I see. Thank you all, and this response in particular seems to summarize the situation pretty well, so I appreciate it, Foffy.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Jordan Peterson - The "Intellectual" We Deserve
- Thread starter Deleted member 25709
- Start date
- Status
Makes sense considering how he talks and does lectures, to be honest. He very much has a pastor-like demeanor, but if I can be honest, the fact he's a "Christian" means he's peddling dualistic nonsense, which is the whole problem within theology and its parasitic projection of what's "proper". His views on women being subservient or like sexual locusts makes more sense to me with this information, too.
You'd assume new info like this wouldn't be something that can actually, legitimately overlap with him, but it does. He's literally a secular-ish televangelist, knowing all the answers to one's woes, knows what the enemy and the bad truly is, and has a fanbase that is full of people who fell for the mirage of it all. It reminds me a great deal of Rajaneesh where people with truly hurt experiences lean on someone who has some truth in some of his points, but they fall for the rest of the madness, too.
I don't think there's a problem with Peterson being a priest or something, some priests can be actually interesting in what they say and advise to their choir.
The problem is that he tries to hide as being something more and having some kind of insight derrived from science and shit.
The problem is that he tries to hide as being something more and having some kind of insight derrived from science and shit.
I agree that being a priest isn't necessarily bad. It's just that he is pretending that he isn't while cultivating a congregation.
And here's this:
You ignored the most troubling remark from that article...
Peterson was moved to act and do what he does because his wife had a dream about an end of the world scenario.
He's literally motivated by mystical fuckin' nonsense. He sees his wife as an actual Nostradamus.
"Intellectual" needs about four more air quotes around it after reading this. Holy shit. He's acting directly based on feels, and feels from dreams, no fucking less.
Peterson was moved to act and do what he does because his wife had a dream about an end of the world scenario.
He's literally motivated by mystical fuckin' nonsense. He sees his wife as an actual Nostradamus.
"Intellectual" needs about four more air quotes around it after reading this. Holy shit. He's acting directly based on feels, and feels from dreams, no fucking less.
I think this sums up Peterson quite well: (from the Star article) "What was off-putting was his tendency to be categorical about his positions, reminiscent of his lectures where he presented personal theories as absolute truths. I rarely challenged him. He overwhelmed challenges with volumes of information that were hard to process and evaluate. He was more forceful than I, and had a much quicker mind. Also, again evocative of what I saw in the classroom, he sometimes appeared to be in the thrall of his ideas and would not, or could not, constrain himself and self-monitor what he was saying."
The part about overwhelming challenges with volumes of hard-to-process information that is equally difficult to evaluate nails it for me, and is a large part of the reason why he's dangerous and that his supporters don't question him. They don't want to come off as foolish by questioning him, even when he says nothing.
The part about overwhelming challenges with volumes of hard-to-process information that is equally difficult to evaluate nails it for me, and is a large part of the reason why he's dangerous and that his supporters don't question him. They don't want to come off as foolish by questioning him, even when he says nothing.
Oh man, Peterson's AMA is going on now and a lot of the top-voted comments are not soft-balls being feel good about Peterson, but outright calling him out on his arguments about the Nazis and God, economics, and metaphorical truth.
He's yet to answer any of these. While it started less than an hour ago, I wonder if he will answer any at all..
He's yet to answer any of these. While it started less than an hour ago, I wonder if he will answer any at all..
Maybe some of ya'll can help me parse out the world salad here, but Peterson seemed to have replied to one of the questions about postmodernism.
The basic question is this...
His....answer is this?
He didn't explain the terms of what postmodernism and neomarxism are, which I believe is the core of the question. He's just trying to explain why he uses the words, and less so of what they mean. Perhaps there's a reason he doesn't explain what they mean...
The basic question is this...
His....answer is this?
He didn't explain the terms of what postmodernism and neomarxism are, which I believe is the core of the question. He's just trying to explain why he uses the words, and less so of what they mean. Perhaps there's a reason he doesn't explain what they mean...
He's doing he politician thing of never answering the question directly. It's something he does a lot.
Wow, this is a powerful piece, especially coming from a former colleague and friend.
Oh boy are we posting from Peterson's AMA now? Because I'm so glad I get first dibs on this gem
What a fucking awful hot take.
Did he learn this view from Prager University?
At this point he's probably the only one to claim the legendary PragerU diploma.
I mean if he believes in Witches and Dragons he probably believes in something as mythical as Prager University's intellectual capacity.
I just read all that. I am concerned about a fellow friend who let me know about who Peteson even was. "A man with great views all backed by science!"
Now I am like...... "oh oh."
This man is dangeous, and his followrs more so.
Last edited:
When asked how does enforced monogamy, which he states as being what we are currently doing, he never answers.
It's good to know his wife ain't shit either.
My fav part though was this:
This is the second time Peterson seems to be defined by fucking dreams. The only reason he became obsessed with the USSR and marxism and communism and all that jazz is because he had nightmares of nuclear war as a young adult and instead of I dunno doing just about anything else he opted to instead make it his life long obsession (to the point of turning his house into some weird fucking macabre display of USSR propaganda)
And now here at the precipice of his whole weird attack on gender pronouns his fucking wife has a nuclear war dream and he's off to the races because that dream clearly meant he had to take on the trans lobby to... avoid nuclear war or something. Literally his fucking wife dreams of the doomsday clock and he thinks ok then I have discovered how Marxism will take over the west, gender neutral pronouns. No wonder this dude worships Jung, all his bullshit can be traced to his absurd interpretations of the concept of the unconscious mixed with his pseudo-christian mysticism. Like literally his two definable moments of his life are preceded buy someone having a dream of nuclear war. Imagine being that controlled by fucking dreams.
This man is so absurd. I laugh and I worry.
ha ha this is amazing.
I'm gonna put this is dude bro speak because i think reducing Peterson to frat colloquialisms is fun:
Basically the questioner says: Yo dude why are you using postmodern neomarxist as singular thing.? They are incompatible.
To which Peterson replies: No shit dude, I totally know they're incompatible but like those postmodern neomarxist don't brah..
Which would actually be a decent answer if the so called postmodern neomarxists self identified as postmodern neomarxists.... but no one does because Frat Peterson invented the damn moniker and just started applying it to people and concepts he doesn't like. It's his fucking invention, his creation, his concept. Imagine calling cats dogs and then when corrected saying well I I know that! I only call them dogs because they don't realize they are cats. That's his logic.
He has labelled entire communities, concepts and people with an incompatible compound label of his own invention and then says well don't blame me those postmodern neomarxists are the ones living ideology that I invented.
Jordan Peterson believes he is the hero of his own story. He's fighting against what he believes is prophecy. He had his call to action with those nightmares and so he goes off to learn about the enemy. Him becoming a professor is him going off into the world of chaos. His big turning point was him refusing the ethics board. He is his own man and ultimate judge of his work. Then his wife has a pathetic - I mean prophetic - dream. This is his crisis. He's been trying to make it to the end ever since.
It's all so fucking absurd... like literally remove two dreams and Peterson might be just Jordan down the street.... Ridiculous.
Like I have said this is not the first time.
This man's core perceived enemy or whatever you want to call it, core ideology... his literal call to action was a product of nightmares. He is a man who bad a few bad dreams and decided to make them his life's work. I'd love to know what he thinks of trigger warnings tbh....
If someone had a time machine and an ability to influence dreams we could probably turn Peterson into a cartoonist by replacing his nuclear holocaust nightmares with dreams of the Sunday Funny pages getting horrifically cancelled..
https://torontolife.com/city/u-t-professor-sparked-vicious-battle-gender-neutral-pronouns/
Jordan Peterson is clearly a victim of Inception.
How... how does an "Intellectual" derive his core identity and goals from fucking dreams?!
because he's a fucking mystic who wields science like a preacher wields the bible.
His flirting with Freud and Jung and now this dreamseer stuff fits together pretty neatly to paint the picture of an amateur philosopher gone off the deep end.
This is just part and parcel of the cultural transformation of "atheism" and "science" as new pseudo-religious icons.
This is just part and parcel of the cultural transformation of "atheism" and "science" as new pseudo-religious icons.
Anne McElvoy of the Economist recently interviewed him and he was laid bare IMO. I can't link directly but it's one of the top hits right now on the following link.
http://radio.economist.com/
That's a pretty popular theme these days among conservatives. They think that Nazism is a left wing ideology.
http://radio.economist.com/
Oh boy are we posting from Peterson's AMA now? Because I'm so glad I get first dibs on this gem
That's a pretty popular theme these days among conservatives. They think that Nazism is a left wing ideology.
Love Jordan Peterson. He's probably the best defender against the identity politics of the left than anyone else. He's fantastic.
Well conservatives, at least American conservatives, don't believe in centralized planning. We believe in dispersing power to the states aka Federalism aka the laboratories of democracy. The less power in DC the better.
What about identity politics don't you like? Peterson is a huge proponent of them himself bringing up race and gender all of the time in his public appearances.
I realise that multiple people have responded to you already; but just to set some fundamentals down, what would you define as identity politics? And in what ways has Jordan Peterson successfully countered them; what arguments would you say are his strongest?
Last edited:
Only only only when it's a means of getting the policies you want. Republicans have never ever shied from empowering the federal government when it suited their ends.
I don't think you will find many on the left who want everything done from DC. However, Naziism is not a leftist ideology.
User Banned (Permanent): Misrepresenting identity politics and calls for better representation, account still in junior phase.
I don't like how it puts individuals into groups and gives them value based off of their group identity. I think it's a dangerous philosophy because it gives people value based on immutable characteristics.
A great example of this is this tweet by the DNC:
I really don't care what color or sexual orientation a person is, I care about what policies they are advocating for and what their values are. And notice who's missing from the list - men, asians, and whites. Should we not elect more people from these groups? Should we value a black woman's politics over a white woman's politics simply because they are black? Why does the skin color of the individual matter when it comes to their views on healthcare, for example?
I know I'm in the minority on this forum but I find this way of thinking to be the complete opposite of the philosophy MLK preached - judging individuals based on their character/values as opposed to their skin color/group identity
You're giving him too much credit. He basically lifted the idea whole-hog from a Stephen Hicks book, and changed the word socialist with neomarxist. Hicks is a Randian objectivist, precisely the type of hack that you'd think would inspire Peterson.
Even better he stole someone else's nonsense invention to do all that then.
I would argue that you are mistaking focus for exclusion. Notice that this list does not say that male or white individuals should be excluded or prevented from being elected. The point of the tweet - as I interpret it - is to continue a long-running recognition that people of these identities do not typically get into office and are judged unfairly, as many studies have proved time and time again. Therefore, the effort - hamfisted as it arguably may be - is to simply raise recognition and argue that individuals with these identities and traits should not be prevented from being elected just because they have those identities or traits.
Just look at the makeup of elected representatives versus the makeup of the population.
It's such an easy concept I have to think the person is trolling.
You may not care what color or sexual orientation a person is but the reality of the US is people have had to struggle for rights simply because these differences made them second class citizens in the eyes of a country built on white supremacy. And the reality is that because of this life of oppression and marginalization, people within those groups tend to have more of a grasp on what it means to be disenfranchised and what policies actually lead to social equity. The reason we're in this situation at all in the US today is because biases and blind spots exist due to systemic oppression and privilege granted to those who fit a status quo. No one said to exclude whites, men or Asian individuals but simply to elect more people of color and minority genders to give a different perspective of what is required in a country infected with the pall of white nationalism.
Even if I agreed with you that identity politics are a problem- which I don't- there's gotta be a better representative than Jordan "Frozen is feminist propaganda" Peterson.
Conservatives need better intellectual heroes.
Last edited:
Oh my god the MLK mention... like fucking clockwork, all the time.
- Status