• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Jordan Peterson: Telling Betas They are Alphas

Based on your "commentary", I'd imagine it's a guy telling other guys to make up for their inadequacies through hatred and violence?
 
There are few things that irk me more than modern anti-feminist activists, including Red Pills and the like.

It's not just their view of greater female autonomy as a threat, it's that they demonstrate a passive-aggressive misogyny where they insist they're in favor of women while using not-so-subtly coded language that makes it clear they want to revert to a world where women are only 'free' to please men. The argument often boils down to "I'm not a sexist, but those bitch whores should save their virginity for me and get back to the kitchen."

We live in an era where sexists and other bigots use the progress made in spite of them to pretend that they aren't as hateful as they really are. They can't be sexist, look at how much women can do these days! They can't be racist, MLK marched and got the Voting Rights Act so racism is "over." Basically, they set the bar so high for their definition of 'real' bigotry that they can be as hateful as they want short of explicitly calling for a reversal of legal rights.
 
I do love how he's supposedly railing against identity politics yet he's preaching to a certain group about their identity being marginalized with almost laser focus. What is it about people of and speaking to that group and seemingly being unable to not be hypocrites?
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE="DixyCrat, post: 39674447, member: 245706"

JP is clearly anti femininity, the above is my summary of the philosophical/political world view he sells. [/QUOTE]
I first discovered this guy a couple of days ago so I am no expert on him at all, but I take exception, some how, to your post here. I don’t much like your opening comment that he is clearly anti femininity because that is not at all clear to me, and the very point, if it is the one you want to make, you should be attempting to demonstrate to me. Also I don’t give a rat’s ass what somebody else tells some third person what she sees in his views because I have no reason to suspect her opinion is in any way accurate or superior to his. Furthermore, I find that to even begin to categorize anybody with some kind of advanced or sophisticated philosophical thinking requires at least a deep dive into a broad spectrum of what they have to say, coupled with the notion that I might actually be smart enough to comprehend what I am seeing, an assumption I have a reluctance to make.
 
Moonbeam said:
[QUOTE="DixyCrat, post: 39674447, member: 245706"

I first discovered this guy a couple of days ago so I am no expert on him at all, but I take exception, some how, to your post here. I don’t much like your opening comment that he is clearly anti femininity because that is not at all clear to me, and the very point, if it is the one you want to make, you should be attempting to demonstrate to me. Also I don’t give a rat’s ass what somebody else tells some third person what she sees in his views because I have no reason to suspect her opinion is in any way accurate or superior to his. Furthermore, I find that to even begin to categorize anybody with some kind of advanced or sophisticated philosophical thinking requires at least a deep dive into a broad spectrum of what they have to say, coupled with the notion that I might actually be smart enough to comprehend what I am seeing, an assumption I have a reluctance to make.
Click to expand...

I find it odd that you admit to limited exposure to Peterson and his ideas, and you of course know nothing of Dixiecrat's exposure to same, yet you take issue with his characterization. Your point that he should provide examples would be a good one if he hadn't provided a link which contains a discussion of Peterson and several passages quoted from his book. I'll agree with you here only to the extent that he should probably have added more commentary in his initial post.

I haven't read Peterson's books, but at this point I have about 20 hours in listening to him being interviewed by various people, as well as having read several of his articles and shorter pieces. I came to him in relation to his objections to PC - especially in the academic world - which IMO are largely valid. He is was quite engaging and seemed highly intelligent. I couldn't understand why so many liberals hated him. I assumed these were hyper PC liberal types.

This perception persisted for awhile as I continued to listen to him, but eventually it dawned on me that he wasn't an actual liberal who objected to political correctness, like Bill Maher, Sam Harris, or Brett Weinstein. He is, instead, a classic reactionary who dresses up his arguments with academic lingo. Peterson thinks that men, not women, are today the primary victims of sexism. Just like American conservatives think that white people are now the primary victims of racism.

I guess women joking about "mansplaining" and feminists kvetching about "old white men" is equivalent to being denied the right to vote for 130 years, and treated like sexual chattle in the work place and elsewhere, all of which seems to be of no concern to Peterson.

I suggest you try reading one of his books, then read some articles written by his critics, then get back to us.
 
woolfe: I find it odd that you admit to limited exposure to Peterson and his ideas, and you of course know nothing of Dixiecrat's exposure to same, yet you take issue with his characterization. Your point that he should provide examples would be a good one if he hadn't provided a link which contains a discussion of Peterson and several passages quoted from his book. I'll agree with you here only to the extent that he should probably have added more commentary in his initial post.

M: My taking issue with his characterization has nothing to do with how well he knows Peterson or how little I know him. I object to being told flat out what the facts are about a person in the first sentence DC provided. "JP is clearly anti femininity" Imagine me starting this reply to you by saying you're clearly full of bull shit. Had I been the one wishing to provide the same opinion of Peterson I would have suggested what my opinion was and if you agreed. I would have backed up that opinion by presenting Peterson's arguments in his own words and they why I felt them to be wrong. I did read the link he gave and found it to be a bunch of interpretations of Peterson filtered through two people's opinions of him. I saw one example where I had heard Peterson in the original and disagreed completely with the interpretation of the two in the link. I saw a bunch of hearsay.

w: I haven't read Peterson's books, but at this point I have about 20 hours in listening to him being interviewed by various people, as well as having read several of his articles and shorter pieces. I came to him in relation to his objections to PC - especially in the academic world - which IMO are largely valid. He is was quite engaging and seemed highly intelligent. I couldn't understand why so many liberals hated him. I assumed these were hyper PC liberal types.

M: OK

w: This perception persisted for awhile as I continued to listen to him, but eventually it dawned on me that he wasn't an actual liberal who objected to political correctness, like Bill Maher, Sam Harris, or Brett Weinstein. He is, instead, a classic reactionary who dresses up his arguments with academic lingo. Peterson thinks that men, not women, are today the primary victims of sexism. Just like American conservatives think that white people are now the primary victims of racism.

M: Sorry, I have the same objection here. You are telling me as a fact what he is 'instead of something' as if it were a fact and not a change of impression about him that you came to based on your understanding of what you were hearing. You underwent a change in your opinion. You can share that with me but I'm going to rest taking it as a fact. I have to experience that same conclusion via my own realization.

w: I guess women joking about "mansplaining" and feminists kvetching about "old white men" is equivalent to being denied the right to vote for 130 years, and treated like sexual chattle in the work place and elsewhere, all of which seems to be of no concern to Peterson.

M: I find this kind of statement to be largely hallucinatory. You are again trying to frame how you want me to see what is happening. I am not pursuaded and see alternative ways to look at what you, in my opinion, possibly improperly characterize.

w: I suggest you try reading one of his books, then read some articles written by his critics, then get back to us.

M: Shame isn't going to work either.

I don't give a rats ass about Peterson other than what my own curiosity in learning what he may have to teach me that I may find of personal value. I am not, however, going to have others tell me how to see him and in their own words, word that provide evidence for opinions, not opinions as facts.

Take this for example: "I guess women joking about "mansplaining" and feminists kvetching about "old white men" is equivalent to being denied the right to vote for 130 years, and treated like sexual chattle in the work place and elsewhere, all of which seems to be of no concern to Peterson." This reminds me of my thread where I suggest we need to move to a new world view that can integrate the divisiveness that is tearing apart our political system and you saying we should complain about the anger liberals have conservatives at a time when Trump will any day now become Hitler?
 
The JP hate is hilarious. I don't agree with everything he says (I am atheist) and I think his ego is getting fairly inflated, but he shot up to wealth, fame, and adoration very quickly, so I forgive him for that.

It seems that the main sources of negative feelings towards him come from 3 types of people, with some of them belonging to more than one group:

1. Those that have never listened to him or without the intellectual capacity to understand him

2. SJWs/far-left

3. Those that do listen to him, and don't like hearing that they are responsible for their own lives.
 
OCGuy said:
The JP hate is hilarious. I don't agree with everything he says (I am atheist) and I think his ego is getting fairly inflated, but he shot up to wealth, fame, and adoration very quickly, so I forgive him for that.

It seems that the main sources of negative feelings towards him come from 3 types of people, with some of them belonging to more than one group:

1. Those that have never listened to him or without the intellectual capacity to understand him

2. SJWs/far-left

3. Those that do listen to him, and don't like hearing that they are responsible for their own lives.
Click to expand...

4. People who aren’t climate change deniers.

5. People who don’t think gender neutral pronouns are part of a conspiracy to slaughter millions. (I’m not kidding, he actually believes this)

So, you know, that.
 
fskimospy said:
4. People who aren’t climate change deniers.

5. People who don’t think gender neutral pronouns are part of a conspiracy to slaughter millions. (I’m not kidding, he actually believes this)

So, you know, that.
Click to expand...

Do you truly not understand his stance on pronouns, or are you just being obtuse to make a point?

I don't follow or listen to his interviews/podcasts anymore, only because he sounds repetitive. But I have yet to see an intellectually honest argument for anything more than apathy.
 
fskimospy said:
4. People who aren’t climate change deniers.

5. People who don’t think gender neutral pronouns are part of a conspiracy to slaughter millions. (I’m not kidding, he actually believes this)

So, you know, that.
Click to expand...

Can you support 5? I have seen him say that the underlying ideology that fuels their compelled speech desires is the same that fueled Soviet Russia and Mao China which lead to the death of millions. I don't think I have ever seen him say that gender neutral pronouns are part of a conspiracy to slaughter millions. That would be a very large smoking gun.
 
OCGuy said:
Do you truly not understand his stance on pronouns, or are you just being obtuse to make a point?

I don't follow or listen to his interviews/podcasts anymore, only because he sounds repetitive. But I have yet to see an intellectually honest argument for anything more than apathy.
Click to expand...

I do understand his stance on pronouns, which is utterly insane. He thinks gender neutral pronouns and things of that sort are part of a larger campaign by Marxists to take control of the world. He also believes Marxism to be a fundamentally homicidal ideology, meaning after the marxists take control they will slaughter people. This isn’t me twisting his ideology, he’s very up front about it.

I know people will read that and say ‘wait, that’s stupid and insane.’ They are correct.

Not to mention he criticizes other disciplines for being insufficiently scientifically grounded while being a climate change denier. To put it mildly, anyone who is a climate change denier at this point is unlikely to understand scientific rigor. (Or is putting their feelings before it)
 
realibrad said:
Can you support 5? I have seen him say that the underlying ideology that fuels their compelled speech desires is the same that fueled Soviet Russia and Mao China which lead to the death of millions. I don't think I have ever seen him say that gender neutral pronouns are part of a conspiracy to slaughter millions. That would be a very large smoking gun.
Click to expand...

He has been very clear, very publicly that he believes equality movements lead to Marxism which leads to mass death. It’s not like he makes a secret of this.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/955440524575391744?lang=en

If your next argument is going to be ‘well he didn’t say all of that exactly in that tweet’ then don’t bother. All it takes to understand its meaning is a basic understanding of his ideology.

The guy is nuts and a scientific poseur.
 
fskimospy said:
I do understand his stance on pronouns, which is utterly insane. He thinks gender neutral pronouns and things of that sort are part of a larger campaign by Marxists to take control of the world. He also believes Marxism to be a fundamentally homicidal ideology, meaning after the marxists take control they will slaughter people. This isn’t me twisting his ideology, he’s very up front about it.

I know people will read that and say ‘wait, that’s stupid and insane.’ They are correct.

Not to mention he criticizes other disciplines for being insufficiently scientifically grounded while being a climate change denier. To put it mildly, anyone who is a climate change denier at this point is unlikely to understand scientific rigor. (Or is putting their feelings before it)
Click to expand...

The worst part is that I know you are intelligent, and have the ability to make decent points without resorting to such fallacies.

I don't have to explain to you that he doesn't want laws compelling speech, yada yada....but you know that already.

You didn't stoop as low as using "alt-right", so I will give you that.

You must be a jealous "academic", that would make sense.
 
OCGuy said:
The JP hate is hilarious. I don't agree with everything he says (I am atheist) and I think his ego is getting fairly inflated, but he shot up to wealth, fame, and adoration very quickly, so I forgive him for that.

It seems that the main sources of negative feelings towards him come from 3 types of people, with some of them belonging to more than one group:

1. Those that have never listened to him or without the intellectual capacity to understand him

2. SJWs/far-left

3. Those that do listen to him, and don't like hearing that they are responsible for their own lives.
Click to expand...

Meh, he's just another person trying to pass old ideas that have long been shown to be shit in that field as though its suddenly valid while he distorts modern research to act like it supports his claims. That's not new, nor is the way he's slowly been twisting those claims so that they perfectly align with a certain group, as well as how the stuff he's saying is becoming less academic (although he'll continue to try and couch things in those terms to try and maintain the charade, but the way he's changed how he talks about this is clear he's speaking to his audience). He'll continue having a little moment and probably become a regular on the conservative circuit until we almost inevitably find out about some heinous shit he's done or he goes off the deep end and says something fucked up enough to cost him his job, and then he'll just convert to full time conservative talking head, saying all the same tired nonsense they've been spewing for decades.

I like how you perfectly described every full of shit conservative talking head for the past 3 decades completely without irony though. Doubly so how you frame people that disagree with him (which, you hopefully do realize includes other academics in the same field as him that have explained how/why he's wrong pertaining to the field they're in) in such hilarious full of shit manner. You should really consider writing a book, I bet you could be just as successful as this guy. I mean, considering some of the other dipshits that have made a living out of that, and you already have some of the mannerisms down pat, I bet you could actually make some money and gain a bit of a following.
 
OCGuy said:
The worst part is that I know you are intelligent, and have the ability to make decent points without resorting to such fallacies.

I don't have to explain to you that he doesn't want laws compelling speech, yada yada....but you know that already.
Click to expand...

He goes much, MUCH further than that. Your problem seems to be similar to what woolfe mentioned before. If you only superficially read or hear his ideology plenty of what he says makes perfect sense. (I am also against compelled speech, for example). Unfortunately for us all he does not come even close to stopping there. Again, just look at the tweet I linked above. He considers feminism to be part of a ‘murderous equality doctrine’. That is insane and stupid. He clearly considers equality movements in general to be secret Marxism and Marxism leads to murder in his mind.

Again, it’s not like he makes a secret of this. The dumbness of his views are on full display.

You didn't stoop as low as using "alt-right", so I will give you that.

You must be a jealous "academic", that would make sense.
Click to expand...

Lol, I am not an academic by any stretch of the imagination. Speaking of fallacies though what one do you think it is when you accuse my arguments of being motivated by personal jealousy rather than my evaluation of Peterson’s shortcomings?
 
Moonbeam said:
This was fun:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/putting-monsterpaint-onjordan-peterson/550859/
Click to expand...

I feel like @Moonbeam just revealed a poison hidden amidst our social fabric.

Thank you for such revelation. That level of projecting is so common of late that we seem destined to stop listening, to stop talking, and start pushing one another. The OP would have us believe the man is a pied piper for Incels. When instead he appears be willing to honestly engage them in an effort to stop them. To resolve the issue, rather than cause the issue.

Quite a conflict of realities here.

But damn, that so called interview you linked is brutal. Not only for itself but for society as a whole. I have a feeling that, in my experience, that method of slander and libel is pervasive beyond measure. It has become our narrative instrument for taking down people we perceive to be "other". That all of us may be behaving in a more destructive manner than constructive. Perhaps we've learned by example. But the question is... how do we unlearn it?

How do we build bridges when our whole lives trained us to destroy them?
 
darkswordsman17 said:
Meh, he's just another person trying to pass old ideas that have long been shown to be shit in that field as though its suddenly valid while he distorts modern research to act like it supports his claims. That's not new, nor is the way he's slowly been twisting those claims so that they perfectly align with a certain group, as well as how the stuff he's saying is becoming less academic (although he'll continue to try and couch things in those terms to try and maintain the charade, but the way he's changed how he talks about this is clear he's speaking to his audience). He'll continue having a little moment and probably become a regular on the conservative circuit until we almost inevitably find out about some heinous shit he's done or he goes off the deep end and says something fucked up enough to cost him his job, and then he'll just convert to full time conservative talking head, saying all the same tired nonsense they've been spewing for decades.

I like how you perfectly described every full of shit conservative talking head for the past 3 decades completely without irony though. Doubly so how you frame people that disagree with him (which, you hopefully do realize includes other academics in the same field as him that have explained how/why he's wrong pertaining to the field they're in) in such hilarious full of shit manner. You should really consider writing a book, I bet you could be just as successful as this guy. I mean, considering some of the other dipshits that have made a living out of that, and you already have some of the mannerisms down pat, I bet you could actually make some money and gain a bit of a following.
Click to expand...

Your first paragraph is actually the first plausible argument to ignore him that I have read. But there are tons of people out there making money off of re-packaged ideas, yet this specific person seems to draw scorn instead of apathy.

Your second paragraph says it is ironic for me to broad-brush the people who get emotional about him, yet the entire thing is broad-brushing and attacking me. You were right about the irony, and not even close about me. I've "actually" made "some money," and have no reason to listen to self-help psychiatrists. I don't care if he drives off a cliff tomorrow, but I do care that so many Americans would support laws compelling speech.
 
fskimospy said:
He has been very clear, very publicly that he believes equality movements lead to Marxism which leads to mass death. It’s not like he makes a secret of this.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/955440524575391744?lang=en

If your next argument is going to be ‘well he didn’t say all of that exactly in that tweet’ then don’t bother. All it takes to understand its meaning is a basic understanding of his ideology.

The guy is nuts and a scientific poseur.
Click to expand...

Well, it looks like his argument is that looking for equality of outcome requires that you believe all people are equal. To be able to achieve an equal outcome in a world where people are not equal in ability or desire would require that you force people to conform to your view of equality. That desire for equality of outcome, instead of equality of opportunity was the underlying principle of Soviet Russia, and Mao's China.

Also, I think you got something backwards. Its not that equality leads to Marxism, its that Marxism leads to an attempt at equality of outcome.

Saying that you think pushing equality of outcome will lead to a society that has millions die like they have in the past is vastly different than saying there is a conspiracy to murder millions. The biggest difference is intent. I don't think climate change deniers are part of a conspiracy to murder millions, but, that is what would happen if we do nothing.
 
He's just yet another alt-right clown who wants people to believe that the proposition that all persons are created equal is Stalinist or Maoist.

He's more eloquent, and his arguments are more intelligent, than most of the alt-right, but it still contains all the usual alt-right contradictions. They think they're against identity politics, but all their politics revolve around their own identity. They think they're freedom fighters, but the only freedoms they're fighting for are their own, while they're seemingly terror-stricken that anyone else (outside their identity) might have freedom. They think they speak for all white males, they don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top