unbearable.

6/22/2018 11:22:25 PM

eleusis
All American
24421 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"He’s a right wing grifter who uses symbolism to and fake psychology to appeal to depressed white conservatives."


your political compass needs some serious readjustment if you think a classical liberal that touts personal responsibility and the dangers of identity politics should be considered right-wing.

6/23/2018 12:08:53 PM

adultswim
All American
8209 Posts
user info
edit post

Personal responsibility is fine. Teaching personal responsibility as a counter to collectivism is right-winger bullshit. He's absolutely obsessed with tying everything he doesn't like to Marxism.

"Classical liberalism" is no different than modern day conservatism.

[Edited on June 23, 2018 at 12:37 PM. Reason : .]

6/23/2018 12:34:10 PM

eleusis
All American
24421 Posts
user info
edit post

classical liberalism is on the opposite end of the authoritarian spectrum of modern conservatives.

6/23/2018 2:53:27 PM

TreeTwista10
R Tree Ermey
139515 Posts
user info
edit post

is this the owl who killed that girl

6/23/2018 4:43:58 PM

NyM410
J-E-T-S
48629 Posts
user info
edit post

This is the guy that is the Jesus of incels, right?

6/24/2018 4:32:15 PM

d357r0y3r
Jimmies: Unrustled
8109 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Personal responsibility is fine. Teaching personal responsibility as a counter to collectivism is right-winger bullshit. He's absolutely obsessed with tying everything he doesn't like to Marxism."


His tying everything to Marxism comes across as sloppy. Maybe that's why he always calls it 'neo-marxism' - I take that to mean 'not Marxism, but something that came from Marxism'. The Marxists I've known, god help them, claim to dislike postmodernism, although they love identity politics. I get where the confusion comes in. Marxist class theory and the more cancerous ideologies that spawned from it are obviously collectivist in nature. "Class struggle" and "intersectionality" as concepts are natural allies, even if they start from different first principles.

He gets a little too temperamental, and most of what he's talking about does not seem groundbreaking, but it's also not wrong in a lot of cases. The whole "clean your room" thing is just another way of saying "fix your broken fucking life before you try to overthrow global capitalism/patriarchy/whatever". That's advice that is good for left-wingers and right-wingers.

With that said, 'red tribe' type people are way more likely to buy into the personal responsibility narrative. I haven't seen any evidence that left-wingers, in general, believe in personal responsibility. They say they do, but every time you actually drill into it, they want to make excuses for literally every identity group except straight, white males. It's all about why you can't succeed, not empowering the individual. In the leftist framework, there is no individual, just group power dynamics at work.

Intellectual leftism is the U.S. is really about white/Jewish men and women telling minorities that they are inherently incapable of succeeding and telling them why they need the government to save them. It's really just the next generation of "white savior"-ism wrapped up in "progressive" rhetoric. If there were any popular voices on the left really driving people to become better, more successful people, then maybe I could reconsider this belief, but everything I hear come out of the left is pure victimhood narrative crap which is just completely useless stuff.

6/25/2018 10:33:25 AM

adultswim
All American
8209 Posts
user info
edit post

Capitalism is a pyramid scheme. Personal responsibility as defined by right wingers is a myth.

[Edited on June 25, 2018 at 10:56 AM. Reason : .]

6/25/2018 10:40:38 AM

d357r0y3r
Jimmies: Unrustled
8109 Posts
user info
edit post



Quote :
"Personal responsibility as defined by right wingers is a myth."


As defined by right wingers? The concept is really simple.



When people begin believing they have no control (which is the only thing that leftists tell them), it's absolutely horrible for mental well being.

[Edited on June 25, 2018 at 11:00 AM. Reason : ]

6/25/2018 10:55:10 AM

adultswim
All American
8209 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"they have no control (which is the only thing that leftists tell them)"


That's not true. Even the most marginalized individual can succeed under capitalism, but it requires an amount of luck proportional to your social standing. Leftists recognize this and suggest that those who have succeeded have a personal responsibility to lift up those who haven't. Right wingers say that those who haven't are just not trying hard enough. They ignore the fact that our system depends upon an oppressed working class, and those in power will not allow everyone to "succeed", whatever that means.

[Edited on June 25, 2018 at 11:29 AM. Reason : .]

6/25/2018 11:27:18 AM

HCH
All American
3452 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Capitalism is a pyramid scheme."


Quote :
"in 1820, 94 percent of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty (less than $1.90 per day adjusted for purchasing power). In 1990 this figure was 34.8 percent, and in 2015, just 9.6 percent.The speed of poverty alleviation in the last 25 years has been historically unprecedented: more than 1.25 billion people escaped extreme poverty in the last quarter century."

6/25/2018 11:32:53 AM

d357r0y3r
Jimmies: Unrustled
8109 Posts
user info
edit post

Yeah, but who decides what poverty even is? The capitalists maaaaaaaan...

6/25/2018 11:36:25 AM

adultswim
All American
8209 Posts
user info
edit post

https://www.rdwolff.com/85754/why_did_you_say_capitalism_didn_t_decrease_poverty_what_do_you_think_reduced_poverty

Why did you say capitalism didn't decrease poverty? What do you think reduced poverty?

Quote :
"My point was focused on poverty understood relatively. Yes, the improvement in human technology/productivity has, across many centuries, increased the total output per person-hour of labor. Some of that improvement has trickled down to the mass of people. They lived better with settled agriculture than as nomads, with feudalism rather than slavery, with capitalism rather than slavery or feudalism, and so on. But there were exceptions and occasional reversals.

Marx's insight was to see how capitalism not only stimulated rapid technological/productivity increases but also reproduced the social dichotomy between rich and poor. It was, as he said, as good at reproducing poverty as at reproducing wealth; it reproduced unequal divisions of wealth and income.

That is why, despite countless anti-poverty programs across the history of capitalism, poverty always returns to characterize the system. Capitalism reproduces relative poverty by its nature, its functioning, its system."


Quote :
"Yeah, but who decides what poverty even is? The capitalists"


I mean yeah. Poverty should be based on a standard of living relative to total wealth. It's not.

[Edited on June 25, 2018 at 11:53 AM. Reason : .]

6/25/2018 11:37:30 AM

d357r0y3r
Jimmies: Unrustled
8109 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Poverty should be based on a standard of living relative to total wealth"


Why? This concept just seems so alien and incorrect to me.

If poverty should be based on individual wealth relative to total wealth, then which of these states is preferable?

- Total Wealth: 100
- Average individual wealth: 1

bomb some mansions...

- Total Wealth: 80
- Average individual wealth: 1

By your metric, the average individual after the bombing is richer. How the fuck does that make any sense?

6/25/2018 12:07:16 PM

adultswim
All American
8209 Posts
user info
edit post

Well for one, the idea is to redistribute wealth, not destroy it.

6/25/2018 12:21:07 PM

d357r0y3r
Jimmies: Unrustled
8109 Posts
user info
edit post

I understand the intent, but I'm saying your definition doesn't work because it's entirely possible for the individual/total ratio to improve while everyone actually gets poor.

Under your definition, hunting and gathering days saw the lowest levels of poverty in history because the tribal warlord only owned 3x as much as your average gatherer, rather than 2000+ x (which is what we see today with CEOs/workers).

6/25/2018 1:01:08 PM

afripino
All American
10085 Posts
user info
edit post

^you forgot to adjust for deflation

6/25/2018 1:16:00 PM

adultswim
All American
8209 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Under your definition, hunting and gathering days saw the lowest levels of poverty in history because the tribal warlord only owned 3x as much as your average gatherer, rather than 2000+ x (which is what we see today with CEOs/workers)."


Yep. Poverty is relative to your neighbors, not your ancestors.

You could say that capitalism raised lifespans and gave us a better overall standard of living (debatable & not really something I care to get into), but it has out-lived its usefulness. It should be looked at as a stage of human development, not an end-goal.

6/25/2018 1:36:43 PM

JesusHChrist
All American
4215 Posts
user info
edit post

jesus fucking christ, is anybody in this thread even remotely surprised that our resident ron paul "muh constitutions" d357r0y3r made the leap from being a whispy bearded libertarian to an alt-lite Jordan Peterson acolyte?



Quote :
"Intellectual leftism is the U.S. is really about white/Jewish men and women telling minorities that they are inherently incapable of succeeding and telling them why they need the government to save them."



"Ermm...akshually you guise, the jews are the realllll rasiss! This shitty diagram with arrows pointing at people with squiggly lines prooves it!"


Fuckin' hell man, you need to get off that train quickly.

6/25/2018 2:08:09 PM

d357r0y3r
Jimmies: Unrustled
8109 Posts
user info
edit post



Quote :
"Yep. Poverty is relative to your neighbors, not your ancestors.

You could say that capitalism raised lifespans and gave us a better overall standard of living (debatable & not really something I care to get into), but it has outlived its usefulness. It should be looked at as a stage of human development, not an end-goal."


You're saying you prefer relative increases in wealth rather than absolute increases. Surely you can imagine a scenario where that leads to more death and suffering, right? Relative wealth only matters if wealth is being generated faster than its being distributed.

[Edited on June 25, 2018 at 2:31 PM. Reason : ]

6/25/2018 2:25:00 PM

adultswim
All American
8209 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"You're saying you prefer relative increases in wealth rather than absolute increases."


I'm saying you can have both.

Quote :
"Relative wealth only matters if wealth is being generated faster than its being distributed."


Which is exactly what's happening, at an accelerating rate.

6/25/2018 2:34:17 PM

d357r0y3r
Jimmies: Unrustled
8109 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"I'm saying you can have both."


You can, but you can also have increased relative wealth and static or reduced absolute wealth. I'm not even calling into question your tactics here, I'm just saying that defining poverty as relative leads to potential paradoxes where poverty goes down but suffering goes up, which makes it a bad definition IMO.

6/25/2018 2:42:26 PM

JesusHChrist
All American
4215 Posts
user info
edit post

it's pretty incredible that you fancy yourself a deep thinker, yet the philosophies and political theories you subscribe to always, ALWAYS, defend existing hierarchies and power structures that benefit those already at the top.


You dropped that libertarian shit because you didn't have the balls to become an anarchist.

Now you're all aboard that "personal responsibility" train because feminists, marxists, and jews are the real racists.




We see you.

6/25/2018 2:55:29 PM

d357r0y3r
Jimmies: Unrustled
8109 Posts
user info
edit post

Crushing it bro. Keep up the good work!

[Edited on June 25, 2018 at 3:01 PM. Reason : ]

6/25/2018 3:01:00 PM

adultswim
All American
8209 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"You can, but you can also have increased relative wealth and static or reduced absolute wealth. I'm not even calling into question your tactics here, I'm just saying that defining poverty as relative leads to potential paradoxes where poverty goes down but suffering goes up, which makes it a bad definition IMO."


Dude, we are talking about two different things here. You are talking about technological growth. I'm talking about present-day socioeconomic inequality. Both are important. We can have technological growth while also closing the wealth gap.

6/25/2018 3:15:19 PM

BridgetSPK
#1 Sir Purr Fan
31323 Posts
user info
edit post

So an effete shrink has nominated himself to defend manhood and western civilization?

LOL

6/25/2018 4:02:46 PM

Dentaldamn
All American
9599 Posts
user info
edit post

after a few days of reading and watching Jordan Peterson stuff I find the religious debate to be the most interesting.

This was fun to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmH7JUeVQb8.

Insane word salads.

6/27/2018 12:27:01 PM

JesusHChrist
All American
4215 Posts
user info
edit post

yeah but did you see the diagram drawings that define your "locus of control?" that give only the individual the opportunity to define their life's outcomes?



The feathers represent the individual standing in defiance of external pressures, and the turkey represents a turkey

6/27/2018 12:50:48 PM

afripino
All American
10085 Posts
user info
edit post

I'm still trying to figure out if conservatives:

1) love Israel but hate the jews

2) love both Israel and the jews

3) secretly hate both Israel and the jews

6/27/2018 1:30:38 PM

dtownral
All American
23582 Posts
user info
edit post

look at who they picked to speak at the jerusalem embassy

6/27/2018 1:38:32 PM

Dentaldamn
All American
9599 Posts
user info
edit post

The Jewish people need to return to the holy land in order for Christ to return.

So I think they hate both and think it’s a necessity.

6/27/2018 2:29:50 PM

dtownral
All American
23582 Posts
user info
edit post

related: https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/30/magazine/apocalypse-cow.html

6/27/2018 2:32:38 PM

d357r0y3r
Jimmies: Unrustled
8109 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"I'm still trying to figure out if conservatives:

1) love Israel but hate the jews

2) love both Israel and the jews

3) secretly hate both Israel and the jews"


American evangelicals love Israel because support for Israel is weaved in with their end-times mythology. Somehow, they were convinced that bowing to Israel for all time was somehow in their favor. This Christian Zionism movement is tough to do anything about.

I don't think most conservatives hate Jews at all - in fact, many highly respected conservative and right-libertarian thinkers are Jewish. They may clash some institutions where Jews are overrepresented (e.g. elite academia, Hollywood, journalism, etc), but I think the hate there is because of the liberal/progressive tendency in those institutions.

White nationalists and white supremacists (think Stormfront, salisburyboy types) often hate Israel and Jews, the general thinking being that there's a big Jewish conspiracy to genocide the whites. I may be strawmanning their actual views, but having come into contact with this type, it comes across as totally paranoid thinking. This is fairly conspiratorial stuff that I don't think is even close to being a mainstream belief. These people also diverge quite a bit from mainstream American conservative/individualist thought - they are collectivists through and through. The way they talk about groups is just identity politics.

What you're seeing a lot now is the left conflating milquetoast conservatives (e.g. Jordan Peterson) with Literally Hitler. I think the goal is to muddy the waters and "trick" people into crossing over, but I think to anyone not knee deep in progressive echo chambers (like most of TSB these days, apparently), it comes across as really dishonest and you end up getting more people seeking out more center or even right-wing groups. So, keep it up I guess.

6/27/2018 8:32:45 PM

Dentaldamn
All American
9599 Posts
user info
edit post

After consuming way to much Jordan Peterson this week, I can say he is so clinical in his speaking and conclusions that it’s devoid of compassion or emotion. That seems to immediately turns off people who lean left. Many things he says are left of center, some right of center. He also has a preacheresque way of speaking which seems to cause issues. His self help, child development stuff is pretty run of the mill.

Everything he says is very precise but vague and compared to people who are actually a problem ( actually nazis, brietbart guys, religious extremists) he’s incredibly boring and old fashion once you drill into his ideas. It’s incredibly non threatening, almost like Bob Dole if his 1995 self showed up today.

With that being said, his religious debates are very interesting and fucking batshit. That’s way more interesting than any of the other shit. He’s fun to listen to when debating atheists bc his way of thinking is so wonky.

6/27/2018 11:21:29 PM

dtownral
All American
23582 Posts
user info
edit post

Ahahaha

6/28/2018 5:32:47 AM

TerdFerguson
All American
6004 Posts
user info
edit post

^^He's intentionally vague so that when people call him on his bullshit he has room to backpedal and claim you are misrepresenting him. He will then present a much more mainstream twist and play "conservative victim constantly attacked by LIEBURALS" (which is the state where all conservatives naturally reside). He lays that trap in nearly every interview or lecture I've actually taken the time to listen to. He isn't non-threatening to me, he just cloaks his shit way better than most.

After Peterson goes through the motions and the bait in the trap is taken, then "intellectual conservatives" can claim:
Quote :
"it comes across as really dishonest and you end up getting more people seeking out more center or even right-wing groups. So, keep it up I guess.
"


AKA "THIS IS WUHY TRUMP WUZ ELECTED."

6/28/2018 7:37:59 AM

Dentaldamn
All American
9599 Posts
user info
edit post

^ Agreed. he also does the “I’m just asking questions to frame the argument” thing to make his opinions hard to nail down when they’re extremely problematic.

Regarding being threatening or not: He is an ivory tower, Canadian intellectual. I don’t like saying it could be worse....but it could be worse.

On a side note, I never had interest in reading postmodern writters but I’m reading Foucault currently bc of all this.

6/28/2018 8:11:46 AM

TerdFerguson
All American
6004 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Regarding being threatening or not: He is an ivory tower, Canadian intellectual. I don’t like saying it could be worse....but it could be worse. "


Well, I gotta agree with that! LOL.

6/28/2018 8:27:01 AM

d357r0y3r
Jimmies: Unrustled
8109 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"AKA "THIS IS WUHY TRUMP WUZ ELECTED.""


I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but the fact that (from a center or right perspective) the progressive left seems hysterical doesn't help at all.

I mean, I've got a friend that I see every 2-3 weeks, and every time I see him, he's telling me about the next thing that Trump is going to get impeached for. It's literally been 10 different things, and he's sure every time that "this is what's going to bring him down". And then there was the election itself - when I talked to my lefty friends, it wasn't a question of if Clinton was going to win, it was a question of whether it would be the biggest landslide in history or just a modest victory.

At some point, fence-sitters notice that one side is in a perpetual state of The Sky is Falling, and then when things seem to be okay, they start wondering, "what else are these people wrong about"? I'm not, by the way, saying that the right doesn't do this too - Benghazi, Fast and Furious, etc, were all said to be the nail in the coffin for the Obama administration. It's not a good look for anyone, though.

6/28/2018 10:10:37 AM

JesusHChrist
All American
4215 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but the fact that (from a center or right perspective) the progressive left seems hysterical doesn't help at all."


Oh shut the fuck up. This is always the card played by the right. "ooohhh, the left is so bad, so this is why the right goes harder to the right." This is always a one-way street. It's always demanded that the left be soft and compromising to the right under the threat of a right-wing backlash.

Women demanding their equal rights? Better watch out, might cause a right-wing reaction

Gays wanting to get married? Better watch out, might cause a right-wing reaction

Minorities want equality in the workforce? Better watch out, might cause a right-wing reaction

Brown people want the police to stop murdering them? Better watch out, might cause a right-wing reaction

Teenagers don't want to be massacred in school? Better watch out, might cause a right-wing reaction


You never hear people use this exact same argument in the other direction. The right can be brash and open in their rightwing desire to ethnically cleanse an entire nation, and yet it is still somehow the responsibility of the left to treat these same oinking imbeciles with kiddie gloves.


Quote :
"I mean, I've got a friend that I see every 2-3 weeks, and every time I see him, he's telling me about the next thing that Trump is going to get impeached for..."


This isn't a lefty, this is a liberal. Liberals still think that our institutions are capable of correcting themselves. Leftists do not. Leftists correctly see the right-wing as a force that is consolidating power and removing and disregarding the safeguards meant to check their power.


Quote :
"At some point, fence-sitters notice that one side is in a perpetual state of The Sky is Falling, and then when things seem to be okay, they start wondering, "what else are these people wrong about"?"


The fact that you think things are relatively okay reveals more about the various layers of privilege you enjoy, which explains why you've drifted from mr "logical and reason" libertarian positions to worshiping this alt-light charlatan.

Things are not okay.



[Edited on June 28, 2018 at 10:35 AM. Reason : ]

6/28/2018 10:31:58 AM

adultswim
All American
8209 Posts
user info
edit post

If the anti-war libertarian destroyer were still around, he’d be just as pissed off as we are.

6/28/2018 10:37:43 AM

d357r0y3r
Jimmies: Unrustled
8109 Posts
user info
edit post

What have I said that is pro-war? I think you're remembering a person that didn't exist.

I've always been, essentially, a right-libertarian. These are some views of mine that really haven't changed:
- The government is and can only be incompetent
- War is a government welfare program for various interests (sure, usually capital)
- Leftism is fundamentally about redistributing resources from those that contribute to those that don't

I just see leftists as being weak. Constantly bowing, scraping, and apologizing for what they are. It's pathetic to watch and it's not something anyone with any dignity would want to emulate. It's not empathy, either, because they never want to actually help anyone improve their lives, they just want to pass around blame.

If anything I've just become less patient with the left because I seriously hate their vision, so I'm less inclined to try to find common ground.

6/28/2018 11:10:38 AM

 Message Boards » The Soap Box » Jordan Peterson Page [1] 2 3, Next  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2018 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.37 - our disclaimer.