Jordan Peterson DESTROYS Tom Ballard - Tonightly With Tom Ballard - General

WARNING: Video is comedy. Don't take the title seriously. [video=youtube;kxgeevlRElw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxgeevlRElw[/video]

His psychology and self-help approaches might be valid by their own merit but the other garbage that this dude spews just invalidates it all, in my opinion. I can't really separate them.

[QUOTE=AtomicSans;53200507]His psychology and self-help approaches might be valid by their own merit but the other garbage that this dude spews just invalidates it all, in my opinion. I can't really separate them.[/QUOTE] The dude has some [I]very[/I] fucked up views regarding women in the workplace, seems to have mostly avoided them in this interview though. IMO Jordan Peterson is basically a neo-masculinity meme .

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;53200529]So you’re saying a fortune cookie is probably a more reliable source of good advice?[/QUOTE] A fortune cookie would probably give similarly vague self-affirming purple prose, but without the occasional undertones of sexism and neo-platonism.

does anybody else find these kinds of video titles obnoxious [B]DESTROYS[/B]

[QUOTE=AtomicSans;53200507]His psychology and self-help approaches might be valid by their own merit but the other garbage that this dude spews just invalidates it all, in my opinion. I can't really separate them.[/QUOTE] Almost everything Peterson says is directly or indirectly a word salad in support of a Christian Conservative status quo, so it's ridiculous that people are confused by his huge base of alt right/light supporters. He talks and agrees with hacks like Stefan Molyneux about race science. Doubts the human influence of climate change. Believes marriage should be kept sacred from the gays (he would oppose it if it's what "the left" wanted). Naturalises poverty with a complete misunderstanding of the Pareto Law. Gives credence to the idea that the Jews have some innate advantage. Thinks sex should be ensrhined in marriage and reckons the 'rise in sexual assault' is the fault of casual sex. Thinks casual sex is state Tyranny. Femininity is the height of chaos. We 'don't know what the rules are' with women, and have 'only been working with them for 40 years' (what the fuck). He wants to be a poster child of logic and science but also Carl Jung (nothing against him) is pretty much the basis for his entire theory of everything. He often says that complaining about injustice is ungrateful and resentful, unless that injustice would cause the status quo to collapse. Black people are the '18th wealthiest nation in the world', he helpfully points out. I wonder what he'd have said to blacks in the 30's-60's. You get the picture. To try paint him as any kind of moderate is disingenuous as fuck, and the ability to separate his rhetoric from anything objective he says requires some seriously critical combing. He recognises [I]something[/I] is wrong with our political system, but instead of engaging in any institutional or systemic analysis as to why many of his fans are miserable or tending towards toxic ideology, it's some bullshit about the decline of patriarchal families, or 'corporate sensitivity'. He instead stokes the fires of the very neoliberal self help culture responsible for these things. No, it couldn't be the precarious socioeconomic situation of these people, caused by stagnating wages, wealth inequality and uncertain employment, it's this secret cabal of neomarxists following some literally nonsensical ideology he has concocted. Black people only began caring about their oppression when someone told them of Marxist class analysis don't you know? Everyone knows that oppressed people only realised they were being explotied and abused after they read what some French dudes wrote in the 50s. So what is his solution? Of course, you need to "Keep the sacred fire burning", "Consult the ancestral spirits.", or maybe get given some contrived bullshit from the self help section of Waterstones like "do not hide unwanted things in the fog". Of course this doesn't work, and you've clearly tried to follow his advice so what now? Well of course, it's the [I]literally Maoist[/I] SJWs responsible for you failing as a male. It's these degenerate leftists who are trying to destroy the very fabric of our society with their murderous cries against injustice. I'm not gonna doubt he has helped some people, if it took until adulthood to realise that cleaning your room was probably a good idea then fair enough? I guess? But for everyone who he could have helped grow up, there are 10 others barrelling down a path of toxic ideology and crisis levels of narcissism. [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQTGc4uaiRM"]Look at this dude for christs sake[/URL]. A man with a stable career, a partner and children raised to adulthood has been convinced he is a failure. I hope one day most of these people will realise how uncritical they have become when listening to Peterson and read for themselves before they end up balls deep in Molyneux and Charles Murray. I wish he stuck to his field. Maybe one day he'll accept a debate with someone [I]actually [/I]equipped to do so instead of claiming 'they won't debate me' (they will, and many have tried).

[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;53200808]does anybody else find these kinds of video titles obnoxious [B]DESTROYS[/B][/QUOTE] Yes, it's like the title of a porno

Clean your rooms guys

[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;53200808]does anybody else find these kinds of video titles obnoxious [B]DESTROYS[/B][/QUOTE] In this case it's a joke. But all of those 'Jordan Peterson DESTROYS libtard' and 'Feminist GETS OWNED Compilation' videos on YouTube are dumb bait targeted at stupid people so the videos can get more views.

How to turn anyone off from watching your political video. [B][I][U]DESTROYS[/U][/I][/B]

I want someone to destroy my ass

[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;53200808]does anybody else find these kinds of video titles obnoxious [B]DESTROYS[/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Uber22;53200892]How to turn anyone off from watching your political video. [B][I][U]DESTROYS[/U][/I][/B][/QUOTE] Looks like the interviewer had that title picked as a joke. A sort of parody on the fact that videos of debates with people like JP or Ben Shapiro always has a title like "Shapiro DESTROYS feminism in 60 seconds" or something similar. I thought it was a cute title once I got it. The people that do it unironically though are pretty pathetic.

[QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;53200922]Looks like the interviewer had that title picked as a joke. A sort of parody on the fact that videos of debates with people like JP or Ben Shapiro always has a title like "Shapiro DESTROYS feminism in 60 seconds" or something similar. I thought it was a cute title once I got it. The people that do it unironically though are pretty pathetic.[/QUOTE] The problem with that is that you can't tell from the video thumbnail that the interviewer is the one posting the video

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;53200940]The problem with that is that you can't tell from the video thumbnail that the interviewer is the one posting the video[/QUOTE] It literally says 'comedy' in the thumbnail.

That interviewer was good; it seemed like he disagreed with Jordan's views but stuck to the comedy and didn't get confrontational.

[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;53200943]It literally says 'comedy' in the thumbnail.[/QUOTE] I don't know who Tom Ballard is or the fact that I'm supposed to associate that logo with him.

[QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;53200922]Looks like the interviewer had that title picked as a joke. A sort of parody on the fact that videos of debates with people like JP or Ben Shapiro always has a title like "Shapiro DESTROYS feminism in 60 seconds" or something similar. I thought it was a cute title once I got it. The people that do it unironically though are pretty pathetic.[/QUOTE] They clearly didn't actually watch the video. The first guy to post in the thread posted within 5 mins of me posting the video, despite the video being 8 mins long.

[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;53200943]It literally says 'comedy' in the thumbnail.[/QUOTE] Actually it says COE₩ MDY [QUOTE=Citrus705;53200915]I want someone to destroy my ass[/QUOTE] Ok but wash it first

[QUOTE=AtomicSans;53200507]His psychology and self-help approaches might be valid by their own merit but the other garbage that this dude spews just invalidates it all, in my opinion. I can't really separate them.[/QUOTE] Even those aren't even his own original ideas. It's just your average generic self-help advice - clean your room, take responsibility for yourself, and only worry about things in your sphere of influence. His cult members/lobsters naturally think all this is amazing and groundbreaking. If you took some Deepak Chopra or Eckhart Tolle quotes and attributed them to him most of his little bosom buddy cultists would believe it and proclaim it as being irrefutable. [editline]14th March 2018[/editline] I'll make one up; "Everything is entangled in exponential possibilities." - Jordan Peterson

I'm still wary about watching the video because I don't want to end up getting a bunch of unironic "BEN SHAPIRO DESTROYS X" recommendations on Youtube as a result.

I like Peterson, but I absolutely despise the rampant clickbaiting titles of videos that are reuploads of other existing videos. Many times, he is having an honest debate with another individual, sharing information along the way, which is CONSTRUCTIVE if anything. If I saw such a video with zero information beforehand, the loaded title would compel me to believe that the "winning" side were nothing but desperate hacks, which is probably not what they actually want one to think.

I really don't see the problem with Peterson.

[QUOTE=Shakma;53201944]I really don't see the problem with Peterson.[/QUOTE] The problem is that he's well cited addiction psychologist whose now grabbing at philosophy/biology/ and history terms and vague ideas to explain these actually debunked ideas from the 1920s as being fact. [editline]14th March 2018[/editline] He let the praise go to his head and now think it infringes on his basic rights to perform common decency shit like respecting another human beings wishes.

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53201993] He let the praise go to his head and now think it infringes on his basic rights to perform common decency shit like respecting another human beings wishes.[/QUOTE] [img]https://i.imgur.com/V3nz6RQ.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Shakma;53201944]I really don't see the problem with Peterson.[/QUOTE] He's wildly inconsistent, in some interviews and appearances he seems quite reasonable and has some interesting things to say about philosophy, you know, his actual field. And then on the other side of the coin, he's on this very bizarre idealistic crusade against a cultural Marxism phenomenon that doesn't really exist and certainly isn't worth worrying about. He's basically arguing against a totem he constructed himself. As previously said, he's said some very backwards things about women, especially women in the workplace, which really says bad things about both women and men because he heavily implies that men are irrepressible sex perverts. He also has a bad track record in relation to transgender people. He deceived the general public about the nature of Canadian Bill C-16, which simply added gender expression and identity to the list of protected classes and clarified how the government would deal with trans-related hate speech. Peterson's (COMPLETELY FUCKING INCORRECT) interpretation of the bill, which he heavily publicized, was that you could be jailed and charged with hate speech for misusing someone's pronouns. This lead to some heavy pushback against the bill, none of which was warranted. He's also been quoted as saying he wouldn't necessarily refer to someone with the pronouns they prefer if he disagrees, because "my classroom, my rules bitch." Additionally: he's one step away from being a climate denier. Overall he has an insufferable persecution complex lying just beneath the surface. Source: I've listened to way too much of his shit.

I like what he said at the end: Equality of opportunity > Equality of outcome. And not to put all the focus on comparing groups of people's oppression levels.

[QUOTE=ThePanther;53202051]I like what he said at the end: Equality of opportunity > Equality of outcome. And not to put all the focus on comparing groups of people's oppression levels.[/QUOTE] Yes, I agree with this too, to a large extent. I think it goes to show that the fella has a functional and intelligent mind somewhere in there. [editline]14th March 2018[/editline] An issue that pops up is the wage gap which [I]kind of, sort of[/I] exists, and is largely due to differences in when and how male and female workers request raises (meaning, men do more often and more successfully.) A healthily mild amount of social Darwinism says that that's an acceptable outcome, but I don't exactly agree. I think that at least some of that gap is due to workplace and corporate culture, which doesn't treat women very well all the time. Unfortunately, that's not a very concrete issue you can just "solve." Basically, shit's complicated