jordan peterson

it's almost like there's something of substance and meaning behind it that resonates with a lot of people

Edited February 18, 2018 by roasty

Or, it’s almost like a lot of people have preconceived notions of how their world operates in their psyche and J Pizzle speaks to those fears, hopes, and desires.

 

Seriously, the number of people who still think that C-16 will make it criminal for them personally to not call a transgendered person by their desired pronoun is ridiculous.

These hair transplants aren’t gonna pay for themselves. Fork it over, beta bitches.

He's a troublemaker.

Edited February 18, 2018 by whosebrian

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater whilst having your own preconceived notions about what makes his ideas compelling to people

Edited February 18, 2018 by roasty

  On 2/18/2018 at 4:19 AM, Candiru said:

These hair transplants aren’t gonna pay for themselves. Fork it over, cucks.

Millenialized it for you.

  On 2/18/2018 at 4:40 AM, roasty said:

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater whilst having your own preconceived notions about what makes his ideas compelling to people

You tell me what is good or essential about his ideas. And if you say “go clean your room” I’m calling your moms to tell her what a failure she is as a parent.

 

 

 

He's not a person with amazing deep essential ideas, he's a public speaker who digests existing ideas well and applies them in a relevant way

  On 2/18/2018 at 7:21 AM, Zeffolia said:

He's not a person with amazing deep essential ideas, he's a public speaker who digests existing ideas well and applies them in a relevant way

Great, so we agree he’s not a person with deep and/or essential ideas.

He doesn’t understand the bill he became famous for, he doesn’t understand postmodernism or Marxism, and he cries when he fantasizes about the dearth of white males in academia.

 

Given that he’s an ignorant drama-queen, how can you say with a straight face that he digests ideas well and then applies them in a relevant manner?

So I suppose you understand postmodernism and marxism better than him

he’s the blue dress / white dress of 2018

he looks like a young emperor palpatine

Edited February 18, 2018 by Sally Vingoe

a lot of the `discussion` in this thread reminds me of that diatribe from the liner notes of one of squarepusher's older albums. in it, iirc (it's been a while), he states something along the lines of: that in order to properly criticize anything, you have to love whatever it is, inside and out. you should spend time with it and make an attempt to fully comprehend its nature, in and of itself, and only then will you have the perspective to reproach it in such a way that carries any amount of weight or substance. it seems like such an obvious concept, too. it's simple to casually dismiss something with an insult or an appeal to wikipedia, or a shit bit of journalism, but then it follows that your criticism becomes as trivial to dismiss - like the subconscious tuning out the passive background noise that surrounds you wherever you go.

 

imagine if the entire substance of jordan peterson's argument against C-16 was "lmao, this shit is fucking retarded." that'd be the end of it, and noone would give a shit what he had to say. one might even go so far as to think he was a bit of an imbecile.

 

instead he seems to have, quite cunningly, couched his ideas in a corpus of psychoanalytic work that he's been constructing for decades - work which is not only positively resonating with a large number of people, but it also seems to be nearly impossible for those that disagree with it to rationally criticize or dismantle. why is that? is it because he's the crybaby figurehead of the alt-right with a violent army of misogynistic online trolls at his command? or is it because he's an ignorant drama queen who's upset that he can't beat up women? more than likely not. it's probably because the people who disagree with him are largely incapable of competing within the realm of ideas. the scope of his work is incredibly vast, and anyone who has spent any amount of time trying to actually understand what he's talking about can see right through the hilariously off base attempts to associate him with nazis, or to paint him to as some kind of misogynistic bigot. all of the bullshit tactics that commonly get used to invalidate someone's ideas/character end up having the reverse effect with him, and are inadvertently introducing his ideas to people who otherwise never would have found them.

 

it's almost as though someone is going to need to come along and articulate a coherent counter-argument to properly deal with him and move the dialogue forward. maybe that's actually the point - that the very progress and social reform (that those who would disagree with peterson are clamouring about) are to be made through a rigorous debate of the validity of various ideas; and that insulting and belittling those that you disagree with only serves to impede progress and create more of the chaotic strife and disarray that the world would be far better off without.

Edited February 18, 2018 by sisforawesome

*literally dozens of counter arguments presented in thread, various articles written debunking peterson*

 

"it's almost like no one has a counter argument against this infallible logic"

Edited February 18, 2018 by zaphod

there were at least two serious articles posted here that dealt with his shit quite thoroughly. it would take you much less time to seek them out than to write that post above. it's kinda stupid to ignore those and write "people who disagree with him are largely incapable of competing within the realm of ideas" instead.

lol c'mon man. 'his attitude prevents any reasonable discussion' = 'he won't agree with me'

Even if the Canadian law states that it's only in public institutions like universities, you have to use their preferred made-up pronoun, that's still a HUGE move in the wrong direction.

  On 2/18/2018 at 1:47 PM, eugene said:

there were at least two serious articles posted here that dealt with his shit quite thoroughly. it would take you much less time to seek them out than to write that post above. it's kinda stupid to ignore those and write "people who disagree with him are largely incapable of competing within the realm of ideas" instead.

should i read and adopt someone else's opinion rather than formulate and share my own?

 

also, in terms of memetics, someone posting an article in response to something jordan peterson said barely comes close to what, the 20 years of lecturing students he's done? the probably millions of total hours of youtube videos & podcasts consumed? that's what i mean by competing within the realm of ideas.

 

  On 2/18/2018 at 1:49 PM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

there's no shortage of intellectuals and academics that can keep up with him. his attitude prevents any reasonable discussion so i doubt you'll even get one. 

who? i haven't found too many who have actually gone on with him.., sam harris comes to mind, and they have another podcast coming up which should be interesting, but that's just a single person. most of the time when he's on a podcast he'll just talk almost completely uninterrupted. that's nice and all if you want a lecture, but it's much more interesting when new ideas emerge from the clashing and tempering of opposing perspectives, isn't it?

it’s truly astonishing that this cheesy dude who’s cashing in on pop cultural outrage by regurgitating ignorant cliches about pc culture that one finds in a thousand op eds in practically every major news outlet from fox to nyt has followers who seem to honestly believe he’s some kind of untouchable, masculine philosopher hero.

  On 2/18/2018 at 3:41 PM, sisforawesome said:

 

  On 2/18/2018 at 1:47 PM, eugene said:

there were at least two serious articles posted here that dealt with his shit quite thoroughly. it would take you much less time to seek them out than to write that post above. it's kinda stupid to ignore those and write "people who disagree with him are largely incapable of competing within the realm of ideas" instead.

should i read and adopt someone else's opinion rather than formulate and share my own?

 

also, in terms of memetics, someone posting an article in response to something jordan peterson said barely comes close to what, the 20 years of lecturing students he's done? the probably millions of total hours of youtube videos & podcasts consumed? that's what i mean by competing within the realm of ideas

 

it seems you're a bit confused. you protested that peterson's ideas were not criticized in a serious manner, while in fact you simply missed/ignore those instances where they were, and still continue to do so claiming those simply don't exist.

 

also, why do you read and watch peterson instead of forming your own ideas about the topics he covers?

*refer to serious manner articles for my well-formed nuanced opinion*

  On 2/18/2018 at 4:19 AM, Candiru said:

These hair transplants aren’t gonna pay for themselves. Fork it over, beta bitches.

 

haha, I noticed that too. We've come a long way but not that long. Really, not facing baldness and walking through the fire of that makes you a pussy

Edited February 18, 2018 by marf

  On 2/18/2018 at 1:34 PM, sisforawesome said:

imagine if the entire substance of jordan peterson's argument against C-16 was "lmao, this shit is fucking retarded." that'd be the end of it, and noone would give a shit what he had to say. one might even go so far as to think he was a bit of an imbecile.

 

instead he seems to have, quite cunningly, couched his ideas in a corpus of psychoanalytic work that he's been constructing for decades - work which is not only positively resonating with a large number of people, but it also seems to be nearly impossible for those that disagree with it to rationally criticize or dismantle.

 

it's almost as though someone is going to need to come along and articulate a coherent counter-argument to properly deal with him and move the dialogue forward. maybe that's actually the point - that the very progress and social reform (that those who would disagree with peterson are clamouring about) are to be made through a rigorous debate of the validity of various ideas; and that insulting and belittling those that you disagree with only serves to impede progress and create more of the chaotic strife and disarray that the world would be far better off without.

 

Imagine if I had never claimed that was the entire substance of his argument - oh that's right, I never did.

 

  On 2/18/2018 at 3:41 PM, sisforawesome said:

 

  On 2/18/2018 at 1:47 PM, eugene said:

there were at least two serious articles posted here that dealt with his shit quite thoroughly. it would take you much less time to seek them out than to write that post above. it's kinda stupid to ignore those and write "people who disagree with him are largely incapable of competing within the realm of ideas" instead.

should i read and adopt someone else's opinion rather than formulate and share my own?

 

 

 

 

Asks for counter-arguments, then refuses to read them when presented. Well done.

  On 2/18/2018 at 3:37 PM, robotrobot said:

Even if the Canadian law states that it's only in public institutions like universities, you have to use their preferred made-up pronoun, that's still a HUGE move in the wrong direction.

 

Again, if you are federal employer, or a provider of services or housing, then you may not discriminate against them on the grounds of gender expression or identity. As an individual student on campus, you can discriminate to your heart's content, unless of course the university code of conduct prohibits discrimination.

 

In Canada, we have tended to enjoy providing protection to those who have been discriminated against. So why is this a huge move in the wrong direction? The "made-up language" argument unfortunately doesn't work, all language is socially constructed. Go and google "doxa", "orthodox", and "heterodox".

for those of you who think this guy is some kind of decent thinker here's what he says about foucault in a few minutes of a lecture:

 

"a more reprehensible individual you can hardly ever discover or even dream up no matter how twisted your imagination." lol ok deep shit.

 

"in the late sixties and early seventies [foucault was an] avowed marxist, way after anyone with any shred of any ethical decency had stopped being a marxist." patently false. foucault was a member of a communist party ("without knowing marx very well" ) from 1950-52. it was a passing experience in his 20s. his published work contains very little on marx and practically the entirety of it is critical. his most sustained examination of marx appeared in "the order of things" in 1966 and was written in response to a  "hagiographic glorification of marxist political economy" for which he was roundly condemned by marxists, a pattern of condemnation he experienced throughout his entire career.

 

jp claims foucault was "suicidal his entire life." this is entirely unsubstantiated by the standard biographies of foucualt (eribon, macey, miller) and has no bearing on his argument. it's a petty lie meant to make his subject look bad.

 

jp claims mf "never fit in anywhere" and was "peculiar, bitter and resentful" about this for his whole life. this is entirely false and unsubstantiated by the literature (a pattern appears!). foucualt was widely loved and celebrated throughout his career, recognized by his peers, etc. his tenure and lectures at the college de france are an important example of his acceptance by the academic establishment and broader intellectual community in france.

 

i stopped watching the lecture after like five minutes bc peterson was just rambling about what a hierarchy is. guess what? a hierarchy evaluates and excludes. for some reason he thinks this is an important observation that also somehow disproves foucault's entire work. lmfao

 

what one finds in peterson's presentation is a series of falsifications and distortions meant to substantiate an entirely trite "psychologizing" of foucault along the lines that his entire body of work can be characterized as resentment about never fitting in. it's not only completely untrue, it not only says absolutely nothing substantial about any of foucault's ideas, but it's just incredibly fucking stupid. it's some idiot making up biographical factoids and offering them as "critique." it's not even good "psychology."