Is Peterson against Climate change? I haven't seen anything to suggest that before, I've been in this thread for a while too. That seems nuts, even for Peterson
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Jordan Peterson - The "Intellectual" We Deserve
- Thread starter Deleted member 25709
- Start date
- Status
Is Peterson against Climate change? I haven't seen anything to suggest that before, I've been in this thread for a while too. That seems nuts, even for Peterson
Anybody can tell you to clean your room, stand up straight, don't lie... but Peterson can give a 1/2 hour talk about how any of those actions could affect your life in ways you never thought about. Doesn't that sound interesting?
You asked a couple of pages ago and two of us provided you with tweets of him retweeting climate skeptic stuff.
- the actual law is literally 18 words adding the phrase "gender identity or expression" to existing law
- most tribunals do side with that interpretation, that was peterson's concern
- that same interpretation is the one peterson claimed would force him to use gender neutral pronouns
- that same interpretation explicitly says in it that it does not determine whether a person can insist on someone referring to them using a particular gender neutral pronoun
- i have highlighted that sentence many times
- that same interpretation acknowledges that people may have inexperience or discomfort using gender neutral pronouns and suggests alternatives like "use the person's name instead"
- i have highlighted that part as well many times
Last edited:
My point is that several academics who are actual experts in the fields under discussion have said that Peterson's whole 'postmodern neomarxists' idea is bullshit and kind of laughable actually.
Which means that when he says universities are being corrupted or are under threat of corruption, you should be questioning what he actually means and what his motivations are.
Not really, no.
Someone once told me that whiping myself after a good shit affected my life in not unimportant ways (seriously look up sanitation around the XIXth century), it's a nice bit of trivia but seriously if you're not doing it you have bigger problems anyway.
That's so stereotypically Canadian it's funny.
"you're not sure, then be decent and use that person's name"
Ahh yes. Here's a refresher:
No that sounds terrible. If someone pitched a talk to me like that I'd assume they were trying to get me either into a cult or a multi level marketing scheme.
And this is coming from someone who spent an hour today listening to a seminar about soil compaction.
It would maybe sound interesting if I found it true, but I don't because he's using exceedingly poor science and psychobabble to explain those basic tenets of life, yes, like the lobster stuff and the great fear of "cultural marxism". If he just said his exceedingly basic and boring life principles and didn't dress it up as a conflict with people on the left, then I don't think he would have the young male following he enjoys today.
Also, the existing law had its hate speech provision removed several years before C16 was proposed, making the future Peterson fears legally impossible by even the most disingenuous interpretations of the law.
But why does he need to tell why can't you get a girlfriend
Can the Peterson fans here explain to me what they think Marxism is (or what Jordan thinks it is) and why it's supposed to be bad?
Ones a dead link with no comment from Peterson. The other is pretty damming, but its one example.
But I managed to find what I wanted anyway:
https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpete...aer/peterson_and_climate_change_a_collection/
This is the thing that has been asked like 100 times in the thread and never answered as far as I've seen.
I am super curious in hearing what you think Marxism is and how and why it's taught in social sciences.
All I want to know is how Peterson doesn't fit into his own/Hick's definition of postmodernism.
I see it the other way. Like, many of his theories could be potentially interesting to people on the left but his political stances make them despise all the other things he says.
I think it might be a little bit of both. His political stance might attract people on the right and repel people on the left.
His own definition of postmodernism is "SJWs who are also Maoists and who want to send us all to the gulag" so by his own completely demented logic he's not a postmodernist.
Might? Gee you don't say, a bigot attracts other bigots. This guy really does have all the answers!
He has no interesting theories. He just babbles with long words dumbshits think it's deep because "it sounds smart". He's a dumbass that continously spouses factually incorrect shit and outright lying about basic science.
There probably is some truth to that, that some people might like some of Peterson's message if not for his politics. However, they'd still have to ignore the bad science he uses to justify his very basic life principles.
But that's also the thing, that despite you not seemingly agreeing with him politically (or at least on the things that got Peterson to be popular in the first place and why he has such a large following amongst angry young men), you really like him and his message, and that's what prompted my question from earlier on the why. I know you've said you find his speaking really interesting, but for me, and maybe some of the others here, he just comes across as a bloviator who meanders all over the place before arriving at his basic point, not counting stops along the way to sometimes say some sexist, misogynistic, transphobic, or just incredibly incorrect scientific things.
They never do. I'm thinking they're parroting what he says without researching the terms themselves because they trust him. The thing is, he's using terminology in common with the alt-right and this makes it easier for them to conversate about cultural Marxists and the destruction of Western culture.
I used to look at /pol/ with a kind of morbid fascination and I always thought it was interesting that their big three bogeymen were postmodernists (because Frankfurt School, because Jews), SJWs, and Marxists. And then I heard about Jordan Peterson who is obsessed with something he made up called "postmodern neomarxism" which as a university professor he should know is not a real thing and kind of not even possible given what Marxism and postmodernism actually are.
That's why Peterson is so interesting to me. Like, he's obviously deliberately courting the anime nazi MAGA pepe crowd. But why? Is he just a chud himself? Is he just cynically trying to grift them as hard as he can? Is he trying to "save" them from being internet fascists by converting them into pseudoscience Jungians? It's so interesting.
To be fair, Post-modernist, SJWs and Marxist are also catholic boogeymen.
I haven't talked to some of my catholic friends about Jordan Peterson, but i have 0 doubts that if they heard him talk they probably like him some bit. Where some people say "cultural marxism" catholics say "gender ideology".
So i guess for me Jordan is genuine, "postmodern neomarxism" is just his boogeymen, he wont be the first nor the last to come up with a non-sensical tag that is supposed to be pejorative, is not like /pol/ invented any of those terms, he probably just saw people using it and decided to use it. And yeah he is trying to save them from "identity politics" by his own word.
The wondering why it is allowed to be published and the slapping are two different incidents, he responds to most criticism with varying levels of animus.
He also ya know tried to start essentially a target list of teachers and courses he deemed subversive to try and get entire avenues of thought eliminated from Universities.
I find him fascinating in how he attracts people. You can break down every piece of shit thing he has said and there are still those who will still defend him or like him even after knowing all of that bad shit and even if they disagree with him. Even supposed "leftists" will defend him. I still maintain that his vagueness allows people to see what they want to see AND it makes him see smarter when someone seemingly misinterprets his meaning.
Because it's an easy label to scare people with? Might as well call them Postmodern Maoist Marxist Leninists.
ohmygodFinally Jordan Peterson was precise with his language:
He has gone mad
"If you create basketball as a game, a hundred years later you create people who are hyperspecialized in basketball and they're great at it and virtually everyone else is bad" - Precise Peterson after seeing White Men Can't JumpFinally Jordan Peterson was precise with his language:
In this video, he says that we need hierarchy and inequality so that people can have a purpose. It's basically the title. He says hierarchy is necessary and that with a hierarchy, there will be inequality. Inequality will bring resentment.
But you can't get rid of the hierarchy, of course, because you will get rid of meaning. The only thing you can do is make yourself better. Don't try to make things equal because we need that inequality to keep our meaning. Just make yourself better.
I'm sitting here thinking about the people at the top of the hierarchy... are their lives without meaning? It's easy to take his basketball quote and think he's only talking about different talents and such. He gives some good advice about how you shouldn't compare yourself to celebrities. But I see that quote and also talking about unfairness and see that he's talking about systemic barriers. You must keep those barriers because we need a hierarchy to give us meaning.
Dude is crazy
EDIT: Peterson is the personification of missing the forest for the trees. People don't arbitrarily pick a person and compare themselves to that person, especially when it comes to systemic issues. We look at entire groups. Of course, Peterson is so about the individual that he cannot see overall trends unless it plays into his beliefs.
I know were past it, but thinking about the lobster thing just makes it al the more clear how bad it is, since, while he uses it to illustrate how distantly related animals have similar social behaviours (which, as others have pointed out, humans and lobsters actually don't), you could just as easily illustrate the reverse. For example while most members of the genus Panthera are solitary, one species - P. leo (lions) - are a social pack animal. It's just a really sloppy analogy.
Also, I cleaned my room but now I can't straighten my shoulders due to how tired I am. Pls help.
Also, I cleaned my room but now I can't straighten my shoulders due to how tired I am. Pls help.
At least he's honest about what kind of man he is now.Finally Jordan Peterson was precise with his language:
Transcript:
"If you don't have anything to look up to, you don't have anything to do, right? A lot of the meaning that people find in their lives is purpose driven. And in order to put effort into something, to work towards something, you have to assume axiomatically that what you're working towards is better than what you have. Because why else would you do it?
And there's a relationship, like, if it's way better than what you have, it's obviously proportionally difficult. So you try to balance difficulty with positivity, let's say, something like that. But you're always aiming up if you're aiming. And if you're not aiming then you don't really have any purpose, and that deprives your life of meaning, and that's not good because if your life is deprived of meaning then what you're left with is the suffering. It's not neutral, right, it's negative.
So now the problem with having to aim up is that produces a hierarchy, because if you posit and aim then everyone arrays themselves along a hierarchy of "better at it" to "worse at it".
And it doesn't matter—if you create basketball as a game, 100 years later you create people who are hyperspecialized at basketball and they're great at it, and virtually everyone else is bad. So it doesn't matter. As soon as you produce a value proposition, you produce a hierarchy.
The problem with a hierarchy is it produces inequality. The problem with inequality is it produces resentment. Right, but you can't get rid of the damn hierarchy just because they produce inequality and resentment, because then you don't have anywhere to go. So that's not an answer.
Okay, so let's say you're trying to deal with the fact that you have to put up with a hierarchy if you're going to have any values. Well, how do you escape from the resentment trap? And the answer is you do an intelligent multidimensional analysis of your life.
It's like, by the time you're 30, I would say, you're a pretty singular person. You're unique and particular and your life has multiple dimensions. And you're more or less successful—or not—along many of those dimensions.
But it's a completely ridiculous game to pick someone else arbitrarily, who's doing much better than you on one of those dimensions, to assume that you're a failure because of that, or that the world is unfair because of that, without knowing in full detail all of the rest of the elements of their lives. I mean, look, we're absolutely awash in stories of unhappy celebrities mired in interminable divorces or in affairs or in addictions. And that's par for the course.
It's not helpful. It's helpful to have a goal. It's necessary to have a hierarchy. It's not particularly useful to compare yourself to other people. But it is useful to compare yourself to yourself. That's the right baseline, right? That takes everything else into account.
And it's really practically useful. And I've done this in my clinical practice very frequently. It's like okay, let's take stock of where you are and then let's hypothesize about where you would like to be. It's a complex conversation because we want to figure out what's not so good about your present situation—exactly, precisely—and then come up with a hypothesis about what your life would look like if it was better. And then we can work on incremental improvement.
And the idea would be there's some step you could take, that you would take, that would make today or tomorrow fractionally better than yesterday. And then you can iterate that. And that's actually unbelievably powerful. You hit the effect of compounding interest, let's say, very, very rapidly if you do that.
So there's real utility in incremental progress. And you don't have to improve your life much in increments to start hitting the effect of compounding interest. You make one thing slightly better, and that increases the probability that you'll make the next thing slightly better—as well as having its positive side effects." - Jordan Peterson
"If you don't have anything to look up to, you don't have anything to do, right? A lot of the meaning that people find in their lives is purpose driven. And in order to put effort into something, to work towards something, you have to assume axiomatically that what you're working towards is better than what you have. Because why else would you do it?
And there's a relationship, like, if it's way better than what you have, it's obviously proportionally difficult. So you try to balance difficulty with positivity, let's say, something like that. But you're always aiming up if you're aiming. And if you're not aiming then you don't really have any purpose, and that deprives your life of meaning, and that's not good because if your life is deprived of meaning then what you're left with is the suffering. It's not neutral, right, it's negative.
So now the problem with having to aim up is that produces a hierarchy, because if you posit and aim then everyone arrays themselves along a hierarchy of "better at it" to "worse at it".
And it doesn't matter—if you create basketball as a game, 100 years later you create people who are hyperspecialized at basketball and they're great at it, and virtually everyone else is bad. So it doesn't matter. As soon as you produce a value proposition, you produce a hierarchy.
The problem with a hierarchy is it produces inequality. The problem with inequality is it produces resentment. Right, but you can't get rid of the damn hierarchy just because they produce inequality and resentment, because then you don't have anywhere to go. So that's not an answer.
Okay, so let's say you're trying to deal with the fact that you have to put up with a hierarchy if you're going to have any values. Well, how do you escape from the resentment trap? And the answer is you do an intelligent multidimensional analysis of your life.
It's like, by the time you're 30, I would say, you're a pretty singular person. You're unique and particular and your life has multiple dimensions. And you're more or less successful—or not—along many of those dimensions.
But it's a completely ridiculous game to pick someone else arbitrarily, who's doing much better than you on one of those dimensions, to assume that you're a failure because of that, or that the world is unfair because of that, without knowing in full detail all of the rest of the elements of their lives. I mean, look, we're absolutely awash in stories of unhappy celebrities mired in interminable divorces or in affairs or in addictions. And that's par for the course.
It's not helpful. It's helpful to have a goal. It's necessary to have a hierarchy. It's not particularly useful to compare yourself to other people. But it is useful to compare yourself to yourself. That's the right baseline, right? That takes everything else into account.
And it's really practically useful. And I've done this in my clinical practice very frequently. It's like okay, let's take stock of where you are and then let's hypothesize about where you would like to be. It's a complex conversation because we want to figure out what's not so good about your present situation—exactly, precisely—and then come up with a hypothesis about what your life would look like if it was better. And then we can work on incremental improvement.
And the idea would be there's some step you could take, that you would take, that would make today or tomorrow fractionally better than yesterday. And then you can iterate that. And that's actually unbelievably powerful. You hit the effect of compounding interest, let's say, very, very rapidly if you do that.
So there's real utility in incremental progress. And you don't have to improve your life much in increments to start hitting the effect of compounding interest. You make one thing slightly better, and that increases the probability that you'll make the next thing slightly better—as well as having its positive side effects." - Jordan Peterson
The basketball part is just something else, man. Straight up dog whistle and provides an "example" of something black people are better at than other races. Jesus fuck that is disgusting.
an amusing line of logic that follows from Peterson's argument is that he should be grateful to be dethroned from a position of privilege - after all, where's the excitement for him when the deck is stacked in his favor? and am i therefore not required to attempt to dethrone him as a part of my own purpose? interesting that he seems to be so upset when people attempt that towards him, as if he considers himself someone who exists outside of the hierarchy
his obsession with the so-called "natural hierarchy" undermines his views - if the purpose of life is in incremental progress, how about we create a world that motivates and rewards such progress without barring risk-taking ventures from all but the most secure?
his obsession with the so-called "natural hierarchy" undermines his views - if the purpose of life is in incremental progress, how about we create a world that motivates and rewards such progress without barring risk-taking ventures from all but the most secure?
Sometimes I wish my car horn had a second setting that sounded more courteous and polite. I'm not even joking.
Thank you for writing this out.
It's a pretty solid worldview to me, based on individualism and realism. His base assumption, that competetence inevitably produces hierarchy is pretty much a fact of life right?
Well, one argument is that capital as a mode of production is the only thing that creates hierarchy in a society. And anything else that appears as hierarchy within a capitalist society is just spectacle for us to observe and contemplate, basically lies on top of the truth. That's Guy DeBord "society of the spectacle".
No, because I had a mother doing that. And even if I didn't, there are far more capable people out there than Mister Peterson. If you need help in life, then there are several helplines out there, from people you can call on the phone to people you can visit in school. But seriously, unless you are in serious trouble due to your own actions (and I doubt that as you seem to keep together fine), why in HEAVENS do you need to listen to ANY self help guru? Anybody claiming they need to "Fix you" should be met with the old fashioned "I don't need fixing!" quote spoken by many Feminist. No real counselor will claim you need to be "fixed", they will always try to give advice. AND YES! there are even psychologists who volunteer to help you. Especially if you're a student.
Very patronizing, like I can't find anything to do, and that I need some kind of babybooming youtube celeb to tell me I need to look up to people like him for purpose. Incredible... I really don't get why people just can't accept that they can improve themselves, if they really need help there are far better options out there and that you don't need to look up or compare yourself to anybody. That will only lead to depression, you have to find what you yourself enjoy and find worthwhile. On top of that, most of what is written here is TRIPE, I mean resentment can even fuel advancement. Some people hate so much that it drives them forward to a goal. A goal I'd argue that is very destructive, but okay. I mean this stuff fucking reads like a horoscope!
It says nothing, repeats the same stuff over and over, and it's written in prose ( Not very scientific to write in Prose, Mister Scientist Peterson, Youtube Canadian Extraordinaire ). Worst of this is,it will lead people down a wrong road and straight into depression after they found out they've been following Peterson for a decade or two, and ended up in a destination in life, where they are really unhappy. But hey, at least they have the conservative family unit that makes Peterson all warm and comfy inside. Which is his goal. Well that and: Money, Fame and Power.
If you need advise? Ask your school counselor. If you need advice psychologically? There are organizations out there to help you, staffed by trained psychologists that volunteer for these organizations. If you can't find a counselor, there are government options. And in the worst case, there are quite a few SANE priests out there (Not every religious official is a nutcase, Rabbis, Imams, Monks, Pastors, Viccars,etc.. very often are great in giving you a listening ear and to help you calm down about your life. Very often you are doing fine, and just are freaking out over pressure). So while I don't agree with organized religion, they also have people that do a lot of good in this regard. Just... don't go to a nutcase. BUT FOR GOODNESS SAKE! DO NOT! Take life advice from a youtube celebrity! Even if he is a "Doctor". That's almost as bad as taking medical advice from Youtube. He does not know you, he does not know your personal situation and he certainly can't listen to you or talk with you.
Why is this so freaking hard to understand.
No, cherry picking is what makes it sound reasonable. If you take it in the full context of his other opinions regarding things like white privilege, the oppression of women, and protesting for change, it goes from a simple argument with some dumb supporting points to something worse.
- Status