Jordan Peterson Is Canada's Most Infamous Intellectual - General

[QUOTE=J!NX;53120395]Why shouldn't they criticize it? Just because it's far more serious there and doesn't affect them in the Western world, doesn't make it immune to criticism just because it doesn't [I]personally[/I] affect them. I don't think they should care more about those countries, I think they should care about where they are in current spacetime. But ignoring the problems there is stupid at best. You don't get to ignore reality because it doesn't affect you.[/QUOTE] But not criticizing something isn't equivalent to condoning it or pretending it doesn't exist? Why should western feminists who have no power on how women are treated outside of their own country use a significant amount of time and have their cause focus on sexism in Islamic countries? Your point is that western feminists are somehow hypocritical because they don't spend their time criticizing sexism in foreign countries, but that's about as stupid as saying people who volunteer to feed the homeless in their own countries are hypocritical because they're not helping starving children in Africa.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53120401]But not criticizing something isn't equivalent to condoning it or pretending it doesn't exist? Why should western feminists who have no power on how women are treated outside of their own country use a significant amount of time and have their cause focus on sexism in Islamic countries? Your point is that western feminists are somehow hypocritical because they don't spend their time criticizing sexism in foreign countries, but that's about as stupid as saying people who volunteer to feed the homeless in their own countries are hypocritical because they're not helping starving children in Africa.[/QUOTE] You're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying It'd be more like "I worry about poverty in my country. Poverty in Africa isn't a problem" than "I worry about poverty in my own country, I'll worry about that and understand that Africa has problems too"

[QUOTE=J!NX;53120400]The issue is when you complain about the issues in your country, and not only ignore but pretend that it isn't an issue in a country with more serious issues.[/QUOTE] Where have you seen feminists pretending there is no sexism in Islamic countries??? I honestly have no idea what world you live in, this is not what the vast majority of feminists believe.

[QUOTE=J!NX;53120395]Why shouldn't they criticize it? Just because it's far more serious there and doesn't affect them in the Western world, doesn't make it immune to criticism just because it doesn't [I]personally[/I] affect them. I don't think they should care more about those countries, I think they should care about where they are in current spacetime. But ignoring the problems there is stupid at best. You don't get to ignore reality because it doesn't affect you.[/QUOTE] Because it goes without saying. Everyone knows women in authoritarian theocratic countries get treated like shit. It adds absolutely nothing to the argument and all it does is shift the subject to something no one disagrees with and where there's no real debate to be had.

[QUOTE=PelPix123;53120242]the problem i have with this dude isn't his points, it's the obvious bias in which he applies his points, like talking about makeup while he has 20 metric tons of product in his hair[/QUOTE] He isn't against the use of cosmetic products, hes stating that people use these products to increase their attractiveness (like he even does himself, in your example). But from what I can interpret he thinks its hypocritical of women to take steps toward provoking the behavior they obviously resent in some. You can't control who finds you attractive or not, and there are certainly people who will sexualize others in an inappropriate manner with no regard. Should women experience inappropriate behavior because they take steps to increase their attractiveness? No. Will it happen though? Statistically, yes. Will banning make-up solve the issue? No, it's just an absurd example Jordan presents to try and make the interviewer see his point.

[QUOTE=geel9;53120396]I think the issue people have with feminism in relation to Islam is that it seems Islam is not only [i]ignored[/i] but [i]unreasonably defended[/i] by those claiming to be feminist. It's perfectly reasonable for Western people not to go on a crusade due to issues in other countries, but to act as if anyone who does criticize those issues is "Islamophobic" or a bigot is what draws ire.[/QUOTE] The defensive attitude you describe is mainly found in intersectionalism, which blew up in the wake of Europe's refugee crisis but plateaued shortly thereafter, and is a really popular strawman nowadays.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53120404]Where have you seen feminists pretending there is no sexism in Islamic countries??? I honestly have no idea what world you live in, this is not what the vast majority of feminists believe.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=J!NX;53120218] I've not seen any feminists say it [I]personally[/I] [/Quote] This was literally the first thing I made sure to mention I'm discussing what Jordon talked about, under the assumption that it does exist. I'm not saying that it does exist. [editline]9th February 2018[/editline] And yes, I do agree that bringing up muslim countries out of the blue would be what aboutism But my discussion is connected to the second video that was posted, his response to 'feminists that don't criticize islam'. It wasn't a conversation diversion in the video. It was talking about feminists that don't critic islam. I'm rationalizing the context behind what was said.

[QUOTE=BlueYoshi;53120410]He isn't against the use of cosmetic products, hes stating that people use these products to increase their attractiveness (like he even does himself, in your example). But from what I can interpret he thinks its hypocritical of women to take steps toward provoking the behavior they obviously resent in some. You can't control who finds you attractive or not, and there are certainly people who will sexualize others in an inappropriate manner with no regard. Should women experience inappropriate behavior because they take steps to increase their attractiveness? No. Will it happen though? Statistically, yes. Will banning make-up solve the issue? No, it's just an absurd example Jordan presents to try and make the interviewer see his point.[/QUOTE] It may have been an absurd example used to illuminate his point, but he comes off sounding like he's a cunt that thinks women putting on makeup is an invitation to flirt and make sexual advances towards them, even when workplace ethics would dictate moral integrity and chastity. Literally the "she was asking for it" card.

[QUOTE=J!NX;53120415]This was literally the first thing I made sure to mention I'm discussing what Jordon talked about, under the assumption that it does exist. I'm not saying that it does exist.[/QUOTE] I think part of the problem FP has with debates sometimes is that some people feel the name to advocate for devils who don't even bother putting in the legwork themselves. If Peterson isn't going to do anything to prove his hypothesis that "feminists" don't criticize Islam because they secretly desire male dominance then I don't even see why we should bother fighting over which feminists he is talking about, then whether or not they are Secret Hypocrites, and finally whether this hypocrisy is born out of a desire for domination or simple political expediency. [QUOTE=J!NX;53120395]Why shouldn't they criticize it? Just because it's far more serious there and doesn't affect them in the Western world, doesn't make it immune to criticism just because it doesn't personally affect them. [/QUOTE] Nobody said they were "immune to criticism" they were laying out arguments for why people would naturally focus on things going in in their country over things that go on in other countries.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53120393]Peterson is a dumb, whataboutist cunt who spends more time debating with weak opponents to stroke a wounded ego that probably got hurt when he was shoved into a locker as a kid. [B]People who listen to his drivel and believe it are either willfully ignorant or malicious.[/B][/QUOTE] What is up with you? Anyone who believes something you don't like isn't worth your time and is actively an evil force trying to do something? Like, listen to yourself. I get that what he says is highly offensive to many of you, I get what he says bothers some of you on emotional levels. I am not in support of him, but I am also unable to watch the absolute polarization and extremity of opinions that are on display here without feeling a bit confused and out of place [editline]9th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53120430]It may have been an absurd example used to illuminate his point, but he comes off sounding like he's a cunt that thinks women putting on makeup is an invitation to flirt and make sexual advances towards them, even when workplace ethics would dictate moral integrity and chastity. Literally the "she was asking for it" card.[/QUOTE] Again, doesn't that seem like you're just reading into it to find the most offensive version of what he said rather than reading it to find a less offensive version of that? I know we're in the midst of a political fuck storm but do we have to read what people say and go "of course he means the worst version of what I can read into this" hell, some of you guys do that with people you know here on facepunch

A cursory search of Google finds feminists both within and without the Islamic faith criticizing certain practices within hardline Islamic countries. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53120439]What is up with you? Anyone who believes something you don't like isn't worth your time and is actively an evil force trying to do something? Like, listen to yourself. [B]I get that what he says is highly offensive to many of you, I get what he says bothers some of you on emotional levels. [/B]I am not in support of him, but I am also unable to watch the absolute polarization and extremity of opinions that are on display here without feeling a bit confused and out of place[/QUOTE] It's not that he offends me, and it has nothing to do with emotions, he just twists and manipulates history to push his traditionalist, reactionary world view, using this accredited expertise in the field of psychology to form a foundation of credibility.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53120432]I think part of the problem FP has with debates sometimes is that some people feel the name to advocate for devils who don't even bother putting in the legwork themselves. If Peterson isn't going to do anything to prove his hypothesis that "feminists" don't criticize Islam because they secretly desire male dominance then I don't even see why we should bother fighting over which feminists he is talking about, then whether or not they are Secret Hypocrites, and finally whether this hypocrisy is born out of a desire for domination or simple political expediency. [/QUOTE] You're right about that. He didn't criticize the argument or logic they had in and of itself. He just kind of said that they secretly want that Mussie dom love, which is a statement that impossible to really 'prove'. I can't say I really agree with him on that. [editline]9th February 2018[/editline] It's like if I said 'Raidyr thinks that the UK is a nice country secretly admires Garry's butt' that sounds totally idiotic, I have no baseline to even think this

i think that it is impossible to accurately judge the accuracy of peterson's theories at this time due to how mired in controversy, ideology, and bias both he is and his critics are.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53120460]i think that it is impossible to accurately judge the accuracy of peterson's theories at this time due to how mired in controversy, ideology, and bias both he is and his critics are.[/QUOTE] It would be a lot easier to judge the accuracy of his theories if he put the tiniest bit of effort into proving them. Instead he just throws them out, and the people who agree with his political dogma think it's true because he is a brilliant psychologist.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53120460]i think that it is impossible to accurately judge the accuracy of peterson's theories at this time due to how mired in controversy, ideology, and bias both he is and his critics are.[/QUOTE] I can't think of anything I've heard him say that's actually stated as [I]objective[/I] truth. It's all based on perception and discussion, and opinions as far as I can tell. He seems purely based on arguments over anything that's really based in fact. I don't think that's a bad thing necessarily though.

This issue is his arguements aren't based on fact, many of them are based on historical revision and mishandling of serious subjects as the Lobster Hypothesis shows. Hes a great psychologist, but again the issue is that he let that praise go to his head and now he's going full ham.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53120439]I get that what he says is highly offensive to many of you, I get what he says bothers some of you on emotional levels. I am not in support of him, but I am also unable to watch the absolute polarization and extremity of opinions that are on display here without feeling a bit confused and out of place[/QUOTE] Peterson being an offensive asshat flying under the guise of ~the rational centrist~ isn't the entire reason people dislike him. People dislike him because he's manipulative, and quite clearly an ideologue (which if I recall you, or at least someone, claimed he wasn't in another thread?). He's a "free speech advocate"...who also happens to want to restrict free speech when it doesn't please him. His history of contorting facts and spreading misinformation led to a massive amount of backlash against the Canadian Bill C-16 as he pushed a version of it that doesn't exist to his many, many followers by misinterpreting the text. If you've got time to read an article breaking his shit down, this was quite a nice piece I read the other night; [url]https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/02/jordan-peterson-enlightenment-nietzsche-alt-right[/url] There's a reason Peterson is a darling of the alt-right. [editline]9th February 2018[/editline] Oh, and I do wish people would stop using "but he has citations!!!" as an example of him being respected in his field. Are those citations all people taking his work and building off it positively? Are they people taking his work and saying "well he tried but there's some glaring issues with the methodology", etc. Citations are not equal in value, and people both praising and critiquing a paper are required to cite the thing.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;53120496] If you've got time to read an article breaking his shit down, this was quite a nice piece I read the other night; [url]https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/02/jordan-peterson-enlightenment-nietzsche-alt-right[/url][/QUOTE] [QUOTE] Mainstream pundits admire his so-called consistency and coherence — some even praise him as a great philosopher. This is certainly true of David Brooks’s recent New York Times op-ed, [B]which extols Peterson as a public intellectual for the YouTube age.[/B][/QUOTE] God help us all of this becomes a popular opinion. [editline]9th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=J!NX;53120476]I can't think of anything I've heard him say that's actually stated as [I]objective[/I] truth. It's all based on perception and discussion, and opinions as far as I can tell. He seems purely based on arguments over anything that's really based in fact. I don't think that's a bad thing necessarily though.[/QUOTE] It's done in a targeted in purposeful way however. When he says equality activists and feminists are operating under the same pretenses as Marxists the objective isn't to spot a piece of inconsequential historical trivia, it's to bind those "SJW" types to the historical baggage that comes from Marxism. Namely suffering on an industrial scale. But it gives him enough plausible deniability to backtrack when people naturally follow that train of thought and ask if those SJW's are going to lead to gulags and the like.

Not just that but he'll abuse the very same post modern techniques he complains about to make these arguments.

I feel like the feminists and Islam conversation is coming from a place of conflating Islamic theocracies with the religion itself. If you went to like, a feminist focused political rally and asked a random woman in the crowd if she thought Saudia Arabia's previous laws against women driving was okay, she would definitely say no. But if you asked a random woman whether she thought Islam was an inherently misogynistic/anti woman religion you could get a lot of different answers. Like there are a number of feminists who would say yes, and that women must be protected from Islam at all costs. But among the feminists who would 'defend' Islam the religion? They'd... probably just have the same reasonings a non feminist who is okay with Islam would give, ie if you're not an asshole about it, you have the right to choose your religion. Or they didn't know enough about the actual religious texts to say one way or another. Or they are Muslim and find the religion compatible with their beliefs of gender equality. Idk where any of that points to psychological wanting of domination versus just, a regular person's opinion of a religion. It's not like there's a consensus one way or another. Even among Muslim feminists you'll find a lot of division about hijab and the religious texts behind it.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;53120496]Peterson being an offensive asshat flying under the guise of ~the rational centrist~ isn't the entire reason people dislike him. People dislike him because he's manipulative, and quite clearly an ideologue (which if I recall you, or at least someone, claimed he wasn't in another thread?). He's a "free speech advocate"...who also happens to want to restrict free speech when it doesn't please him. His history of contorting facts and spreading misinformation led to a massive amount of backlash against the Canadian Bill C-16 as he pushed a version of it that doesn't exist to his many, many followers by misinterpreting the text. If you've got time to read an article breaking his shit down, this was quite a nice piece I read the other night; [url]https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/02/jordan-peterson-enlightenment-nietzsche-alt-right[/url] There's a reason Peterson is a darling of the alt-right. [editline]9th February 2018[/editline] Oh, and I do wish people would stop using "but he has citations!!!" as an example of him being respected in his field. Are those citations all people taking his work and building off it positively? Are they people taking his work and saying "well he tried but there's some glaring issues with the methodology", etc. Citations are not equal in value, and people both praising and critiquing a paper are required to cite the thing.[/QUOTE] It wasn't me but that does play into part of why i'm so apprehensive to just give in to group logic and go with the flow on this. Even suggesting that the group may be jumping the gun here gets me lumped in as someone who supports him without question. That's not fair, true, or reality. I'm not particularly offended, but more concerned for the conversations we have. I like some of what Peterson says, I'll be honest about that, but I also dislike a lot of it but I find it harder than some of you do, to just whole sale declare him to be the vile shit many of you have made clear there is no equivocating on. And so much as expressing that earns me a "weren't you the guy who called him nice words?" without any context? Like, lets not jump the gun to just start judging people as harshly as we can as fast we can.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53120575]It wasn't me but that does play into part of why i'm so apprehensive to just give in to group logic and go with the flow on this. Even suggesting that the group may be jumping the gun here gets me lumped in as someone who supports him without question. That's not fair, true, or reality. I'm not particularly offended, but more concerned for the conversations we have. I like some of what Peterson says, I'll be honest about that, but I also dislike a lot of it but I find it harder than some of you do, to just whole sale declare him to be the vile shit many of you have made clear there is no equivocating on. And so much as expressing that earns me a "weren't you the guy who called him nice words?" without any context? Like, lets not jump the gun to just start judging people as harshly as we can as fast we can.[/QUOTE] part of a larger trend of disparaging neutrality in general tbh

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53120575]It wasn't me but that does play into part of why i'm so apprehensive to just give in to group logic and go with the flow on this. Even suggesting that the group may be jumping the gun here gets me lumped in as someone who supports him without question. That's not fair, true, or reality. I'm not particularly offended, but more concerned for the conversations we have. I like some of what Peterson says, I'll be honest about that, but I also dislike a lot of it but I find it harder than some of you do, to just whole sale declare him to be the vile shit many of you have made clear there is no equivocating on. And so much as expressing that earns me a "weren't you the guy who called him nice words?" without any context? Like, lets not jump the gun to just start judging people as harshly as we can as fast we can.[/QUOTE] I just had to find the quote that triggered that little aside in my last post; [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53062696]You're discounting Peterson as being little more than some idealogue you hate.[/QUOTE] I mis-remembered a bit clearly. Sorry about that. I know a number of people claim to like Petersons' "life coach" aspects of what he says. But that's the same banal life coaching literally [I]any[/I] life coach will give you wrapped up in his more traditionalist speaking mannerisms. It's not a new idea, and it's hardly the best presentation of those ideas. But just because he can say "good" things doesn't remotely detract from every other thing that is wrong with the man. I don't find it "easy" to whole sale declare him to be the vile shit we apparently can't ever give a chance. I came to that conclusion after researching the dude rather than taking him at face value based on videos that would usually be shared by a certain someone and after he started getting rocketed into the limelight by Youtubers. My positions, and many others, on Peterson that he is a hack, a fraud (you could say a hack fraud!) and a intellectually dishonest nightmare of a speaker are not born from knee-jerk reactions. But rather actually working out what the man supports. Fuck traditionalists who label anyone that doesn't agree with them as "cultural Marxists". Honestly, the fact he even throws that term around is a big indicator that he's not as smart as he likes to present himself, it's a literal fucking conspiracy theory from the far right.

Never could understand how people respect this guy as an intellectual. At best, he fought against a law that was unfair, but at worse his bigotry caused him to fight against gender dysphoric people getting what they want, which is pretty unempathetic. He CONSTANTLY appeals to nature, that's basically his entire ideology actually, not much more to talk about really. [editline]9th February 2018[/editline] Oh or he's like our daddy and he gives us life advice about how to live in our society that we're trying to change. He's loved because he gives confused young adults ways to distract themselves from the problems that Peterson never really talks about or recognizes.

I can appreciate some of what he is saying. Identity politics can, and very often is in this current period, be taken way too far, and then it becomes a damaging distraction. Rather than focus on being offended for other people, focus on a career; this may seem like it's lacking in empathy for victimized or struggling minorities, but there are a great number of people for which this is probably true. Some people get into identity politics crap just so they can feel like they're a part of something, where it's less about the actual beliefs and more that they can feel like they're doing something with their lives beyond living, working, and reproducing, or whatever else they're escaping or filling the gaps over. For those people, they're not [I]really[/I] activists and they should find a cause they actually believe in, or find something else more personally productive to do. The real activists will be building themselves while also fighting for their cause, because they have a reason to be there that isn't an insecurity expressing itself. This same pattern repeats itself across all layers and corners of society. Have personal respect and integrity and believe in your own virtue while respecting the rights of others. That's a good, morally-upstanding message to our youth. The problem is that he follows up statements like these, that I either agree with, or at least find morally defensible and respectable, with all sorts of things that reveal he's a selfish narrow-world white-man cunt with a propensity to let the truth take a backseat to a good narrative and he's not at all a role model Canadian society should be aspiring to. He doesn't recognize that he's an ideologue who's by his own speeches and talks and books going to produce a cohort of people who are dedicated to identity politics, the warring against it in particular, and he's causing the exact SJW problem he rails against: An SJW who's angry at SJWs on the 'wrong side'. Peterson doesn't know how to properly formulate a message without pulling all of the same levers he supposedly decries. He's either misguided or gaslighting his believers, your choice.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53120586]part of a larger trend of disparaging neutrality in general tbh[/QUOTE] Neutrality isn't king. Neutrality can be good. But it can also lead to complacency and give those with bad intentions the means to act on them. Either by poisoning discussions because "oh but we have to be fair and let them speak!" or by leading to absurd amounts of whataboutism to ensure that [I]everyone takes the blame equally[/I].

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53120586]part of a larger trend of disparaging neutrality in general tbh[/QUOTE] I see very, very little disparagement of [B]genuine [/B]neutrality.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53120592]Never could understand how people respect this guy as an intellectual. At best, he fought against a law that was unfair[/QUOTE] The law wasn't even unfair lmao. Every fear of being "jailed" for not using the correct pronouns was fucking bunk from the get go as Canada has legal precedent with similar laws protecting other minority groups. You don't face any form of legal action unless you're clearly being malicious and even then it's a fucking fine at worst.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;53120591]I just had to find the quote that triggered that little aside in my last post; I mis-remembered a bit clearly. Sorry about that. I know a number of people claim to like Petersons' "life coach" aspects of what he says. But that's the same banal life coaching literally [I]any[/I] life coach will give you wrapped up in his more traditionalist speaking mannerisms. It's not a new idea, and it's hardly the best presentation of those ideas. But just because he can say "good" things doesn't remotely detract from every other thing that is wrong with the man. I don't find it "easy" to whole sale declare him to be the vile shit we apparently can't ever give a chance. I came to that conclusion after researching the dude rather than taking him at face value based on videos that would usually be shared by a certain someone and after he started getting rocketed into the limelight by Youtubers. My positions, and many others, on Peterson that he is a hack, a fraud (you could say a hack fraud!) and a intellectually dishonest nightmare of a speaker are not born from knee-jerk reactions. But rather actually working out what the man supports. Fuck traditionalists who label anyone that doesn't agree with them as "cultural Marxists". Honestly, the fact he even throws that term around is a big indicator that he's not as smart as he likes to present himself, it's a literal fucking conspiracy theory from the far right.[/QUOTE] I get that he says "cultural marxism", I've listened to 6 hours of him on the Joe Rogan podcast. Yes, he says ridiculous shit that I discount and say "welp he doesn't get any points on that from me". But basically he's being presented as one of the worst "intellectuals" ever, one of the most vile speakers, one of the most vile people, the hyperbole around him is extreme and extraneous and doesn't help the genuine criticisms that are displayed here. Quite honestly, those genuine criticisms are getting buried in fucking stupid vitriol. I feel like once we reach the point that we can't have discussions about these kinds of things without resorting to labeling each other as fast as we are in this thread then there's no point to anything we wish we were talking about.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53120609] I feel like once we reach the point that we can't have discussions about these kinds of things without resorting to labeling each other as fast as we are in this thread then there's no point to anything we wish we were talking about.[/QUOTE] Do you not see the irony in typing this at the end of a long post defending Peterson?