https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
"So you're saying..."
I've been watching quite some Jordan Peterson material, and I must say, the regressive leftists are no match against him in a debate. All the talking points of this interviewer get shot down, and she repeatedly puts words into his mouth, it was like watching a pigeon attempt a chess game against Spassky.
Quote from: Sal1981 on January 18, 2018, 03:14:51 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
"So you're saying..."
I've been watching quite some Jordan Peterson material, and I must say, the regressive leftists are no match against him in a debate. All the talking points of this interviewer get shot down, and she repeatedly puts words into his mouth, it was like watching a pigeon attempt a chess game against Spassky.
That is very interesting, since it is usually the other way around... I bet you watch him on Fox.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 18, 2018, 03:17:44 PM
That is very interesting, since it is usually the other way around... I bet you watch him on Fox.
I wasn't aware he was on Fox - I've seen some of his lectures on his YouTube channel, and quite a few soundbytes around YouTube.
I enjoy watching Jordan Peterson, probably because we are both counselors. The interviewer was certainly trying her best to fit her words in his mouth. I'm not sure whether what he wrote made her so defensive she didn't really understand his points or whether she did understand and was putting words in his mouth as a tactic. Perhaps a bit of both.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on January 19, 2018, 07:16:36 AM
I enjoy watching Jordan Peterson, probably because we are both counselors. The interviewer was certainly trying her best to fit her words in his mouth. I'm not sure whether what he wrote made her so defensive she didn't really understand his points or whether she did understand and was putting words in his mouth as a tactic. Perhaps a bit of both.
He became controversial last year, because he doesn't consider Justin Trudeau to be the messiah, and that there is no reason, to apply criminal law, to how you use personal pronouns around overly triggered young people. In Canada, they want a dictatorship by trannies. A litmus test of hysterical proportions.
I would be happy to be polite enough to use the pronoun of your choice, in referring to you in person (I had no problem adapting to MS as opposed to MISS) ... but if you want to put me in jail over this, then I will drive an Abrams tank thru your front door ;-)
Later last year, he became controversial, because as a secular person, he is trying to make sense of the Bible as a psychology tool. Atheists don't like that. And Abrahamics are mad because he is doing it wrong (relative to their theology).
He can be hard to listen to, because he self-digresses, a lot like I do. I am enjoying the commentary on his Bible psychology series, being done by a Christian pastor, who is very open minded. Sometimes second hand input is better.
Peterson went on Sam Harris' podcast and it was honestly the worst podcast I've ever heard, but Harris was mostly to blame.
Peterson focuses on archetypes, narratives and meaning. Perhaps some atheists don't like he includes Biblical narratives but I would find it odd if he avoided them. I certainly don't agree with everything he says but he has interesting ideas and knows how to communicate with confidence.
Quote from: Sal1981 on January 18, 2018, 03:14:51 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
"So you're saying..."
I've been watching quite some Jordan Peterson material, and I must say, the regressive leftists are no match against him in a debate. All the talking points of this interviewer get shot down, and she repeatedly puts words into his mouth, it was like watching a pigeon attempt a chess game against Spassky.
I like that phrase, "regressive Leftists." And which point of American history are we regressing too, exactly...?
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 19, 2018, 07:56:38 PM
I like that phrase, "regressive Leftists." And which point of American history are we regressing too, exactly...?
As I understand it, "regressive left" is used as a pejorative to Leftists whose values are authoritarian and collectivist rather than libertarian and individualistic. I don't think regressive points to a period in history but was initially coined as a criticism of people on the left who appear to be cultural relativists and support Muslims-- the argument being they claim to be "progressive" but are supporting the "regressive" ideology of Islam which is associated with the oppression of women and LGBT people, blasphemy laws and such. The term has since been expanded to include people who are generally considered socialists, third-wave feminists, and social justice activists.
If I am wrong about this I welcome correction.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on January 19, 2018, 09:07:12 PM
As I understand it, "regressive left" is used as a pejorative to Leftists whose values are authoritarian and collectivist rather than libertarian and individualistic. I don't think regressive points to a period in history but was initially coined as a criticism of people on the left who appear to be cultural relativists and support Muslims-- the argument being they claim to be "progressive" but are supporting the "regressive" ideology of Islam which is associated with the oppression of women and LGBT people, blasphemy laws and such. The term has since been expanded to include people who are generally considered socialists, third-wave feminists, and social justice activists.
If I am wrong about this I welcome correction.
The word "regressive" is used to describe returning to an earlier or less advanced state. Whether support of Muslims is beneficial or not, it's not regressive unless by offering them support one is returning to an earlier state of being. It seems to me the phrase "regressive Left" is just the Right parroting the insults that are thrown their way. They, who actively cheer "make America great again," who are regressive by their own admission, turn around and say, "We're not regressive! You are!" It's like when Trump was asked about the Alt-Right shortly after a white supremacist ran over and killed a woman who was counter-protesting Nazis, and he said, "What about the Alt-Left?" The fuck is an Alt-Left?
I think I get what hes pushing: psychological mindsets and way of doing things.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on January 19, 2018, 10:43:02 PM
I think I get what hes pushing: psychological mindsets and way of doing things.
Political activists aren't interested in the real reason why people do things ... that doesn't help them establish claims on political power. Psychology, done right, empirically ... not ideologically (aka Lysenkoism) is what it is. Doesn't matter how people "feel" about it. Politics is all about the external manipulation of the internal "feels" of others, aka getting them to intuitively agree with you, not cognitively agree with you.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 19, 2018, 07:56:38 PM
I like that phrase, "regressive Leftists." And which point of American history are we regressing too, exactly...?
The Left aren't regressing to American history, but to French and Russian history. We are to be the playthings of Robespierre and Lenin. Those two men among others don't represent a historical period as much as a political abortion. They are no more representative than Nero was of good old Roman values.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 19, 2018, 09:18:33 PM
The word "regressive" is used to describe returning to an earlier or less advanced state. Whether support of Muslims is beneficial or not, it's not regressive unless by offering them support one is returning to an earlier state of being. It seems to me the phrase "regressive Left" is just the Right parroting the insults that are thrown their way. They, who actively cheer "make America great again," who are regressive by their own admission, turn around and say, "We're not regressive! You are!" It's like when Trump was asked about the Alt-Right shortly after a white supremacist ran over and killed a woman who was counter-protesting Nazis, and he said, "What about the Alt-Left?" The fuck is an Alt-Left?
I am less polite. A great many people, politically and socially, are sociopaths. Their political or social opinions aren't worth anything at all. They are a threat to society, that should be eliminated, thru medical assistance. Dr Peterson is Canadian, he didn't vote for Trump. A psychiatrist in particular, is a tool for the medical resolution of our collective madness.
There are perhaps individualist Leftists ... but they aren't the norm, any more than individualist Right is a norm. Both extremes are collectivist and completely ideological aka ahistorical. Reasonable discourse happens only in the center, not on the fringes. The current individualist Right are only a fringe of a fringe ... most Libertarians are corporatists, not proprietorship advocates. There were anarcho-syndicalists in France 100 years ago ... in the US they were IWW. But then the union (aka soviet) serves as the collective. Any labor analysis shows that individual workers as individuals, have no bargaining power. So some form of collectivism is hard to avoid and thus ... revolt and war are hard to avoid, because we will never ever see ourselves as a part of one big happy group ... in spite of the ravings of Alexander the Great.
So I don't think there is a progressive Left, so the term regressive Left is moot. The Left are raving anti-social maniacs. The Right are raving social maniacs. They share one word ... mania. Centered people are not maniacs. And we recognize both the advantages and disadvantages of society.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 19, 2018, 07:56:38 PM
I like that phrase, "regressive Leftists." And which point of American history are we regressing too, exactly...?
It's a term that refers to the more extreme brand of left. Not the general left. I am a part of the left and even I can understand that there is a massive problem with the regressive left.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 20, 2018, 12:23:05 AM
It's a term that refers to the more extreme brand of left. Not the general left. I am a part of the left and even I can understand that there is a massive problem with the regressive left.
True. I don't deny that there's a subset of the Left that is more harmful than good, but perhaps there's a more accurate word that could be used to describe them. It's kind of like the word "homophobia" to me. Like, I don't see right wingers jumping up on chairs and screaming like little girls at the sight of a gay man. The word just doesn't make sense to me.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 20, 2018, 01:48:11 AM
True. I don't deny that there's a subset of the Left that is more harmful than good, but perhaps there's a more accurate word that could be used to describe them. It's kind of like the word "homophobia" to me. Like, I don't see right wingers jumping up on chairs and screaming like little girls at the sight of a gay man. The word just doesn't make sense to me.
Homobigotry? Just doesn't sound as good. You could just say bigot and it would be generally accurate because people who are bigoted about the LGBT+ community are generally bigoted about other minority groups as well, but it would be a bit of an assumption.
I don't think there's a problem.
It's a subdivision. Like Metal and its subdivision.
You have metal, then under that the subdivisions of grunge, black metal, thrash metal, hair metal, death metal, heavy metal, etc etc etc. If I refer to hair metal, that is a very specific type of music, moreso than metal, its self.
Same with regressive left. In all honesty, I think they should call the extreme right the regressive right as well. If you turn to hard in any direction, you end up going backwards, so it fits. Not just because of my metaphor in the last sentence, because they are both counter productive to progress.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 20, 2018, 02:24:37 AM
Homobigotry? Just doesn't sound as good. You could just say bigot and it would be generally accurate because people who are bigoted about the LGBT+ community are generally bigoted about other minority groups as well, but it would be a bit of an assumption.
And as hard as it may seem, there are people that are GENUINELY afraid of gay people. Like seriously... they think that them being gay is causing plagues on the earth and extreme natural disasters (acts of god). Call it hate if you want, but at the core of it, it's fear, instilled by their religion that they were brought up to believe. My heart goes out to them, in all honesty
Now, as you understand there is an extremist brand of the left, and obviously we know the extremist brands of the right, can we all agree the nature of the human condition can lead to extremism whatever political, religious or nationalistic belief you adhere to. That is the nature of humanity, some are extreme and do take things to far, where what they believe is all that matters and rationality and balance doesn't mean shit.
Quote from: Munch on January 20, 2018, 07:22:46 AM
Now, as you understand there is an extremist brand of the left, and obviously we know the extremist brands of the right, can we all agree the nature of the human condition can lead to extremism whatever political, religious or nationalistic belief you adhere to. That is the nature of humanity, some are extreme and do take things to far, where what they believe is all that matters and rationality and balance doesn't mean shit.
If one ignores history, one is doomed to repeat it. Like the French or Russian revolution? And yes, there are reasons ... as outlined in Les Miserables. But it is an assumption, that the Elite are actually in control, rather than they think they are in control, or the non-Elite think they are in control. The clown car went off the cliff already, nobody is in control. Conspiracy theory is that WW I was deliberate, that the Elite knew what they were doing, and things worked out exactly according to plan. Like the Persian ambassador at Sparta said ... "This is madness".
Quote from: Munch on January 20, 2018, 07:22:46 AM
Now, as you understand there is an extremist brand of the left, and obviously we know the extremist brands of the right, can we all agree the nature of the human condition can lead to extremism whatever political, religious or nationalistic belief you adhere to. That is the nature of humanity, some are extreme and do take things to far, where what they believe is all that matters and rationality and balance doesn't mean shit.
The best option is to come to the realisation that the left-right political paradigm is nonsensical and was manufactured by our rulers, not because there ever was any notion among them that it was sensical, but rather because having your enemy divide themselves and fight amongst eachother is an effective strategy for dealing with your enemies.
Paul Weston's comment on the interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6OBI5JBITM
It is a joy to listen to ... proof that the English continue to master the language that they invented.
Perhaps England needs more invasion from English speaking Canada, and less from English speaking India, Arabia etc.
Quote from: pr126 on January 21, 2018, 02:03:11 PM
Paul Weston's comment on the interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6OBI5JBITM
I liked Sargon of Akkad's review more.
Both Sargon and Mr Weston, are actual English speakers. But Sargon's take is post-modern, Mr Weston is pre-modern. Sargon's is anti-feminist, Mr Weston is anti-Marxist.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on January 19, 2018, 07:16:36 AM
The interviewer was certainly trying her best to fit her words in his mouth.
And accurately.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 24, 2018, 07:02:48 AM
And accurately.
Character assassination? Is that you, John Wilkes?
Quote from: Baruch on January 24, 2018, 07:31:07 AM
Character assassination? Is that you, John Wilkes?
And you went from "accurately" to "character assasination in one Trumpian leap? CONGRATULATIONS! You fulfill my worst fears about theists.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 24, 2018, 01:46:38 PM
You fulfill my worst fears about theists.
Baruch's not really a theist, he just plays one on the internet.
A theist believes in a theistic God, and he doesn't - he believes he is a god.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 24, 2018, 01:49:54 PM
Baruch's not really a theist, he just plays one on the internet.
A theist believes in a theistic God, and he doesn't - he believes he is a god.
I disagree. He really has some theistic belief. It just isn't one of the popular beliefs we are familiar with. He has his own theism, and part of seems to be a penitence to inflict it on us here.
He maybe is the sole member of his own "Our Lady of Perpetual Misery" church.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaaSCU7d7U4
Ms Newman'a style was completely incorrect for this particular interviewee. I am sure she is more entertaining with other victims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z9i51px37o
Dunno if using Milo as a go to will move anyone here, to many here it be like replacing a squealing pig with a crying child.
I agree with Milo on his "feelings first and facts later" rebuttal.
I don't get why people are so against Milo Yiannopoulos, he's the provocateur that Kathy is looking for.
Quote from: Sal1981 on January 26, 2018, 01:57:52 PM
I agree with Milo on his "feelings first and facts later" rebuttal.
I don't get why people are so against Milo Yiannopoulos, he's the provocateur that Kathy is looking for.
All proper provocateurs work for Lenin. All gays are Democrats.
Quote from: Baruch on January 26, 2018, 06:40:12 PM
All proper provocateurs work for Lenin. All gays are Democrats.
Missed hearing about the Log Cabin Republicans, did you?
"The Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) is an organization that works within the Republican Party to advocate equal rights for LGBT people in the United States."
My husband typically votes Republican and I typically vote Democrat, so we cancel each other's vote. He couldn't vote for Trump though.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on January 27, 2018, 05:10:10 AM
My husband typically votes Republican and I typically vote Democrat, so we cancel each other's vote. He couldn't vote for Trump though.
So you DIDN'T cancel each others vote then?
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 06:10:01 AM
So you DIDN'T cancel each others vote then?
No, one of the few times we voted for the same candidate and she lost.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on January 27, 2018, 06:16:30 AM
No, one of the few times we voted for the same candidate and she lost.
Dad was a die-hard Republican. I remember once, Mom admitted to me that she had voted opposite him. Like it was a State Secret or something. Well *I* never told... But they are both dead dust now, so it doesn't matter.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 01:55:16 AM
Missed hearing about the Log Cabin Republicans, did you?
"The Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) is an organization that works within the Republican Party to advocate equal rights for LGBT people in the United States."
It was a joke. Just like the joke about Log Cabin Republicans in the new Stepford Wife movie.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on January 27, 2018, 05:10:10 AM
My husband typically votes Republican and I typically vote Democrat, so we cancel each other's vote. He couldn't vote for Trump though.
You (pl) are like my parents.
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 10:14:06 AM
It was a joke. Just like the joke about Log Cabin Republicans in the new Stepford Wife movie.
Missed that movie. And I suspect it was not a great loss.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 10:44:58 AM
Missed that movie. And I suspect it was not a great loss.
The original movie was scary. The remake had hilarious out-takes, dropped from the final cut, that would have turned it into Inspector Gadget.
I finished reading Jordan Peterson's new book Twelve Rules for Life - An Antidote to Chaos. It is written for the average reader and is an amalgam of self-help, psychology, philosophy, and religion. It's a thoughtful book and much more personal than I anticipated. He uses story and archetype to support his rules for life, and he certainly has a lot more than twelve. He focuses on the Bible, Russian novelists, and psychoanalytic theories to explore chaos, order, meaning, truth, hierarchy, socialism, gender and how one should live. Reading this book made it clear why so many young men admire him on YouTube-- he's is very much the tough love father figure.
As far as atheism (since that is topic of this forum) I'm not sure Peterson believes anyone is truly an atheist. He says that actions reveal a person's beliefs and no one is an atheist in their actions. Paraphrasing-- actions are expressions of belief, our beliefs are a biological and cultural expression of our ancestors, and the Bible is the foundational document of Western civilization. "The Bible is a library composed of many books, each written and edited by many people. It's a truly emergent documentâ€"a selected, sequenced and finally coherent story written by no one and everyone over many thousands of years. The Bible has been thrown up out of the deep, by the collective human imagination, which is itself a product of unimaginable forces operating over unfathomable spans of time. Its careful, respectful study can reveal things to us about what we believe and how we should do and should act that can be discovered in almost no other manner."
This is book is ostensibly about rules for living a good life but I enjoyed it more as an exposition of Peterson's personal and cultural narrative. You can learn a lot about a person by the stories they tell, the one's that resonate to their core. Peterson's story begins with "life is suffering."
Quote from: GSOgymrat on January 29, 2018, 03:15:31 PM
Peterson's story begins with "life is suffering."
He probably got that from The Princess Bride, where Wesley tells Buttercup, “Life is pain, highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.â€
I only saw the short video on Twelve Rules. Of course what he brings to the discussion isn't surprising, given he follows Carl Jung.
It is true, in so far as we overgeneralize "Western Civilization" ... what is non-Abrahamic is non-Western. India/China/Japan for example. It is also true, that until recently, Greco-Roman intellectualism didn't impact the East, they had their own intellectual traditions. They didn't need us to show them how to be "civilized".
Of course the notion of "Western Civilization" is a rhetorical construct, though it is one I support. But then again, I appreciate "Eastern Civilization" too.
Western Civilization is based on Greco-Roman paganism, Greco-Roman intellectualism, Imperial Christianity, Jewish internal pressure, and Muslim external pressure. Though geography has to take most of the credit for Western success, geography wasn't sufficient. Unique historical events played a part in Europe, but not elsewhere.
I think that the interview with Kathy Newman (4.5 million views to date) was the best advertisement that Jordan Peterson could have had for the launch of his new book.
Quote from: pr126 on February 01, 2018, 03:40:43 AM
I think that the interview with Kathy Newman (4.5 million views to date) was the best advertisement that Jordan Peterson could have had for the launch of his new book.
I agree it was definitely a coup. I hope progressives will give his book a chance and I also hope that his fans don't passively receive his words as gospel. I hope it makes people think. Reading Peterson's story and understanding his traditionalist values inspired me to reflect on my own story and values.
Quote from: pr126 on February 01, 2018, 03:40:43 AM
I think that the interview with Kathy Newman (4.5 million views to date) was the best advertisement that Jordan Peterson could have had for the launch of his new book.
Conspiracy theorist! She deliberately lost. Hillary deliberately lost to Obama and to Trump!
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 01, 2018, 05:37:34 AM
I agree it was definitely a coup. I hope progressives will give his book a chance and I also hope that his fans don't passively receive his words as gospel. I hope it makes people think. Reading Peterson's story and understanding his traditionalist values inspired me to reflect on my own story and values.
Avant guardism is over-rated. Traditionalism/Avant guardism not the same as liberal/conservative or Left/Right or progressive/regressive. Do throw out the bath water, but keep the baby.
Quote from: Baruch on February 01, 2018, 06:27:32 AM
Conspiracy theorist! She deliberately lost. Hillary deliberately lost to Obama and to Trump!
Unintended consequences. :)
My problem with Milo is specifically that he twists his presentation of facts to frame issues in a certain way, much more... craftily than your average journalist. He has some great points, but most people have great points.
I guess I like him better than TYT, despite the fact that I disagree with his goal and agree more with TYT's goal.... as odd as that sounds.
Quote from: pr126 on February 01, 2018, 07:01:22 AM
Unintended consequences. :)
Sith always come in twain. The intended consequences and the unintended consequences.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on February 01, 2018, 03:06:57 PM
My problem with Milo is specifically that he twists his presentation of facts to frame issues in a certain way, much more... craftily than your average journalist. He has some great points, but most people have great points.
I guess I like him better than TYT, despite the fact that I disagree with his goal and agree more with TYT's goal.... as odd as that sounds.
Skill can be appreciated, even if used for evil means. Hitler and Stalin were the only political geniuses of the 20th century.
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 04:35:40 PM
The original movie was scary. The remake had hilarious out-takes, dropped from the final cut, that would have turned it into Inspector Gadget.
I saw the Inspector Gadget movie and wasn't impressed. The animated version was way better. The newer Teen Titans, on the other hand are terrible.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 02, 2018, 03:06:10 AM
I saw the Inspector Gadget movie and wasn't impressed. The animated version was way better. The newer Teen Titans, on the other hand are terrible.
Inspector Gadget was of interest to 7 years old girls.
Quote from: Baruch on February 02, 2018, 01:18:53 PM
Inspector Gadget was of interest to 7 years old girls.
After a day here, childish escapism has some positive aspects. I recall "Angry Beavers' fondly.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 02, 2018, 01:21:13 PM
After a day here, childish escapism has some positive aspects. I recall "Angry Beavers' fondly.
Yes, another gift from Canada, along with Rocky and Bullwinkle ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW_B4KB0wYs
Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro on the Rubin Report.
Quote from: Baruch on February 02, 2018, 07:52:24 PM
Yes, another gift from Canada, along with Rocky and Bullwinkle ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW_B4KB0wYs
And Kirk and Spock... I love Canada. I just wish it wasn't so cold there.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 07, 2018, 02:29:15 AM
And Kirk and Spock... I love Canada. I just wish it wasn't so cold there.
And Justin Bieber.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 07, 2018, 02:29:15 AM
And Kirk and Spock... I love Canada. I just wish it wasn't so cold there.
Kirk yes, Spock no. Spock comes from Pittsburg.
OMG. The woman in that video was a complete idiot. She clearly didn't understand a word Peterson said, and she spent the whole interview trying to put words in his mouth.
Quote from: Baruch on February 07, 2018, 01:02:54 PM
Kirk yes, Spock no. Spock comes from Pittsburg.
Oops! I was remembering some list of Jewish actors, not Canadian ones. My bad...
I watched this video on YouTube where Jordan Peterson was asked whether he believed Jesus literally rose again from the dead. He first said he couldn't answer the question and later said he was agnostic about the issue!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIB05YeMiW8
Sounds like he's afraid to just come out and say what he believes.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 14, 2018, 03:10:09 PM
Sounds like he's afraid to just come out and say what he believes.
Peterson is very calculated. He knows either response will alienate part of his audience.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 14, 2018, 04:42:33 PM
Peterson is very calculated. He knows either response will alienate part of his audience.
Everyone is a critic ... that is why critics occupy the lowest rungs in Hell ;-)
As a clinician, we would hope he isn't uncalculated, like Trump is.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 14, 2018, 03:10:09 PM
Sounds like he's afraid to just come out and say what he believes.
Have you bravely come out of the closet, and say you support Marx or Camus? And no, given his metaphysics, he has no reason to believe in literal Bible Belt Christian fundamentalist theology. No more than I do. But for you, everyone is a Sunday snake handler in Little Rock, yes?
I regularly follow a Christian pastor in N California, who reviews the applicability of Jordan Peterson and people like him, to religious POV. He says Peterson is an agnostic ... and I would agree. Peterson is from the Joseph Campbell, Carl Jung school of thought, not doctrinaire enough to be a theologian, and independent enough to know when SJW has crossed the line.
I was never in any closets. But what makes you think I ever supported Marx or Camus? I do support Groucho, though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPHjJnFqs-s
Quote from: Baruch on March 14, 2018, 07:32:16 PM
Everyone is a critic ... that is why critics occupy the lowest rungs in Hell ;-)
As a clinician, we would hope he isn't uncalculated, like Trump is.
I'm INTJ (since we're talking Jung), so I appreciate calculated. :-) I wish more people would consider their words before they speak, including our fearless leader.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 14, 2018, 04:42:33 PM
Peterson is very calculated. He knows either response will alienate part of his audience.
Yeah, TV and celebrities are cautious. I recall reading some famous basketball star declining to express his political views saying "Republicans buy my sneakers too". LOL!
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 14, 2018, 08:09:13 PM
I was never in any closets. But what makes you think I ever supported Marx or Camus? I do support Groucho, though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPHjJnFqs-s
Well then, you never met a cigar you didn't like? Or a club you didn't dislike?
Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 14, 2018, 08:52:31 PM
I'm INTJ (since we're talking Jung), so I appreciate calculated. :-) I wish more people would consider their words before they speak, including our fearless leader.
I like spontaneity, though don't do this at work if you are smart. I will not run if nominated, will not serve if elected. Being President has to be one of the worst jobs on the planet.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 14, 2018, 08:52:31 PM
I'm INTJ (since we're talking Jung), so I appreciate calculated. :-) I wish more people would consider their words before they speak, including our fearless leader.
I'm an ISTJ. Not that different, but with some subtleties. LOL!
Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 14, 2018, 08:52:31 PM
I wish more people would consider their words before they speak, including our fearless leader.
I think maybe our Fearless Leader learned his communication skills from Baruch.
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 10, 2018, 02:15:34 PM
I think maybe our Fearless Leader learned his communication skills from Baruch.
Y'all are fortunate I don't lead a country, nor want to. There would be a Department of Sadism and a Department of Masochism, and everyone would be invited to directly experience "50 Shades Of Government Overreach".
I think I am much more direct than the Tweet-Meister.
Yeah, I sure feel lucky. ;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 10, 2018, 07:58:18 PM
Yeah, I sure feel lucky. ;-)
Well then, get down to Las Vegas or Atlantic City, gamble a bit, and send me part of your winnings! ;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 10, 2018, 07:58:18 PM
Yeah, I sure feel lucky. ;-)
Hey, as an ISTJ, I understand...
https://reason.com/archives/2018/05/05/jordan-peterson-is-not-the-sec
A recent article on Jordan Peterson that paints him as maybe getting his head too far into the clouds and a scathing review of his latest book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.
All messiahs are false messiahs. Including Peterson, including Marx. Leftists panties are in a wad, because they are loosing Millennials, who are growing up. Things are hard enough for Millennials, without being destroyed from within by Feminism and Marxism. The young people I work with aren't stupid.
So yes, Peterson is simply old school, something the Baby Boomers forgot when they rebelled against their parents (1960s-1970s). He is not saying anything different than my grandparents. It is normal for grandchildren to rediscover the values of their grandparents.
Quote from: Baruch.
So yes, Peterson is simply old school, something the Baby Boomers forgot when they rebelled against their parents (1960s-1970s). He is not saying anything different than my grandparents. It is normal for grandchildren to rediscover the values of their grandparents.
I had the same thought. Many of Peterson's rules would fit into the old character building and moral education books.
(https://graceandtruthbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Carrie_CB_Set_Image.jpg)
Some people would say, the Baby Boomers did such a bad job, they should be retroactively liquidated ;-( i would say, if our parents had raised us right ...
Quote from: Sal1981 on May 08, 2018, 06:43:27 AM
https://reason.com/archives/2018/05/05/jordan-peterson-is-not-the-sec
A recent article on Jordan Peterson that paints him as maybe getting his head too far into the clouds and a scathing review of his latest book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.
"
Peterson's popularity has demonstrated the happy fact that you can reach illiberal ears with a message that contains some classical liberal content. But he has gotten there not via persuasive argument about intellectual ideas-"
No, that is exactly how he got there.
"
-but through the top-down, teacher-student, authoritarian exhortations of self-help."
Amazing. This person just defined the act of urging people to help themselves as authoritarian.
(https://img.4plebs.org/boards/tv/image/1509/01/1509014772329.png)
"
If you heard of Peterson before 2018, it was probably due to his September 2016 battle against fancy new gender pronouns. In a three-part video series titled Professor Against Political Correctness, Peterson objected to a proposed amendment to Canada's Human Rights Act (since passed) making it a criminal offense to incite or promote hatred based on a target's gender identity or expression. His slippery-slope argument was that such a law, in Canada's First Amendmentâ€"free legal system, could eventually lead to "compelled speech" over silly-sounding jargon like "zhe" or "zher.""
Jordan did not make a slippery slope argument that this specific amendment will lead to to compelled speech - Rather Jordan is ACCURATELY describing the amendment as one that compels speech.
It's literally in the guidelines for the bill that refusal to use someone's preferred pronouns may constitute harassment. The OHRC's (the body that would rule of C-16 cases) "Policy on Preventing Discrimination based on Gender Identity and Gender Expression" states that "gender based harassment can involve" among others listed, "Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun ". This is the policy by which the bill will be enforced. The actual people presiding over your C-16 infringement are these people.
"
This is the version of Petersonâ€"strident, logic-leaping, reductionist"
He didn't leap any logic. He accurately described reality.
"
The most scathing critiques of Peterson usually zero in on his fan base of alienated young men. "Is Jordan Peterson the stupid man's smart person?" asked a headline in Maclean's. Author Tabatha Southey got right to it: "To be clear, Jordan Peterson is not a neo-Nazi, but there's a reason he's as popular as he is on the alt-right." TV critiques of his work luxuriate in the clumsy conspiracymongering at his audience Q&As."
Not this shit again. I fucking hate this new tactic from leftist retards; when they cannot validly criticise a person who unapologetically speaks truths which are antithetical to their narrative, they fallaciously attribute the character of their followers unto them. No, fuck that. Engage his arguments or shut the fuck up. No more fallacious tactical rhetoric. A persons character is not the sum total of everyone who admires them - and btw even if they were, defaming a persons character doesn't rebut their arguments.
Not even going to read any more. Just another idiot leftist author triggered that greater people than themselves are easily dismantling their ideology and gaining numbers while doing it.
Yes, pot calling kettle black ... watch any Leftist professor teach ... disgusting.
"are antithetical to their narrative" ... the agents of the Soviet Union (in the 60s and now) accuse their opponents of being ... agents of the Soviet Union.
Shut down the universities. Let the college educated in China and India take over, America and Europe are done.
The straight forward moralizing of the 1950s is exactly what the SDS hated most. They wanted to live like DeSade and politic like Lenin.
I'm not ready to be blamed for not knowing which pronoun to use with a person who thinks of themself as one gender and looks like another. If someone looks male, I will say "he". If someone looks female, I will say "she. If I am advised privately and without a scene that another pronoun should be used, I will "consider" it. But if someone makes a public scene about it, mostly to make a point, I am likely to get deliberately and annoying stubborn.
If you think of yourself as one gender and look another, you better wear a label on your shirt/blouse. And don't get obnoxiously offended if *I* don't immediately know what is going on in your mind. I don't read minds...
Quote from: Cavebear on May 09, 2018, 02:31:09 AM
I'm not ready to be blamed for not knowing which pronoun to use with a person who thinks of themself as one gender and looks like another. If someone looks male, I will say "he". If someone looks female, I will say "she. If I am advised privately and without a scene that another pronoun should be used, I will "consider" it. But if someone makes a public scene about it, mostly to make a point, I am likely to get deliberately and annoying stubborn.
If you think of yourself as one gender and look another, you better wear a label on your shirt/blouse. And don't get obnoxiously offended if *I* don't immediately know what is going on in your mind. I don't read minds...
Personally I don't give a fuck and the contention that gender pronouns matter is already a ridiculous thing in itself - more so when you consider that the people peddling it simultaneously believe gender norms are bullshit but also that there are 30 genders - which they represent with sensory stimulation (clothes, voice inflections, mannerisms, ect.) you know, creating a 'norm.'
It's a non-problem created by privileged youth with no battles to fight, but who desperately want one to fight, because their underdeveloped amygdalas just need stimulation.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2018, 02:38:41 AM
Personally I don't give a fuck and the contention that gender pronouns matter is already a ridiculous thing in itself - more so when you consider that the people peddling it simultaneously believe gender norms are bullshit but also that there are 30 genders - which they represent with sensory stimulation (clothes, voice inflections, mannerisms, ect.) you know, creating a 'norm.'
It's a non-problem created by privileged youth with no battles to fight, but who desperately want one to fight, because their underdeveloped amygdalas just need stimulation.
Ah, the fact that human brains don't mature until the early 20s...
Quote from: Cavebear on May 09, 2018, 02:47:06 AM
Ah, the fact that human brains don't mature until the early 20s...
Men later than women. Men mature about 25, women about 20. Biology. This is why war is for ... young men ;-))
Quote from: Cavebear on May 09, 2018, 02:31:09 AM
I'm not ready to be blamed for not knowing which pronoun to use with a person who thinks of themself as one gender and looks like another. If someone looks male, I will say "he". If someone looks female, I will say "she. If I am advised privately and without a scene that another pronoun should be used, I will "consider" it. But if someone makes a public scene about it, mostly to make a point, I am likely to get deliberately and annoying stubborn.
If you think of yourself as one gender and look another, you better wear a label on your shirt/blouse. And don't get obnoxiously offended if *I* don't immediately know what is going on in your mind. I don't read minds...
In Canada, they made it a law with penalties ... that is the objection, not the semantics.