independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sun 24th Jun 2018 11:24pm
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 3 of 3 <123
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #60 posted 03/06/18 10:57am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

My bad, see I thought that this was all fairly commonly known basic psychology. We are motivated to a large extent by social interactions which reward and punish some behaviors and practices. So we all do things (such a grooming and how we dress and how we adorn ourselves) because we learn that those things are rewarded so we seek those rewards. We also reward ourselves often largely based on those norms.

None of which is asking for much less a justification for unwanted attention or reactions. But like it or not, that is why. Again basic psychology.

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 #61 posted 03/06/18 11:02am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Zizek at his best:

Can anybody tell me what he just said? Damned if I know.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #62 posted 03/06/18 11:04am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Anti grooming is looked down upon. The punk asthetic per se, having a big blue mohawk. Or having on a truckers cap and cut off t-shirt.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #63 posted 03/06/18 11:10am

maplenpg

deebee said:

maplenpg said:

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.

Yeah, he's a complex character, I think. There are at least four genres within his online/media output, from what I can see: his self-help advice; his interest in positivist psychology; his work on Jung and mythology; and his right-wing ideology peddling. Lots of the online clips are within the first genre. Some of the recent Left critiques of his shtick I've read have been a bit sneery about the 'homely'self-help advice he serves up. But I don't think people should deride that, as there are some kernels of truth in there, and (for the Left) you're not going to win those finding something in what he counsels by saying at the outset that you think it's a load of shit. (Mind you, he is flogging a "Future Authoring" self-help programme you have to pay for, and he does look rather like a suited motivational guru in some earlier clips - so I take the 'friendly advice' with a bit of scepticism.) Nonetheless, meeting people where they're at is a good place to start if you've got something political to say. I also enjoyed his interview with Russell Brand about Jung and mythology, though it has to be said that much of that stuff about myths and archetypes is a bit nebulous.

But on the political side - on topics like gender and class in particular - there's a pretty clear and really rather reactionary agenda, it seems to me. He starts off all very reasonable, and I think he's very good at playing the 'dispassionate scientist' just describing it 'how it is' (which is invariably far more contested than he represents it), and being set upon by raging ideologues (and the shouty fractions of the liberal Left play right into that, I'd be the first to argue!). But scratch the surface and it's pretty illiberal stuff (see below), and it would appear that it appeals to that 'Elliot Rodger' type of young, alienated male that I would suppose find the avuncular advice mixed with the confident "be your inner lobster!" shtick compelling. Lots of his clips are taken up by these 'pick-up artist' channels on YT, and we've already seen it linked to the ideas of the 'men's rights' crowd on this very thread. There's a reason for that, I think - and I suppose I've come to think he's a bit of a wolf in, well, quite wolfy clothing (with a woolly lining). That said, I do still find him intriguing, for some reason.


He's hard for me to watch as I keep getting distracted by his vowels boxed but I watched a clip where he talks about vegans yesterday. At first he was all very reasonable, discussing veganism as a belief system (I can go with that) and comparing it to a religion (Hmmm okay, I'll listen a little longer). But then he started on about how vegans base their choices on 'assumptions that are not proven' - and I just don't think that is true. Granted the abuse he has had from the vegan community has probably helped his profile, but his words do seem hypocritical when you then listen to his other diet video in which he claims to exclusively eat meat, greens and nothing else. How is his diet not based on assumptions if vegans diets are, and if his diet is based on facts then why aren't vegans? It all gets a little murky for my liking. Undoubtedly there is some brilliant thinking that he has, but I just find it hard to find the gems in the ocean of words he spouts out of his wolfy mouth.

She believed in fairy tales and Princes.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #64 posted 03/06/18 11:16am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Anti grooming is looked down upon. The punk asthetic per se, having a big blue mohawk. Or having on a truckers cap and cut off t-shirt.

which is what i am saying.

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 #65 posted 03/06/18 11:18am

maplenpg

OnlyNDaUsa said:

2freaky4church1 said:

Anti grooming is looked down upon. The punk asthetic per se, having a big blue mohawk. Or having on a truckers cap and cut off t-shirt.

which is what i am saying.

At least one of us on here married a punk who once had a big blue mohawk boxed

She believed in fairy tales and Princes.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #66 posted 03/06/18 11:19am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

maplenpg said:

He's hard for me to watch as I keep getting distracted by his vowels boxed but I watched a clip where he talks about vegans yesterday. At first he was all very reasonable, discussing veganism as a belief system (I can go with that) and comparing it to a religion (Hmmm okay, I'll listen a little longer). But then he started on about how vegans base their choices on 'assumptions that are not proven' - and I just don't think that is true. Granted the abuse he has had from the vegan community has probably helped his profile, but his words do seem hypocritical when you then listen to his other diet video in which he claims to exclusively eat meat, greens and nothing else. How is his diet not based on assumptions if vegans diets are, and if his diet is based on facts then why aren't vegans? It all gets a little murky for my liking. Undoubtedly there is some brilliant thinking that he has, but I just find it hard to find the gems in the ocean of words he spouts out of his wolfy mouth.

i have seen many ridiculous claims pushed in favor of going vegan... i have seen many crazy claims about it... the fact is you can be healthy with a diet that included meat and other animal products.

Some vegans are really pushing for THEIR lifestyles to be forced on others. Some are also anti-choice.


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 #67 posted 03/06/18 11:30am

maplenpg

OnlyNDaUsa said:

maplenpg said:

He's hard for me to watch as I keep getting distracted by his vowels boxed but I watched a clip where he talks about vegans yesterday. At first he was all very reasonable, discussing veganism as a belief system (I can go with that) and comparing it to a religion (Hmmm okay, I'll listen a little longer). But then he started on about how vegans base their choices on 'assumptions that are not proven' - and I just don't think that is true. Granted the abuse he has had from the vegan community has probably helped his profile, but his words do seem hypocritical when you then listen to his other diet video in which he claims to exclusively eat meat, greens and nothing else. How is his diet not based on assumptions if vegans diets are, and if his diet is based on facts then why aren't vegans? It all gets a little murky for my liking. Undoubtedly there is some brilliant thinking that he has, but I just find it hard to find the gems in the ocean of words he spouts out of his wolfy mouth.

i have seen many ridiculous claims pushed in favor of going vegan... i have seen many crazy claims about it... the fact is you can be healthy with a diet that included meat and other animal products.

Some vegans are really pushing for THEIR lifestyles to be forced on others. Some are also anti-choice.


I'm not saying that, neither is he saying that. No-one talked about pushing a lifestyle onto anyone.

EDIT: I didn't make the post to discuss veganism, more that one strict diet consumed by vegans is based on 'assumptions and beliefs', whereas another strict diet, that JP happens to consume, is not based on assumptions and beliefs but on facts. Is that not hypocritical? (and for the record I believe both diets can be healthy in their own ways). This was perhaps a controversial way of showing how he aligns himself with the young males (meateaters - it's primal, we've been hunting forever) rather than left-wing hippie vegans who believe that animals matter just as much as humans do (ludicrous!) - whilst actually both strict diets have the same benefits and flaws.

[Edited 3/6/18 11:40am]

She believed in fairy tales and Princes.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #68 posted 03/06/18 11:37am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

maplenpg said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

i have seen many ridiculous claims pushed in favor of going vegan... i have seen many crazy claims about it... the fact is you can be healthy with a diet that included meat and other animal products.

Some vegans are really pushing for THEIR lifestyles to be forced on others. Some are also anti-choice.


I'm not saying that, neither is he saying that. No-one talked about pushing a lifestyle onto anyone.

EDIT: I didn't make the post to discuss veganism, more that one strict diet comsumed by someone else is based on 'assumptions and beliefs', whereas another strict diet, that JP happens to consume, is not based on assumptions and beliefs. Is that not hypocritical?

[Edited 3/6/18 11:34am]

it was meant as a juxtaposition between his views and his allegations against vegans. I should have added "as is the case with any strict diet..." yes it seems hypocritical...

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
Page 3 of 3 <123
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > This Jordan Peterson fellow