Opinion: Jordan Peterson has always been a crank

[ch33zw1z]

Isn’t it just amazing that someone could list such profoundly game changingly intelligent questions and then admit to how stupidness or she regards them as being. Did you post this to accounted you’re looking to appear brain dead. It seems your aim was one of ridicule. How does that feel. What does it do for you? If you can humiliate someone and make them look stupid does that make you feel better? Were you seeking to be king of people with low self esteem like Donald Trump going spastic to ridicule a motor impaired reporter speaking truth to his face. Don’t step on a rake.

Sometimes JP doesn’t need to be humiliated by others, he does it to himself. One of those ways has been pointed out, your bias won’t allow you to see it.

MB: that’s projection, it’s your bias that won’t allow to see it.

Rinse repeat.

And…I’m done. Will be back with more fun stuff after this short commercial break

 

[Pontius Dilate]

It is easy and often appropriate to dunk on Jordan for the "What do you mean by" questions as a general rule. There are of course circumstances where that is a valid question. "What do you mean by god?" can be a good example when some important context is absent. Someone may ask, "Do you believe in god?" and if you don't know whether they are a Christian or a Hindu or a deist, you may want additional clarification as to what they mean specifically by god so you can answer the question properly.

But Jordan periodically veers into the pedantic and silly like asking, "What do you mean by 'happen'?" Everyone understands what you mean by 'happen' when you are asking about an historical event whether you directly witnessed it or not. If someone asks me if two planes actually slammed into the WTC towers on 9/11/2001, did that happen, my answer is, "Yes." I wasn't in New York and I don't personally know anyone who died that day. But I remember that day clearly, and I lived through everything that unfolded from that event.

Asking about some story from the bible and whether that happened is no different. If someone asks if Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, did that happen, a reasonable array of answers would be:

• "No, that didn't happen."
• "Yes, that happened."
• "I don't know whether that happened."
• "I don't care whether that happened."
• "It doesn't matter whether that happened, that's not the point of the story."

An unreasonable answer is, "What do you mean by 'happen'?" Because the answer to that question is obviously, did it occur, did Jesus literally raise Lazarus from the dead, is that story an accurate recounting of an historical event like, say, planes slamming into the WTC towers on 9/11? One may certainly dig into a deeper level of pedantry by noting that you can't actually say whether that happened, you can only say whether you believe that happened, so what do you mean by believe? But of course everyone knows what you mean when you say, "I believe that happened" when you're talking about an historical event. Each of us as individuals were not direct witnesses to the vast majority of what has, in fact, happened. So belief is implicitly part of the question, and we all know what that means. That's where Jordan's rhetoric devolves into high school level sophistry.

 

[Moonbeam]

It is easy and often appropriate to dunk on Jordan for the "What do you mean by" questions as a general rule. There are of course circumstances where that is a valid question. "What do you mean by god?" can be a good example when some important context is absent. Someone may ask, "Do you believe in god?" and if you don't know whether they are a Christian or a Hindu or a deist, you may want additional clarification as to what they mean specifically by god so you can answer the question properly.

Why do you say what you say here? Why do I ask? I ask because I feel that behind your words there is a mind that has an aim only possible to have arrived at by intention. The aim I hear in your words is an intention to be fair, to arrive at a fairly weighted view that seeks to acknowledge the pros and cons on the subject of questioning as a tool in debate.

Additionally I hear in your attempt to verbalize when questioning is positive and when it can devolve into sophistry in your view, that what you are doing by such an attempt to consider the values involved, is making statement that your committed to do so is the result of an inner moral realization a proper life should include attempting to be fair.

So what I hear is a moral person acting according to moral values that are self rewarding when expressed.

Finally then I also feel that the reason you espouse the position you did is likely not something you may be consciously aware of, that you long ago experienced inwardly that an attempt to seek and speak your truth was rewarding. It is in fact something that moral people have understood and put into words like, “Virtue is its own reward.”


So the question then becomes how did you get to be this way, assuming what I feel is in your words is correct? I feel that the realization of the value of acting according to one’s moral beliefs depends first on actually having any and then on having actually noticed the satisfaction that virtuous action brings. Imagine trying to convince a person without a moral center they should have one and the self satisfaction living them brings. Good luck.

But Jordan periodically veers into the pedantic and silly like asking, "What do you mean by 'happen'?" Everyone understands what you mean by 'happen' when you are asking about an historical event whether you directly witnessed it or not. If someone asks me if two planes actually slammed into the WTC towers on 9/11/2001, did that happen, my answer is, "Yes." I wasn't in New York and I don't personally know anyone who died that day. But I remember that day clearly, and I lived through everything that unfolded from that event.


Asking about some story from the bible and whether that happened is no different. If someone asks if Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, did that happen, a reasonable array of answers would be:

• "No, that didn't happen."
• "Yes, that happened."
• "I don't know whether that happened."
• "I don't care whether that happened."
• "It doesn't matter whether that happened, that's not the point of the story."

An unreasonable answer is, "What do you mean by 'happen'?" Because the answer to that question is obviously, did it occur, did Jesus literally raise Lazarus from the dead, is that story an accurate recounting of an historical event like, say, planes slamming into the WTC towers on 9/11? One may certainly dig into a deeper level of pedantry by noting that you can't actually say whether that happened, you can only say whether you believe that happened, so what do you mean by believe? But of course everyone knows what you mean when you say, "I believe that happened" when you're talking about an historical event. Each of us as individuals were not direct witnesses to the vast majority of what has, in fact, happened. So belief is implicitly part of the question, and we all know what that means. That's where Jordan's rhetoric devolves into high school level sophistry.

I do not have to agree with what you say here to say what I said above, that I sense the morality behind your views. It is the same with me for Peterson. His perfection or lack of it changes nothing in what I see as his intention to live his moral beliefs for the self respect that brings.

I believe also that a lot of the stress Peterson causes is that people who aim high are experienced by those why have not the same moral convictions, as a competitive threat. No good deed or good person goes unpunished. In this way we turn the world to shit.

 

[igor_kavinski]

I believe also that a lot of the stress Peterson causes is that people who aim high are experienced by those why have not the same moral convictions, as a competitive threat. No good deed or good person goes unpunished. In this way we turn the world to shit.

This.

 

[Pontius Dilate]

Why do you say what you say here? Why do I ask? I ask because I feel that behind your words there is a mind that has an aim only possible to have arrived at by intention. The aim I hear in your words is an intention to be fair, to arrive at a fairly weighted view that seeks to acknowledge the pros and cons on the subject of questioning as a tool in debate.

Additionally I hear in your attempt to verbalize when questioning is positive and when it can devolve into sophistry in your view, that what you are doing by such an attempt to consider the values involved, is making statement that your committed to do so is the result of an inner moral realization a proper life should include attempting to be fair.

So what I hear is a moral person acting according to moral values that are self rewarding when expressed.

Finally then I also feel that the reason you espouse the position you did is likely not something you may be consciously aware of, that you long ago experienced inwardly that an attempt to seek and speak your truth was rewarding. It is in fact something that moral people have understood and put into words like, “Virtue is its own reward.”


So the question then becomes how did you get to be this way, assuming what I feel is in your words is correct? I feel that the realization of the value of acting according to one’s moral beliefs depends first on actually having any and then on having actually noticed the satisfaction that virtuous action brings. Imagine trying to convince a person without a moral center they should have one and the self satisfaction living them brings. Good luck.

I do not have to agree with what you say here to say what I said above, that I sense the morality behind your views. It is the same with me for Peterson. His perfection or lack of it changes nothing in what I see as his intention to live his moral beliefs for the self respect that brings.

I believe also that a lot of the stress Peterson causes is that people who aim high are experienced by those why have not the same moral convictions, as a competitive threat. No good deed or good person goes unpunished. In this way we turn the world to shit.

I don't think I can satisfactorily answer the question how did I come to be the way that I am in this respect without writing an essay about my life and experiences, which is not really something I want to do and post on AT forums. The very brief answer is that I learned and deliberately endeavor to look at things from as many perspectives as I can find, to know that there's a lot I don't know and that some of the things I think I do know are possibly wrong, to give people the benefit of the doubt until I've had time to observe and ideally interact. and to rely on my natural empathy to guide me.

 

[Moonbeam]

lol ok Mr. 74k posts on AT

Possibly you can indulge me in a thought experiment:

Let us imagine a world in which to be able to perceive the truth one requires the ability to see color, whatever the truth may actually be, say something analogous to a child’s wonder at seeing a rainbow for the first time, for won’t of a better example.

Now let’s imagine that we live in a world full of colorblind people, ourselves included, people incapable of such a perhaps hard wired capacity to be emotionally affected by color. In that world any talk arriving from an individual who for whatever reason can see color and has felt such a state of wonder and speaks words about it those words would be incomprehensible.

Well, in our world colorblindness is a known thing and colorblind children grow up knowing such a visual limitation is out there in the population and they accept that they can’tsee the same way as most people do. They are in a minority after all. Not a lot of room to form a cult.

And because, while we who can see color would likely not wish to throw some magic switch and trade seeing color for black and white, the fact that we do not consider consider colorblind people morally deficient, or hopefully do nor ridicule those who express less common recessive genetic alleles, people with colorblindness are pretty thoroughly socially acceptable. And especially there is no motivation to envy them.

But consider a world in which colorblindness is the norm. I’m such a world can you imagine some small minority who made claims to see color that others can’t and they also spoke it as a wondrous world in which color exists not realizing that others cannot comprehend what they are talking about. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and the only proof there is the experience of seeing. Big problem being considered as serious, no?

Imagine being able to see a reality that is as real as the rainbow and few others can see it. I suggest that in a world like that that those who see color are very familiar with how people react who can’t.

“The claim that color exist is a mystical trick played by charlatans to claim special powers, make money preaching a world of color and creating false religions. It is the result of ego, a claim of superior abilities that do not exist. Ask anybody if they can see color.”

And who, without some sense of purpose would admit to seeing color if they could. You expose yourself to the hatred people feel who have been ridiculed for something in their life and will gladly go after you if you say that color is real as a substitute for those who really harmed them.

Is there anything about such an imaginary world that rings a bell or is it all just a silly allegory of the actual world we live in.

One difference, of course is that the colorblind have a scientifically understood explanation for their condition no wishful thinking can change it, but in the case of lack of spiritual wisdom, by any term you want to give it, that condition is based on the belief it does not exist and a fear that one might be inferior and expose oneself to ridicule if one were discover it as being real.

I am satisfied that I have extended to you the best I know how to do to challenge the sanity of seeing the world as categorized by thinking when in fact behind the delusion is the answer to all you have suffered and remain unaware that you suffer.

Before you is an Owl that listened and now has some things to say. Pearls or slop, is up to you to decide. I suffered and rose from the dead as an unfathomable experience of Grace. Don’t know why, just know I let go and fell and in the next knew what grace means. It is a heart starter and of priceless worth. Good luck. I will endlessly fail to feel the gratitude I owe and that is the flaw I have that bothers me.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't think I can satisfactorily answer the question how did I come to be the way that I am in this respect without writing an essay about my life and experiences, which is not really something I want to do and post on AT forums. The very brief answer is that I learned and deliberately endeavor to look at things from as many perspectives as I can find, to know that there's a lot I don't know and that some of the things I think I do know are possibly wrong, to give people the benefit of the doubt until I've had time to observe and ideally interact. and to rely on my natural empathy to guide me.

I personally think you could try to explain till you are blue in the face and will never nail it with words. For me it is a simple manifestation of natural instinct uncontaminated, th the extent you express it, by a simple courage to reflect the image you were born with a templet for. It is a manifestation of the capacity unique to you that others express according to their own mystery.

My point is that what I see in you I see in everyone, a God child variously broken, variously healed, and struggling to find a way to bloom, flower and yield fruit.

My experience tells me that no matter the delusional state of my personal situation, that there is only love. If you tell me differently, I will pay no attention to it. Nothing can change the truth and the truth I found nowhere else than within me. I am not truth. I have just seen it to be what it is. I am a nobody. I am not wine but I know what it is to be tipsy by having tasted it. So who hasn’t tasted wine. How could that be a big deal.

All I am saying is that if you don’t believe in a conscious state colored by being tipsy, go have a drink and see for yourself. Let’s talk about Peterson when your cheeks are rosy.

 

[ch33zw1z]

This.

Elaborate.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Possibly you can indulge me in a thought experiment:

Let us imagine a world in which to be able to perceive the truth one requires the ability to see color, whatever the truth may actually be, say something analogous to a child’s wonder at seeing a rainbow for the first time, for won’t of a better example.

Now let’s imagine that we live in a world full of colorblind people, ourselves included, people incapable of such a perhaps hard wired capacity to be emotionally affected by color. In that world any talk arriving from an individual who for whatever reason can see color and has felt such a state of wonder and speaks words about it those words would be incomprehensible.

Well, in our world colorblindness is a known thing and colorblind children grow up knowing such a visual limitation is out there in the population and they accept that they can’tsee the same way as most people do. They are in a minority after all. Not a lot of room to form a cult.

And because, while we who can see color would likely not wish to throw some magic switch and trade seeing color for black and white, the fact that we do not consider consider colorblind people morally deficient, or hopefully do nor ridicule those who express less common recessive genetic alleles, people with colorblindness are pretty thoroughly socially acceptable. And especially there is no motivation to envy them.

But consider a world in which colorblindness is the norm. I’m such a world can you imagine some small minority who made claims to see color that others can’t and they also spoke it as a wondrous world in which color exists not realizing that others cannot comprehend what they are talking about. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and the only proof there is the experience of seeing. Big problem being considered as serious, no?

Imagine being able to see a reality that is as real as the rainbow and few others can see it. I suggest that in a world like that that those who see color are very familiar with how people react who can’t.

“The claim that color exist is a mystical trick played by charlatans to claim special powers, make money preaching a world of color and creating false religions. It is the result of ego, a claim of superior abilities that do not exist. Ask anybody if they can see color.”

And who, without some sense of purpose would admit to seeing color if they could. You expose yourself to the hatred people feel who have been ridiculed for something in their life and will gladly go after you if you say that color is real as a substitute for those who really harmed them.

Is there anything about such an imaginary world that rings a bell or is it all just a silly allegory of the actual world we live in.

One difference, of course is that the colorblind have a scientifically understood explanation for their condition no wishful thinking can change it, but in the case of lack of spiritual wisdom, by any term you want to give it, that condition is based on the belief it does not exist and a fear that one might be inferior and expose oneself to ridicule if one were discover it as being real.

I am satisfied that I have extended to you the best I know how to do to challenge the sanity of seeing the world as categorized by thinking when in fact behind the delusion is the answer to all you have suffered and remain unaware that you suffer.

Before you is an Owl that listened and now has some things to say. Pearls or slop, is up to you to decide. I suffered and rose from the dead as an unfathomable experience of Grace. Don’t know why, just know I let go and fell and in the next knew what grace means. It is a heart starter and of priceless worth. Good luck. I will endlessly fail to feel the gratitude I owe and that is the flaw I have that bothers me.

+1. Rinse repeat.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Elaborate.

It's pretty clear. People who may not have as high moral standards as JP get triggered when they hear him talk about something moral and then proceed to attack by using JP's words against him. Let's take the lipstick matter. We do not know for sure why women use lipstick. Only a woman can tell. But can you believe the woman? Is a woman really going to be honest and tell the real reason why she uses the lipstick? It's a moral dilemma because we have a member of species that pretends or claims to be a victim and uses everything in her power to lay basis to that claim and we have seen women go to great lengths (even lying as in the case of Amber Heard or Blake Lively) to substantiate that claim.

We have Candace Owens debating whether criminally charging Weinstein was the right thing to do based on claims from women many years after the fact because even she, being a woman, is not ready to believe every woman. She said that she is on the side of her three sons and wants to protect them from future baseless claims made by women pretending to be victims. So yes, it is a very serious moral dilemma when a man's life can be destroyed simply by a woman's claim and conveniently, there is not much to verify that claim yet people with questionable moral standards side with the women because optically it makes them appear more moral than they really are at heart.

 

[ch33zw1z]

It's pretty clear. People who may not have as high moral standards as JP get triggered when they hear him talk about something moral and then proceed to attack by using JP's words against him. Let's take the lipstick matter. We do not know for sure why women use lipstick. Only a woman can tell. But can you believe the woman? Is a woman really going to be honest and tell the real reason why she uses the lipstick? It's a moral dilemma because we have a member of species that pretends or claims to be a victim and uses everything in her power to lay basis to that claim and we have seen women go to great lengths (even lying as in the case of Amber Heard or Blake Lively) to substantiate that claim.

More emotional reasoning. Plenty of people lie, it’s not a gender or biological sex oriented function. In fact, JP has lied, yet you still seem to trust him. Moonie rationalized that by saying his intent mattered more than the lie. Do you do the same?

We have Candace Owens debating whether criminally charging Weinstein was the right thing to do based on claims from women many years after the fact because even she, being a woman, is not ready to believe every woman. She said that she is on the side of her three sons and wants to protect them from future baseless claims made by women pretending to be victims. So yes, it is a very serious moral dilemma when a man's life can be destroyed simply by a woman's claim and conveniently, there is not much to verify that claim yet people with questionable moral standards side with the women because optically it makes them appear more moral than they really are at heart.

Candance owens is smart enough to grift people. I really dont care what she has an opinion on.

Through human history, you’ll find plenty of instances of men lying and ruining other people’s lives. Do you trust men?

Morals are subjective.

You haven’t shown anything here besides what we’ve already discussed in how you perceive the world and process information.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Through human history, you’ll find plenty of instances of men lying and ruining other people’s lives.

Any instance of a man destroying a woman's career by claiming inappropriate comments or behavior on the woman's part?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Any instance of a man destroying a woman's career by claiming inappropriate comments or behavior on the woman's part?

Are you claiming that hasn’t happened ?

Is that the only scenario you deem bad? Like, other lies that harm others don’t matter?

Cant help but noticed that’s all you grabbed from my reply🤷‍♂️

 

[brycejones]

No woman has ever been accused of being a slut in an office in order to damage her credibility.

Also arguing that a man who debates dishonestly has “high moral standards” is pretty fucking funny as a joke and pretty fucking stupid if one is being serious.

 

[ch33zw1z]

No woman has ever been accused of being a slut in an office in order to damage her credibility.

It’s amazing it has to be said.

 

[dlerious]

Candance owens is smart enough to grift people. I really dont care what she has an opinion on.

Through human history, you’ll find plenty of instances of men lying and ruining other people’s lives. Do you trust men?

Morals are subjective.

You haven’t shown anything here besides what we’ve already discussed in how you perceive the world and process information.

The same Candace Owens who is being sued for defamation for calling a foreign leaders wife a man.

Nice commentary on her Jubilee appearance

 

[igor_kavinski]

Women literally debating the virtues of sleeping around is where men succeeded in making them sluts so congrats to these women I guess? Thanks for that. You helped my opinion of "emancipated" women hit a new low.

If men are so interested in letting their penises be drenched in someone else's semen already cooking inside a vagina, maybe they should just start bumping their dicks with their bros and skip the vagina?

 

[nakedfrog]

It's pretty clear. People who may not have as high moral standards as JP get triggered when they hear him talk about something moral and then proceed to attack by using JP's words against him. Let's take the lipstick matter. We do not know for sure why women use lipstick. Only a woman can tell. But can you believe the woman? Is a woman really going to be honest and tell the real reason why she uses the lipstick? It's a moral dilemma because we have a member of species that pretends or claims to be a victim and uses everything in her power to lay basis to that claim and we have seen women go to great lengths (even lying as in the case of Amber Heard or Blake Lively) to substantiate that claim.

We have Candace Owens debating whether criminally charging Weinstein was the right thing to do based on claims from women many years after the fact because even she, being a woman, is not ready to believe every woman. She said that she is on the side of her three sons and wants to protect them from future baseless claims made by women pretending to be victims. So yes, it is a very serious moral dilemma when a man's life can be destroyed simply by a woman's claim and conveniently, there is not much to verify that claim yet people with questionable moral standards side with the women because optically it makes them appear more moral than they really are at heart.

So... like, do you have enough self-awareness to acknowledge how much of a misogynist you are?
Courtney Love got blacklisted for saying something about Weinstein in 2005, and all she said was that if he invites you (as a young actress) to his hotel room, don't go.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Courtney Love got blacklisted for saying something about Weinstein in 2005, and all she said was that if he invites you (as a young actress) to his hotel room, don't go.

I was not aware of that and I'm sorry that happened to her. But we are talking about typical workplaces.That's Hollywood. There's more than enough drama there already.

 

[nakedfrog]

I was not aware of that and I'm sorry that happened to her. But we are talking about typical workplaces.That's Hollywood. There's more than enough drama there already.

That's a "no" on admitting that you're a misogynist, then?
And the point was: she said one tiny peep about Weinstein well before he went to court, and you're talking about "why didn't these women come forward years ago?" to support your point about how women are just evil creatures trying to disrupt a man's life.

 

[igor_kavinski]

how women are just evil creatures trying to disrupt a man's life.

A lot of them are. Sorry. Truth is hard to accept. There's a reason women call each other bitches behind backs.

But I would love to live in your world where women are absolute angels and you can just walk around and go about your daily life without any of them doing anything against you, not even a disapproving look. Are you sure they are women and not cats you see as women?

 

[Fenixgoon]

A lot of them are. Sorry. Truth is hard to accept. There's a reason women call each other bitches behind backs.

But I would love to live in your world where women are absolute angels and you can just walk around and go about your daily life without any of them doing anything against you, not even a disapproving look. Are you sure they are women and not cats you see as women?

A lot of men are evil creatures and disrupting people's lives.
I would love to live in a world where men are absolute angels and you can just walk around and go about your daily life without any of them doing anything against you, not even a disapproving look.

How do you feel about the man vs bear conundrum?

 

[ch33zw1z]

I was not aware of that and I'm sorry that happened to her. But we are talking about typical workplaces.That's Hollywood. There's more than enough drama there already.

You bring Hollywood into the thread often, as a means to attempt to support something you perceive, now it’s not relevant? Why, because it makes you look or feel silly?

 

[ch33zw1z]

A lot of them are. Sorry. Truth is hard to accept. There's a reason women call each other bitches behind backs.

But I would love to live in your world where women are absolute angels and you can just walk around and go about your daily life without any of them doing anything against you, not even a disapproving look. Are you sure they are women and not cats you see as women?

Emotional reasoning, strawman, assumptions. Well done sir.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Women literally debating the virtues of sleeping around is where men succeeded in making them sluts so congrats to these women I guess? Thanks for that. You helped my opinion of "emancipated" women hit a new low.

If men are so interested in letting their penises be drenched in someone else's semen already cooking inside a vagina, maybe they should just start bumping their dicks with their bros and skip the vagina?

Serious question, are you mentally handicapped?