Jordan Peterson Part II

Main Course

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
Godjira
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 61374
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:52 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by Godjira » Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:54 am

Did you make that rightarded video yourself, Annus?
That's the kind of bold flavor they enjoy in Albuquerque!

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 47958
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by eric84 » Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:00 am

Any of you read the book yet?
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

OnTheBall
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 4774
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:01 am

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by OnTheBall » Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:53 am

The irony of the most intellectually laziest poster in this forum asking people if they read a recently released book.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 47958
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by eric84 » Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:01 pm

I just finished a book from Adam Gopnik and will start the next one on Canadian history. I'll take that as a no from our Professor Peterson fanboi.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

User avatar
misanthrope
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 8091
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:15 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by misanthrope » Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:53 pm

I wonder if that book will cover how the Canadians found a vast, empty wilderness and didn't have to take it from anyone. And of course the burning of the White House. You and coffee often masturbate each other over than non-event so prevalent in the Canadian mind.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 47958
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by eric84 » Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:58 pm

Oh misery being misery.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

User avatar
misanthrope
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 8091
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:15 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by misanthrope » Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:01 pm

Just highlighting pervasive Canadian mythology.

OnTheBall
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 4774
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:01 am

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by OnTheBall » Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:15 am

eric84 wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:01 pm
I just finished a book from Adam Gopnik and will start the next one on Canadian history. I'll take that as a no from our Professor Peterson fanboi.
Actually I have started reading the book. Here's an excerpt:
I came to realise that shared belief systems made people intelligible to one another - and that the systems weren't just about belief.
People who live by the same code are rendered mutually predictable to one another. They act in keeping with each other's expectations and desires. They can cooperate. They can even compete peacefully, because everyone knows what to expect from everyone else. A shared belief system, partly psychological, partly acted out, simplifies everyone - in their own eyes and in the eyes of others.
Shared beliefs simplifies the world, as well, because people who know what to expect from one another can act together to tame the world. There is perhaps nothing more important than the maintenance of this organisation - this simplification. If it's threatened, the great ship of state rocks.
He has the likes of you and the rest of The Hive in this forum pegged perfectly.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 47958
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by eric84 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:17 am

misanthrope wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:01 pm
Just highlighting pervasive Canadian mythology.
You know absolutely nothing about Canada. No surprise there.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 47958
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by eric84 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:23 am

OnTheBall wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:15 am
eric84 wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:01 pm
I just finished a book from Adam Gopnik and will start the next one on Canadian history. I'll take that as a no from our Professor Peterson fanboi.
Actually I have started reading the book. Here's an excerpt:
I came to realise that shared belief systems made people intelligible to one another - and that the systems weren't just about belief.
People who live by the same code are rendered mutually predictable to one another. They act in keeping with each other's expectations and desires. They can cooperate. They can even compete peacefully, because everyone knows what to expect from everyone else. A shared belief system, partly psychological, partly acted out, simplifies everyone - in their own eyes and in the eyes of others.
Shared beliefs simplifies the world, as well, because people who know what to expect from one another can act together to tame the world. There is perhaps nothing more important than the maintenance of this organisation - this simplification. If it's threatened, the great ship of state rocks.
He has the likes of you and the rest of The Hive in this forum pegged perfectly.
The irony here will completely escape you, I’m sure.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

OnTheBall
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 4774
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:01 am

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by OnTheBall » Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:31 am

Right.

The term "snowflakes", if I remember right was coined to label young people who couldn't deal with adversity/being offended/different opinions. Highlighted by the coverage of a lot of young people crying into hysterics because Hillary lost.

It's been so cutting that the left has tried to use it towards people on the right.

You're doing the same thing above.

People who lean to the right do not have anything near the Hive mentality that the left has.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 47958
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by eric84 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:59 am

Not at all. Pointing out that Peterson is a mediocrity and not worthy of the attention is about as unsnowflake as it gets.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

OnTheBall
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 4774
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:01 am

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by OnTheBall » Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:18 am

I'm not saying you are being a snowflake in this instance, I am saying you are using the same tactic used when the left tried to flip the "snowflake" label around.

And yet again, you fail to say why he is mediocre.

Try to do that now. Try to formulate your own opinion without C & P an article written by someone else. It's hard, but I have faith in you

OnTheBall
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 4774
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:01 am

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by OnTheBall » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:59 am

A balanced article on JP. The writer of the article not only does a good job of writing about JP but he has a near-perfect job of describing the likes of eric as well.

I know exactly what eric will say about this article, because he is as utterly predictable as JP says he is.

He will dismiss the article because it comes from the Daily Mail. He will dismiss it, but he won't say WHY it is "rubbish." Then he will call anyone that agrees with as being from the alt/modern right. Oh, and also call JP mediocre.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... sense.html

Just imagine that somebody told you that men and women are biologically different, that people ought to take responsibility for their own lives, and modern life often seems hollow and meaningless.

Imagine that this person went on to say that young men often lack a sense of initiative, too many university courses have fallen victim to trendy dogmas, and free speech sometimes means telling people what they don’t want to hear.

Would you shudder in horror? Would you rush onto social media to condemn him as a dangerous lunatic? Or would you, perhaps, nod in agreement at what seemed like plain common-sense?

Only a few years ago, sentiments like these would have seemed utterly uncontroversial. But it is, I think, a damning reflection of the hysterical self-righteousness and blind intolerance of our times that the man making these arguments, the academic Jordan Peterson, is now one of the most controversial figures in the English-speaking world.

A clinical psychologist at the University of Toronto, Peterson is the academic equivalent of a rock star. Millions of people have watched his YouTube lectures about everything from the importance of free speech to the deeper meaning of the Book Of Genesis.

On Twitter, he has more than 365,000 followers. And in the U.S. and his native Canada, his book 12 Rules For Life: An Antidote To Chaos, a blend of philosophy, psychology and self-help, is a No 1 Amazon best-seller.

Yet in Britain, Peterson is something of an unknown to the wider public — or, at least, he was. Then, last month when visiting London to promote his book, he was interviewed on Channel 4 News by Cathy Newman.

Their acrimonious half-hour exchange, which ignited a firestorm of accusations and abuse, has already been watched almost 5.5 million times online.

Even now people are still arguing about it. Newman’s producer claims he had to call in security consultants after vile threats from her online critics.

I’ll come back to the interview later, because it is worth emphasising that Peterson did not arrive in the television studio without considerable baggage.

Until two years ago, the 55-year-old Canadian was simply a saturnine, clever and intense man who taught psychology in Toronto. But then, in the autumn of 2016, Peterson released a video announcing his opposition to an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act, designed to protect people’s human right to ‘gender expression and identity’.

Peterson was having none of it. He was horrified, he said, that the Bill would turn him into a criminal if he refused to call a transgender student by whatever pronoun they wanted.

Bizarre as it may sound, transgender activists in many North American universities insist that their tutors use the invented words ‘zhe’ and ‘zher’ rather than ‘he’ or ‘she’ and ‘his’ or ‘her’. (I promise I am not making this up.)

Almost uniquely among his academic peers, Peterson had the backbone to say no.

‘I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words “zhe” and “zher”,’ he explained. ‘These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical Leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.’

That last line is perhaps a bit strong. Indeed, it is safe to say Peterson is never shy of going over the top.

Yet although he is understandably scathing about the more lurid claims of some activists — who believe, for example, that gender is entirely ‘socially constructed’ and has nothing to do with human biology — his real objection was not to transgender people themselves.

What outraged him was the thought of being forced to use certain words by the State. For, as he pointed out, there could hardly be a more flagrant example of dogmatic authoritarianism hiding behind a mask of liberal tolerance. To the trendy Left and his politically correct colleagues, Peterson immediately became a hate figure. Almost unbelievably, a young tutor at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Canada, was even disciplined, just for showing students a clip of Peterson speaking.

To young people on the Right, however, Peterson has acquired hero status. When he toured Britain last month to promote his book, his appearances drew packed houses.

After he spoke at the Emmanuel Centre in London, the Spectator magazine’s Douglas Murray wrote that there were so many people, mostly young, that many had to stand at the back.

‘For an hour and a half,’ Murray reported, ‘the audience listened to a rambling, quirky but fascinating tour of evolutionary biology, myth, religion, psychology, dictators and Dostoyevsky.’

Many were evidently beside themselves with excitement, with hundreds queuing to get books signed.

‘At one point, overwhelmed by the response of the audience and its ecstatic reaction to him and his wife,’ noted Murray, Peterson even ‘broke into tears’ — a pretty extraordinary way for an academic to behave at a public lecture.

Yet the remarkable thing is that, far from being mind-blowing innovations, Peterson’s ‘rules for life’ could hardly be more old-fashioned.

When you strip away some of the scientific jargon, some of them — ‘Stand up straight with your shoulders back’, for example — sound like the sort of thing headmasters used to say.

Addressing one of his favourite subjects, the weakness of modern parenting, Peterson is memorably scathing.

‘More often than not,’ he remarks, ‘modern parents are simply paralysed by the fear that they will no longer be liked or even loved by their children if they chastise them for any reason.’

Children, he says, need not just love and support, but limits and discipline. (Who could argue with that?) But many children have a mother who ‘ties their shoes, and cuts up their food, and lets them crawl into bed with her and her partner far too often’.

He imagines the mother telling her child: ‘Never leave me. In return, I will do everything for you. As you age without maturing, you will become worthless and bitter, but you will never have to take any responsibility and everything will always be someone else’s fault.’

As so often, Peterson exaggerates, but you can see what he means.

After all, isn’t one of the defining features of the Snowflake Generation their unshakeable belief that everything is always someone else’s fault?

By contrast, Peterson wants us to embrace the two things that many liberal parents (and their children) most abhor: risk and responsibility.

By his own account, he once worked as a ‘dishwasher, gas jockey, bartender, short-order cook, beekeeper, oil derrick bit re-tipper, plywood mill labourer and railway line worker’.

So, in his case, you can forget the stereotype of the weedy, spineless, denatured academic. In many ways, in fact, his philosophy boils down to old-fashioned rugged individualism, forged in the freezing wastes of Alberta, Canada.

Time and again, he emphasises the importance of individual responsibility — an extraordinarily refreshing thing to hear at a time when most intellectuals regard individualism as a dirty word.

By contrast, he loathes the whingeing, whining identity politics that have become so prevalent in universities across the Western world, with self-righteous students competing to pose as victims of every conceivable kind of prejudice.

Peterson’s favourite target, though, is fellow academics, whom he regards as feckless, incompetent, cowardly, deluded and narrow-minded fanatics, in thrall to an unholy blend of Marxism, post-modernism and radical feminism. In an interview with the British novelist Tim Lott, he suggested that ‘the humanities in the universities have become almost incomprehensibly shallow and corrupt in multiple ways’.

There are, he says, ‘whole disciplines in universities forthrightly hostile towards men. These are the areas of study, dominated by the post-modern/neo-Marxist claim that western culture, in particular, is an oppressive structure, created by white men to dominate and exclude women.’

Those who seek to silence Jordan Peterson, by denying him a platform or caricaturing him as a professional controversialist, are betraying the very liberal values they claim to uphold

As a result, ‘at this rate there will be very few men in most university disciplines in 15 years’.

Again, this is a bit overstated. Even so, Peterson’s appeal to young men is genuinely extraordinary. Clearly many young men feel he gives them a sense of meaning, inspiration and encouragement unmatched by any other modern thinker.

Some of it is attributable to his great personal intensity — the burning eyes, the furrowed brow — but it strikes me that Peterson is a distinctly religious figure, a modern version of an Old Testament prophet or an evangelical preacher.

He believes in God. He talks about the story of Cain and Abel and the suffering of Jesus. He believes in Hell, the ‘barren, hopeless and malevolent subdivision of the underworld of chaos’.

He writes movingly about the suffering of his daughter, who grew up with severe rheumatoid arthritis, and asks how God could allow such a thing to happen. And he reflects on the terrible cruelty that men inflicted on one another in the last century.

‘We are all monsters,’ he told Lott, ‘and if you don’t know that, then you are in danger of becoming the very monster that you deny.’

As I said, all this is strong stuff. But it is serious stuff, too, the kind of thing that invites debate, and that will have people arguing for hours on end.

Alas, to the bien-pensant Left, all this is simply heresy. Instead of running the risk of being made to think, they would prefer not to listen at all.

The irony is that in some ways Peterson is not especially Right-wing; he supports the liberalisation of the drug laws and state health care, and defines himself as an old-fashioned British liberal.

Yet in self-consciously high-minded circles in his native Canada, he has become persona non grata. And now in Britain, too.

The Guardian newspaper ran a remarkably contemptuous review of his book, complete with a dark warning about his ‘reputation in conservative circles’. And then there was that highly-charged Channel 4 News with Cathy Newman, a darling of the highbrow Left.

Their half-hour exchange about — among other things — the gender pay gap, transgender rights, and the right of speakers to cause offence, can still be caught on YouTube. Watch it, and make up your own mind.

For my part, I thought it was a pretty good fight — and one Peterson clearly won. And yes, Newman tried to put words in his mouth, twist, exaggerate and over-simplify what he was saying, and generally bombard him with non-sequiturs — but don’t interviewers do that to everybody?

In any case, Peterson beat her back with a devastating blend of politeness and erudition; indeed, at one point he even reduced her to a long, spluttering pause.

What I think is most revealing, though, is the sheer intensity, and even outright abusiveness, of the online exchanges between Peterson’s critics and admirers — some of whom, unforgivably, directed vile, sexist abuse at Cathy Newman.

But this, I fear, is the inevitable result of a culture where some things are supposedly ‘unsayable’, where strident hysteria replaces rational thought, and where self-appointed thought police are continually on the lookout for those who challenge their pet prejudices.

As it happens, I agree with much of what Peterson says. I think he is right that gender is largely determined by our biology. I agree that liberalism has become disturbingly authoritarian.

I agree that people should take responsibility for their own lives, instead of constantly blaming society. And I certainly agree that university life, both here and abroad, is threatened by a rising tide of cant, conformity, jargon and intolerance.

But if there is one thing, above all, that marks Peterson out as a prophet for our times, it is his belief that free speech is sacred.

Sad to say, we live in an age when those who question the dogmas of the day are too often shouted down and cast out.

Those who seek to silence Jordan Peterson, by denying him a platform or caricaturing him as a professional controversialist, are betraying the very liberal values they claim to uphold. I don’t say that he’s right about everything, but he’s right about a lot of things.

If his liberal critics stopped screaming for a moment and bothered to listen, I suspect they might even find themselves agreeing with one or two of his opinions.

But that would mean agreeing with a conservative. And in today’s climate of intolerance, bigotry, conformism and hysteria, that, of course, would never do.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z56ga9Z7HX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 47958
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by eric84 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:25 pm

OnTheBall wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:18 am
I'm not saying you are being a snowflake in this instance, I am saying you are using the same tactic used when the left tried to flip the "snowflake" label around.

And yet again, you fail to say why he is mediocre.

Try to do that now. Try to formulate your own opinion without C & P an article written by someone else. It's hard, but I have faith in you
I’ve already said why. Clearly you didn’t read it but I’ll do again. His ideas are utterly unoriginal, hidden in a sea of jargon. Meanwhile, he also says demonstrably stupid things designed to get him noticed.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

User avatar
strife
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 10446
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2015 1:51 am

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by strife » Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:34 pm

But you haven't read him.
I don't want no Commies in my car. No Christians, either.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 47958
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by eric84 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:49 pm

I’ve read enough to know. As for interviewing him, it seems just letting him talk is best. Vice had an interview where he said he wasn’t sure men and women should work in the same place. The guy is ridiculous. I’m sure you’ll like him, Felix. Right up your alley.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

User avatar
strife
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 10446
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2015 1:51 am

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by strife » Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:25 pm

The bald bureaucrat guy in Winnipeg.
I don't want no Commies in my car. No Christians, either.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 47958
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by eric84 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:53 pm

The failed academic from fargo.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

User avatar
strife
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 10446
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2015 1:51 am

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by strife » Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:12 pm

No Own Life
I don't want no Commies in my car. No Christians, either.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 47958
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by eric84 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:16 pm

You wouldn’t have done well in academia so it’s just as well.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

OnTheBall
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 4774
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:01 am

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by OnTheBall » Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:18 pm

eric84 wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:25 pm
OnTheBall wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:18 am
I'm not saying you are being a snowflake in this instance, I am saying you are using the same tactic used when the left tried to flip the "snowflake" label around.

And yet again, you fail to say why he is mediocre.

Try to do that now. Try to formulate your own opinion without C & P an article written by someone else. It's hard, but I have faith in you
I’ve already said why. Clearly you didn’t read it but I’ll do again. His ideas are utterly unoriginal, hidden in a sea of jargon. Meanwhile, he also says demonstrably stupid things designed to get him noticed.
The above doesn't really say anything, does it? In fact, all you are doing, once again, is parroting what your favourite articles about him have said. When I have asked for specific examples from you, all you have done is quote articles that have grossly misrepresented his views (as I proved).

eric84 wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:49 pm
I’ve read enough to know.
You have read shit. You've read a couple of biased articles of him, but that's it.
eric84 wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:53 pm
The failed academic from fargo.
The irony.

If you had been asked to write an essay at university asking for some critical thinking or for your POV on a topic, and you had used the same methodology that you used here (ie. quoting articles and parroting their opinions), you would have failed miserably.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 47958
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by eric84 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:24 pm

It says what it says. It’s an informed opinion based on reading some of his work, my opinion and the opinion of others in fields Peterson purports to know but actually knows very little. Hey, he sells himself well and hes going to make a ton of cash from followers like you so that’s something.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

OnTheBall
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 4774
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:01 am

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by OnTheBall » Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:33 pm

eric84 wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:24 pm
It says what it says. It’s an informed opinion based on reading some of his work, my opinion and the opinion of others in fields Peterson purports to know but actually knows very little. Hey, he sells himself well and hes going to make a ton of cash from followers like you so that’s something.
What works of his have you read?

How is he making money off me?

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 47958
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by eric84 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:33 pm

I read a few articles and a potted version of 12 principles. That was enough.

You bought his book right? You subscribe to his YouTube channel right?
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

OnTheBall
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 4774
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:01 am

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by OnTheBall » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:41 pm

eric84 wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:33 pm
I read a few articles and a potted version of 12 principles. That was enough.

You bought his book right? You subscribe to his YouTube channel right?
Like you've been told before; you've read a couple of biased articles, but no original material. "That was enough" says it all, really

I went to the local bookshop but did not find the book, so I thought "fuck it" and downloaded it from pirate bay.

Not subscribed to his channel, and even if I were how would he make money off me from subscribing?

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 47958
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by eric84 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:43 pm

I just told you I read his 12 principles in summary. Nice so you stole his material.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

OnTheBall
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 4774
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:01 am

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by OnTheBall » Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:02 pm

You going to get all moralistic on me, Eric?

Anyway, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion with you, you are happy to parrot away other writers' opinions as your own without reading the original material. That's fine. My point has been proven

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 47958
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by eric84 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:17 pm

You should ask the good professor whether stealing his book violates the 12 principles
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

OnTheBall
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 4774
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:01 am

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by OnTheBall » Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:12 pm

Maybe I should ask left leaning blog writers what to think of this theft.

It you read a summary of the 12 rules, you tell me.

BulletPark
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 12143
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 7:40 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by BulletPark » Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:37 pm

OnTheBall wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:31 am
Right.

The term "snowflakes", if I remember right was coined to label young people who couldn't deal with adversity/being offended/different opinions. Highlighted by the coverage of a lot of young people crying into hysterics because Hillary lost.

No it wasn't.

It was coined to label Millennials who serged out of college under the assumption that they were all unique people, like beautiful flying unicorns, and deserved attention and gold stars and big hugs for managing to walk and occasionally chew gum at the same time.

Now possibly this is an unfair characterization and it is certainly an oversimplified one. But that's what it meant.

BulletPark
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 12143
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 7:40 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by BulletPark » Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:41 pm

Approximately 30 minutes into the video, Peterson and Paglia begin discussing societal gender roles. After the 37-minute mark of the video, Peterson claims that there is an “underlying threat of physicality” in “real conversations” between men which “keeps the things civilized to some degree.”

“Here’s the problem, I know how to stand up to a man who’s unfairly trespassed against me and the reason I know that is because the parameters for my resistance are quite well-defined, which is: we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical. If we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse, we know what the next step is,” he claims. “That’s forbidden in discourse with women and so I don’t think that men can control crazy women. I really don’t believe it.”

Regarding the necessity of the “underlying threat of physicality,” Peterson says, “If you’re talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you’re talking to someone to whom you have absolutely no respect.”

Peterson also offers an example in which he claims that a female activist organized a movement against him and compared him to Nazis. “I’m defenceless against that kind of female insanity because the techniques that I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me,” he says.

So....this twat is basically asking us to feel his pain because he can't punch a bitch in the face?

Are you fucking kidding me?

What a goddamn moron.

And the idea that somehow men can't get physical with women because LIBERALS is cast into just a tiny little bit of doubt by all these battered women who keep showing up at shelters around the world.

User avatar
misanthrope
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 8091
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:15 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by misanthrope » Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:46 pm

eric84 wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:17 am
misanthrope wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:01 pm
Just highlighting pervasive Canadian mythology.
You know absolutely nothing about Canada. No surprise there.
Give me the multiple choice test!

You know fuck all about the US and yet 90% of your posts are about it.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 47958
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by eric84 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:49 pm

I don’t think you need a toronto based professor, religion or anyone else to tell you that theft is wrong.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 47958
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by eric84 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:51 pm

BulletPark wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:41 pm
Approximately 30 minutes into the video, Peterson and Paglia begin discussing societal gender roles. After the 37-minute mark of the video, Peterson claims that there is an “underlying threat of physicality” in “real conversations” between men which “keeps the things civilized to some degree.”

“Here’s the problem, I know how to stand up to a man who’s unfairly trespassed against me and the reason I know that is because the parameters for my resistance are quite well-defined, which is: we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical. If we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse, we know what the next step is,” he claims. “That’s forbidden in discourse with women and so I don’t think that men can control crazy women. I really don’t believe it.”

Regarding the necessity of the “underlying threat of physicality,” Peterson says, “If you’re talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you’re talking to someone to whom you have absolutely no respect.”

Peterson also offers an example in which he claims that a female activist organized a movement against him and compared him to Nazis. “I’m defenceless against that kind of female insanity because the techniques that I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me,” he says.

So....this twat is basically asking us to feel his pain because he can't punch a bitch in the face?

Are you fucking kidding me?

What a goddamn moron.

And the idea that somehow men can't get physical with women because LIBERALS is cast into just a tiny little bit of doubt by all these battered women who keep showing up at shelters around the world.
Yup, I loved vanceen and oneball parsing the wording trying to convince themselves it wasn’t as foolish as it actually sounded.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

User avatar
misanthrope
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 8091
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:15 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by misanthrope » Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:49 pm

Trouble is that he is correct. Men can't control crazy women and women know it (or have learned to rely on this one-sided part of the relationship). Exceptions are the crazy cunt who got pimp-slapped on subway in that video that went viral. And other youtube vids where crazy is interrupted with violence and commensurate astonishment. It has certainly prompted a bit of debate at the times.

Anyway does this somehow invalidate everything else he says?

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 47958
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by eric84 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:24 pm

It’s so unfair misery can’t hit women when he’s losing an argument.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

BulletPark
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 12143
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 7:40 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by BulletPark » Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:37 pm

misanthrope wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:49 pm
Trouble is that he is correct. Men can't control crazy women and women know it (or have learned to rely on this one-sided part of the relationship). Exceptions are the crazy cunt who got pimp-slapped on subway in that video that went viral. And other youtube vids where crazy is interrupted with violence and commensurate astonishment. It has certainly prompted a bit of debate at the times.

Anyway does this somehow invalidate everything else he says?
No, but it doesn't necessarily make me want to go read through the rest of it to find out what else he's stupid about.

And "crazy women"?

Perhaps you could define this term?

Is a crazy woman argumentative? Surly?

Suffering from a mental breakdown or a congenital mental illness?

Mentally disabled? A Downs Syndrome case, or perhaps on the autism spectrum?

Mouthy? Uppetty? A smarty-pants?

Miss Know-it-all, that fucking cunt, God, if she was a man, I'd deck her, I'd send her right through the goddamn wall, that cum-drinking, muff-diving slut whore bitch hag beast dyke cunt cunt cunt?

Thanks for the drinks, Lloyd, having a little problem with the old sperm bank upstairs?

That kind of crazy?

Yeah, I actually think all of the above get hit plenty. Just maybe not by Torontonian academics.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 47958
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by eric84 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:31 am

Misery imagines, much like Peterson, a world that does t exist. He’s not getting into brawls with men he disagrees with.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

User avatar
misanthrope
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 8091
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:15 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by misanthrope » Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:38 am

BulletPark wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:37 pm
misanthrope wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:49 pm
Trouble is that he is correct. Men can't control crazy women and women know it (or have learned to rely on this one-sided part of the relationship). Exceptions are the crazy cunt who got pimp-slapped on subway in that video that went viral. And other youtube vids where crazy is interrupted with violence and commensurate astonishment. It has certainly prompted a bit of debate at the times.

Anyway does this somehow invalidate everything else he says?
No, but it doesn't necessarily make me want to go read through the rest of it to find out what else he's stupid about.

And "crazy women"?

Perhaps you could define this term?

Is a crazy woman argumentative? Surly?

Suffering from a mental breakdown or a congenital mental illness?

Mentally disabled? A Downs Syndrome case, or perhaps on the autism spectrum?

Mouthy? Uppetty? A smarty-pants?

Miss Know-it-all, that fucking cunt, God, if she was a man, I'd deck her, I'd send her right through the goddamn wall, that cum-drinking, muff-diving slut whore bitch hag beast dyke cunt cunt cunt?

Thanks for the drinks, Lloyd, having a little problem with the old sperm bank upstairs?

That kind of crazy?

Yeah, I actually think all of the above get hit plenty. Just maybe not by Torontonian academics.
I suspect that he's talking about situations that emerge in which can't be solved by reason. It happens with men, too, but there are other means of solving those.

User avatar
misanthrope
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 8091
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:15 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by misanthrope » Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:41 am

eric84 wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:31 am
Misery imagines, much like Peterson, a world that does t exist. He’s not getting into brawls with men he disagrees with.
It depends on the disagreement. And I certainly have had fights with men that reasonable means of de-escalation were unavailable. Don't project your being a fucking pussy onto me.

BulletPark
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 12143
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 7:40 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by BulletPark » Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:43 am

If you mean by beating the men up, then that is no solution and even less so for some four-eyes Canuck prof than it would be for me.

Trying to argue for equivalence when the thing he is seeking equivalence of is obviously stupid, illegal and bound to get a person force-fed his shoes at best, sued into a cardboard box at worst, kind of blows a hole in his spiel.

User avatar
misanthrope
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 8091
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:15 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by misanthrope » Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:48 am

But men have been putting each other in cardboard boxes and getting shoe-fed since time immemorial.

BulletPark
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 12143
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 7:40 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by BulletPark » Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:53 am

misanthrope wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:48 am
But men have been putting each other in cardboard boxes and getting shoe-fed since time immemorial.
And somehow you are fine with this and would like women to experience it more often?

Face it, Mr.Peterson's argument is bullshit. Men beat up "crazy" women all the fucking time. And it's actually illegal to beat people up in most places, whether they're crazy or not.

And you have been in arguments where "walking away" was not an option? Which airline flight was this and how long were you and the other party in jail for causing an incident that required the plane to return to the airport? Because any other scenario is either highly suspect or makes you look rather dense.

User avatar
misanthrope
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 8091
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:15 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by misanthrope » Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:15 am

I'm saying that it's not going away. I'm not saying that I would like women to experience it more often. That is a straw man.

Whether you think his argument is bullshit or not doesn't make his other arguments bullshit. You guys are picking the peanut out of the turd.

It's cute that you think that every altercation lands someone in jail. Any other scenario is only highly suspect to you (a gay New York socialite) and a wimpy Canadian bureaucrat. No wonder you find it incredulous.

BulletPark
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 12143
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 7:40 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by BulletPark » Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:18 am

So you admit his argument (as cited above, as opposed to everything he has ever said) is bullshit.

Feel free to regale us with tales of your masculine chest-hair bedecked sparring. I particularly look forward to the part where the EXIT sign above the door doesn't work.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 47958
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by eric84 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:24 am

misanthrope wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:41 am
eric84 wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:31 am
Misery imagines, much like Peterson, a world that does t exist. He’s not getting into brawls with men he disagrees with.
It depends on the disagreement. And I certainly have had fights with men that reasonable means of de-escalation were unavailable. Don't project your being a fucking pussy onto me.
You’ve done this since you’ve become a father?
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 47958
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by eric84 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:32 am

misanthrope wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:15 am
I'm saying that it's not going away. I'm not saying that I would like women to experience it more often. That is a straw man.

Whether you think his argument is bullshit or not doesn't make his other arguments bullshit. You guys are picking the peanut out of the turd.

It's cute that you think that every altercation lands someone in jail. Any other scenario is only highly suspect to you (a gay New York socialite) and a wimpy Canadian bureaucrat. No wonder you find it incredulous.
Don’t worry he says a lot of dumb stuff I just picked that one. Predictably, you defended it even though you and the good professors aren’t getting into fights anytime soon.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

BulletPark
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 12143
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 7:40 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by BulletPark » Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:33 am

I don't think I've gotten into a physical altercation since I was eight years old. Evidently manly hetrosexuals beat each other up all the time and no biggie. I prefer suggesting: "Get your front leg off me or my attorney will be so far up your asshole your kidneys will qualify for pre-law." Or looking about for that sign marked EXIT. Or, you know, not having those conversations in the first place.

How faggy of me.

User avatar
misanthrope
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 8091
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:15 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson Part II

Post by misanthrope » Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:33 am

BulletPark wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:18 am
So you admit his argument (as cited above, as opposed to everything he has ever said) is bullshit.

Feel free to regale us with tales of your masculine chest-hair bedecked sparring. I particularly look forward to the part where the EXIT sign above the door doesn't work.
Feel free to masturbate all over yourself. That's all this little discussion is. I don't like fighting even though it has gotten to that point a few times in my adult life. I do know people who get off on it. But to say that violence or the threat of it isn't part of the male experience is a shortcut to thinking.

Post Reply