independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sun 23rd Sep 2018 6:57am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > This Jordan Peterson fellow
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 3 123>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 03/03/18 3:15am

deebee

avatar

This Jordan Peterson fellow

pete.jpg

What do you think of him and why? What does he say that you agree/disagree with? And what should we take from the success of his ideas at this present time - and, indeed, how should we respond?

He's unavoidably drifted onto my radar in the past couple of months, especially after his interview with Channel 4 News's Cathy Newman went viral. I watched his recent interview with Russell Brand, which was interesting - but it seemed that Brand got so far into talking about mystical mythology and Jung's demented scribblings that he all but neglected to talk about his guest's right-wing demagoguery. I then went on a bit of a tour through some of his YouTube clips, and went from being drawn in by his charisma and finding his self-help shtick quite sensible, to being much more sceptical.

Thought it might be an interesting one to toss around on the Org - so let's have at it!
bitchfight

[Edited 3/3/18 3:25am]

"Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 03/03/18 6:27am

Dasein

"People have within them the capacity to set the world straight" as a reason for men to grow
up is a very sweet sentiment but devoid of anything we know about human nature. Men, es-
pecially us heterosexual dickheads, with our astronomical potential for arrant violence, are the
worse thing to ever happen to this planet. We are simply irredeemable and any appeals to
men for salvific purposes will ultimately fail. Think about it: why does the world need setting
straight in the first place? It ain't because of womyn. Our redemption is with womyn; they
will save us if that is possible.

Peterson's heart is in the right place, but his mind as it pertains to this matter, is not. Anytime
someone presents their argument with charisma, there's reasons to be sceptical immediately!

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 03/03/18 6:47am

deebee

avatar

Dasein said:

"People have within them the capacity to set the world straight" as a reason for men to grow
up is a very sweet sentiment but devoid of anything we know about human nature. Men, es-
pecially us heterosexual dickheads, with our astronomical potential for arrant violence, are the
worse thing to ever happen to this planet. We are simply irredeemable and any appeals to
men for salvific purposes will ultimately fail. Think about it: why does the world need setting
straight in the first place? It ain't because of womyn. Our redemption is with womyn; they
will save us if that is possible.

Peterson's heart is in the right place, but his mind as it pertains to this matter, is not. Anytime
someone presents their argument with charisma, there's reasons to be sceptical immediately!

I don't grasp what this has to do with Peterson. As far as I can see, with him, the main thrust of what he's saying is a kind of Nietzschean position that these liberal ideals (gender equality in the workplace, egalitarian sentiments, etc) are impositions by the weak that clash with our lobster-like biological tendencies towards hierarchy, aggressiveness, etc. Men and women can't even work together in an office, because the lipstick the latter have put on like the mate-seeking hussies they naturally are triggers us alpha males like a female baboon's big red bottom. Capacities seemingly can't be modified, and reflection and deliberation - such as we're engaging in now - have little place in his universe, it would seem. Likewise, social structures need no investigation, because, ultimately, we're lobsters all the way down.

[Edited 3/3/18 6:50am]

"Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 03/03/18 7:53am

Dasein

deebee said:

Dasein said:

"People have within them the capacity to set the world straight" as a reason for men to grow
up is a very sweet sentiment but devoid of anything we know about human nature. Men, es-
pecially us heterosexual dickheads, with our astronomical potential for arrant violence, are the
worse thing to ever happen to this planet. We are simply irredeemable and any appeals to
men for salvific purposes will ultimately fail. Think about it: why does the world need setting
straight in the first place? It ain't because of womyn. Our redemption is with womyn; they
will save us if that is possible.

Peterson's heart is in the right place, but his mind as it pertains to this matter, is not. Anytime
someone presents their argument with charisma, there's reasons to be sceptical immediately!

I don't grasp what this has to do with Peterson. As far as I can see, with him, the main thrust of what he's saying is a kind of Nietzschean position that these liberal ideals (gender equality in the workplace, egalitarian sentiments, etc) are impositions by the weak that clash with our lobster-like biological tendencies towards hierarchy, aggressiveness, etc. Men and women can't even work together in an office, because the lipstick the latter have put on like the mate-seeking hussies they naturally are triggers us alpha males like a female baboon's big red bottom. Capacities seemingly can't be modified, and reflection and deliberation - such as we're engaging in now - have little place in his universe, it would seem. Likewise, social structures need no investigation, because, ultimately, we're lobsters all the way down.

[Edited 3/3/18 6:50am]


Did you watch the video you posted? Peterson says that at the 1:30 mark and uses it as a reason
for asking men to grow up. It's a very nice Hallmark gift card sentiment, but it doesn't make any
sense in this "complex reality" we've been talking about. And, I doubt that Nietzsche would frame
these liberal ideas as impositions by the weak. Instead, he would claim that they're impositions
cleaved to by the weak and given to them as created by social structure architects in power. But,
your point that some liberal ideas do clash with biology is well taken and is one that I think I have
been arguing for in this thead and others with you.


[Edited 3/3/18 7:55am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 03/03/18 8:49am

deebee

avatar

Dasein said:

deebee said:

I don't grasp what this has to do with Peterson. As far as I can see, with him, the main thrust of what he's saying is a kind of Nietzschean position that these liberal ideals (gender equality in the workplace, egalitarian sentiments, etc) are impositions by the weak that clash with our lobster-like biological tendencies towards hierarchy, aggressiveness, etc. Men and women can't even work together in an office, because the lipstick the latter have put on like the mate-seeking hussies they naturally are triggers us alpha males like a female baboon's big red bottom. Capacities seemingly can't be modified, and reflection and deliberation - such as we're engaging in now - have little place in his universe, it would seem. Likewise, social structures need no investigation, because, ultimately, we're lobsters all the way down.

[Edited 3/3/18 6:50am]


Did you watch the video you posted? Peterson says that at the 1:30 mark and uses it as a reason
for asking men to grow up. It's a very nice Hallmark gift card sentiment, but it doesn't make any
sense in this "complex reality" we've been talking about. And, I doubt that Nietzsche would frame
these liberal ideas as impositions by the weak. Instead, he would claim that they're impositions
cleaved to by the weak and given to them as created by social structure architects in power. But,
your point that some liberal ideas do clash with biology is well taken and is one that I think I have
been arguing for in this thead and others with you.


[Edited 3/3/18 7:55am]

No, Nietzsche argues that there has been a 'slave revolt in morality', initiated by the Jewish prophets and carried forward by Christianity, whereby the slaves paint their own weakness as a virtuous choice for which they can claim moral credit, and re-cast everything associated with the power-laden shenanigans of the masters as 'evil'. This is the great manoeuvre pulled off by the lowly slaves which Nietzsche's so scandalised by. (He does implicate the 'priests' in this, too, I'll grant you.) I think it's reasonable to cast Peterson's counterposition (not mine) of biological drives and liberal norms - the likes of which he narrates his early biography as a struggle to reject to become his true lobsterine self - is somewhat similar to that, I would say. Old Freddie's clearly an influence on his thought, at any rate.

"Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 03/03/18 10:58am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

He got famous because he refused to call some people ze instead of man or women. He is not a fan of the whole gender fluidity debate or lack of one. Gender is fluid, biology is not.

Genes are more important. Better to follow a real intellect like Robert Trivers.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 03/03/18 3:54pm

Dasein

deebee said:

Dasein said:


Did you watch the video you posted? Peterson says that at the 1:30 mark and uses it as a reason
for asking men to grow up. It's a very nice Hallmark gift card sentiment, but it doesn't make any
sense in this "complex reality" we've been talking about. And, I doubt that Nietzsche would frame
these liberal ideas as impositions by the weak. Instead, he would claim that they're impositions
cleaved to by the weak and given to them as created by social structure architects in power. But,
your point that some liberal ideas do clash with biology is well taken and is one that I think I have
been arguing for in this thead and others with you.


[Edited 3/3/18 7:55am]

No, Nietzsche argues that there has been a 'slave revolt in morality', initiated by the Jewish prophets and carried forward by Christianity, whereby the slaves paint their own weakness as a virtuous choice for which they can claim moral credit, and re-cast everything associated with the power-laden shenanigans of the masters as 'evil'. This is the great manoeuvre pulled off by the lowly slaves which Nietzsche's so scandalised by. (He does implicate the 'priests' in this, too, I'll grant you.) I think it's reasonable to cast Peterson's counterposition (not mine) of biological drives and liberal norms - the likes of which he narrates his early biography as a struggle to reject to become his true lobsterine self - is somewhat similar to that, I would say. Old Freddie's clearly an influence on his thought, at any rate.


You're right, Deebee, and I was not being clear either in my nitpicking. Nietzsche writes:

The beginning of the slaves’ revolt in morality occurs when ressentiment itself turns creative and gives
birth to values: the ressentiment of those beings who, denied the proper response of action,
compensate for it only with imaginary revenge. Whereas all noble morality grows out of a triumphant
saying ‘yes’ to itself, slave morality says ‘no’ on principle to everything that is ‘outside’, ‘other’, ‘non-
self ’: and this ‘no’ is its creative deed. This reversal of the evaluating glance – this essential
orientation to the outside instead of back onto itself – is a feature of ressentiment: in order to come
about, slave morality first has to have an opposing, external world, it needs, physiologically speaking,
external stimuli in order to act at all, – its action is basically a reaction.

What I really wanted to say, in my nitpicking, was that the slave morality was not created in a va-
cuum but a response to the ruling class and I believes that your presentation of Nietzsche's master/
slave morality concept was a bit crude. But, as Nietzsche says here in the first essay, section 10 of
On the Genealogy of Morals, the slave morality is one that is created by the slave/weak.


  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 03/03/18 5:29pm

deebee

avatar

^ I'm glad we've sorted that out, dear.

"Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 03/03/18 7:05pm

Dasein

deebee said:

^ I'm glad we've sorted that out, dear.


Similarly, I'm glad we sorted out you missing the boat on what Peterson said about why men
need to grow up, luv.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 03/04/18 10:57am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Kyle can't stand him.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 03/04/18 12:34pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

He got famous because he refused to call some people ze instead of man or women. He is not a fan of the whole gender fluidity debate or lack of one. Gender is fluid, biology is not.

Genes are more important. Better to follow a real intellect like Robert Trivers.


He didn't refuse preferred pronouns. He stood up against legislation and policies that demand compliance with preferred pronouns and penalize those that do not comply.


We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 03/04/18 12:38pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

He got famous because he refused to call some people ze instead of man or women. He is not a fan of the whole gender fluidity debate or lack of one. Gender is fluid, biology is not.

Genes are more important. Better to follow a real intellect like Robert Trivers.

If I would try to use the preferred pronoun or title and I would EXPECT the same in return. If someone wants to be called ze cool I want to be called he... if ze can not respect that then ze should not expect that. But I would but I would call ze out over zit.

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 03/04/18 12:40pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

djThunderfunk said:

2freaky4church1 said:

He got famous because he refused to call some people ze instead of man or women. He is not a fan of the whole gender fluidity debate or lack of one. Gender is fluid, biology is not.

Genes are more important. Better to follow a real intellect like Robert Trivers.


He didn't refuse preferred pronouns. He stood up against legislation and policies that demand compliance with preferred pronouns and penalize those that do not comply.


again i would strive to respect it... but the government has ZERO place requiring such. and even at work... it gets tricky. but I am a libertarian so I think people have a right to be an ass...

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 03/04/18 12:46pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Peterson is basically a cultural conservative, he is just more ornery than Robbie George. We seem to prefer acid in this culture.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 03/04/18 12:47pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Don't call me he, call me Apaxa. Or I will be triggered.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 03/04/18 1:02pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Don't call me he, call me Apaxa. Or I will be triggered.



I will call you Betty and Betty when you all me you can call me Al...call me al
Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 03/04/18 1:13pm

deebee

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

He got famous because he refused to call some people ze instead of man or women. He is not a fan of the whole gender fluidity debate or lack of one. Gender is fluid, biology is not.

Genes are more important. Better to follow a real intellect like Robert Trivers.

Was the video online of him arguing with the students what gave him his 'big break', or had he become prominent in that debate earlier?

"Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 03/04/18 1:15pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Especially the recent Channel 4 interview.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 03/04/18 1:23pm

deebee

avatar

djThunderfunk said:

2freaky4church1 said:

He got famous because he refused to call some people ze instead of man or women. He is not a fan of the whole gender fluidity debate or lack of one. Gender is fluid, biology is not.

Genes are more important. Better to follow a real intellect like Robert Trivers.


He didn't refuse preferred pronouns. He stood up against legislation and policies that demand compliance with preferred pronouns and penalize those that do not comply.


He took it a little further than merely opposing the legislation, though, to refusing the pronouns themselves. In a National Post article, he writes: "I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words 'zhe' and 'zher.' These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century."

Now,one can agree of disagree with that stance (personally, I think it's somewhat hysterical), but it does seem that opposing the legislation was only part of it - albeit the most easily defensible part.

"Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 03/04/18 1:27pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

I think the pronouns are stupid. If you are a true Trans person, fine, but Ze? Fuck that. Gender Queer? Sure, that is real. Don't say I'm a bigot.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 03/04/18 1:31pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

My new hero, Gender Queer radical ContraPoints:

I'm open minded by gum.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 03/04/18 1:31pm

deebee

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Especially the recent Channel 4 interview.

That one was double-edged for me, as I can't abide Cathy Newman. I confess to a certain illicit glee in seeing her ill-prepared 'ambush' strategy fall flat and her guest run rings around her. evillol Not the abuse she took after from Jordy's alienated college boy fan club, though, obviously. They're c**ts.

"Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 03/04/18 1:40pm

deebee

avatar

^^ Trapped under rubble for days, and so starved of all contact with humanity that I begin to question whether or not I actually exist - or have ever existed - and under conditions where all the other YouTube clips ever have been irretrievably lost due to a freak electromagnetic power burst, I might consider watching that clip in minute-long stints if I can reach my phone. I'm not going to commit to anything, though.

"Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 03/04/18 3:35pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

deebee said:

2freaky4church1 said:

Especially the recent Channel 4 interview.

That one was double-edged for me, as I can't abide Cathy Newman. I confess to a certain illicit glee in seeing her ill-prepared 'ambush' strategy fall flat and her guest run rings around her. evillol Not the abuse she took after from Jordy's alienated college boy fan club, though, obviously. They're c**ts.


It's true she took some "abuse" after the interview, but then, so did he.

From wordpress:

Adding up all the tweets, retweets and likes we find the following totals:

Non-sexist violence aimed at Newman or her supporters: 2

Sexist violence aimed at Newman or her supporters: 0

Non-sexist violence aimed at Peterson or his supporters: 8

Sexist violence aimed at Peterson or his supporters: 55

https://hequal.wordpress....ssion=true





[Edited 3/4/18 17:32pm]

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 03/05/18 1:39am

maplenpg

djThunderfunk said:

deebee said:

That one was double-edged for me, as I can't abide Cathy Newman. I confess to a certain illicit glee in seeing her ill-prepared 'ambush' strategy fall flat and her guest run rings around her. evillol Not the abuse she took after from Jordy's alienated college boy fan club, though, obviously. They're c**ts.


It's true she took some "abuse" after the interview, but then, so did he.

From wordpress:

Adding up all the tweets, retweets and likes we find the following totals:

Non-sexist violence aimed at Newman or her supporters: 2

Sexist violence aimed at Newman or her supporters: 0

Non-sexist violence aimed at Peterson or his supporters: 8

Sexist violence aimed at Peterson or his supporters: 55

https://hequal.wordpress....ssion=true





[Edited 3/4/18 17:32pm]

No bias at all in this article eh DJ? wink

It never ceases to amaze me how cruel humans can be against fellow humans and animals, especially when in the pursuit of money and power.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 03/05/18 1:57am

maplenpg

deebee said:

djThunderfunk said:


He didn't refuse preferred pronouns. He stood up against legislation and policies that demand compliance with preferred pronouns and penalize those that do not comply.


He took it a little further than merely opposing the legislation, though, to refusing the pronouns themselves. In a National Post article, he writes: "I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words 'zhe' and 'zher.' These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century."

Now,one can agree of disagree with that stance (personally, I think it's somewhat hysterical), but it does seem that opposing the legislation was only part of it - albeit the most easily defensible part.

I think that is my problem with his thinking (I'm not going to claim to know a huge amount about him). On the surface his ideas may seem plausable, sensible even - 'why should anyone be forced to use words they hate', seems perfectly reasonable. However it seems to me that his ideals do not stack up with each other when you dig a little deeper, instead taking a right/ anti-left approach depending on the topic.

For example, he states in the Channel 4 interview that those that are disagreeable tend to get further in their careers, for exactly the reason that they are disagreeable and aggressive in their push for higher pay and promotion; and that it tends to be males that fit into this bracket because their biology makes them this way (if I've interpreted him correctly). Seems like a perfectly reasonable observation, that if women want to get further in their careers, they need to become more assertive, dominant and disagreeable. However, after putting the two genders in this nice little bracket, he goes on to say that women are not disadvantaged or discriminated against when they are paid less for the same work (a left wing stance) as it is much more complex than that - that there are few jobs where exactly the terms apply (this I disagree with).

My problem is that he seems to want to slip gender into a fairly neat biological lobster-esque male/female attributes whilst stating that gender pay is much more complex - I happen to believe that gender itself is hugely complex and therefore to mock those who are 'disagreeable' in certain areas of life, whilst praising others that are 'disagreeable' in other areas of life seems hypocritcal to me.

It never ceases to amaze me how cruel humans can be against fellow humans and animals, especially when in the pursuit of money and power.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 03/05/18 2:03am

maplenpg

deebee said:

^^ Trapped under rubble for days, and so starved of all contact with humanity that I begin to question whether or not I actually exist - or have ever existed - and under conditions where all the other YouTube clips ever have been irretrievably lost due to a freak electromagnetic power burst, I might consider watching that clip in minute-long stints if I can reach my phone. I'm not going to commit to anything, though.

lol at least you can use your phone. Stuck in the rural Yorkshire wolds, we have no signal, no electricity either for the whole day yesterday either, but yippeedeedo, today the rubble is cleared, electric back on and phone signal returned (via wifi) and I'm back on the Org. Happy days. I'm up for watching it in short stints and commenting too though, there is a lot goes on in that half hour.

It never ceases to amaze me how cruel humans can be against fellow humans and animals, especially when in the pursuit of money and power.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 03/05/18 8:57am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Rubble, a good term.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 03/05/18 9:12am

jaawwnn

avatar

He doesn't seem to be a particularly bad man himself, I wouldn't be against reading his books, but most of his internet following are just the usual dregs who will grasp onto any half-clever person who says the key to life is to 'man-up' and 'take responsibility', which is fine, if vague, but when it suddenly becomes a reason to attack people of colour or women you wonder what's going wrong there.

I'm not convinced by his argument to not use pronouns, it's purely theoretical and removed from the reality of the situation. Maybe every interviewer should refer to him as a 'her' for the next 10 years until he starts to understand what it feels like to be slowly worn down by something like this.

[Edited 3/5/18 9:14am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 03/05/18 9:19am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

At least Zizek is entertaining.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 3 123>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > This Jordan Peterson fellow