Back
  Jordan Peterson
    
Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


User avatar

Joined:
Jun 2005
Posts:
4667
Location:
Madrid
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:56 am 

If you are going to believe in a messiah, perhaps this is your man.

Canadian clinical psychologist, the bird bought me his book for my birthday, named '12 rules for life, an antidote to chaos' (make of the choice of present what you will). An incredible read! Anecdotal yet empirical, I would consider it a life changing book, especially for men treading water in life.

I subsequently watched a lot of his YouTube lectures, and it turns out he is far more than a self help merchant - he became a household name in Canada for refusing to follow the compelled speech edict regarding transgender pronouns and the absoloutely roasted some channel four journalist who tried to bait him for half an hour.

Any other disciples?


Top
 Profile   
 


User avatar

Joined:
Sep 2011
Posts:
4888
Location:
footloose onstead heinous vermifugal newssheet
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 9:29 am 

I am absolutely not taken in by his conservative white-man common sense wrapped up in a particular interpretation of Jung and Nietzsche. This is a great read:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/ ... we-deserve


You'd be much better off spending your time reading Jung and Nietzsche, no surprises there.


Top
 Profile   
 


User avatar

Joined:
Jun 2005
Posts:
4667
Location:
Madrid
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 9:55 am 

Not taken in? Be more precise amigo.


Top
 Profile   
 


User avatar

Joined:
Sep 2011
Posts:
4888
Location:
footloose onstead heinous vermifugal newssheet
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:24 am 

In a nutshell, I think he does more damage to the collective intelligence than good. He shows his followers how to tear apart views they disagree with by gut while never questioning what they already agree with. In other words, he promotes confirmation bias rather than true critical thinking.


Top
 Profile   
 


User avatar

Joined:
Jun 2005
Posts:
4667
Location:
Madrid
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:13 am 

There is some merit to what you say, although I disagree with your conclusion.

He is clearly an extraordinarily intelligent man, and combined with his eloquence, he is a very seductive speaker. For example, when he was interviewed by Cathy Newman on channel 4, he absolutely eviscerated her as she was no match for him intellectually. To the point where she has been reduced to an internet meme. His disciples, including me, are bound to use his tactics and arguments.

However, aside from his magnificent book, he is the only non alt right tit in the public eye who is capable and courageous enough to point out the dangerous concepts which are becoming accepted as mainstream, like the compelled speech edict in Canada, the slow strangulation of the idea of gender, and the training of young children go view masculinity as something that should be suppressed.

He does pop up a bit to often on Fox news and the like, even though I love Tucker Carlson,


Top
 Profile   
 



Joined:
Jan 2007
Posts:
1646
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:17 am 

"He is clearly an extraordinarily intelligent man"

https://youtu.be/QO9j1SLxEd0?t=4m33s


:lol:


Top
 Profile   
 


User avatar

Joined:
Jun 2005
Posts:
4667
Location:
Madrid
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:34 am 

I assume you are referring to the part where he corrects himself ?

Have a look at some of his lectures without that Jeffries trying, and largely failing, to make him look foolish or extreme.


Top
 Profile   
 



Joined:
Jan 2007
Posts:
1646
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:46 am 

You mean trying to back pedal after being caught out with such a simple line showing that he's clearly not extraordinarily intelligent?

I would recommend watching the whole episode it's quite entertaining.


Top
 Profile   
 


User avatar

Joined:
Jun 2005
Posts:
4667
Location:
Madrid
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:56 am 

I did watch it, the end is quite funny.

Don't underestimate him based on that momentary lapse. I invite you to listen to him for 5 minutes uninterrupted.


Top
 Profile   
 


User avatar

Joined:
Sep 2011
Posts:
4888
Location:
footloose onstead heinous vermifugal newssheet
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:02 pm 

I can't stand Jim Jeffries, but that forced correction is a prime example of the kind of pure bias led thinking he employs. If one is biased in the same direction on a given topic, it all just slips by unnoticed. The guy bends over backwards to "disprove" the gender paygap, using a mix of fact and fallacy, and then unproblematically declares things like "Socialism has killed 300 million people."

He knows his audience.


Top
 Profile   
 


User avatar

Joined:
Sep 2011
Posts:
4888
Location:
footloose onstead heinous vermifugal newssheet
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:06 pm 

Or rather, he just is his audience, so to speak. Of course a lot of idiots are up against him, but appearing intelligent against an idiot is like appearing strong against a toddler. And the world is full of well populated idiotic positions these days, no doubt about that.


Top
 Profile   
 


User avatar

Joined:
Apr 2007
Posts:
1405
Location:
Dublin
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:18 pm 

He has some ideas that I agree with, some I don't and he is generally a great public speaker.

I think the problem is that he's become so praised by his followers that he believes in his own hype way too much, similar to how Dawkins began to perceived for atheists in a way


Top
 Profile   
 



Joined:
Jun 2005
Posts:
3647
Location:
dublin
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:43 pm 

Quote:
like the compelled speech edict in Canada


If you're going to bring up the C-16 thing as a good marker for him, you should probably be aware that he was wrong about it's meaning. He is a smart man, but he's not infallible.

Quote:
the slow strangulation of the idea of gender


If anything, the idea of gender is being expanded upon. I'd hardly call it a strangulation unless it really, really bothers you that someone might not want to adhere to strict binary gender roles.

Quote:
the training of young children go view masculinity as something that should be suppressed.


There are elements of masculinity and femininity which have been bullshit for centuries yet they remain. There's nothing wrong with making people aware of these things.

Quote:
For example, when he was interviewed by Cathy Newman on channel 4, he absolutely eviscerated her as she was no match for him intellectually.


This is often banded about by his fans. Do you've any examples of him doing the same to someone who would be deemed his intellectual equivalent? Like Chris said, we all appear strong compared to a toddler.


That you're calling yourself a disciple and saying "he is a very seductive speaker" you should be able to see the wake up call that you've already recognized.

He's a sham. He's after latching onto a method of becoming popular in a climate where he can say the things he wants to say, without being completely convinced of them himself and it garners him immense popularity.


Top
 Profile   
 


User avatar

Joined:
Jun 2005
Posts:
4667
Location:
Madrid
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 1:54 pm 

In what sense is he wrong about the meaning of C 16? Just because he expresses his disapproval of it without citing it quote and verse, it doesn't mean he doesn't understand it. A cursory glance at YouTube where he speaks in depth about the issue and you would have saved yourself misspeaking.

With the exception of the tiny fraction of the population who are born with male and female genitalia, or elements of both, there are two biological genders. I'm not an authority on the subject of course,but feel free to enlighten me about other biological genders. Save yourself the non binary rhetoric, i have heard it a thousand times and haven't once been convinced.

I am a disciple of his based on how his writing helped me to help myself, not because of his public opinions, political or otherwise. That's quite separate from my acknowledging his abilities as a speaker. Perhaps seductive wasn't a good choice of word.

Your point about aspects of masculinity and femininity being, as you say, bullshit, I don't understand. Whatever point you are making I am not sure, but you only have to look at Californian kindergarten students being taught that masculinity is somehow toxic to see how alarming the current trend of normalizing extreme liberalism is. Masculinity is dictated primarily by naturally occurring hormones, not because of patriarchy, social constructs, misogyny or whatever tiresome buzzword de jour.

He is not convinced of his own arguments ? I would argue that the opposite is true.


Top
 Profile   
 



Joined:
Jun 2005
Posts:
3647
Location:
dublin
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:38 pm 

Here's an actual quote of his.

“These laws are the first laws that I’ve seen that require people under the threat of legal punishment to employ certain words, to speak a certain way, instead of merely limiting what they’re allowed to say.” - emphasis is mine.

This is incorrect. He is wrong. He is mistaken, or he is lying for his own reasons and you can decide which is worse. You can read more about it here which is an independent source that sites various other sources.


If you don't want to read through it, here's the meat and potatoes of why his claim that this would "require people under thread of legal punishment to employ certain words" is wrong.

Quote:
The bill proposes adding gender identity and gender orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act. This means that it would become illegal under the Act to deny someone a job or discriminate against them in the workplace based on the gender they identify with or outwardly express.

If passed, the bill would also add gender identity and gender expression to the Criminal Code in two ways:

Section 718.2 is about what principles should be taken into consideration when a court imposes a sentence.
Section 718.2(a) is about how a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
Section 718.2(a)(i) speaks about offences where evidence shows that action was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on social groups. This list already includes race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, and sexual orientation.

2. Section 318 is about hate propaganda.

Subsection 318(4) adds gender identity and gender expression to the definition of an identifiable group for the purposes of “advocating genocide.” This legislation would protect transgender and gender non-binary peoples from being a targeted group in an act of genocide.


None of that makes it illegal to incorrectly call someone who identifies as "she" a "he".

It makes it so that
* to deny someone a job or discriminate against them in the workplace is illegal. This is already the case for religion, sex (we'll come back to this later), race etc.
* If you're found to have committed an actual crime, like say battery or assault, if there's evidence that you committed this act because of the targets gender, then that can be used against your character and can be used when determining what punishment is going to be handed down to you.

Quote:
A cursory glance at YouTube where he speaks in depth about the issue and you would have saved yourself misspeaking.


Yet another tactic used by his fans. "Have you not watched his 127 hours of Youtube material to speak on the subject?". If you want to pull a direct quote from one of his videos, please do so. But otherwise no, I won't be trawling through his entire body of work to find where he maybe says something if you look at it through a specific lens.

Quote:
With the exception of the tiny fraction of the population who are born with male and female genitalia, or elements of both, there are two biological genders. I'm not an authority on the subject of course,but feel free to enlighten me about other biological genders. Save yourself the non binary rhetoric, i have heard it a thousand times and haven't once been convinced.


Let's go back so sex. Sex is biological. It's based on chromosomes that we all have. X and Y for men and X and X for women. There are your two binary "genders", which are called sexes - not genders. Gender on the other hand is a social construct. It's mostly to do with masculine and feminine characteristics.

Quote:
Your point about aspects of masculinity and femininity being, as you say, bullshit, I don't understand. Whatever point you are making I am not sure, but you only have to look at Californian kindergarten students being taught that masculinity is somehow toxic to see how alarming the current trend of normalizing extreme liberalism is. Masculinity is dictated primarily by naturally occurring hormones, not because of patriarchy, social constructs, misogyny or whatever tiresome buzzword de jour.


Little boys shouldn't cry is bullshit masculinity, or toxic masculinity to throw a buzzword at you. Little boys are told not to cry. Why? If they get hurt, they primarily feel like crying, but what systems are in place to stop them? Is it natural to stop, no, because then it wouldn't occur in the first place. Or is it in fact because of social constructs? Yes, it's entirely because of social constructs. Similarly little girls should be prim and proper is bullshit femininity.

Also why do I have to look at a very specific subsection of students in a state in the United States as some sort of global proof that this is a dangerous idea?


Top
 Profile   
 

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next