Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Intothesea

silverharp wrote: »

or its just picking your battles, he seems to be just advising people how to get on in the system they grow up in and that current lefty ideas like feminism and identity politics are not the answer

Well, it's a lot puzzling that he doesn't open the door to addressing the affects of neo-liberal policy for his lost men, no? And that he's instead titling at windmills that constitute symptoms and not causes of the issues he does address?

A psychologist advising young people to tough it out in a fundamentally dispiriting system without helping them to understand where a key source of the negativity comes from?

Have you listened to a few of his lectures? Apparently men are in all the top jobs because they're less agreeable than women. Ergo, be less agreeable to ace the jobs market, lads! In fact, take on the whole aggressive heartless format that it takes to survive the modern age -- this is basically a part of his apparent advice. Now, compare and contrast with advice that recommends to understand negative neoliberal forces, and how to counteract them internally, and externally.

In my opinion, someone who really cares about helping lost men (as opposed to being a celebrity and cashing in), will address all relevant points on the map, and also instil the confidence to tackle social forces that produce negative effects from the inside out, so that the malaise has a good chance of ending.

As well, Peterson has no logical reason or flaw in his thinking that makes him ignore the neo-liberal input and demonize modes of thought that have been used to critique it. Rest assured, this is no coincidence.

That is, he's using sleight of intellectually dishonest hand to put up his total support for the neo-liberal model.

tritium

Intothesea wrote: »

Evidently you're more confused than you recognize.

Nice opening, clearly looking for debate rather than echo chambers to your own belief.....

I'm not rebutting Peterson at all, I'm pointing out his complete omission of key social factors of the modern age that he, for some mysterious reason, leaves out of his analysis of modern societies' ills (and that are precisely the factors that make his analysis, books, and Patreon account such hot tickets today).

Yes you’re rebutting. You’re presenting the argument against the position he has stated. You’re presenting the defense of the system he has scorned. You may not like to acknowledge it but you most definitely are attempting to rebut him.....

You realize that this paper is one of many thousands looking at the social and psychological effects of neo-liberal policy in modernity, right? And that this paper is a discussion written by a suitably qualified candidate drawing on many studies carried out by suitably qualified candidates? That is, psychology academics?

Many thousands? Unlikely. Does that mean there isn’t healthy debate in the academic community around stuff like this? I hope not.

You do appreciate that Paterson, as a professor of psychology is also a suitably qualified candidate, who references other suitably qualified candidates, and indeed references a significant amount of data driven research by them?

That is to say, there is voluminous work and studies already carried out investigating the relationship between neo-liberal economics and significant negative social affects.

There may be but this one, given the lack of any use of data driven methodology is certainly not an investigation. Hell the author them self acknowledges they won’t prove their position at the start. At best it’s a loose meta study

For Peterson to leave this out entirely, while purporting to address the great big picture of 'what is creating malaise in young men', while simultaneously directing his followers to destroy certain methods of thinking is just a very strong sign that he's at something.

Destroy? I’m not sure I’ve seen that Peterson quote? Source?

That is, while his messages may be very coherent and convincing, do they really make sense? Overall, I would advise his would-be followers to step back and perceive with caution, and of course, always do your own thinking.

Oh on this I absolutely agree, I’m just very slow to trade one messiah for another. And there are enough holes in the alternative to also make me stay well away from.

Intothesea

@tritium


Nice opening? As nice as posturing as 'confused' because you want to make out I'm saying something that doesn't follow?

As for the rest of your shadow-fencing, I'll start and finish by saying that:

I'm not rebutting anything Peterson has said. You might need to think more on that one;

Yes, many thousands of papers, examining and analyzing many diverse issues in the modern age that relate to neo-liberal psychological affects;

Ah, Peterson is a tenured psychology professor, is it of theoretical or philosophical psychology?;

Lack of data-driven methodology? Do you know what a methodology is? Do you realize that there are apparent methodologies in the studies referenced in the AMA discussion, but that given the topic style and express purpose of the paper, that these are not discussed? That you'd have to look up each referenced article to find these things out? Also, look up 'meta study' while you're at it;

If you've looked at Peterson's videoes you won't be long finding the gem where he instructs his followers to put liberal university departments under attack, as in, go forth and conquer;


And lastly, someone poking logical holes in a grand production does not a messiah make, and in this case, gives the impression that the total messiah content is a nice round 0...

Dyr

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

This post kind of sums up a lot for me. The only thing that matters is getting one over on “the other side”

It’s the same with every online discussion these days. It’s so tedious.

The thing is Peterson is not trying to get one over anyone he's just doing his own thing and it scares the living daylights out of the identitarian lunatics because he's getting so much traction and seems immune to their usual tactic of screaming racism/misogyny/blah blah to silence their critics

It's heartening to see

conorhal

Bambi wrote: »

The thing is Peterson is not trying to get one over anyone he's just doing his own thing and it scares the living daylights out of the identitarian lunatics because he's getting so much traction and seems immune to their usual tactic of screaming racism/misogyny/blah blah to silence their critics

It's heartening to see

It was funny to see him on the H3H3 youtube podcast laughing about having found a way to monitize SJW's, because the harder they come at him to more people support him.

Sadly, it's not going to be heartening for long, the fact 'that interview' trended in the mainstream has put him on the radar and it seems there is an organized and concerted effort to smear him going on now.
Previously his harshest critics were other academics, but they tend to play by academic queensbury rules, the smear machine is now in effect however.

He predicted this last week in a CBS interview. Even in this interview he is presented with pictures of himself with students holding a 'hate symbol', a Pepe the frog flag.

The interviewer here at least allows him to explain the context. That pepe picture is however trending context free, as are a lot of utterly out of context clips and tweets right now that are being collated and pushed.
You can sense the push back coming from a concerted campaign against him and no doubt it will be brutal.

9:20. "The overwhelming likelihood as far as I'm concerned and it's been that way since sept 2016, is that this will go terribly wrong (re his public speaking out). That's the most likely outcome. I've known that ever since I made those videos".

I suspect he rightly fears a 'Wall Street Journal/Pewdiepie', career extinction level attack.

Ulysses Gaze

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

His comment that he is surfing a 100 foot wave make it clear that he thinks that it is inevitable.

pumpkin4life

conorhal wrote: »

It was funny to see him on the H3H3 youtube podcast laughing about having found a way to monitize SJW's, because the harder they come at him to more people support him.

Sadly, it's not going to be heartening for long, the fact 'that interview' trended in the mainstream has put him on the radar and it seems there is an organized and concerted effort to smear him going on now.
Previously his harshest critics were other academics, but they tend to play by academic queensbury rules, the smear machine is now in effect however.

He predicted this last week in a CBS interview. Even in this interview he is presented with pictures of himself with students holding a 'hate symbol', a Pepe the frog flag.

The interviewer here at least allows him to explain the context. That pepe picture is however trending context free, as are a lot of utterly out of context clips and tweets right now that are being collated and pushed.
You can sense the push back coming from a concerted campaign against him and no doubt it will be brutal.

9:20. "The overwhelming likelihood as far as I'm concerned and it's been that way since sept 2016, is that this will go terribly wrong (re his public speaking out). That's the most likely outcome. I've known that ever since I made those videos".

I suspect he rightly fears a 'Wall Street Journal/Pewdiepie', career extinction level attack.

Aye.

I made a prediction that the left would, post Trump election win, start doubling down and become progressively insane in terms of anyone who is any bit left of them.

His book is number 1 in Hodges Figgis right now. The guy has blown up big time with the whole Channel 4 thing and he's going to start getting some real heat now. Best of luck to him, he's really slaying those dragons lol.

Sidenote: If the eight gets (and it probably will) repealed in May, whatever your opinion, I wonder will it give this mentally ill, Una Mullaly type of person a massive confidence boost; culminating in more insanity.

Just take a look at Katherine Zappone wanting to bringing in consent classes for teenage males.

This is madness.

take everything

I'm amazed at what people rail against.
This guy has teared up when talking about male suicide and men without purpose. And it wasn't crocodile tears. He may not be to everyone's taste but he's one of the good guys FFS.

People are so ****ing intent on finding someone else to take responsibility for their bull**** (the very antithesis of his message) they can't stand that he might have a point. Because they'd have to take a look inwards. Something the shrieking mob doesn't like to do

Pepefrogok

conorhal wrote: »

It was funny to see him on the H3H3 youtube podcast laughing about having found a way to monitize SJW's, because the harder they come at him to more people support him.

Sadly, it's not going to be heartening for long, the fact 'that interview' trended in the mainstream has put him on the radar and it seems there is an organized and concerted effort to smear him going on now.
Previously his harshest critics were other academics, but they tend to play by academic queensbury rules, the smear machine is now in effect however.

He predicted this last week in a CBS interview. Even in this interview he is presented with pictures of himself with students holding a 'hate symbol', a Pepe the frog flag.

The interviewer here at least allows him to explain the context. That pepe picture is however trending context free, as are a lot of utterly out of context clips and tweets right now that are being collated and pushed.
You can sense the push back coming from a concerted campaign against him and no doubt it will be brutal.

9:20. "The overwhelming likelihood as far as I'm concerned and it's been that way since sept 2016, is that this will go terribly wrong (re his public speaking out). That's the most likely outcome. I've known that ever since I made those videos".

I suspect he rightly fears a 'Wall Street Journal/Pewdiepie', career extinction level attack.

I picked my user name not because I am a racist but because I like laughing at others expense, I genuinely, and I mean genuinely didn't believe it would have the impact it did! I really thought grown men and women (and zir's/zim's/attack helicopters etc) wouldn't be fazed by it and the triggered lefty stereotype was more a far right meme only to be seen on the interwebs but holy Mohammad people have really been triggered by it! I even made it a double racist user name by adding the "OK" at the end because apparently that is racist now, I thought that would hint to the humorous nature as to the application of my user name but no!! Sky screaming abound! At least I can laugh at them when they call me out on it, like they cracked my racist code, but its not a good laugh now I realise they are actually that stupid, more like a pity laugh where you feel an equal amount of sorrow, like laughing at a kitten hurting its self jumping into a mirror, it's funny but you can't help feel sorry for them.

We are witnessing the change in society, the progressives now want women to cover up and have no agency or freedom unless it's a freedom they agree with like late term abortion, liberals now unquestioningly believe the deep state like the FBI etc and will ignore any thing as long as their preferred war hawk glass ceiling smasher looks better, the anti-fascists now dress in black and burn books, attack free speech and destroy.

The fire of the counter culture has been lit.

Intothesea

Ah, poor old Peterson, he's catching a lot of flack for misrepresenting whole swathes of the population who are justifiably disenchanted by current social reality. Even better, he demonizes and laughs off these people, something a concerned social psychologist would never do by definition, and definitely not on a public platform.

As far as I can appreciate it: for a particular kind of personality type and age range for men and women: men look to Peterson to survive the dispiriting neo-liberal strict meritocracy, with hopes to thrive in it, while the equivalent group of women take to lobbying the system and using their group voice to change attitudes to their analogous troubles.

After that, the way in which both groups seem to engage this effort, I would describe neither side as being especially kindly or fair about their endeavours, and particularly to the 'other side'.

In my opinion, this is a naturally occurring negative phenomenon of the neo-liberal age in Ireland (with not a small input from the Internet in both cases). Hopefully it is obvious that a goodly part of projected sustained success for society will be attributable to government behavior in relation to economic policy.

The boom and bust of 2008 is plenty evidence that the Irish government was asleep at the wheel for giving anyone in Ireland a fair chance. It's also noticeable that it lowered interest rates when the bust became apparent, hoping to extend the life of the boom, making the crash effects so much more deleterious on society and individuals.

Anyway, I hope Ireland's intelligent men give some of their best endeavours to countering the government just enough in all its neo-liberal machinations to sustain a positive system as much as possible.

20Cent

Pepefrogok wrote: »

I picked my user name not because I am a racist but because I like laughing at others expense, I genuinely, and I mean genuinely didn't believe it would have the impact it did! I really thought grown men and women (and zir's/zim's/attack helicopters etc) wouldn't be fazed by it and the triggered lefty stereotype was more a far right meme only to be seen on the interwebs but holy Mohammad people have really been triggered by it! I even made it a double racist user name by adding the "OK" at the end because apparently that is racist now, I thought that would hint to the humorous nature as to the application of my user name but no!! Sky screaming abound! At least I can laugh at them when they call me out on it, like they cracked my racist code, but its not a good laugh now I realise they are actually that stupid, more like a pity laugh where you feel an equal amount of sorrow, like laughing at a kitten hurting its self jumping into a mirror, it's funny but you can't help feel sorry for them.

We are witnessing the change in society, the progressives now want women to cover up and have no agency or freedom unless it's a freedom they agree with like late term abortion, liberals now unquestioningly believe the deep state like the FBI etc and will ignore any thing as long as their preferred war hawk glass ceiling smasher looks better, the anti-fascists now dress in black and burn books, attack free speech and destroy.

The fire of the counter culture has been lit.

FYI
We are laughing at you.

Brian?

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Aye.

I made a prediction that the left would, post Trump election win, start doubling down and become progressively insane in terms of anyone who is any bit left of them.

Do you see any irony at all about railing against identity politics while describing “the left” as a homogenous group? A group which is entirely “insane”.

Pepefrogok

20Cent wrote: »

FYI
We are laughing at you.

Ok.

Charmeleon

Intothesea wrote: »

Ah, poor old Peterson, he's catching a lot of flack for misrepresenting whole swathes of the population who are justifiably disenchanted by current social reality. Even better, he demonizes and laughs off these people, something a concerned social psychologist would never do by definition, and definitely not on a public platform.

As far as I can appreciate it: for a particular kind of personality type and age range for men and women: men look to Peterson to survive the dispiriting neo-liberal strict meritocracy, with hopes to thrive in it, while the equivalent group of women take to lobbying the system and using their group voice to change attitudes to their analogous troubles.

After that, the way in which both groups seem to engage this effort, I would describe neither side as being especially kindly or fair about their endeavours, and particularly to the 'other side'.

In my opinion, this is a naturally occurring negative phenomenon of the neo-liberal age in Ireland (with not a small input from the Internet in both cases). Hopefully it is obvious that a goodly part of projected sustained success for society will be attributable to government behavior in relation to economic policy.

The boom and bust of 2008 is plenty evidence that the Irish government was asleep at the wheel for giving anyone in Ireland a fair chance. It's also noticeable that it lowered interest rates when the bust became apparent, hoping to extend the life of the boom, making the crash effects so much more deleterious on society and individuals.

Anyway, I hope Ireland's intelligent men give some of their best endeavours to countering the government just enough in all its neo-liberal machinations to sustain a positive system as much as possible.

I’m not sure why you continue to post reams of stuff on a thread about Peterson that has only the most tenuous link to the views he expresses. It seems like you have a hobby horse and are hell bent on making the conversation about it rather than about what Peterson has done and said, or how people have responded.

Literally all of the massive text you have added really boils down to is that what young men need to improve their individual lives and increase their sense of self determination is actually yet another conformist far-left public intellectual talking about how things could be rather than how they are.

Individual young people can’t change the system they have to live with on a daily basis. It’s practically the definition of mental health to be well adjusted to the society you live in, change what you can and make a tiny bit of difference for the good.

silverharp

Intothesea wrote: »

Well, it's a lot puzzling that he doesn't open the door to addressing the affects of neo-liberal policy for his lost men, no? And that he's instead titling at windmills that constitute symptoms and not causes of the issues he does address?

A psychologist advising young people to tough it out in a fundamentally dispiriting system without helping them to understand where a key source of the negativity comes from?

Have you listened to a few of his lectures? Apparently men are in all the top jobs because they're less agreeable than women. Ergo, be less agreeable to ace the jobs market, lads! In fact, take on the whole aggressive heartless format that it takes to survive the modern age -- this is basically a part of his apparent advice. Now, compare and contrast with advice that recommends to understand negative neoliberal forces, and how to counteract them internally, and externally.

In my opinion, someone who really cares about helping lost men (as opposed to being a celebrity and cashing in), will address all relevant points on the map, and also instil the confidence to tackle social forces that produce negative effects from the inside out, so that the malaise has a good chance of ending.

As well, Peterson has no logical reason or flaw in his thinking that makes him ignore the neo-liberal input and demonize modes of thought that have been used to critique it. Rest assured, this is no coincidence.

That is, he's using sleight of intellectually dishonest hand to put up his total support for the neo-liberal model.

I still think its not something to use against him, or maybe nobody has ever asked him? Ive heard him now in 3 podcasts, one with Camilla Paglia which was very interesting , Joe Rogan and Sam Harris. The closest Ive heard him defend the "system" is saying that that "we" live a time in the West with unrivalled wealth and freedoms.

Vincent Vega

:D

Intothesea

Charmeleon wrote: »

I’m not sure why you continue to post reams of stuff on a thread about Peterson that has only the most tenuous link to the views he expresses. It seems like you have a hobby horse and are hell bent on making the conversation about it rather than about what Peterson has done and said, or how people have responded.

Pointing out that Peterson is denying important basic aspects of the system he purports to address and relating it to the ridiculous way he nullifies a mode of thought that has been used to critique his glaring omission, and which brings about a large number of unsuccessful counter-arguments, including your own already in this thread, is me posting tenuously related stuff. Right. And you're not sure why I'm responding to a discourse about how right on and awesome Peterson is when I see him for what he ostensibly is, some kind of truth-denying charlatan? Okay...

Literally all of the massive text you have added really boils down to is that what young men need to improve their individual lives and increase their sense of self determination is actually yet another conformist far-left public intellectual talking about how things could be rather than how they are.

Could you inform me of which conformist far-left public intellectual I'm apparently prompting Peterson acolytes to follow? In short, how is it that pointing out Emporer Peterson's new clothes and suggesting other ways to consider ascertaining success in modernity is any kind of recommendation to follow anything but a more balanced common sense?

Individual young people can’t change the system they have to live with on a daily basis. It’s practically the definition of mental health to be well adjusted to the society you live in, change what you can and make a tiny bit of difference for the good.

It's not a practical definition of anything but threatened mental health to live in a fundamentally sickening society. And the people of Ireland can't mandate responsible forward-thinking behavior of the government in relation to neo-liberal policy? Would you like to entreat young men to think so negatively about their power to have a democratic say?

As Jiddu Krishnamurthi says:

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

And overall, top marks for trying to make out that my obvervations on Peterson are wrong because I also have other ideas about the problematic area of Irish life that he's indirectly addressing, with extra Peterson brownie points for complaining about the sheer amount of text I've had to put up to many poor reality-denying posts such as this one. If anyone is just astounded at how difficult it is to make simple observations of reality in order to free up space for better and more accurate responses to problems, I am. I would have thought unthinking hero worship like this would be way beyond anyone old enough to not have unrestricted internet access, tbf.

Intothesea

silverharp wrote: »

I still think its not something to use against him, or maybe nobody has ever asked him? Ive heard him now in 3 podcasts, one with Camilla Paglia which was very interesting , Joe Rogan and Sam Harris. The closest Ive heard him defend the "system" is saying that that "we" live a time in the West with unrivalled wealth and freedoms.

The fact that Peterson is setting young mens' heads fundamentally wrong with a misrepresentation that they buy into because of his qualifications and background is nothing to use against him, but it's a pretty good reason to step back from accepting his version of truth verbatim, I would say.

As well, does it sit well with you that he directs his followers to attack liberal university departments to rid the world of a certain mode of thought? Does this sound conducive to truth and sanity to you? Surely there should be no need to ask these questions?

While it's entirely up to anyone if they want to pay for Peterson's particular brand of snake oil, it's likely a better deal for society and the individual to step back a bit and consider things with a more open mind.

Saruhashi

20Cent wrote: »

FYI
We are laughing at you.

Your complete lack of self-awareness is astounding.

FYI

We are also laughing at you.

Saruhashi

Pepefrogok wrote: »

I picked my user name not because I am a racist but because I like laughing at others expense,

I thought your username was funny as soon as I saw your posts.

I also knew exactly which posters would have their panties in a bunch over it and would be likely to say things along the lines of "your username says it all".

I think you did a good job.

silverharp

Intothesea wrote: »

The fact that Peterson is setting young mens' heads fundamentally wrong with a misrepresentation that they buy into because of his qualifications and background is nothing to use against him, but it's a pretty good reason to step back from accepting his version of truth verbatim, I would say.

As well, does it sit well with you that he directs his followers to attack liberal university departments to rid the world of a certain mode of thought? Does this sound conducive to truth and sanity to you? Surely there should be no need to ask these questions?

While it's entirely up to anyone if they want to pay for Peterson's particular brand of snake oil, it's likely a better deal for society and the individual to step back a bit and consider things with a more open mind.

You can fight to take worse ideas off the table without implying that that whats left has to be perfect. Or one can defend values like free speech which are essential if better solutions are to be found.
Clearly whats going on at American/Canadian universities is a rabbit hole of neurotic bad ideas and it looks like its turning out victims instead of graduates, so I fully support Peterson in railing against academia.

s7ryf3925pivug

"Identity politics must end and anyone who disagrees with us is a marxist neoliberal feminazi."

:rolleyes:

Intothesea

silverharp wrote: »

You can fight to take worse ideas off the table without implying that that whats left has to be perfect. Or one can defend values like free speech which are essential if better solutions are to be found.

Spectacular misrepresentation there. My basic stance is that Peterson's production is so obviously political in its glaring omissions and destructively illogical that it damages his integrity. That is, someone who hasn't become a willful captive of Peterson's ideas should find it worthy of withdrawing from in some way.

Clearly whats going on at American/Canadian universities is a rabbit hole of neurotic bad ideas and it looks like its turning out victims instead of graduates, so I fully support Peterson in railing against academia.

It's not clear what the psychological reasons are for the illogical uptake of post-modern thought processes and/or SJW/snowflake manifestations in Canadian and American universities today.

But rest assured, if Peterson took any responsibility for his role as a leader of anyone, the last thing he'd do is decry the existence of same and order university faculty destruction.

Do you see this as being in any way ameliorative of the problem? I've already given my ideas for this earlier on this thread, maybe you could have a read of it.

tritium

Charmeleon wrote: »

I’m not sure why you continue to post reams of stuff on a thread about Peterson that has only the most tenuous link to the views he expresses. It seems like you have a hobby horse and are hell bent on making the conversation about it rather than about what Peterson has done and said, or how people have responded.

Literally all of the massive text you have added really boils down to is that what young men need to improve their individual lives and increase their sense of self determination is actually yet another conformist far-left public intellectual talking about how things could be rather than how they are.

Individual young people can’t change the system they have to live with on a daily basis. It’s practically the definition of mental health to be well adjusted to the society you live in, change what you can and make a tiny bit of difference for the good.

It’s kind of unfortunate that rather than assess the points Peterson has made and the position he has stated he holds a lot of people want to misrepresent his words or imply something in them that simply isn’t there. From some of this thread you’d swear Peterson was the messiah of neo- liberalism and the role model for the neo-liberal hell that is the nation of Ireland. Both parts of that last statement are insanely preposterous but that doesn’t seem to stop people making them.

Unfortunately however there’s also a more general societal issue that many of the folks out there making those points are actually willing to critically assess anything that goes against their black and white worldview

silverharp

Intothesea wrote: »

Spectacular misrepresentation there. My basic stance is that Peterson's production is so obviously political in its glaring omissions and destructively illogical that it damages his integrity. That is, someone who hasn't become a willful captive of Peterson's ideas should find it worthy of withdrawing from in some way.

that's just another way of saying there is a system in place we don't have a whole lot of control over. Take Japan for instance they have their own "crises" where lots of men are just giving up. So it could be a curse of modernity but what are you going to do?

Intothesea wrote: »

It's not clear what the psychological reasons are for the illogical uptake of post-modern thought processes and/or SJW/snowflake manifestations in Canadian and American universities today.

But rest assured, if Peterson took any responsibility for his role as a leader of anyone, the last thing he'd do is decry the existence of same and order university faculty destruction.

Do you see this as being in any way ameliorative of the problem? I've already given my ideas for this earlier on this thread, maybe you could have a read of it.

Ive young kids, Im thankful of the insight as I'd be embarrassed if my kids turned out to be snowflakes, I'd wonder where I went wrong as a parent.

JRant

Intothesea wrote: »

Spectacular misrepresentation there. My basic stance is that Peterson's production is so obviously political in its glaring omissions and destructively illogical that it damages his integrity. That is, someone who hasn't become a willful captive of Peterson's ideas should find it worthy of withdrawing from in some way.



It's not clear what the psychological reasons are for the illogical uptake of post-modern thought processes and/or SJW/snowflake manifestations in Canadian and American universities today.

But rest assured, if Peterson took any responsibility for his role as a leader of anyone, the last thing he'd do is decry the existence of same and order university faculty destruction.

Do you see this as being in any way ameliorative of the problem? I've already given my ideas for this earlier on this thread, maybe you could have a read of it.

Why do you insist on calling people who agree with Peterson's general worldview followers, acolytes, and call him a "leader"? He is no such thing and has never claimed to be. You seem determined to make him out to be some type of **** figure, that's your prerogative, but it's pure in the sky stuff if I'm being honest.

You are entitled to question his philosophy but why are you determined to question his integrity?

He doesn't like the French philosophers of the 60s/70s and I can't blame him. They are incredibly difficult to comprehend mainly because a lot of the language they use is complete gobbledygook. I also disagree with their basic premise that there can be no such thing as objective truth.

I'm still unsure why you keep trying to use neo-liberalism as some sort of stick to beat him with? Sure, I get how you think he is a fraud/charlatan because he doesn't focus his entire world view on the social ills caused by neo-liberalism but I disagree.

It's far from perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than the socialist/Marxist ****e that leads to nothing but authoritarian misery. If the 20th century has thought us anything it's that socialism/marxism is a one way path to hell on earth.

Anyway, his message is resonating with people, not just young men, whether you like it or not. It's good to discuss where there may be gaps in his thinking but reducing him to some sort of a cult figure doesn't progress the conversation in any meaningful way.

Intothesea

silverharp wrote: »

that's just another way of saying there is a system in place we don't have a whole lot of control over. Take Japan for instance they have their own "crises" where lots of men are just giving up. So it could be a curse of modernity but what are you going to do?

This is not a response to the statement I made, and that's quoted in your post... Also, young men should be uncritical of Peterson and accept everything he says... because there are 'crises'? Okay...

Ive young kids, Im thankful of the insight as I'd be embarrassed if my kids turned out to be snowflakes, I'd wonder where I went wrong as a parent.

So I take it from this passive aggressive statement that I was supposed to get all riled about your statement on Canadian universities...

And I have young children too, who can evidently exceed the self-respect shown in your posts when they try to willfully talk nonsense...

silverharp

Intothesea wrote: »

This is not a response to the statement I made, and that's quoted in your post... Also, young men should be uncritical of Peterson and accept everything he says... because there are 'crises'? Okay...

in fairness you are misrepresenting Peterson as others are pointing out, I don't have the bandwidth to argue against your picture of him versus how most others seem to see him.

Intothesea wrote: »

So I take it from this passive aggressive statement that I was supposed to get all riled about your statement on Canadian universities...

And I have young children too, who can evidently exceed the self-respect shown in your posts when they try to willfully talk nonsense...

you lost me

JRant

silverharp wrote: »

in fairness you are misrepresenting Peterson as others are pointing out, I don't have the bandwidth to argue against your picture of him versus how most others seem to see him.





you lost me

It's one of the most verbose insults I've seen in a while. Basically a long winded way of say his children have more sense than you

Intothesea

JRant wrote: »

It's one of the most verbose insults I've seen in a while. Basically a long winded way of say his children have more sense than you

I'd contend that arguing from a false clueless perspective in an insult to self.