Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I'm not claiming he's consistent or unbiased, or whatever you're trying to get at. It's just satisfying to see someone stand up to bullies.

Wasn’t standing up when he was flat out in a Russian hospital.

He labels others cultural marxists when he doesn’t know what it means. Yet he complains critiques are cancel attempts. He’s a cry bully.

 

[Lethality]

Wasn’t standing up when he was flat out in a Russian hospital.

He labels others cultural marxists when he doesn’t know what it means. Yet he complains critiques are cancel attempts. He’s a cry bully.

Well that's nice of you to make fun of someone's dependency problem, particularly when it may be linked to dealing with his wife's health problems. Lots of people get addicted to benzos, particularly people with anxiety. Your comment belittles their experience too.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Well that's nice of you to make fun of someone's dependency problem, particularly when it may be linked to dealing with his wife's health problems. Lots of people get addicted to benzos, particularly people with anxiety. Your comment belittles their experience too.

Oh so now it’s a genuine problem deserving of something more than ‘clean your room’?

 

[Lethality]

Oh so now it’s a genuine problem deserving of something more than ‘clean your room’?

You seem to have mistaken me for a Jordan fan who subscribes to his politics and has read his books. I'm just telling you one aspect that I found attractive, hoping to shed light on someone's earlier question.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

You seem to have mistaken me for a Jordan fan who subscribes to his politics and has read his books. I'm just telling you one aspect that I found attractive, hoping to shed light on someone's earlier question.

If you think he stands up to bullies, you’ve seriously misread him.

 

[Lethality]

If you think he stands up to bullies, you’ve seriously misread him.

Maybe he doesn't stand up to the kinds of bullies you would prefer, but he has pushed back on people who have tried to shut down conversation via force, or via their authority, or with dishonesty. I wish more liberals were with him on that.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Maybe he doesn't stand up to the kinds of bullies you would prefer, but he has pushed back on people who have tried to shut down conversation via force, or via their authority, or with dishonesty. I wish more liberals were with him on that.

No.

He purposely spread misinformation about a law that vaulted him to hero status amongst angry white people who see themselves as victims.

He’s offered some quasi intellectual credibility to a neurotic movement that has convinced itself its under a boot.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Lethality]

No.

He purposely spread misinformation about a law that vaulted him to hero status amongst angry white people who see themselves as victims.

He’s offered some quasi intellectual credibility to a neurotic movement that has convinced itself its under a boot.

I think what vaulted him to hero status was that he was a forceful intelligent speaker who refused to be silenced, despite many cynical and ugly tactics used against him. His ideas were secondary or even irrelevant to that for me, and probably other people since I'm not unique or anything. I just don't like bullies, what can I say.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I think what vaulted him to hero status was that he was a forceful intelligent speaker who refused to be silenced, despite many cynical and ugly tactics used against him. His ideas were secondary or even irrelevant to that for me, and probably other people since I'm not unique or anything. I just don't like bullies, what can I say.

He provides a bull s**t justification for oppression and inequality. * him. He’s a bully.

When confronted with difficulty, he turned to piss. Others hed explained away as being irresponsible cope far better with much worse.

 

[Lethality]

He provides a bull sh*t justification for oppression and inequality. fu** him. He’s a bully.

Which is?

When confronted with difficulty, he turned to piss. Others hed explained away as being irresponsible cope far better with much worse.

Maybe you're the bully if you're judging people's mental health.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Being what?

Has this anti-authoritarian spoke about the The Texas abortion law? The fascist elements of maga? The banning of CRT and associated discourses about racism in some states?

fu** no.

Does he have an obligation to comment on everything?

This is a dishonest criticism.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

"The left" being one amorphous mass?

He's definitely of the right. Not far right.

In what sense?

I'd say he's hard to pigeonhole politically. He has particular views on particular issues but I'm not sure I could say he's broadly LW or broadly RW.

I suspect it suits some people who lean left that object to some of his views to cast him as RW but I'm not sure that's accurate.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Does he have an obligation to comment on everything?

This is a dishonest criticism.

No but his inconsistency is allowed to be pointed out.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

No but his inconsistency is allowed to be pointed out.

What is the inconsistency?

The fact he doesn't discuss every issue?

That's not really an inconsistency.

He hasn't positioned himself as a commentator on the minutiae of US politics so why would you expect him to comment on every controversial issue?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

What is the inconsistency?

The fact he doesn't discuss every issue?

That's not really an inconsistency.

He literally does open Q and As.

he did a debate about Marxism while admitting he'd read it the night before for the first time in 20 years.

He picks and chooses. He speaks to a very narrowly defined audience; if he wanted to be seen as a public intellectual, he's failed pretty miserably.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

He literally does open Q and As.

Ok. And what? Is that bad?

he did a debate about Marxism while admitting he'd read it the night before for the first time in 20 years.

He picks and chooses. He speaks to a very narrowly defined audience; if he wanted to be seen as a public intellectual, he's failed pretty miserably.

Is there something wrong with "picking and choosing" the subjects you'd prefer to discuss? I think most writers "pick and choose" to some degree.

Again, is he obligated to comment on everything?

You say he speaks to a narrow audience but he puts tons of his content on YouTube, where it's available to anyone. What should he be doing instead?

Whether he wants to be seen as a public intellectual is neither nor there. It makes no argument about the substance of his positions.

I don't understand your criticism. What is "the inconsistency" you're talking about?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Ok. And what? Is that bad?

Is there something wrong with "picking and choosing" the subjects you'd prefer to discuss? I think most writers "pick and choose" to some degree.

Again, is he obligated to comment on everything?

You say he speaks to a narrow audience but he puts tons of his content on YouTube, where it's available to anyone. What should he be doing instead?

Whether he wants to be seen as a public intellectual is neither nor there. It makes no argument about the substance of his positions.

I don't understand your criticism. What is "the inconsistency" you're talking about?

Why do you think he chooses to discuss illiberalism in a way that makes his angry white male fan base even angrier?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Why do you think he chooses to discuss illiberalism in a way that makes his angry white male fan base even angrier?

I'd say he has a particular set of concerns about new progressive orthodoxies, particularly where they lean heavily on identity politics, intersectionality, speech codes etc.

Is that bad? Is that not allowed?

What specifically is your criticism?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I'd say he has a particular set of concerns about new progressive orthodoxies, particularly where they lean heavily on identity politics, intersectionality, speech codes etc.

Is that bad? Is that not allowed?

What specifically is your criticism?

He doesn't know much about these progressive orthodoxies. he throws out buzzwords. He rose to right wing fame based on his misunderstanding of a proposed law.

Is that not allowed? Don't try and martyr yourself, champ.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

He doesn't know much about these progressive orthodoxies. he throws out buzzwords. He rose to right wing fame based on his misunderstanding of a proposed law.

Is that not allowed? Don't try and martyr yourself, champ.

I'm not any kind of martyr. What does that even mean?

I'm just trying to understand your vague objections.

Again, what specifically is your criticism?

You don't have to be RW to find some of his arguments plausible. As though there's something inherently wrong with being right of centre anyway.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I'm not any kind of martyr. What does that even mean?

I'm just trying to understand your vague objections.

Again, what specifically is your criticism?

You don't have to be RW to find some of his arguments plausible. As though there's something inherently wrong with being right of centre anyway.

I suppose Ill repeat what I said. His critiques are shallow, usually misinformed and Im not sure he would even claim he speaks to power. It's a critique of those who challenge power. And it's fairly woeful. He couldn't even follow it's core tenet; personal responsibility.

you understand that, or want to make some pissweak reference to be allowed to say something?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I suppose Ill repeat what I said. His critiques are shallow, usually misinformed and Im not sure he would even claim he speaks to power. It's a critique of those who challenge power. And it's fairly woeful. He couldn't even follow it's core tenet; personal responsibility.

That's not a specific criticism.

Do you consider his comments about the gender pay gap (and other topics), made here at length, to be shallow and misinformed?




On the contrary, Peterson comes across as measured, nuanced and articulate. He at least appears to have a sound grasp of the material and be willing to support his arguments at length and in detail.

The interviewer, on the other hand, is all over the shop and is for some reason desperate to misrepresent him. Why? How many times does she seek to distort his statements and try to feed them back to him, hoping he'll agree to something outrageous? "So you're saying...". Count the times she does it. Obvious strawmans that wouldn't even cut the mustard on BigFooty. It's bizarre.

I come to a discussion like that with an open mind, but the repeated attempts at misrepresentation are, to me, a red flag. What on earth is he saying that compels an interviewer to such obvious dishonesty?

What specifically from that video do you find objectionable?

you understand that, or want to make some pissweak reference to be allowed to say something?

You're the one struggling to make your points, not me.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

That's not a specific criticism.

Do you consider his comments about the gender pay gap (and other topics), made here at length, to be shallow and misinformed?




On the contrary, Peterson comes across as measured, nuanced and articulate. He at least appears to have a sound grasp of the material and be willing to support his arguments at length.

The interviewer, on the other hand, is all over the shop and is for some reason desperate to misrepresent him. Why? How many times does she seek to distort his statements and try to feed them back to him, hoping he'll agree to something outrageous? Count the times she does it. It's bizarre.

I come to a discussion like that with an open mind, but the repeated attempts at misrepresentation are, to me, a red flag. What on earth is he saying that compels an interviewer to such obvious dishonesty?

You're the one struggling to make your points, not me.

If you find any argument that uses the term neo-marxist to be measured and articulate, that's on you. He bizarrely conflates post-modern analysis and Marxism, has skewed toward postmodern analysis when it suits him, made some worrying links between repressed sexuality and male violence and embraces hyperbole. He loves it.

So * your definition of 'specific'; if you've only seen that interview, stop reading about the 'woke left' and engage with something on a more than superficial level.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

If you find any argument that uses the term neo-marxist to be measured and articulate, that's on you. He bizarrely conflates post-modern analysis and Marxism, has skewed toward postmodern analysis when it suits him, made some worrying links between repressed sexuality and male violence and embraces hyperbole. He loves it.

What is your specific criticism?

What did he say specifically? And how do you disagree with it specifically?

Surely this is the bare minimum.

And I'm not saying that all criticism of Peterson is unreasonable or unwarranted. But you should be able to make that criticism in specific terms, with direct reference to what he's said. Otherwise, what are you on about?

So fu** your definition of 'specific'; if you've only seen that interview, stop reading about the 'woke left' and engage with something on a more than superficial level.

I've seen plenty of interviews. I've simply offered that one as an example to allow you to outline your specific criticism.

If you're unwilling to do that, I'm not sure you can accuse me of being unwilling to engage.

Do you have some objection to the term "woke left"? Do you think that's an unfair category?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

What is your specific criticism?

What did he say specifically? And how do you disagree with it specifically?

Surely this is the bare minimum.

And I'm not saying that all criticism of Peterson is unreasonable or unwarranted. But you should be able to make that criticism in specific terms, with direct reference to what he's said. Otherwise, what are you on about?

I've seen plenty of interviews. I've simply offered that one as example to allow you to outline your specific criticism.

If you're unwilling to do that, I'm not sure you can accuse me of being unwilling to engage.

Do you have some objection to the term "woke left"?

How much have you read? My criticisms of Peterson are fairly generic.

He doesn't agree with questioning of the capitalist order, yet still laments the breaking apart of familial bonds. His understanding of post-modernity and Marxism were built on literal misreadsings of those French flogs.

perhaps you should just read his nonsense more.

He is comfortable in avoiding any critique of society. Which is still governed by a divisive capitalism. Instead, he invents a mythical power structure (the neo-Marxist left lol) that he thinks is challenging it, then wallops them with hyperbole about their influence.

Even his rabid individualist is a sham. He ended up in a Russian hospital for drug dependency. And he simultaneously tells his legion of angry white male followers to make their bed, but there is a neo Marxist power structure to blame for their failings.

If you want page references, go find them your ******* self

My suspicion is that he's smart enough to know it is financially lucrative to keep this up.

Yeah, everyone who uses woke left unironically is being stupid basically.