jordan peterson

  On 2/2/2018 at 7:35 AM, chenGOD said:

He's a douchenozzle. And we're sorry aboot him eh.

 

http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-jordan-peterson-paradox-high-intellect-or-just-another-angry-white-guy/article37806524/

 

He is however, smart enough to make around 50K a month on his patreon through feeding the fertile young minds of /pol/ and r/thedon (or whatever the fuck that subreddit is called) the jizz-soaked fantasies they want to hear of "Valhalla under siege" and "fearing the other 101" ad nauseum.

what the hell are those articles? did you even read them? they were the equivalent of posting air on a web page, absolutely no arguments made at all

  On 2/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Bodhidharma said:

 

  On 2/2/2018 at 7:35 AM, chenGOD said:

He's a douchenozzle. And we're sorry aboot him eh.

 

http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-jordan-peterson-paradox-high-intellect-or-just-another-angry-white-guy/article37806524/

 

He is however, smart enough to make around 50K a month on his patreon through feeding the fertile young minds of /pol/ and r/thedon (or whatever the fuck that subreddit is called) the jizz-soaked fantasies they want to hear of "Valhalla under siege" and "fearing the other 101" ad nauseum.

what the hell are those articles? did you even read them? they were the equivalent of posting air on a web page, absolutely no arguments made at all

 

i didn't read them. i just scanned them and inferred what they might be about. that's pretty much how the internet works isn't it? 

  On 2/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Bodhidharma said:

 

  On 2/2/2018 at 7:35 AM, chenGOD said:

leftist propaganda

what the hell are those articles? did you even read them? they were the equivalent of posting air on a web page, absolutely no arguments made at all

 

There is still to this day nobody out there who's provided a solid counter-argument to anything Peterson is saying.  It's all attempted character assassination & guilt-by-association that anyone with basic English/debate skills can see right through.  He's openly challenged authors of articles like those to public debates and they always go quiet or resort to social media blocking in response.  Plenty of people would love to hear an articulate intellectual break down why what he's claiming is wrong but it has yet to happen.  That,  combined with the obvious political bias of the media outlets in which those pieces are published, as well as attempted smearing like the channel 4 interview, really makes one wonder...

  On 2/2/2018 at 10:48 PM, autopilot said:

 

  On 2/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Bodhidharma said:

 

  On 2/2/2018 at 7:35 AM, chenGOD said:

leftist propaganda

what the hell are those articles? did you even read them? they were the equivalent of posting air on a web page, absolutely no arguments made at all

 

 

There is still to this day nobody out there who's provided a solid counter-argument to anything Peterson is saying.  It's all attempted character assassination & guilt-by-association that anyone with basic English/debate skills can see right through.  He's openly challenged authors of articles like those to public debates and they always go quiet or resort to social media blocking in response.  Plenty of people would love to hear an articulate intellectual break down why what he's claiming is wrong but it has yet to happen.  That,  combined with the obvious political bias of the media outlets in which those pieces are published, as well as attempted smearing like the channel 4 interview, really makes one wonder...

 

i think part of the reason that hasn't happened is someone has to be around who actually cares and has time to do it.  i think peterson would welcome any kind of intelligent discourse about ideas.. he seems hungry for it really and perhaps it's his biggest need as a human being is to be challenged by an actual living human instead of a 100 year old book.

christopher hitchens or someone like that... or dawkins.. but one of those guys is dead right? 

i think to contest jordan peterson's ideas someone would have to have all the nuts and bolts of that background or it's just not gonna be worth anyone's time. 

i suspect some of that kind of debate does happen in books that academics publish? maybe.. i don't know.. it's not my world by any stretch.  

  On 2/2/2018 at 11:12 PM, ignatius said:

 

  On 2/2/2018 at 10:48 PM, autopilot said:

 

  On 2/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Bodhidharma said:

 

  On 2/2/2018 at 7:35 AM, chenGOD said:

leftist propaganda

what the hell are those articles? did you even read them? they were the equivalent of posting air on a web page, absolutely no arguments made at all

 

 

There is still to this day nobody out there who's provided a solid counter-argument to anything Peterson is saying.  It's all attempted character assassination & guilt-by-association that anyone with basic English/debate skills can see right through.  He's openly challenged authors of articles like those to public debates and they always go quiet or resort to social media blocking in response.  Plenty of people would love to hear an articulate intellectual break down why what he's claiming is wrong but it has yet to happen.  That,  combined with the obvious political bias of the media outlets in which those pieces are published, as well as attempted smearing like the channel 4 interview, really makes one wonder...

 

 

 

i think part of the reason that hasn't happened is someone has to be around who actually cares and has time to do it.  i think peterson would welcome any kind of intelligent discourse about ideas.. he seems hungry for it really and perhaps it's his biggest need as a human being is to be challenged by an actual living human instead of a 100 year old book.

 

christopher hitchens or someone like that... or dawkins.. but one of those guys is dead right? 

 

i think to contest jordan peterson's ideas someone would have to have all the nuts and bolts of that background or it's just not gonna be worth anyone's time. 

 

i suspect some of that kind of debate does happen in books that academics publish? maybe.. i don't know.. it's not my world by any stretch.  

 

his first appearance on sam harris podcast was the closest ive seen to that, i remember thinking jp came across as out of his depth and that some things were so blatantly wrong it was funny, but will have to relisten to that one because i cant give you any specifics. he went on the podcast again and basically said like yeah i fucked up in that episode, but they got stuck at the first hurdle of discussion because of differing definitions that they couldnt nail down.

i really like both sam and jp but sam tried to disprove humes is/ought divide in tweet form and jp was a hypocrite regarding faith goldy, but on the whole they are really clever top blokes imo

How are they clever? Harris just drones on and on through logical fallacy after fallacy and Peterson literally doesn’t understand what Marxism is or what post modernism is or what Derrida was writing about but his entire extremely shoddy “philosophy” is built on the idea that a culture war exists and “post-modernism” is the culprit of every problem we have in western society. He constantly talks about Derrida and the “cultural marxists” wanting to frame all of life as a binary power struggle despite Derrida very clearly talking about how there is no way to arrive at any absolute truths, so no such power struggle can even be defined. Peterson repeatedly does what he accuses others of doing - framing everything as a black and white easily definable struggle for power. The weirdest part of this is he arrives at his conclusions, always steeped in this no nonsense “sort yourself out” stern patriarchal language, always the realist, using a kind of ramshackle combo of Joseph Campbell, the Old Testament, jung, and archaic semiotics. He couldn’t be less equipped to have the discussions he has but because he’s a professor and very very serious and because he mentions the gulag archipelago in every interview young men take him seriously as a public intellectual when he’s actually as philosophically vacant and as much of a huckster as mike cernovich.

gulag archipelago was actually a pretty funny book. i guess i only read the first volume but the amount of testicle stomping was unexpected.

edit: do you think having porn on watmm made the average poster smarter

  On 2/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Bodhidharma said:

 

  On 2/2/2018 at 7:35 AM, chenGOD said:

He's a douchenozzle. And we're sorry aboot him eh.

 

http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-jordan-peterson-paradox-high-intellect-or-just-another-angry-white-guy/article37806524/

 

He is however, smart enough to make around 50K a month on his patreon through feeding the fertile young minds of /pol/ and r/thedon (or whatever the fuck that subreddit is called) the jizz-soaked fantasies they want to hear of "Valhalla under siege" and "fearing the other 101" ad nauseum.

what the hell are those articles? did you even read them? they were the equivalent of posting air on a web page, absolutely no arguments made at all

Read the globe and mail one again. There’s a good bit in there about the emptiness of Peterson’s contradictions. Personally I preferred the analogy to a Chinese buffet.

  On 2/2/2018 at 10:48 PM, autopilot said:

 

  On 2/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Bodhidharma said:

 

  On 2/2/2018 at 7:35 AM, chenGOD said:

leftist propaganda

what the hell are those articles? did you even read them? they were the equivalent of posting air on a web page, absolutely no arguments made at all

There is still to this day nobody out there who's provided a solid counter-argument to anything Peterson is saying. It's all attempted character assassination & guilt-by-association that anyone with basic English/debate skills can see right through. He's openly challenged authors of articles like those to public debates and they always go quiet or resort to social media blocking in response. Plenty of people would love to hear an articulate intellectual break down why what he's claiming is wrong but it has yet to happen. That, combined with the obvious political bias of the media outlets in which those pieces are published, as well as attempted smearing like the channel 4 interview, really makes one wonder...

Because his arguments are intellectually empty. He’s like Sam Harris, they both use a shit ton of weasel words, conflate ideas, and use ill-defined or non-defined ideas in their arguments so that they can easily back-pedal or move goalposts as needed.

Anyhow I’m a clear agitprop leftist, so you’ll automatically just want to ignore anything I have to say.

I believe the technical term is "useful idiot" and it's not your fault bro.

Peterson should've resigned if he had that much of an issue with the education system he'll draw part of his pension pot from, anything else i could gi' a fk about,

*except:

its annoying when Youlube recommends so much if his material when i just wanna watch a Hawkwind documentary

  On 2/3/2018 at 12:21 AM, autopilot said:

I believe the technical term is "useful idiot" and it's not your fault bro.

Sweet. Upgraded to useful. Totes thanks brah

  On 2/2/2018 at 11:49 PM, zaphod said:

How are they clever? Harris just drones on and on through logical fallacy after fallacy and Peterson literally doesn’t understand what Marxism is or what post modernism is or what Derrida was writing about but his entire extremely shoddy “philosophy” is built on the idea that a culture war exists and “post-modernism” is the culprit of every problem we have in western society. He constantly talks about Derrida and the “cultural marxists” wanting to frame all of life as a binary power struggle despite Derrida very clearly talking about how there is no way to arrive at any absolute truths, so no such power struggle can even be defined. Peterson repeatedly does what he accuses others of doing - framing everything as a black and white easily definable struggle for power. The weirdest part of this is he arrives at his conclusions, always steeped in this no nonsense “sort yourself out” stern patriarchal language, always the realist, using a kind of ramshackle combo of Joseph Campbell, the Old Testament, jung, and archaic semiotics. He couldn’t be less equipped to have the discussions he has but because he’s a professor and very very serious and because he mentions the gulag archipelago in every interview young men take him seriously as a public intellectual when he’s actually as philosophically vacant and as much of a huckster as mike cernovich.

I agree with what you say about his confusing use of postmodernism tbh

  On 2/3/2018 at 12:07 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 2/2/2018 at 10:48 PM, autopilot said:

 

  On 2/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Bodhidharma said:

 

  On 2/2/2018 at 7:35 AM, chenGOD said:

leftist propaganda

what the hell are those articles? did you even read them? they were the equivalent of posting air on a web page, absolutely no arguments made at all

There is still to this day nobody out there who's provided a solid counter-argument to anything Peterson is saying. It's all attempted character assassination & guilt-by-association that anyone with basic English/debate skills can see right through. He's openly challenged authors of articles like those to public debates and they always go quiet or resort to social media blocking in response. Plenty of people would love to hear an articulate intellectual break down why what he's claiming is wrong but it has yet to happen. That, combined with the obvious political bias of the media outlets in which those pieces are published, as well as attempted smearing like the channel 4 interview, really makes one wonder...

Because his arguments are intellectually empty. He’s like Sam Harris, they both use a shit ton of weasel words, conflate ideas, and use ill-defined or non-defined ideas in their arguments so that they can easily back-pedal or move goalposts as needed.

 

Anyhow I’m a clear agitprop leftist, so you’ll automatically just want to ignore anything I have to say.

 

I consider myself a lefty/pragmatic liberal but I find certain things he has to say interesting. What person do you consider has arguments that aren't 'intellectually empty'?

For the record I consider zeff, limpy and autopilot standing up for him to be p r o b l e m a t i c 

  On 2/3/2018 at 1:43 AM, hello spiral said:

 

  On 2/2/2018 at 11:49 PM, zaphod said:

How are they clever? Harris just drones on and on through logical fallacy after fallacy and Peterson literally doesn’t understand what Marxism is or what post modernism is or what Derrida was writing about but his entire extremely shoddy “philosophy” is built on the idea that a culture war exists and “post-modernism” is the culprit of every problem we have in western society. He constantly talks about Derrida and the “cultural marxists” wanting to frame all of life as a binary power struggle despite Derrida very clearly talking about how there is no way to arrive at any absolute truths, so no such power struggle can even be defined. Peterson repeatedly does what he accuses others of doing - framing everything as a black and white easily definable struggle for power. The weirdest part of this is he arrives at his conclusions, always steeped in this no nonsense “sort yourself out” stern patriarchal language, always the realist, using a kind of ramshackle combo of Joseph Campbell, the Old Testament, jung, and archaic semiotics. He couldn’t be less equipped to have the discussions he has but because he’s a professor and very very serious and because he mentions the gulag archipelago in every interview young men take him seriously as a public intellectual when he’s actually as philosophically vacant and as much of a huckster as mike cernovich.

I agree with what you say about his confusing use of postmodernism tbh

  On 2/3/2018 at 12:07 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 2/2/2018 at 10:48 PM, autopilot said:

 

  On 2/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Bodhidharma said:

 

  On 2/2/2018 at 7:35 AM, chenGOD said:

leftist propaganda

what the hell are those articles? did you even read them? they were the equivalent of posting air on a web page, absolutely no arguments made at all

There is still to this day nobody out there who's provided a solid counter-argument to anything Peterson is saying. It's all attempted character assassination & guilt-by-association that anyone with basic English/debate skills can see right through. He's openly challenged authors of articles like those to public debates and they always go quiet or resort to social media blocking in response. Plenty of people would love to hear an articulate intellectual break down why what he's claiming is wrong but it has yet to happen. That, combined with the obvious political bias of the media outlets in which those pieces are published, as well as attempted smearing like the channel 4 interview, really makes one wonder...

Because his arguments are intellectually empty. He’s like Sam Harris, they both use a shit ton of weasel words, conflate ideas, and use ill-defined or non-defined ideas in their arguments so that they can easily back-pedal or move goalposts as needed.

 

Anyhow I’m a clear agitprop leftist, so you’ll automatically just want to ignore anything I have to say.

I consider myself a lefty/pragmatic liberal but I find certain things he has to say interesting. What person do you consider has arguments that aren't 'intellectually empty'?

 

For the record I consider zeff, limpy and autopilot standing up for him to be p r o b l e m a t i c

Sure he talks about interesting things. But there’s no Seth to what he’s saying. Zaphod really said it well.

People who don’t have intellectually empty arguments?

In what field? I’m not up on modern philosophers, but Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Foucault, Popper, Russell, Mill, Locke, Hume all had really interesting and non-vacuous things to say.

  On 2/2/2018 at 11:49 PM, zaphod said:

How are they clever? Harris just drones on and on through logical fallacy after fallacy and Peterson literally doesn’t understand what Marxism is or what post modernism is or what Derrida was writing about but his entire extremely shoddy “philosophy” is built on the idea that a culture war exists and “post-modernism” is the culprit of every problem we have in western society. He constantly talks about Derrida and the “cultural marxists” wanting to frame all of life as a binary power struggle despite Derrida very clearly talking about how there is no way to arrive at any absolute truths, so no such power struggle can even be defined. Peterson repeatedly does what he accuses others of doing - framing everything as a black and white easily definable struggle for power. The weirdest part of this is he arrives at his conclusions, always steeped in this no nonsense “sort yourself out” stern patriarchal language, always the realist, using a kind of ramshackle combo of Joseph Campbell, the Old Testament, jung, and archaic semiotics. He couldn’t be less equipped to have the discussions he has but because he’s a professor and very very serious and because he mentions the gulag archipelago in every interview young men take him seriously as a public intellectual when he’s actually as philosophically vacant and as much of a huckster as mike cernovich.

sam is a neuroscientist and has written multiple well received books arguing for a logical, reasonal, rational and evidence based view on the outlook of life and in the pursuit of truth. hes very succinct and laconic and is able to parry and debate a number of other public intellectuals on a large number of topics (in his podcasts) whilst being quick and stolid and rarely contradicts/backtracks on himself. 

i do remember him editing old pages of his website secretly to slightly change his arguments/re-word his stuff in the hopes of nobody recognising which i thought was quite shady

what logical fallacies are you talking about with sam?

  On 2/3/2018 at 1:51 AM, Bodhidharma said:

 

  On 2/2/2018 at 11:49 PM, zaphod said:

How are they clever? Harris just drones on and on through logical fallacy after fallacy and Peterson literally doesn’t understand what Marxism is or what post modernism is or what Derrida was writing about but his entire extremely shoddy “philosophy” is built on the idea that a culture war exists and “post-modernism” is the culprit of every problem we have in western society. He constantly talks about Derrida and the “cultural marxists” wanting to frame all of life as a binary power struggle despite Derrida very clearly talking about how there is no way to arrive at any absolute truths, so no such power struggle can even be defined. Peterson repeatedly does what he accuses others of doing - framing everything as a black and white easily definable struggle for power. The weirdest part of this is he arrives at his conclusions, always steeped in this no nonsense “sort yourself out” stern patriarchal language, always the realist, using a kind of ramshackle combo of Joseph Campbell, the Old Testament, jung, and archaic semiotics. He couldn’t be less equipped to have the discussions he has but because he’s a professor and very very serious and because he mentions the gulag archipelago in every interview young men take him seriously as a public intellectual when he’s actually as philosophically vacant and as much of a huckster as mike cernovich.

sam is a neuroscientist and has written multiple well received books arguing for a logical, reasonal, rational and evidence based view on the outlook of life and in the pursuit of truth. hes very succinct and laconic and is able to parry and debate a number of other public intellectuals on a large number of topics (in his podcasts) whilst being quick and stolid and rarely contradicts/backtracks on himself. 

 

i do remember him editing old pages of his website secretly to slightly change his arguments/re-word his stuff in the hopes of nobody recognising which i thought was quite shady

 

what logical fallacies are you talking about with sam?

 

the whole "Iraqis did most of this to themselves" schtick is naive for someone from a serious academic background

correction, its not naive, its dangerous

  On 2/3/2018 at 1:51 AM, chenGOD said:

Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Foucault, Popper, Russell, Mill, Locke, Hume all had really interesting and non-vacuous things to say.

Links to their youtube channels pls

  On 2/2/2018 at 11:58 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 2/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Bodhidharma said:

 

  On 2/2/2018 at 7:35 AM, chenGOD said:

He's a douchenozzle. And we're sorry aboot him eh.

 

http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-jordan-peterson-paradox-high-intellect-or-just-another-angry-white-guy/article37806524/

 

He is however, smart enough to make around 50K a month on his patreon through feeding the fertile young minds of /pol/ and r/thedon (or whatever the fuck that subreddit is called) the jizz-soaked fantasies they want to hear of "Valhalla under siege" and "fearing the other 101" ad nauseum.

what the hell are those articles? did you even read them? they were the equivalent of posting air on a web page, absolutely no arguments made at all

Read the globe and mail one again. There’s a good bit in there about the emptiness of Peterson’s contradictions. Personally I preferred the analogy to a Chinese buffet.

 

a famous academic - not an argument

a middle aged man with a spookily intuitive mastery of the vicissitudes of social media - not an argument

a christian in the thrall of nietzsche - i dont know why he believes in god he is clearly uneducated in that regard. ive watched one of his bible dissection lectures and it was terrible, i dont pay attention to his parallels drawn between the role of the bible throughout history in comparison with today. ive only read 10 pages of beyond good and evil and only know 1 nietzsche quote and thats god is dead

a self styled individualist free thinker...- when the fellow academics refer to ethnicities/races/ideologies/gender groups where one group is defined as being less powerful than the other group and demand the more powerful group give resources to the less powerful group to create equality then there is no contradiction

a wholly unimposing specimen who insists on the moral necessity of physical strength and bemoans the social taboo of becoming physically violent with "crazy women" -

-he used to be able to bench around 110kg. 

-do you think being physically strong is something that shouldnt be strived for?

-article doesnt define crazy or give us the context in which peterson used it as its in quotes

edit: oh yeah forgot: and that paragraph with the chinese buffet - it doesnt say why its bad that he goes through multiple topics within a short space

i don't think peterson is alt-right, although at some point, if all of his beliefs align with all of theirs, what is the difference? there's no denying that he's using his fanbase on places like 4chan and various right leaning subreddits as well as appearing almost exclusively on conservative youtube channels means he's at least associating with the alt-right. that movement lacks any unified political philosophy because it's a reactionary shitshow full of people who are mostly playing the same identity politics game they claim to be opposed to. i feel like they see jp as a mentor/father figure. i'm bothered by the fact that he seems to be leaking into mainstream media as some kind of public intellectual a la chomsky despite the fact that, again, he seriously is not equipped to discuss anything he talks about outside of the realm of psychology. so i really mean he represents the alt-right, embraces them, and is thus a charlatan. but i knew this as soon as he started in on his self authoring shit which sounds suspiciously like some kind of auditing program you'd do in the early phases of conversion to scientology.

  On 2/2/2018 at 3:04 PM, roasty said:

lol 1

  On 2/2/2018 at 6:18 PM, Leon Sumbitches said:

Edit: just realised I spent like 10 minutes writing a post about how online debates are retarded in order to post it in an online debate

lol 2

  On 2/2/2018 at 6:39 PM, roasty said:

how can you guys defend him after this

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAnZRui6YNM

lol 3

I am rapidly arriving to the conclusion that Peterson smells (but still not as much as the people he is empowering).

lol

  On 2/2/2018 at 6:14 AM, Zeffolia said:

He's a psychologist and has nothing to do with the alt-right

He has nothing to do with the alt-right expect take their money, promote their websites and give them talking points next time an alt-righter has to debate a lefty SJW.

People are so fucking stupid they can't think for themselves anymore so they have to worship these internet intellectuals like harris, peterson and molenyux and parrot everything they say. How about go to a forest and think about like for like an hour, you'll be better off than listening to these clowns who just want your money.

  On 2/2/2018 at 6:28 AM, zaphod said:

i've watched a couple of his videos and he doesn't seem to understand what marxism is or what post modernism means. where are these great points he's making?

why do liberals go our of their way to defend those two morally bankrupt grotesque ideologues? you can be a liberal and not be a marxism/post-modernist ya know.

  On 2/3/2018 at 2:02 AM, hello spiral said:

 

Links to their youtube channels pls

 

  On 2/3/2018 at 2:07 AM, Bodhidharma said:

 

  On 2/2/2018 at 11:58 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 2/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Bodhidharma said:

 

  On 2/2/2018 at 7:35 AM, chenGOD said:

He's a douchenozzle. And we're sorry aboot him eh.

 

http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-jordan-peterson-paradox-high-intellect-or-just-another-angry-white-guy/article37806524/

 

He is however, smart enough to make around 50K a month on his patreon through feeding the fertile young minds of /pol/ and r/thedon (or whatever the fuck that subreddit is called) the jizz-soaked fantasies they want to hear of "Valhalla under siege" and "fearing the other 101" ad nauseum.

what the hell are those articles? did you even read them? they were the equivalent of posting air on a web page, absolutely no arguments made at all

Read the globe and mail one again. There’s a good bit in there about the emptiness of Peterson’s contradictions. Personally I preferred the analogy to a Chinese buffet.

 

a famous academic - not an argument

 

a middle aged man with a spookily intuitive mastery of the vicissitudes of social media - not an argument

 

a christian in the thrall of nietzsche - i dont know why he believes in god he is clearly uneducated in that regard. ive watched one of his bible dissection lectures and it was terrible, i dont pay attention to his parallels drawn between the role of the bible throughout history in comparison with today. ive only read 10 pages of beyond good and evil and only know 1 nietzsche quote and thats god is dead

 

a self styled individualist free thinker...- when the fellow academics refer to ethnicities/races/ideologies/gender groups where one group is defined as being less powerful than the other group and demand the more powerful group give resources to the less powerful group to create equality then there is no contradiction

 

a wholly unimposing specimen who insists on the moral necessity of physical strength and bemoans the social taboo of becoming physically violent with "crazy women" -

 

-he used to be able to bench around 110kg. 

-do you think being physically strong is something that shouldnt be strived for?

-article doesnt define crazy or give us the context in which peterson used it as its in quotes

 

edit: oh yeah forgot: and that paragraph with the chinese buffet - it doesnt say why its bad that he goes through multiple topics within a short space

 

I was referring to the paragraph which ends with Peterson calling himself "Billy McLuhan".

I'm not sure what being physically strong has to do with making good intellectual arguments. But it is important to be physically healthy, so that's a plus.

Peterson doesn't understand the bill he became famous for railing against (C-16, the one that enshrined protections for trans individuals in the Canadian Charter and Criminal Code), nor does he apparently understand how the Canadian Charter actually works.

Since then, well, I mostly agree with what Zaphod has said, so I'll just leave it there.

Oh I just learned that Peterson is from rural Alberta, so that explains a lot on how his world view was constructed.