enfant_terrible
@enfant_terrible
17 Years10,000+ PostsLeo
Comments: 1470 · Posts: 13777 · Topics: 204
Jordan Peterson
Every time he honors some moron with an interview or tv special, the said PC moron tries to discredit him like he's Satan himself. Somehow for some reason we are afraid of facts bc it means we'd have to accept radical shit like that there are only two sexes.
He never even speaks from a personal POV, or "from personal experience" , he rarely makes it about OPINIONS, especially not in controversial political matters. Sometimes he gives his own analysis of a given topic or situation, after all he is an educated mastermind, but never fails to humbly leave out "...but we don't know" if that is the case.
So these morons constantly try to discredit him by blatantly lying, making shit up as they go and even wrongly "paraphrase" him in interviews. It's so out in the open it's impossible to miss.
Why? What is so scary about this guy? Why is mainstream media constantly trying to depict him as the boogeyman. The mysogynist. "Intellectual mysogyny" they even call it whatever dafuq that even means.
Dudes completely pro-choice, as in, you- make-your-own-life-doesnt-matter-what-u -have-between-your-legs, BUT - if you want statistics this is the how's and why's. That's all. Why so scared?
Not that any of what he's saying is even particuraly politically incorrect, so I don't get what's so controversial about him.
I recall that "Red Pill" feminist filmmaker taking the same shit for stating simple facts. Any one of you PC douchebags who claim mainstream media is skewing our perception of reality is right, just ironically not in the way you think.
Can you count how many times this media subhuman tries to put words into his mouth that he never said or claimed - ONLY TO BE CORRECTED ON THE SPOT. The shamelessness. A man should have her job ! lol
This is from an appearance on Swedish television. The redhead in the audience is a politician. She keeps repeating her rehearsed speech on equality and gender issues while he's simply STATING FACTS, to deaf ears as it seems. Off she goes again and once again, he can only state the facts. He keeps his personal biz out of it. While she keeps keeping on with her biased, opinionated, non-scientific political agendas.
Too many ppl tuning out when facts don't fit their PC bubble. So we create an unsustainable world based on fantasies further fueled by fantasies.
Lol @ "To me it's a simple question..." Of course it is, honey. The simpler the better. This is the kind of kindergarten politicians we let into our government these days.
Here's dissecting the above appearance by someone with wits, for giggles
He never even speaks from a personal POV, or "from personal experience" , he rarely makes it about OPINIONS, especially not in controversial political matters. Sometimes he gives his own analysis of a given topic or situation, after all he is an educated mastermind, but never fails to humbly leave out "...but we don't know" if that is the case.
So these morons constantly try to discredit him by blatantly lying, making shit up as they go and even wrongly "paraphrase" him in interviews. It's so out in the open it's impossible to miss.
Why? What is so scary about this guy? Why is mainstream media constantly trying to depict him as the boogeyman. The mysogynist. "Intellectual mysogyny" they even call it whatever dafuq that even means.
Dudes completely pro-choice, as in, you- make-your-own-life-doesnt-matter-what-u -have-between-your-legs, BUT - if you want statistics this is the how's and why's. That's all. Why so scared?
Not that any of what he's saying is even particuraly politically incorrect, so I don't get what's so controversial about him.
I recall that "Red Pill" feminist filmmaker taking the same shit for stating simple facts. Any one of you PC douchebags who claim mainstream media is skewing our perception of reality is right, just ironically not in the way you think.
Can you count how many times this media subhuman tries to put words into his mouth that he never said or claimed - ONLY TO BE CORRECTED ON THE SPOT. The shamelessness. A man should have her job ! lol
This is from an appearance on Swedish television. The redhead in the audience is a politician. She keeps repeating her rehearsed speech on equality and gender issues while he's simply STATING FACTS, to deaf ears as it seems. Off she goes again and once again, he can only state the facts. He keeps his personal biz out of it. While she keeps keeping on with her biased, opinionated, non-scientific political agendas.
Too many ppl tuning out when facts don't fit their PC bubble. So we create an unsustainable world based on fantasies further fueled by fantasies.
Lol @ "To me it's a simple question..." Of course it is, honey. The simpler the better. This is the kind of kindergarten politicians we let into our government these days.
Here's dissecting the above appearance by someone with wits, for giggles
Posted by Arielle83
I saw him for three sessions when I was at uni.
He knows when others react or try to get him to react, it’s all manipulation.
He’s a clinical psychologist and knows how to not give away his power.
Everyone argues or tries to pigeonhole him because he can’t be pigeonholed.
Think most ppl are offended by his opinions on Bill c16, but they don’t even understand his point. They just point “bigot”.
Going to see him speak in February
Cool
Will you take me? 😢
Posted by tiziani
When I first saw one of his vids I really didn't like what he had to say and dismissed it, but that's because it hit too close to home.
Well as long as you admit you have a problem 😁
"Peterson, do you have any comments on the Nazi presence at your protest!?"
*innocently* "Yeah I don't like Nazis"
/dead
*innocently* "Yeah I don't like Nazis"
/dead
I like Jordan Peterson for the most part. He has really reached a level of shielding power that is magnificent.
Posted by Arielle83
I saw him for three sessions when I was at uni.
He knows when others react or try to get him to react, it’s all manipulation.
He’s a clinical psychologist and knows how to not give away his power.
Everyone argues or tries to pigeonhole him because he can’t be pigeonholed.
Think most ppl are offended by his opinions on Bill c16, but they don’t even understand his point. They just point “bigot”.
Going to see him speak in February
He also has introverted eyes.
Cracks me up how he's got a similar dialect, or speech pattern as Daniel Day-Lewis is "There Will Be Blood"
Nah I don't like him much. Anyone who can't respect trans rights can jump off a cliff. I think he's way over hyped and has made several arguments and has several ideologies that are inconsistent and hypocritical. Plus he politically slanders any ideals that oppose his own. However he does have occasional fair points, but so do crazy people. But if he inspires whiny men with entitlement issues to grow up then that's a pro
and that swedish politician is just like the standard DXP chick: all mouth, no brain & too stupid to grasp and acknowledge facts that don't fit their delusioned version of the world.
incels love him. He's literally the emperor of incels.
He revels in his personality cult and youtube revenue. He keeps pretending he's a "scientist" when he has actually abandoned the scientific deontology a long time ago to become a youtuber and polemist.
He revels in his personality cult and youtube revenue. He keeps pretending he's a "scientist" when he has actually abandoned the scientific deontology a long time ago to become a youtuber and polemist.
Was listening to him on joe rogan
Posted by Boring
A person who studied psychology and political sciences using his academic background to talk about issues outside of his competency (biology, anthropology, sociology and etc) in order to give authority to his old-school right wing ideas cannot be respected by the academic community, and indeed is not.
So would you say an interior designer with background in a few Women's studies classes has more academic authority over the subject?
...
Peterson cannot be respected by the academic community bc people like that redhead Swedish politician in the video are the politically correct norm. Watch that 2nd video of that woman picking apart the interview and you'll realize what's wrong with the current political climate. What is wrong with supporting your ideas with facts? Even consider that maybe those are his beliefs BECAUSE of the conclusions he's drawn from his work?
So @ all the haters. What exactly is it that isn't making sense to you about what he's saying? You're all kind of vague
I stopped taking this guy seriously when I saw him use the "I'm a diplomed psychologist, who are you?" argument several times during fights.
Like, bitch, you're just a novelty youtuber, don't use your diplomas to win a beef over pronouns on the internet.
You're stepping out of your academic domain when you're just being a political polemicist on mainstream medias.
Like, bitch, you're just a novelty youtuber, don't use your diplomas to win a beef over pronouns on the internet.
You're stepping out of your academic domain when you're just being a political polemicist on mainstream medias.
Posted by hydorah
I stopped taking this guy seriously when I saw him use the "I'm a diplomed psychologist, who are you?" argument several times during fights.
Like, bitch, you're just a novelty youtuber, don't use your diplomas to win a beef over pronouns on the internet.
You're stepping out of your academic domain when you're just being a political polemicist on mainstream medias.
Again, what is it about the points he's making that isn't making sense to you personally?
Forget for a minute he's got a larger than life persona. It doesn't actually discredit the validity of those points.
Lol I can see why flashing his diploma around would be offensive in the age of flat-Earthers or those of the 3rd or 4th sex who unlike him, can't back up their rants.
Posted by enfant_terriblePosted by hydorah
I stopped taking this guy seriously when I saw him use the "I'm a diplomed psychologist, who are you?" argument several times during fights.
Like, bitch, you're just a novelty youtuber, don't use your diplomas to win a beef over pronouns on the internet.
You're stepping out of your academic domain when you're just being a political polemicist on mainstream medias.
Again, what is it about the points he's making that isn't making sense to you personally?
Forget for a minute he's got a larger than life persona. It doesn't actually discredit the validity of those points.
Lol I can see why flashing his diploma around would be offensive in the age of flat-Earthers or those of the 3rd or 4th sex who unlike him, can't back up their rants.click to expand
I'm not talking about his points.
Some of his ideas I agree completely with.
Some of his ideas I consider as just childish manlet cope.
But too often he's just argumenting for the sake of argumenting and attacking his opponents rather than their ideas.
I assume this thread is about jordan peterson and not about ideas, is it?
It would be curious to try to have a discussion about ideas and put this discussion under the auspices of a controversy-fueled internet celebrity.
Posted by hydorah
But too often he's just argumenting for the sake of argumenting and attacking his opponents rather than their ideas.
Are we talking about the same guy? I have never seen him attack an opponent (if I were Peterson I'd ask you to define "attack") ... or argue for the sake of argument. If anything he's extremely concise and picks his words carefully and when people attack him or steer away from the subject, he does his best to get them back on the track. He even corrects himself when he figures he's slightly exaggerating numbers or whatever.. How many of his opponents give him the same respect as he gives them?
Do the videos I posted illustrate an attack on anything but retarded rhetorics by those interviewing him?
Posted by enfant_terrible
So would you say an interior designer with background in a few Women's studies classes has more academic authority over the subject?
Awww was this for my benifit. Somebodies triggered
Your a little off tho...
Posted by enfant_terrible
So @ all the haters. What exactly is it that isn't making sense to you about what he's saying? You're all kind of vague
Do you realize how flawed your thinking is, implying that anyone who doesn't agree with him is a "hater"? Childish.
For me it's not so much what's not making sense but that again his ideology and statements tend to be hypocritical and inconsistent. This hurts his credibility. Plus while I agree with the importance of free speech, I disagree with the nuances of his take on it. If you practice intolerance/hate in speech, so long as it's not a threat or slander, then that's your right. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be consequences. Something he doesn't seem to quite understand.
This is just one issue. Another issue is his political stance. He has studied politics yes but he is not objective. He does lean a certain way in his ideals, more conservatively often times. Though he doesn't self align himself in the right. In fact he apparently labels himself more liberal. And that would be fine if again he wasn't always bringing up the "radical left" and the "cultural Marxists" anytime there's a more left or progressive stance against him.
And lastly the lack of respect towards trans individuals and people who don't claim a gender. He has literally stated that he doesn't understand the concept. Which honestly says a lot about his abstract thinking skills and open-mindedness. But if you don't understand that social culture how can you make statements against it.
The only reason he has such a following is like Antiochus said. He speaks to certain group of people within a a certain social climate. I find him to be a slightly smarter, less politically outward, dressed up, Ben Shapiro.
Ive never heard for the man, so googled him. First thing I got was his last post on twitter. The title said; For the marxist in your life...followed by the photo from Gulag prisoners and soldiers that were following them with guns.
Only by that post, I can see that he easily makes serious statements about things that are complex as universe and about which he obviously doesn't know a lot (ie the depth).
I liked one of the replies.
"Congratulations, you have just reduced Marx to your level of understanding of his philosophies. If anything, Marx’s work is extremely complex and not bedtime reading for most people. To judge his work based on someone else’s bad decisions is the wrong metric and a lazy argument."
Nothing more from me, he may be a good bloke, idk, but he doesn't seem very clever (according to this twitter post of his). He is probably very good at selling what he believes the truth is and has built a pyramid, putting every stone in its right place, so that it is shiny and beautiful when people come to visit and pay, but by that little post he seems pretty shallow. And the truth is in the details, so....sorry, but no.
I might be wrong though...but I think Im not.
Only by that post, I can see that he easily makes serious statements about things that are complex as universe and about which he obviously doesn't know a lot (ie the depth).
I liked one of the replies.
"Congratulations, you have just reduced Marx to your level of understanding of his philosophies. If anything, Marx’s work is extremely complex and not bedtime reading for most people. To judge his work based on someone else’s bad decisions is the wrong metric and a lazy argument."
Nothing more from me, he may be a good bloke, idk, but he doesn't seem very clever (according to this twitter post of his). He is probably very good at selling what he believes the truth is and has built a pyramid, putting every stone in its right place, so that it is shiny and beautiful when people come to visit and pay, but by that little post he seems pretty shallow. And the truth is in the details, so....sorry, but no.
I might be wrong though...but I think Im not.
@FireStarter
"For me it's not so much what's not making sense but that again his ideology and statements tend to be hypocritical and inconsistent. "
He is nothing if not consistent. Every interview he gives, on point and consistent. People try to make him trip on his words, he never does. He never backpedales. He is consistant bc his statements are not pulled out of his ass. And hypocritical how? About what?
***
"Another issue is his political stance. He has studied politics yes but he is not objective. He does lean a certain way in his ideals, more conservatively often times."
Has it ever occured to you that maybe his ideals lean more consevatively because his academic life and research has led him down that path, as oppose to him trying to force his political views on his research. Why must it be the other way around?
I can imagine him giving a lecture in the current cultural climate: he points his finger at his white desk and says "The desk is white". A student gets up and says "I don't like you telling me what to think" and leaves. Because in his special snowflake mind, he is entitled to see the desk as brown or any other color despite that it's not. This is the level of stupidity ruling academia in present day that he has to deal with without shooting the place up.
One day I'll be able to tell my grandkids 'Yes, I lived in that period in time when stupidity was trendy.'
***
"Though he doesn't self align himself in the right. In fact he apparently labels himself more liberal. And that would be fine if again he wasn't always bringing up the "radical left" and the "cultural Marxists" anytime there's a more left or progressive stance against him."
Yes, just like leftist are labeling "right wing politics" when they see fit. Your point being?He's addressing the danger of going too far left, not only in terms of violence but in terms of pure idiocracy which is ruling the academic climate of present day. The desk if pink !!!
Furthermore, why should his personal ideals and politics be of any interest to anyone when he's rarely discussing his personal life but sociocultural trends/events and self-improvment. Why is it important to label him politically, as oppose to just hearing out what he's actually saying? (and not your interpretation of it!)
Or to put it to you in other words.. What we have here is a clinical psychologist who's I suppose gender conservative in some ways, but who has in his professional career consulted women into becoming better negotiators in their professional lives, to be more assertive in ordet to get ahead professionally.
The man has mastered the art of seperating what may be his own ideals (nontheless based on his work and research), and not standing in different-thinking people's way to accomplish whatever they want for themselves and help them on their path.
Peterson is literally the posterboy of the saying 'Do/be what you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone'. Anyone with a least bit common sense can see that.
As for the transgender issue, do you see a sign outside his office that says 'No trans allowed'. Do you see him trying convert the transgendered?
I'm sure he applauds this kid for having more braincells and critical thinking than people twice his age!
Nighty night
"For me it's not so much what's not making sense but that again his ideology and statements tend to be hypocritical and inconsistent. "
He is nothing if not consistent. Every interview he gives, on point and consistent. People try to make him trip on his words, he never does. He never backpedales. He is consistant bc his statements are not pulled out of his ass. And hypocritical how? About what?
***
"Another issue is his political stance. He has studied politics yes but he is not objective. He does lean a certain way in his ideals, more conservatively often times."
Has it ever occured to you that maybe his ideals lean more consevatively because his academic life and research has led him down that path, as oppose to him trying to force his political views on his research. Why must it be the other way around?
I can imagine him giving a lecture in the current cultural climate: he points his finger at his white desk and says "The desk is white". A student gets up and says "I don't like you telling me what to think" and leaves. Because in his special snowflake mind, he is entitled to see the desk as brown or any other color despite that it's not. This is the level of stupidity ruling academia in present day that he has to deal with without shooting the place up.
One day I'll be able to tell my grandkids 'Yes, I lived in that period in time when stupidity was trendy.'
***
"Though he doesn't self align himself in the right. In fact he apparently labels himself more liberal. And that would be fine if again he wasn't always bringing up the "radical left" and the "cultural Marxists" anytime there's a more left or progressive stance against him."
Yes, just like leftist are labeling "right wing politics" when they see fit. Your point being?He's addressing the danger of going too far left, not only in terms of violence but in terms of pure idiocracy which is ruling the academic climate of present day. The desk if pink !!!
Furthermore, why should his personal ideals and politics be of any interest to anyone when he's rarely discussing his personal life but sociocultural trends/events and self-improvment. Why is it important to label him politically, as oppose to just hearing out what he's actually saying? (and not your interpretation of it!)
Or to put it to you in other words.. What we have here is a clinical psychologist who's I suppose gender conservative in some ways, but who has in his professional career consulted women into becoming better negotiators in their professional lives, to be more assertive in ordet to get ahead professionally.
The man has mastered the art of seperating what may be his own ideals (nontheless based on his work and research), and not standing in different-thinking people's way to accomplish whatever they want for themselves and help them on their path.
Peterson is literally the posterboy of the saying 'Do/be what you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone'. Anyone with a least bit common sense can see that.
As for the transgender issue, do you see a sign outside his office that says 'No trans allowed'. Do you see him trying convert the transgendered?
I'm sure he applauds this kid for having more braincells and critical thinking than people twice his age!
Nighty night
Combined IQ level over 1000 !! 💣
Posted by Neshama
Smart people yeah ..but more importantly the same age group. And similar backgrounds. It's no surprise they think alike.
Is it a surprise ppl closer to your age are mostly idiots? No
So what's your point. It's not about opinions. These are educated ppl who know their references and wtf they are talking about.
As for your age phobia.. even hippies grew up & sold out eventually. Why? Bc once the smoke cleared, mommy and daddy were right
Toodle for realz now
I love how she says "Smart people yeah ..but MORE IMPORTANTLY same age group"
Like how's their age even relevant or MORE IMPORTANT than the factual information they are reciting?! Probably as important and relevant as his tweeds
Like how's their age even relevant or MORE IMPORTANT than the factual information they are reciting?! Probably as important and relevant as his tweeds
Aight srsly though goodnight now. Im gonna masturbate to a compilation video of him shutting down radical feminists
Posted by NeshamaPosted by enfant_terrible
Aight srsly though goodnight now. Im gonna masturbate to a compilation video of him shutting down radical feminists
You know you really want to fuck those feminists hard don't you?click to expand
My gfs away and I spent the whole weekend watching Jordan Peterson videos like an incel. At this point anything is negotiable
Posted by tiziani
He's good at winning arguments, pure and simple. In the GQ interview he was on the edge of the interviewer getting him to expose some contradictions in his beliefs, but she never got close enough for him to fall for the bait.
And he knows when to throw in a personal anecdote here and there to keep the momentum. He calls this "integrating" his experience with the evidence, same thing in my book.
So what is your verdict? That he's essentially a liar and fabricator of facts.. or that he's not above his ego?
Posted by Boring
No, i mean the academic community that has the goal to seek objective truth and not project personal opinions but answers.
Attacking the integrity of the academic community as a whole is a very populist tool but as most of their tools, it's not based on solid foundation.
I don't know what rock you've been living under but the academic community of today is interested in 'objective truths' only as long as it doesn't step on anyones toes. And that is not possible.
Posted by enfant_terrible
@FireStarter
"For me it's not so much what's not making sense but that again his ideology and statements tend to be hypocritical and inconsistent. "
He is nothing if not consistent. Every interview he gives, on point and consistent. People try to make him trip on his words, he never does. He never backpedales. He is consistant bc his statements are not pulled out of his ass. And hypocritical how? About what?
***
"Another issue is his political stance. He has studied politics yes but he is not objective. He does lean a certain way in his ideals, more conservatively often times."
Has it ever occured to you that maybe his ideals lean more consevatively because his academic life and research has led him down that path, as oppose to him trying to force his political views on his research. Why must it be the other way around?
I can imagine him giving a lecture in the current cultural climate: he points his finger at his white desk and says "The desk is white". A student gets up and says "I don't like you telling me what to think" and leaves. Because in his special snowflake mind, he is entitled to see the desk as brown or any other color despite that it's not. This is the level of stupidity ruling academia in present day that he has to deal with without shooting the place up.
One day I'll be able to tell my grandkids 'Yes, I lived in that period in time when stupidity was trendy.'
***
"Though he doesn't self align himself in the right. In fact he apparently labels himself more liberal. And that would be fine if again he wasn't always bringing up the "radical left" and the "cultural Marxists" anytime there's a more left or progressive stance against him."
Yes, just like leftist are labeling "right wing politics" when they see fit. Your point being?He's addressing the danger of going too far left, not only in terms of violence but in terms of pure idiocracy which is ruling the academic climate of present day. The desk if pink !!!
Furthermore, why should his personal ideals and politics be of any interest to anyone when he's rarely discussing his personal life but sociocultural trends/events and self-improvment. Why is it important to label him politically, as oppose to just hearing out what he's actually saying? (and not your interpretation of it!)
Or to put it to you in other words.. What we have here is a clinical psychologist who's I suppose gender conservative in some ways, but who has in his professional career consulted women into becoming better negotiators in their professional lives, to be more assertive in ordet to get ahead professionally.
The man has mastered the art of seperating what may be his own ideals (nontheless based on his work and research), and not standing in different-thinking people's way to accomplish whatever they want for themselves and help them on their path.
Peterson is literally the posterboy of the saying 'Do/be what you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone'. Anyone with a least bit common sense can see that.
As for the transgender issue, do you see a sign outside his office that says 'No trans allowed'. Do you see him trying convert the transgendered?
I'm sure he applauds this kid for having more braincells and critical thinking than people twice his age!
Nighty night
Normally I would respond to this with a bit more care. But you're arguments are irrational and emotional, not just in this topic but others. And at the end of the day even if I refute everything you've mentioned (which I will) and prove my points (which I will) it is pointless. You have blindly locked into this man's cult of personality and refuse to accept anything else. So understand that this post will be to the point but a bit non-committal.
He is inconsistent and hypocritical on several points, I'll list a few cause I don't want to make this any longer. First is his definition of truth, he believes in some higher truth being superior to scientific truth, at least when it suits him. This is not factual. If we're talking about philosophy or metaphysics yes this idea has a place but not in the real world, and not in social culture.
Also there's the fact he's attempting to sue a professor for libel after she called his book, in her opinion mysoginistic, sexist, and cruel. Which is odd considering he's such a big defender of free speech. Oh and the kicker, he wants to sue her in Canada, which has slightly less strong laws on freedom of speech..hmm he always states how much he admires the US system on free speech but apparently not if it's doesn't aid him.
Oh and he's not a big fan of equality of outcome. Ya know redistribution of money or opportunity for all but he sure likes the redistribution of women to men. Calling it enforced monogamy, because if men don't have a woman they'll just go crazy and can't function in society without killing someone. Btw he himself said this stance was "inconsistent but necessary."
Also he's just flat out wrong on a lot of what he says. He claims only in a judeo christian society would free speech be considered so important. Um what, no that's not true. He states polygamy is wrong, again not true. So much of his ideology on social proceedings and politics comes from a theological core. Which is a problem when its aimed at others.
I don't give a damn how or why he has a conservative background. Conservatism in it's current place in society is in opposition of progressiveness. Progress is how a society grows, conservatism will hold us back. And it has, so his belief here is against the betterment of all. And yes I am also biased since I personally don't like his conservative stances.
I have no idea what the next paragraph was meant to say or mean, as it's near incomprehensible. Unless it's an impression of Petersons rambling, nonsensical, circle talk. In that case 5/5!
Ok first problem you say left in a way that includes all, that is logically unsound. Second of all while I may agree that calling him certain words like alt right and nazi are too far, he has said, done, or not done things that would give people evidence to have such an opinion. But my original point is he and his fanboys are so quick to complain about being labeled when he turns around and does the same thing. "Oh those crazy left radicals! Did you hear they want health care for all? And public college and affordable intuition. Omg and they want equal rights between gender, race, culture, and class. As well as social progress...the horror!" Seriously dude what are you even fighting? A make believe monster?
It's important cause he makes it important. If everything he said was again all subjective and meant to be that way, fine. If he's just talking theory, cool. But he's not he's impressing his ideal into society something that affects people. And while he had the right to do so, I can call him out for it.
Here is your opinion and I disagree.
That again is subjective. Also things I've mentioned earlier discredit this statement and so will the next paragraph. I knew a little of Peterson before. But since your little article here, I've done some research, listened to his talks, including a incredibly boring and lengthy podcast, and have found him to be almost inane. He constantly word vomits illogical statements, rarely takes a firm stance but tiptoes around it while speaking in a way that intentionally makes it difficult to grasp the full intent if what he's saying. I take back what I said, this man is not an intellectual. He can be trippy to listen to.
On the trans issue and this is directed at @Arielle83 too, cause she brought this point up as well. First just because he doesn't ban trans people from his presence doesn't mean he's accepting. Let's go back to what this hack got famous for. The C-16 controversy. Peterson became a crusader for freedom of speech cause this law said that refusing to call trans kids by their pronouns could be considered a hate crime, something punishable by law. That's what the man stated himself....Only that is a giant lie. The state already had this law in effect years prior, and it also protected religious freedom. It stated that commiting a hate crime for such reason as someone not conforming to a gender pronoun etc. was punishable by law. The amendment simply added gender identity and expression.
There was nothing saying that by not calling a person by their preferred pronoun counted as hate speech. So hes fooled people into believing his story but what really is shitty, is he did all this just cause he didn't want to respect a student and call them their desired pronouns. And he continues to go on how the radical left is trying to take away freedoms like speech and divert linguistics. That is not happening. At this point I'm not sure if he's a sexist, racist, intolerant, crazy or a snakeoil salesmen with an agenda. People can take value in some of what he says, cause even I can. But that doesn't change the fact that he's definitely an asshole and he and the rest of his ilk can jump off previously mentioned cliff.
And there's still more I could say but I'm done with this dingus.
Posted by FireStarter
Normally I would respond to this with a bit more care. But you're arguments are irrational and emotional,
Unlike the winds blowing from the left through the halls of academia?
I just figured in order to beat the enemy you got to become the enemy.
Posted by FireStarter
Also there's the fact he's attempting to sue a professor for libel after she called his book, in her opinion mysoginistic, sexist, and cruel. Which is odd considering he's such a big defender of free speech
Great! Give them a taste of their own medicine. Peterson can (t)roll !
Posted by FireStarter
I don't give a damn how or why he has a conservative background. Conservatism in it's current place in society is in opposition of progressiveness. Progress is how a society grows, conservatism will hold us back. And it has, so his belief here is against the betterment of all. And yes I am also biased since I personally don't like his conservative stances.
Ok first problem you say left in a way that includes all, that is logically unsound.
Like when you say that all conservatism is bad and all progress is good?
Posted by FireStarter
Second of all while I may agree that calling him certain words like alt right and nazi are too far, he has said, done, or not done things that would give people evidence to have such an opinion.
No he has never said or done anything that would warrant calling him a Nazi. That if anything is being irrational and emotional.
Posted by FireStarter
If everything he said was again all subjective and meant to be that way, fine. If he's just talking theory, cool. But he's not he's impressing his ideal into society something that affects people.click to expand
Like the academic environment of today is impressing absurd leftist ideals and ideas onto their students presenting them as truth?
Look, a lot of other stuff you write is either wrongly paraphrasing him or jumping to your own conclusions which is barely worth the time or energy to pick apart. It's been done. Like every other SJW you are simply not hearing what he's saying but what you want him to be saying.
Also, he objected to the law being used to force people to use pronouns such as “ze” and “zher”. He has also said that if a student approached him and asked him to use different pronouns, he would do so. Which ironically, is always left out of the discussion.
Another example of not hearing what he's saying but what you want him to be saying.
Posted by Boring
I'd say a person with a background in anthropology/ sociology/ biology has the competency to use his academic background (as source of authority) in matters related to these subjects. The interior designer and Peterson are more or less equally incompetent.
So you mean to tell me that a person who spends 8 - 12 years in academic setting studying psychology knows nothing about anthropology, sociology and biology when these subjects are in one form or another part of the curriculum. Let's not forget statistics.
Posted by BoringPosted by enfant_terrible
I don't know what rock you've been living under but the academic community of today is interested in 'objective truths' only as long as it doesn't step on anyones toes. And that is not possible.
I'm part of the community and I have full confidence that my work and the work of my immediate colleagues aims for objectivity, impartiality and constructivity but it's sad to see how people talk without knowing. Better believe your conspiracy theorists than people who are working hard to make your life better.click to expand
The academic community of today stifles any critical thinking, which ironically they claim is what they teach out.
No one said anything about conspiracy theories. That's the field of expertice among your peers: everything is one big well-elaborated white conspiracy to keep [insert victum] down. Peterson speaks not of conspiracies. You have been greatly misinformed.
Posted by tiziani
Here's an obvious contradiction -
Well here's the thing. Any serious Tiz-level guru will have to change and adjust his tune overtime bc you have to be open to new input and new research on top of what's already supposedly been established. That's how this guy opened a can of worms when he took on the left and there are ex. leftists such as myself, who think his world-view makes a hell of a lot more sense than what I've been indoctrinated to believe growing up. So I'll take whatever makes the more sense.
One thing I have a hard time with is his obsession with symbols or symbolic thinking, clearly stemming from his profound interest in the Jungian thing.
I have however not yet furthered by research to his view on fidelity, marriage, etc. to comment on that specific part. Or the idea of the "metaphorical truth" . I shall look into that.
You may aswell have found some cracks in the facade. Only one guru can take out another.
Posted by Neshama
He is currently in a lawsuit pertaining to whether or not he is a nazi so we shall see.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/550859/
This is so on-point. Don't believe me, hear someone else pick it apart. It's not even a question of censorship, it's literally trying to put words into his mouth and misinterpret his intentions every step of the way.
And you think if someone of his statue and intellect doesn't stand a chance, what chance does anyone else have against the hypocracy of the current political climate?
And that @Boring character refers to her academic self and her likes as "people who are working hard to make your life better". Laughable.
This is so on-point. Don't believe me, hear someone else pick it apart. It's not even a question of censorship, it's literally trying to put words into his mouth and misinterpret his intentions every step of the way.
And you think if someone of his statue and intellect doesn't stand a chance, what chance does anyone else have against the hypocracy of the current political climate?
And that @Boring character refers to her academic self and her likes as "people who are working hard to make your life better". Laughable.
Posted by enfant_terrible
Another example of not hearing what he's saying but what you want him to be saying.
You ignored the vast amount of my post that contradicts you. I will take that as you conceding on those points. And since you can only strawman and twist my points and again respond illogically and also make shit up. I'm going to say that what this actually is an example of, is you not being able to acknowledge the truth and evidence presented to you because you're too far up Peterson ass you can't actually see anything else.
But do you, sir. The world is full of sheeple, you'll never be lonely.
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →Related Topics
The concept of time is a facade but lets discuss this calendar year.
For me-
This year I worked HARD on my mental health. Changed my diet to 90/10 Vegan. Became comfortable being alone. Worked hard and got a 10k raise at work. Raised my credit score 100
What's everyone opinion on them? Has anyone read them? Did you find them helpful/useful? I have an odd stigma against them. Always thought they were for the weak minded or sheep...but lately I've been looking into them
Any suggestions would be appreciated
I've been losing sleep over this matter and having terrible anxiety fueled nightmares.
For the last month my friends have been pushing me out. It actually wasn't a gradual push, they just kind of ghosted me, out of nowhere.
I've tried texting them, I'll w
He got a DUI for the second time this year and is in jail until Tuesday. I can afford the bail but I’m refusing to do so. Sorry I’m a shitty friend but it feels like this is a lesson the universe needs him to learn.
What would you do?
What if you draw your line and create a very solid and immovable boundary which results in a few individuals bowing out of your life because they can’t handle that you’ve spoken up and told them not to cross said boundary
I love this site because I can ask total strangers for advice and know I’ll get feedback without any emotional attachment lol. But basically I’ve been living in California for 1 year away from any family as a way to escape my home town, I’m 24 and I’m an
Let’s give an appreciation to the men of Dxp!
Chime in. Agree or disagree but Dxp men need some...they are HERE aren’t they? It means they have nowhere else to BE!!!
Let’s give them some loving...
I’ll start with my Dxp good for nothing but love him any
Let’s talk about what we have to thank life, God, Universe about...
What do we have that others would kill for having...
I have a huge list to list...
I was raised by 2 loving parents.
I was born as a beautiful child that my Mom couldn’t walk me in a str
I just read ‘you’ll be feeling better with times honey’ and I wanted to scream ‘when exactly’?
Then I decided to ask...is anyone here happy after break up from real love?
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTdPFKY-pWAwWZ2nj8yFvFA/videos
Then post and who cares... lol
I am so sick of this ‘you deserve this or rhat’...
Who came up with this crap?
What does it mean ‘you deserve’? Said who?
Apparently if you don’t have it - you don’t deserve it! Because if you did - you wouldn HAVE it!
Isn’t ‘deserving’ determined by G
What is dealing with anger like for you? Do you find it easy to control, or impossible? Are you immune to it, or does it bottle up till it simply cannot anymore? Do you know any extremely angry people? What were they like? When describing you or their ang
I'm trying really hard to learn how to be more independent. I honestly have never been alone my while life, I've come from very dependent relationships, family and friends.
Recently I've been seeing a guy who is reclusive. He does well with letting me s
Yesterday, I was talking to a girl about how I didn't like how I smoke everyday because it feels like I'm starting to use it as a crutch, I don't think it's good to have a "I NEED a blunt" mindset, and I definitely don't think it's the smartest thing to
And I’ll tell you how old you really are.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Boobs.
How does one begin to let go of expectations from a loved one?
I know in a relationship you should hold your s.o to some kind of standard but when you have high expectations feelings are hurt on both ends.
How do you let go of ridiculous expectation
How have you overcome it?
Am I a good person?
Am I I bad person?
Well...last 3 years I am attending to elders in a building of over 150 appartnenta and everbody knows my name because I am working every day for my patients who I get paid for and those who just need help because
I want to share something I have been thinking about.
I think people who choose to work in /are drawn to professions that have to do with healing like doctors, psychotherapists, etc. have gone through painful/traumatic stuff themselves and then when the
was curious so i looked up some themes on personality traits on sex & and the city characters.
which character do you feel you identify with? Carrie, Miranda, Charlotte, or Samantha
i know in real life, two of these ladies do NOT get along.
Why does this guy get so much shit? I won't bite off heads. Discredit him for me. Where's the crack in the facade? What's your problem with him? Aside from that the fact that he has the emotional life of a psychopath, which is probably why he's so on-point.