Jordan Peterson Is Canada's Most Infamous Intellectual - General

Jordan Peterson Is Canada's Most Infamous Intellectual

387 replies, posted
In This Thread

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53130406]you are putting him in the same basket as 'nazis/snake-oil-hack-chauvinist-etc.'s[/QUOTE] You can't put someone in the same basket as a Nazi, no matter how harsh you are against that person. They exist as their own group of extremists. It's either, you are a Nazi, or you aren't. I know that's very "two types of people in this world" but people like terrorists and racial supremacists transcend beyond any normal racist. There is no middle ground or comparisons to be made when it comes to [I]their [/I]kind of radicalism

[quote] Also, can you stop using words to mean other words and just use the actual word itself. Like, don't say "you're calling him a nazi" when you mean "You're calling him an -ist", it's just confusing for us. It'll be quicker to write a 25-letter word than to write several multi-paragraph posts just to clear up the confusion.[/QUOTE] Perhaps you are right. [QUOTE=Zyler;53130408]Zenreon, this seems to be a really personal issue for you. Maybe you should take a step back and explain what your beliefs are regarding this topic and we'll try to explain what/if we have any issues with it. It seems like there's a lot of people talking over each other right now and perhaps we should attempt to alleviate this.[/quote] Basically, I don't understand why you are all shitting on him with such righteous vigor. Everything presented to me has been at worst an indication that he has handled parts of his rise to fame poorly, and maybe should go on a podcast with a climate scientist to discuss the role of CO2 in climate change (not, mind you, whether climate change is real). That in turn has painted him into an alt-right supporting chauvinist transphobe who maybe or maybe not is just malicious - a bad person. [quote] Can you quote the specific posts that you feel are being too harsh and why you feel that they are being so? [/quote] sure, ill try to pick a fair one. [quote] He just lies about things, he lies a lot. It's annoying because it's harmful and makes us all stupider. Here's him lying and saying that trans kids get surgery at 3-4. [url]https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2...l-and-b/219282[/url] This stuff happens all the time. He lies all the time and he's wrong all the time. It's not special. It's not an outlier, you could read my other posts about it. He doesn't fight for free speech he's a right wing evangelical sjw. [/quote] Ok, this one should be reasonably difficult and controversial so as to not constitute a strawman. The exact words were: [quote] BRIAN KILMEADE (HOST): People are even talking about deciding what gender they want to be as youngsters. JORDAN PETERSON: Yeah. Well that's happening all over. It's an absolute epidemic. And we've decided that children as young as 3 or 4 can now decide what gender they are and then undergo the appropriate surgical and biological alterations to bring their morphology in keeping with that. And it's a mistake of epic proportions and we are going to pay for it in a big way. [/quote] In this there are two readings; mine, and what I assume to be yours. In my reading of this, I give him the benefit of the doubt and understand this as him saying "The children can pick their gender when they are young, and as a consequence get surgery once they hit the appropriate age. The causing of that to happen at that age is a mistake, in my opinion." and I assume you read it as "The children get scooped by the communist parents and are given surgery the next day depending on which color of toy they grab" I admit, my treatment of your reading was a bit enflourished, but I hope you take my point. He could have been saying either one. One makes him look either misinformed or deceitful, and the other makes him look like someone who disagrees with early childhood encouragement of social transgenderism leading to later physical transgenderism. Thereby, depending on which assumption you make, you can read Peterson as ranging anywhere from an idiot, to a liar, to a person with reservations regarding the social promotion of transgenderism among children at a young age, and the consequences that may or may not carry. [editline]13th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zyler;53130403] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;53130401]Again, did I miss this page of the discussion? Who is this champion of debate that he shot down? His side of the story is basically the exact opposite. Does he pick the TV anchors who interview him?[/QUOTE] What are you talking about? There's words being typed on your keyboard but I cannot understand what is being typed. I'm not insulting you here, I actually cannot understand anything you are saying.[/QUOTE] How do you know he avoids interviews? If the claim is that he only debates easy opponents, then where are those opponents he refused? Could it be that the people on the other side are the ones chasing after easy opponents and therefore are avoiding him? If he is avoiding hard debates willingly, then tell me why you believe that.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53130436]Perhaps you are right. Basically, I don't understand why you are all shitting on him with such righteous vigor. Everything presented to me has been at worst an indication that he has handled parts of his rise to fame poorly, and maybe should go on a podcast with a climate scientist to discuss the role of CO2 in climate change (not, mind you, whether climate change is real). That in turn has painted him into an alt-right supporting chauvinist transphobe who maybe or maybe not is just malicious - a bad person. sure, ill try to pick a fair one. Ok, this one should be reasonably difficult and controversial so as to not constitute a strawman. The exact words were: In this there are two readings, mine, and what I assume to be yours. In my reading of this, I give him the benefit of the doubt and understand this as him saying "The children can pick their gender when they are young, and as a consequence get surgery once they hit the appropriate age. The causing of that to happen at that age is a mistake, in my opinion." and I assume you read it as "The children get scooped by the communist parents and are given surgery the next day depending on which color of toy they grab" I admit, my treatment of your reading was a bit enflourished, but I hope you take my point. He could have been saying either one. One makes him look either misinformed or deceitful, and the other makes him look like someone who disagrees with early childhood encouragement of social transgenderism leading to later physical transgenderism. Thereby, depending on which assumption you make, you can read Peterson as ranging anywhere from an idiot, to a liar, to a person with reservations regarding the social promotion of transgenderism among children at a young age, and the consequences that may or may not carry.[/QUOTE] As you say, that's a very charitable or positive reading of what he's said, but in of itself that isn't the unreasonable part of what you've been saying in this thread. The problem isn't that you interpret Peterson's words in the most positive light possible, it's that you interpret what he says in the most positive light possible and interpret the negative things people say about him in the most negative light possible. I'm not referring to the post I'm responding to, but the previous ones where you jumped to the conclusion that everyone was calling Peterson a Nazi. It's the double-standard of treating everything Peterson says in the most positive light possible and everything anyone who dislikes him says in the most negative light possible. I don't think people would mind so much if you were viewing each 'side', as it were, in the most positive light possible. And I know that when you were saying 'nazi' you actually meant '-ist/bad person', but the language that you use does matter when it comes to how people read what you say. You used the worst possible word to describe the things people who disagreed with Peterson would say, then take issue when people paraphased Peterson instead of quoting him directly. Why didn't you take as much issue with using the term 'nazi' to describe what people said about Peterson, but take issue with people paraphasing Peterson saying 'surgery at 3-4' instead of 'realizing that surgery is needed at 3-4 then getting surgery'? It seems like accuracy is only needed when defending Peterson, but when it comes to labeling people who disagree with him it's too much effort to write the actual words. You've been doing the exact same thing you're accusing the people in this thread of doing, changing words around and taking things out of context in order to make somebody look like a bad person.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53130436]In my reading of this, I give him the benefit of the doubt and understand this as him saying "The children can pick their gender when they are young, and as a consequence get surgery once they hit the appropriate age. The causing of that to happen at that age is a mistake, in my opinion." and I assume you read it as "The children get scooped by the communist parents and are given surgery the next day depending on which color of toy they grab" [/QUOTE] Do you see how much nuance you have to inject into Peterson's statement to make it even remotely reasonable and how much you have to strawman Zyler to make them seem unreasonable? Peterson didn't say a word about reaching the appropriate age to undergo surgery, [I]you[/I] had to assume that's what he meant when he said that because otherwise he would look like a complete idiot. The difference between you and Zyler in this respect is that Zyler doesn't sugarcoat Peterson's statements to make them palatable. They take what Peterson said word for word and inject nothing. I will readily admit that Peterson [I]can[/I] be read a number of different ways but that in and of itself is a huge problem. Statements that you have to translate into something nuanced are not nuanced statements.

[QUOTE=cbb;53130461]Do you see how much nuance you have to inject into Peterson's statement to make it even remotely reasonable and how much you have to strawman Zyler to make them seem unreasonable? Peterson didn't say a word about reaching the appropriate age to undergo surgery, [I]you[/I] had to assume that's what he meant when he said that because otherwise he would look like a complete idiot. The difference between you and Zyler in this respect is that Zyler doesn't sugarcoat Peterson's statements to make them palatable. They take what Peterson said word for word and inject nothing. I will readily admit that Peterson [I]can[/I] be read a number of different ways but that in and of itself is a huge problem. Statements that you have to translate into something nuanced are not nuanced statements.[/QUOTE] That's exactly right. You've hit the nail on the head. The issue is that because the statements are so easily interpretable is exactly the issue because we then have groups of people with malicious political ideologies using them to justify their belief systems. It's the common issue with political pundit-type people, the things they say are often presented without nuance or forethought and as a result can be turned around or used by others with malicious intent. That's why it's an issue when someone who has expertise in one field attempts to cross over into another one where they don't have an educational background, they don't have the combined experience/knowledge of the field in question in order to understand what things mean or how things can be interpreted (which is a direct result of the lengthy history and specific background knowledge of the topic in question that a person needs to know in order to be informed).

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53130436] Thereby, depending on which assumption you make, you can read Peterson as ranging anywhere from an idiot, to a liar, to a person with reservations regarding the social promotion of transgenderism among children at a young age, and the consequences that may or may not carry. If he is avoiding hard debates willingly, then tell me why you believe that[/QUOTE] you shouldn't have to step on eggshells to charitably interpret someone. lets look at the overall context he makes a complete hash of philosophy to push his ideology he makes a complete hash of biology of evolutionary science to push his ideology he makes a complete hash of theology to push his ideology he targets students and professors with whom he disagrees with on twitter, outing their social media he says batshit retarded things about women that can logically be taken to 'she was asking for it' (see op) he wants to make a wrongthink AI bot to mark courses as postmodern so students don't take them he is a climate change skeptic And there's more of course throughout this thread. Right now I don't have to time to repost the same thing for maybe the 5th time but every single one of those points is sourced and explained somewhere in this thread, I'm on mobile so formatting is a bitch. If you give me about an hour I can sort it when I get to a PC. So you've got the philosophers calling him out, the biologists calling him out, the theologians calling him out, the law experts calling him out... What's the more likely scenario, Peterson is full of shit, or these people are all implicated in the great nebulous postmodern conspiracy and Peterson is busting them wide open? These threads go in circles of people completely glossing over the damning meat of the accusations, instead focusing on an example of maybe interpretation or semantics.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;53130481]you shouldn't have to step on eggshells to charitably interpret someone. lets look at the overall context he makes a complete hash of philosophy to push his ideology he makes a complete hash of biology of evolutionary science to push his ideology he makes a complete hash of theology to push his ideology he targets students and professors with whom he disagrees with on twitter, outing their social media he says batshit retarded things about women that can logically be taken to 'she was asking for it' (see op) he wants to make a wrongthink AI bot to mark courses as postmodern so students don't take them he is a climate change skeptic And I could go on. Frankly I don't have to time to repost the same thing for maybe the 5th time but every single one of those points is sourced and explained somewhere in this thread, I'm on mobile so formatting is a bitch. So you've got the philosophers calling him out, the biologists calling him out, the theologians calling him out, the law experts calling him out... What's the more likely scenario, Peterson is full of shit, or these people are all implicated in the great nebulous postmodern conspiracy and Peterson is busting them wide open?[/QUOTE] Well, those things are not his area of expertise, he's a clinical psychologist. Yet he believes he knows more about those things than he actually does because he has a PHD, it's [url=https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Engineer%20Syndrome]engineer syndrome[/url].

[QUOTE=Zyler;53130489]Well, those things are not his area of expertise, he's a clinical psychologist. Yet he believes he knows more about those things than he actually does because he has a PHD, it's [URL="https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Engineer Syndrome"]engineer syndrome[/URL].[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's what I mean. The normal response I get to 'but he's a clinical psychologist' is that he has 8000 citations (not endorsements) or something... on his psychology papers.

[QUOTE=Zyler;53130454] You've been doing the exact same thing you're accusing the people in this thread of doing, changing words around and taking things out of context in order to make somebody look like a bad person.[/QUOTE] That is a bold accusation. I have been putting this off exactly for this reason. It takes too long and in order for me to not single anyone out with a mischaracterization, I used the word 'nazi' as an admittedly failed catch-all. I've already set that aside and concedde that the time-saving-wording attempt was less than successful, but you cannot say my characterization of your (read: my opponents) opinions on the matter is inaccurate short of this one word you take issue with. Here I go: [QUOTE=Vodkavia;53118865][B]That doesn't make it okay[/B], people who saw that video and aren't familiar are now more likely to get introduced to, and indoctrinated by his lobster marxism.[/QUOTE] -Not okay to listen to JP [QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;53118932]His philosophy on life in general especially about "self-authorship" is actually really intelligent and profound. It's a damn shame that literally everything else he says is [B]hokey at best and maximum edge bigotry for the sake of it at the worst[/B].[/QUOTE] -JP's only redeeming quality is his philosophy on life/self-help, and the rest is just hokey or malicious bigotry. Nothing to see here. [QUOTE=omarfr;53119310]I'm really conflicted with Jordan Peterson. I definitely think he's intelligent, and his self-help/self-authoring advice is genuinely great advice. Definitely has helped me in many aspects of my life (especially his talks about creative minds). I find his analysis of myths, biblical stories, and modern media awesome. But his hardcore anti-sjw/marxist/blah blah blah can get really tiring. I think has good critiques in some regards but often doesn't seem to reflect on his own idealogically driven beliefs. Still seems like a chill dude who I'd be down to have a coffee with.[/QUOTE] This, one, actually, is quite reasonable. Maybe the whole hardcore anti-sjw thing needs to be unpacked a little for what it actually amounts to, but yeah, I agree. [QUOTE=Crumpet;53119365] [URL="https://phys.org/news/2018-01-psychologist-jordan-peterson-lobsters-human.html"][B]uses complete hogwash pseudoscience to justify sexism[/B][/URL] thinks [I]jungian archetypes [/I] are a universal axiom, and is not qualified nor [URL="https://www.viewpointmag.com/2018/01/23/postmodernism-not-take-place-jordan-petersons-12-rules-life/"]understands[/URL] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1591356&p=53070520&highlight=#post53070520"]the[/URL] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1591356&p=53074349&highlight=#post53074349"]philosophical[/URL] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1591356&p=53074431&highlight=#post53074431"]basis[/URL] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1591356&p=53078905&viewfull=1#post53078905"]for[/URL] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1591356&p=53080523&viewfull=1#post53080523"]his[/URL] [URL="https://medium.com/@aaronhuertas/a-field-guide-to-jordan-petersons-political-arguments-312153eac99a"]bullshit[/URL][/QUOTE] *points to an article* *article backs Peterson's point on hierarchy insofar as is pertinent to his actual point* This is what I mean. Peterson says one thing, and people hear 'so we should be like the lobsters, huh'? It is once again 12, so I will not pick through this post today, but I will attempt to do so eventually this week. My main weakness is education in the historical side of this, but I will argue the points on a pure conceptual level. Due to the degree of complexity contained in the last few articles, I may have to either summarize my response to them, or reply to them in an entirely different thread. [QUOTE=Crumpet;53119458]I think it's quite clear what regrettable meant in that context, but out of everything I said thanks for nitpicking semantics to make me out as the monster I am. How [I]do[/I] I live with myself? Sometimes I wonder dude. You can find the full quote somewhere around 35min in this video [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM[/url] And then we can decide whether Peterson must be taken at face value or whether some extrapolation is allowed. It seems we need to conveniently switch between the two whenever he [B]says some dumb bullshit.[/B][/QUOTE] JP Says: "Men interact with women differently than they do with men, and their limitations are based on socially acceptable practices founded in childhood" Poster hears:"I want to be allowed to hit women/I regret not being able to hit women" Everything Jordan peterson says requires unpacking. That should be plainly obvious by now. [QUOTE=TheHydra;53120052][url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq7W9frEPLg[/url] jordan peterson[B] is a hack[/B][/QUOTE] Again, this is missing the point. He is arguing that every species has dominance hierarchies, not just "LOBSTER -> HUMAN LOL". A dominance hierarchy isn't something like feathers, it might hard-coded into all competitive life, or it might even be an emergent property of biological systems. Either way, his point stands. [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53120393][B]Peterson is a dumb, whataboutist cunt[/B] 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. People who listen to his drivel and believe it are either willfully ignorant or malicious.[/QUOTE] Where are these opponents he avoided? [QUOTE=Raidyr;53120475]It would be a lot easier to judge the accuracy of his theories if he put the [B]tiniest bit of effort[/B] 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] You caught me. [QUOTE=hexpunK;53120496]Peterson being an offensive [B]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.[/B] 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.[/QUOTE] I disagree with pretty much everything above, and yes, I would like to talk about why.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53130518]That is a bold accusation. I have been putting this off exactly for this reason. It takes too long and in order for me to not single anyone out with a mischaracterization, I used the word 'nazi' as an admittedly failed catch-all. I've already set that aside and concedde that the time-saving-wording attempt was less than successful, but you cannot say my characterization of your (read: my opponents) opinions on the matter is inaccurate short of this one word you take issue with. Here I go: -Not okay to listen to JP -JP's only redeeming quality is his philosophy on life/self-help, and the rest is just hokey or malicious bigotry. Nothing to see here. This, one, actually, is quite reasonable. Maybe the whole hardcore anti-sjw thing needs to be unpacked a little for what it actually amounts to, but yeah, I agree. *points to an article* *article backs Peterson's point on hierarchy insofar as is pertinent to his actual point* This is what I mean. Peterson says one thing, and people hear 'so we should be like the lobsters, huh'? It is once again 12, so I will not pick through this post today, but I will attempt to do so eventually this week. My main weakness is education in the historical side of this, but I will argue the points on a pure conceptual level. Due to the degree of complexity contained in the last few articles, I may have to either summarize my response to them, or reply to them in an entirely different thread. JP Says: "Men interact with women differently than they do with men, and their limitations are based on socially acceptable practices founded in childhood" Poster hears:"I want to be allowed to hit women/I regret not being able to hit women" Everything Jordan peterson says requires unpacking. That should be plainly obvious by now. Again, this is missing the point. He is arguing that every species has dominance hierarchies, not just "LOBSTER -> HUMAN LOL". A dominance hierarchy isn't something like feathers, it might hard-coded into all competitive life, or it might even be an emergent property of biological systems. Either way, his point stands. Where are these opponents he avoided? You caught me. I disagree with pretty much everything above, and yes, I would like to talk about why.[/QUOTE] You're proving my point. You interpret everything Peterson says in the most positive way possible and interpret anything people against Peterson say in the most negative light possible. For example, you interprete "That doesn't make it okay, people who saw that video and aren't familiar are now more likely to get introduced to, and indoctrinated by his lobster marxism." as "It's not okay to listen to JP, everything he says is wrong" when, in context, it could be positively interpreted as "(To Svinnk's post a la Peterson's appearance on a show was mostly a mix of reasonable advice and SJW bashing) that's still an issue because those specific videos are presented without nuance and context because it may lead to people getting the wrong idea about various issues" I.e. not "everything he says is wrong and he's a bad person" but rather "those specific videos could be misleading without context". See how it goes both ways? If you want to interpret what Peterson says in the most charitable way possible, you need to intepret his opponents in the same light otherwise you're applying a double-standard. Even the fact you used the term 'nazi' at all to describe what his opponents have said is misleading and not casting them in the most positive light, it doesn't matter that you meant something else, because you're still applying a double-standard. The words you use matter just as much as what you mean by them. The fact that you're using a double-standard matters because you're whole argument rests on the idea that people are being unfair to Peterson by taking his words out of context and not interpreting them in the most positive light, but then you're doing the same thing to other people. Aren't you also being unfair? If you don't have an issue with "nazi" meaning "-ism" then you shouldn't have an issue with "snake oil salesmen" meaning "I think some things he says could be interpreted to mean something incorrect". For someone who's worried about the creeping influence of political correctness, It seems like you're the one everyone has to step on eggshells to avoid offending. And you have no issue making the same insulting remarks that you are so easily offended by anyone else saying about you or your personal buddy Peterson.

[QUOTE=Zyler;53130551]You're proving my point. You interpret everything Peterson says in the most positive way possible and interpret anything people against Peterson say in the most negative light possible. For example, you interprete "That doesn't make it okay, people who saw that video and aren't familiar are now more likely to get introduced to, and indoctrinated by his lobster marxism." as "It's not okay to listen to JP, everything he says is wrong" when, in context, it could be positively interpreted as "(To Svinnk's post a la Peterson's appearance on a show was mostly a mix of reasonable advice and SJW bashing) [B]that's still an issue because those specific videos are presented without nuance and context because it may lead to people getting the wrong idea about various issues"[/B] I.e. not "everything he says is wrong and he's a bad person" but rather "those specific videos could be misleading without context". [/QUOTE] Ah, so you mean this post I specifically made a point of not adding to my list? [QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;53118844]Also on a side note, H3H3 have been pushing [B]this hack[/B] on their podcast from what I've heard, and that's very, very disturbing to me given the age of their audience(13-18 on average if I had to guess). [B]These fucks are pushing sexist, racist and other bigoted psychology onto a younger generation for a reason[/B], and we will see the repercussions of this within the next ten years at the latest.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, totally, I definitely did not see him unequivocally say that the views (and thereby the espouser of them) are a bunch of negative things I'd rather not have to repeat every time. This is completely the same as what I did. Definitely sounds like he is having a conversation about nuance. [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zyler;53130551] If you don't have an issue with "nazi" meaning "-ism" then you shouldn't have an issue with "snake oil salesmen" meaning "I think some things he says could be interpreted to mean something incorrect". For someone who's worried about the creeping influence of political correctness, It seems like you're the one everyone has to step on eggshells to avoid offending. And you have no issue making the same insulting remarks that you are so easily offended by anyone else saying about you or your personal buddy Peterson.[/QUOTE] And yet, you were the first one to both do it and get mad about it... hmm [editline]sigh[/editline] also, could you use one of these ^ so I can notice every time you add another paragraph. [editline]real edit[/editline] Also, I just wanna say, despite our disagreements, I can see that you are at the very least trying to engage in the points, and I appreciate it. I see how JP can be inflammatory out of context, I mean, he can be pretty damn cold some times, but he isn't a racist, he isn't a mysogynist, he isn't a transphobe, and he isn't probably whatever next adjective I would come up with. His failures lie in his grasp on his own influence and the degree to which social media actions are acceptable, and I disagree with him with the degree of influence that CO2 has to play in causing climate change. Other than that, he is a thoughtful man with insights on people and culture that has helped arguably hundreds if not thousands of people, and in return, only really offended PC culture. He is on board with rights, and with liberalism, and human dignity, and all that, and yet some of the descriptions in this thread would make a new reader forgiven for believing he was considered to be a literal nazi.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53130562]Ah, so you mean this post I specifically made a point of not adding to my list?[/QUOTE] What? I was quoting the first one. [QUOTE]Oh yeah, totally, I definitely did not see him unequivocally say that the views (and thereby the espouser of them) are a bunch of negative things I'd rather not have to repeat every time. This is completely the same as what I did. Definitely sounds like he is having a conversation about nuance. [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] And yet, you were the first one to both do it and get mad about it... hmm[/QUOTE] In that post he's talking about H3H3 not Peterson, and again, you're not intepreting this post in the most positive light. Wafflemonstr is saying that the channel is inadvertently putting people on their show that say misinformed things that can lead to misformed views on issues of sex/gender, race and other issues onto a young generation of people who are not experienced/knowledgable enough to understand it, and they're doing it because it gets a lot of views. [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;53130562] And yet, you were the first one to both do it and get mad about it... hmm [editline]sigh[/editline] also, could you use one of these ^ so I can notice every time you add another paragraph.[/QUOTE] What am I getting mad about? I don't understand what you're saying. Okay, I'll do that. ^ Okay, I understand that you were saving that other quote as a 'gotcha' kind of thing, I don't understand why you didn't just use it in the first post.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53130518] *points to an article* *article backs Peterson's point on hierarchy insofar as is pertinent to his actual point* This is what I mean. Peterson says one thing, and people hear 'so we should be like the lobsters, huh'? It is once again 12, so I will not pick through this post today, but I will attempt to do so eventually this week. My main weakness is education in the historical side of this, but I will argue the points on a pure conceptual level. Due to the degree of complexity contained in the last few articles, I may have to either summarize my response to them, or reply to them in an entirely different thread. JP Says: "Men interact with women differently than they do with men, and their limitations are based on socially acceptable practices founded in childhood" Poster hears:"I want to be allowed to hit women/I regret not being able to hit women" Everything Jordan peterson says requires unpacking. That should be plainly obvious by now. Again, this is missing the point. He is arguing that every species has dominance hierarchies, not just "LOBSTER -> HUMAN LOL". A dominance hierarchy isn't something like feathers, it might hard-coded into all competitive life, or it might even be an emergent property of biological systems. Either way, his point stands. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]*points to an article* *article backs Peterson's point on hierarchy insofar as is pertinent to his actual point*[/QUOTE] Peterson's point was some vague naturalistic fallacy that isn't supported by the evidence he provided. I don't think you read the article fully. The fact they have serotonin is irrelevant. It's ubiquitous. Bananas contain serotonin. The fact Lobsters exist in dominance hierarchies is irrelevant. It's literally cherry picking. Species in the Phylum Arthropod exhibit all kinds of social organisation. Can you tell me what his actual point was instead of saying 'you just don't understand what he's saying'. [QUOTE]Again, this is missing the point. He is arguing that every species has dominance hierarchies, not just "LOBSTER -> HUMAN LOL".[/QUOTE] That's not even remotely true, though, so if that was his point, it's also complete bullshit. Further, if we look closer to home in the evolutionary tree, at Bonobos and Chimps, Bonobo culture is shaped by female cooperatives. Chimps are Patriarchal. So why don't we organise like the Bonobos? In the super hierarchical Bees, "the queen is much larger than the males and the only fertile female. She lays all the eggs in the colony after being fertilised by several males. After breeding season, the males are driven out of the colony and die." That's a natural dominance hierarchy isn't it?

Frankly Zenereon, it feels like you have a superiority complex where you think you're smarter than all of us and that your interpretation is the only correct one. You keep talking down to us and asserting that we "just don't get it" when we disagree with any of your arguments. You keep claiming that we're being unfair or rude to peterson but you've been unfair and rude to us. Maybe if you didn't think that you were so superior to the rest of us, you'd be able to understand where we're coming from. ^ You keep saying we're misinterpreting you, but then you deliberately use confusing words or arguments (like not using a quote in your list so that you could use it as a 'gotcha!' post later on).

[QUOTE=Crumpet;53130578]Peterson's point was some vague naturalistic fallacy that isn't supported by the evidence he provided. I don't think you read the article fully. The fact they have serotonin is irrelevant. It's ubiquitous. Bananas contain serotonin. The fact Lobsters exist in dominance hierarchies is irrelevant. It's literally cherry picking. Species in the Phylum Arthropod exhibit all kinds of social organisation. Can you tell me what his actual point was instead of saying 'you just don't understand what he's saying'.[/quote] Gladly! His stance, as far as I can gather from both listening to him and what his followers believe about his idea is this: Almost all, if not arguably all, biology has hierarchy in it, and if we were to have a long pedantic discussion about it then we could even call them dominance hierarchies. This isn't to say JP's position is that all hierarchies are the same, which is what you seem to be assuming, but rather that practically all biology, or, to be charitable, all animals, have hierarchies. [quote] That's not even remotely true, though, so if that was his point, it's also complete bullshit. Further, if we look closer to home in the evolutionary tree, at Bonobos and Chimps, Bonobo culture is shaped by female cooperatives. Chimps are Patriarchal. So why don't we organise like the Bonobos? In the super hierarchical Bees, "the queen is much larger than the males and the only fertile female. She lays all the eggs in the colony after being fertilised by several males. After breeding season, the males are driven out of the colony and die." That's a natural dominance hierarchy isn't it?[/QUOTE] I may have over-qualified by using the word dominance, but certainly hierachies. And here we reach the point where you misread his stance. He is not saying we should follow the hierarchies of lobsters or bees, but rather he is pointing out that all those have clear delineations in their structure as to who is 'on top', who is 'on the bottom' and that needn't mean who can bash who over the skull. It can mean who has the power of mate selection, or more basically who does what. Certainly, if I am understanding correctly, it is more the former rather than the latter. So, to recap: There is hierarchy in most(if not all) animals. There is hierarchy inherent in our structure. The way that hierarchy is expressed needn't be like other animals, just as theirs needn't be like eachother's. One way or another, our evolutionary history has hard-imprinted the notion of organization according to inbuilt perceptual cues - size, pheremone type, etc, and that isn't something you can socially deconstruct away. [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zyler;53130571] Okay, I understand that you were saving that other quote as a 'gotcha' kind of thing, I don't understand why you didn't just use it in the first post.[/QUOTE] I didn't do that because I thought you might jump on the first quote to debunk, and you did so pretty much like I hoped. You concentrate on the 'nuance' while setting aside the fact that he calls the VIEWS racist, and so therefore JP - the hack - too. [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zyler;53130584]Frankly Zenereon, it feels like you have a superiority complex where you think you're smarter than all of us and that your interpretation is the only correct one. You keep talking down to us and asserting that we [B]"just don't get it"[/B] when we disagree with any of your arguments. [/QUOTE] I think the only time I said anything remotely like that is when I was frustrated after the 5 time explaining that (in my idiosyncratic failed humor) the word 'nazi' was a perjorative catchall for -ist perjoratives. [editline]woops[/editline] If I have insulted you I apologize, it was not my intention.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53130591] There is hierarchy in most(if not all) animals. There is hierarchy inherent in our structure. The way that hierarchy is expressed needn't be like other animals, just as theirs needn't be like eachother's. One way or another, our evolutionary history has hard-imprinted the notion of organization according to inbuilt social cues - size, pheremone type, etc, and that isn't something you can socially deconstruct away. [/QUOTE] so basically you need to unpack his point down to the most vague interpretation so it effectively means nothing? the context of the argument was discussing patriarchy so if his point was that 'all animals organise socially in some way' (they don't) then he made a complete nothing argument in terms of supporting it.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53130591] I think the only time I said anything remotely like that is when I was frustrated after the 5 time explaining that (in my idiosyncratic failed humor) the word 'nazi' was a perjorative catchall for -ist perjoratives. [editline]woops[/editline] If I have offended you I apologize, it was not my intention.[/QUOTE] You shouldn't be using 'nazi' when you mean 'catchall for all -ist perjoratives'. I'm not offended, but rather confused by your deliberate actions to confuse and mislead other people and then act like we're the ones responsible for not understanding your incoherent rambling. Are you still upset because people are supposedly being unfair to Peterson? Because right now you seem more like you're peacocking about your own intellectual superiority in understanding the inherent 'hierarchies' of nature. For someone who supposedly just wanted people to give Peterson a fair shake, you seem much more like a diehard follower than a innocent bystander accusing others of being biased.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;53130603]so basically you need to unpack his point down to the most vague interpretation so it effectively means nothing? the context of the argument was discussing patriarchy so if his point was that 'all animals organise socially in some way' (they don't) then he made a complete nothing argument.[/QUOTE] The argument is that our hierarchy and or social structure isn't a result of the patriarchy but rather the result of the fact that we are part of this aeon long process of coding things that work together in a group that isn't homogeneous. It is absolutely pertinent.

My interpretation of Peterson's dominance hierarchy comments/views boils down to an observation of human organization being reflected in nature. I frankly don't get what he's on about with the Serotonin lobster comments (we both have central nervous systems and we both have social structures, soo... ???), but I think using systems like these to further contextualize human behaviour is fine. He has a point, too; humans [i]do[/i] organize in dominance hierarchies. What changes between the billions of different hierarchies in our society is how dominance is defined (financial, democratic/vote, intelligence, etc) and each system's scale. Ultimately, I view Peterson as a very abstract thinker. From the few dozen hours I've spent listening to him, he seems to constantly try and re-contextualize the information he observes and is given, in order to further his understanding of the human condition. I find this admirable, and I find particular value in his insights into the Bible and in human behaviour. Despite all of the stupid shit he says along the way, anyway. For every interesting interpretation he has on the Bible or of human behaviour, he has a poorly-constructed comment (for his audience, that is) about postmodernists/insert empty-boogeyman-label-here explicitly and intentionally trying to undermine Western society. It makes for a weird mixture of messages that you have to sift through in order to find those nuggets of gold, whatever those might be for each individual (If any).

[QUOTE=Zyler;53130604][B]You shouldn't be using 'nazi' when you mean 'catchall for all -ist perjoratives'[/B]. I'm not offended, but rather confused by your deliberate actions to confuse and mislead other people and then act like we're the ones responsible for not understanding your incoherent rambling. Are you still upset because people are supposedly being unfair to Peterson? Because right now you seem more like you're peacocking about your own intellectual superiority in understanding the inherent 'hierarchies' of nature. For someone who supposedly just wanted people to give Peterson a fair shake, you seem much more like a diehard follower than a innocent bystander accusing others of being biased.[/QUOTE] How many times do I have to concede this point and call my joke shit for you to drop it and move on to the other points I've been making? And, quite frankly, no, I'm having a way better time talking with Crumpet about lobsters, thank you. I never said I was an innocent bystander. I said I agree with most of what he has to say and have been consistent in my praise for him, while conceding the points I thought were fair.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53130606]The argument is that our hierarchy and or social structure isn't a result of the patriarchy but rather the result of the fact that we are part of this aeon long process of coding things that work together in a group that isn't homogeneous. It is absolutely pertinent.[/QUOTE] Who, in this thread, said that the entire structure of society is the result of the patriarchy? It seems like your issue with people in this thread has less to do with people misreading you or taking you out of context and more to do with the fact that you don't understand the positions of other people in the first place. You just assumed that this vague and superfluous idea of inherent natural 'hiearchies' in the correct interpretation and anyone who believes otherwise is automatically in the wrong. All of this pretending to care whether or not people are being unfair or mean to Peterson is just posturing, you don't actually care whether or not there's a fair discourse because you've already decided that you're right and everyone else is right. You say everyone is being unfair and rude, but then you talk down to people as if they're children, even though those people probably know more about these topics than you do. [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;53130609]How many times do I have to concede this point and call my joke shit for you to drop it and move on to the other points I've been making? And, quite frankly, no, I'm having a way better time talking with Crumpet about lobsters, thank you. I never said I was an innocent bystander. I said I agree with most of what he has to say and have been consistent in my praise for him, while conceding the points I thought were fair.[/QUOTE] I keep bringing it up because you're whole argument rests on the basis that people have been unfair or rude to Peterson by interpreting his words in the worst possible light, but you've been interpreting everyone else's points in the worst possible light as well. You've been stuffing words into people's mouths, and telling them what they're saying instead of actually listening to them. Then you have the arrogance to accuse those people of doing the same thing. You're going to need to concede everything you've said about the people in this thread, not just a few choice words, if you want to get back to not having a double-standard. "And, quite frankly, no, I'm having a way better time talking with Crumpet about lobsters, thank you." Is it at all possible for you to have said this any more condescendingly? Congratulations, It's quite an achievement, to come across so arrogantly.

[QUOTE=Zyler;53130611]Who, in this thread, said that the entire structure of society is the result of the patriarchy? [/QUOTE] uhh, no one, cause that stance is what JP's argument is against, and he isn't here? Like, he is arguing against the social constructionist view (with some added qualifiers to pick out maybe only the radical feminist wing), and that's what the whole lobsters thing is about. Honestly, at this point, the pejoratives for peterson have stopped, and I appreciate that, but each of your posts is a tirade against what you perceive to be my emotional state. I feel I have been fair, and I have now debated late into the night in an effort that I hear something from you that doesn't sound like something a bad psychologist would say. I'm tired of you saying the same thing over and over and not addressing any of my points, or missing them entirely. I'll be back tomorrow. [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zyler;53130611] I keep bringing it up because you're whole argument rests on the basis that people have been unfair or rude to Peterson by interpreting his words in the worst possible light, but you've been interpreting everyone else's points in the worst possible light as well. You've been stuffing words into people's mouths, and telling them what they're saying instead of actually listening to them. Then you have the arrogance to accuse those people of doing the same thing. You're going to need to concede everything you've said about the people in this thread, not just a few choice words, if you want to get back to not having a double-standard.[/QUOTE] When I gave you examples, your go to was one that CLEARLY showed vitriol, and proceeded to insist that it did not. You began by being uncharitable to JP to the extreme, and when I was uncharitable to your uncharitability, you said it was not okay, which is fine, but that maybe proves my point. I think that sums it up: You aren't being charitable, not even to my charitability.

[QUOTE=Zyler;53130611]Who, in this thread, said that the entire structure of society is the result of the patriarchy? It seems like your issue with people in this thread has less to do with people misreading you or taking you out of context and more to do with the fact that you don't understand the positions of other people in the first place. You just assumed that this vague and superfluous idea of inherent natural 'hiearchies' in the correct interpretation and anyone who believes otherwise is automatically in the wrong. All of this pretending to care whether or not people are being unfair or mean to Peterson is just posturing, you don't actually care whether or not there's a fair discourse because you've already decided that you're right and everyone else is right. You say everyone is being unfair and rude, but then you talk down to people as if they're children, even though those people probably know more about these topics than you do. [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] I keep bringing it up because you're whole argument rests on the basis that people have been unfair or rude to Peterson by interpreting his words in the worst possible light, but you've been interpreting everyone else's points in the worst possible light as well. You've been stuffing words into people's mouths, and telling them what they're saying instead of actually listening to them. Then you have the arrogance to accuse those people of doing the same thing. You're going to need to concede everything you've said about the people in this thread, not just a few choice words, if you want to get back to not having a double-standard.[/QUOTE] Pot, meet kettle. What do you think about Peterson's dominance hierarchy comments/views?

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53130618]uhh, no one, cause that stance is what JP's argument is against, and he isn't here?[/QUOTE] Then why bring it up at at all? It's not an argument anyone here is made and it's not the basis of the majority of people Peterson says he's against. Most feminists don't believe that all biological existence is based on a hierarchy of the patriarchy, I'm not even sure any do. This just indicates that neither you nor Peterson understand what each of you are arguing against. Peterson doesn't have the educational background to understand these topics. And you're coming up with your own interpretation on top of that which may not even match what he even believes. Why should anyone take what you say seriously when it may not even match what Peterson believes, and he isn't taken seriously by any of the experts in each the respective fields he makes claims about?

[QUOTE=blerb;53130625]Pot, meet kettle. What do you think about Peterson's dominance hierarchy comments/views?[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what you mean by "pot, meet kettle?". Are you saying I'm a hypocrite for saying Zenreon has a double-standard? Do I have a double-standard? What is the double-standard? I said Zenreon's double standard is that he says we must interpret what Peterson's says in the most positive light possible while he interprets what people in this thread have said in the worst light possible. I've repeatedly stated that my issue with Peterson is that the stuff he says is so vague that it can be used by groups with malicious intent to support their beliefs, that isn't a statement that runs counter to anything else I've said in this thread. Can people stop making vague quips/gotcha posts and just explain exactly what they mean? At the moment this whole thread is just a serious of posts like this: Poster 1: *vague quip/gotcha post accusing other posters of doing some vague bad thing Poster 2: I don't understand what you're saying, can you explain what the bad thing I've done is? Poster 1: Aha! The fact that you don't understand what I'm saying proves that you're just misinterpreting me, proving that I'm right and you just don't understand me! [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] There's like three levels of confusion going on here: 1. What Peterson says 2. What Peterson actually means (never clearly explained) 3. What people think he means 4. What other people think the number 3 people mean when they explain what he means 5. What the number 3 people say that the number 4 people mean And then we just go in circles because whenever somebody (crumpet, myself, other posters in this thread) try to pin down what 1 is, other people just deflect to 2, and then deflect to 3 and 4 when we try to pin down each in descending order, and then jump back to number 1. ^ It's really disappointing because I thought we were making real progress. I was trying to explain to Zenreon how he was misinterpreting what other people were saying in the same way he felt people were doing to him, but then he just deflects back to number 1 and 2, makes some vague quip about me doing some vague bad thing and starts talking about lobsters. ^ [QUOTE=Zenreon117;53130591] I didn't do that because I thought you might jump on the first quote to debunk, and you did so pretty much like I hoped. You concentrate on the 'nuance' while setting aside the fact that he calls the VIEWS racist, and so therefore JP - the hack - too.[/QUOTE] So are you outright saying that you avoided clearly stating your argument so you could post it later as a 'gotcha' post in an attempt to trick me? What confuses me even more is that you say in the previous post: [QUOTE=Zenreon117;53130562]Also, I just wanna say, despite our disagreements, I can see that you are at the very least trying to engage in the points, and I appreciate it.[/QUOTE] So he's saying he recognizes that I'm not actually trying to trick him and I'm being honest and engaging in the argument, but then says he deliberately tried to trick me into making a false chess move (which I did, just like he hoped, muhuhahaha).

[QUOTE=Zyler;53130639]I'm not sure what you mean by "pot, meet kettle?". Are you saying I'm a hypocrite for saying Zenreon has a double-standard? Do I have a double-standard? What is the double-standard? I said Zenreon's double standard is that he says we must interpret what Peterson's says in the most positive light possible while he interprets what people in this thread have said in the worst light possible. I've repeatedly stated that my issue with Peterson is that the stuff he says is so vague that it can be used by groups with malicious intent to support their beliefs, that isn't a statement that runs counter to anything else I've said in this thread. Can people stop making vague quips/gotcha posts and just explain exactly what they mean? At the moment this whole thread is just a serious of posts like this: Poster 1: *vague quip/gotcha post accusing other posters of doing some vague bad thing Poster 2: I don't understand what you're saying, can you explain what the bad thing I've done is? Poster 1: Aha! The fact that you don't understand what I'm saying proves that you're just misinterpreting me, proving that I'm right and you just don't understand me![/QUOTE] It was directed toward your calling out of Zenreon's condescendion, when your posts came off in the exact same manner to me. Although frankly, yeah, it's just muddied the waters of the discussion, so I apologize. That said, I view Zenreon's posts as attempted deconstructions of a lot of what Peterson has said in response to all of the negative summarizations people have made in this thread. I wouldn't go to the extreme of saying that Zen has been completely black and white in his argumentation, as he's admitted that Peterson has in fact said some stupid things. So while you're not being a hypocrite, I don't necessarily think your assessment of his stance is 100% accurate. Shifting topics, I agree with your viewpoints to a degree. A major issue with Peterson is his tendency to either over-intellectualize what he's saying, and to use very specific buzzwords/labels to push a narrative (intentional or not), all of which leads to particularly unsavoury types pushing their narratives by twisting his words. I haven't witnessed this myself, as I typically try to avoid observing the kool-aid dispensary of both sides of the political extreme, but based on my time listening to Peterson, I can definitely see the alt-right or whoever having a goldmine to exploit.

[QUOTE=Zyler;53130639] It's really disappointing because I thought we were making real progress. I was trying to explain to Zenreon how he was misinterpreting what other people were saying in the same way he felt people were doing to him, but then he just deflects back to number 1 and 2, makes some vague quip about me doing some vague bad thing and starts talking about lobsters.[/QUOTE] My head is about to hit the pillow. It's 2 am, gimme a break to sleep and do life, lol. I'm not done yet.

[QUOTE=blerb;53130656]It was directed toward your calling out of Zenreon's condescendion, when your posts came off in the exact same manner to me. Although frankly, yeah, it's just muddied the waters of the discussion, so I apologize. That said, I view Zenreon's posts as attempted deconstructions of a lot of what Peterson has said in response to all of the negative summarizations people have made in this thread. I wouldn't go to the extreme of saying that Zen has been completely black and white in his argumentation, as he's admitted that Peterson has in fact said some stupid things. So while you're not being a hypocrite, I don't necessarily think your assessment of his stance is 100% accurate. Shifting topics, I agree with your viewpoints to a degree. A major issue with Peterson is his tendency to either over-intellectualize what he's saying, and to use very specific buzzwords/labels to push a narrative (intentional or not), all of which leads to particularly unsavoury types pushing their narratives by twisting his words. I haven't witnessed this myself, as I typically try to avoid observing the kool-aid dispensary of both sides of the political extreme, but based on my time listening to Peterson, I can definitely see the alt-right or whoever having a goldmine to exploit.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry if I came across that way, I try not to but it's difficult to not be curt when it feels like people are deliberately misinterpreting my posts. I would actually like Peterson to be more intellectualized, just not the kind of intellectualizing that he does currently where he uses overly superfluous smart-sounding words instead of being clear and using the correct scientific language and approach to referencing. The stereotypical idea of intellectual conversation, from whenever news programmes bring in an 'expert' to talk about a topic, is far from the way actual academics converse, which is specifically designed to be clear and heavily based on references to previous work from peer-reviewed sources. It means instead of having like 6 different levels of what Peterson actually means from what he says, what he means (that nobody knows except him), what people think he means, what people think the people who says what he means mean, and so on. You have scientific terms that can be looked up and have a specific and commonly agreed upon definition. [video=youtube;ZB-Iwuq5VN4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB-Iwuq5VN4[/video] This is why I don't recommend that people should take their views about the world from people like Peterson, because they don't follow the scientific process. I wouldn't even recommend people who agree with my political views if they don't follow a scientific or similar holistic process. Because, with human nature, it's so easy to get a biased/warped view of reality, even if you have really good intentions. That's why, for example, I tell people not to follow VOX as their primary source, because even when the stuff they follow is sourced it's presented in a very politically charged and one-sided way that means they only focus on things from one angle.

[QUOTE=Zyler;53130671]I'm sorry if I came across that way, I try not to but it's difficult to not be curt when it feels like people are deliberately misinterpreting my posts. I would actually like Peterson to be more intellectualized, just not the kind of intellectualizing that he does currently where he uses overly superfluous smart-sounding words instead of being clear and using the correct scientific language and approach to referencing. The stereotypical idea of intellectual conversation, from whenever news programmes bring in an 'expert' to talk about a topic, is far from the way actual academics converse, which is specifically designed to be clear and heavily based on references to previous work from peer-reviewed sources. It means instead of having like 6 different levels of what Peterson actually means from what he says, what he means (that nobody knows except him), what people think he means, what people think the people who says what he means mean, and so on. You have scientific terms that can be looked up and have a specific and commonly agreed upon definition. [video=youtube;ZB-Iwuq5VN4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB-Iwuq5VN4[/video] This is why I don't recommend that people should take their views about the world from people like Peterson, because they don't follow the scientific process. I wouldn't even recommend people who agree with my political views if they don't follow a scientific or similar holistic process. Because, with human nature, it's so easy to get a biased/warped view of reality, even if you have really good intentions. That's why, for example, I tell people not to follow VOX as their primary source, because even when the stuff they follow is sourced it's presented in a very politically charged and one-sided way that means they only focus on things from one angle.[/QUOTE] Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say he doesn't follow a scientific/holistic process? I've seen a few of his lectures on YT, and he does provide visuals for statistics that, I assume, he's collected in his time as a professor at UoT. That's not to say he follows a process for all of his hypotheses and points (or even a majority of them), but regarding particular fields (IE psychology), I imagine he [i]has[/i] to apply some kind of holistic process, right?

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.