Jordan Peterson - Without Religion There's No Art & Poetry (Secular Talk) - General

Whoa now. That's very radical solution you're suggesting, I don't think the people here are ready for it.

Jordan. I'm not so sure about that one mate... interesting argument though. I'm not religious, but I believe it has its place. There's always going to be nutters on this planet, and they're heavily drawn to religion - we can keep an eye on them better if they're registered at the church for example.

I wonder how it is that hateful ideologies are allowed to fester and get really big? Maybe because they don't get exposed to the light of rationality and public scrutiny?

One of the things I agree with Peterson on is the importance of believing in something bigger than yourself and I think religion is a big part of that.

i believe in my mum

Echo-chambers. And I don't mean it as a jab at anyone here. Imagine if you had an idea about something and you were in a community that had similar ideas and those ideas were never questioned. Moreover they would only be validated and any opposition would be met with hostility and mockery. You could end up with very strong beliefs with very little knowledge on those subjects. Grab any nationalist and at best he will reference some blogposts and bogus stats that he never actually read. If you grill him enough the best argument he's gonna be left with is gonna be "common sense" or something.

I think social media plays an enormous role. You take someone who's completely out of the loop and bring them into the loop by feeding them bullshit through memes and loaded blog posts. Barely anyone who shares alt-right beliefs actually knows what they believe in, they just see some vaguely correct blanket statement and they sign their name on the Outrage Culture club membership form. It's not unique to the alt-right, though. Pretty much every extremist movement uses some form of artifice to recruit new members from terrorists to neo-nazis. Presentation is everything, you've probably heard of that diagram trick where, if you want to make any development look more significant than it is, just zoom into the diagram until a tiny jump looks like a cliffside. This is the same thing but applied to making your opposition look bad. There's a pretense of rationality and collected thought behind a movement that is quite literally "feels before reals" by people who have never faced political conflict all their life and only act on smug self-righteousness.

Every single one of these threads does follow a particular formula of assault from the same small group of chronically offended lightweights who think they have Peterson shoe horned into a box and that there is nothing left to debate so the debate should be shut down, its pathetic and dishonest but completely expected if we did a age cross section of FP we would probably find this place caters to a certain demographic that has alot of growing up to do, I wouldn't usually bite but here goes. Peterson is a smart man he knows his stuff, ive watched alot of his videos and hell ive even been to one of his lectures, the very common tactic used to try and discredit him falls apart completely with even minimal probing "he is against C16 therefore he is a transphobe". Wrong, he debated C16 not because he is transphobic, he explicitly stated that if someone presented as a certain gender he would address them as that gender which is all Trans people want, is to be accepted for who they are nothing more nothing less. He drew the line at that bill because he thought the law could and would be abused in order to stifle free speech (which as of writing this has happened multiple times a simple google search will show he was right about the bill). The second one "He tries to enforce traditional gender roles and "harmful" stereotypes and is therefore against women", again this is a dishonest argument and he merely represents statistical findings that suggest men and women have preferential differences that have an impact on gender gaps in and around business/society etc and that short of forcing people to do your bidding you wont get equal outcomes, and really I question what is actually wrong with letting people do what they want? if the results doesn't fit your worldview then maybe you should adjust your thinking to be more realistic. And thirdly this one is probably the most hilarious "here is a clip from a video where Peterson suggests that feminists are in cohort with islamists because they secretly want to be dominated" this is taken wildly out of context and is really just funny, he himself was having a laugh about the implication because those 2 groups really have nothing in common and ultimately have incompatible ideologies, yet feminists seem to jump on any bandwagon possible to bring in a culture that dominates women of course that doesn't make sense, I also believe Peterson was led to that conclusion by the interviewer and it was satirical. Of course this all seems like a case of context and if your a purveyor of left wing ideologies why would you let a little thing like that get in the way of your special brand of "progress".

Spot on, I couldn't agree more.

Derailing threads should be made bannable again instead of trying to cater to one side bitching about every topic on a specific subject. I'm more tired of every 1st reply being "Uh another X thread" then I am the topics themselves.

"Peterson is a smart man he knows his stuff..." Heh

Cheers mate, I'll drink to that Or you could post whatever you want to instead of bitching about what other people are talking about. "Uh another hivemind thread"

Dude what could possibly make you think that those two account with similarly spelled names that mean similar things one of which is brand new and both of which are both from Australia are linked in any way?

Christ that's pathetic. I don't know what the big deal is about this Peterson guy tbh. Everyone acts like he's this genius, but everything I hear from him is just run of the mill reactionary conservative noise. I get that it must be exciting for the right to have a popular figure who actually has some credibility in something , for once, but when he's constantly banging on about things outside of his expertise- why should his opinion be at all significant? It would be likely listening to Gordon Ramsey's opinions on the dangers of trans rights and the ~evil leftists~ because he's a fucking amazing cook and owns all these restaurants so he obviously knows his shit! Or electing a millionaire into a position of power because he's rich so he obviously understand mone- o yea that's right.

He has a phd in psychology so that makes him qualified to talk about everything because psychology is everything that humans do so when a psychology professor agrees with the alt-right, that makes the alt-right scientifically correct. That's literally how science works, you get a guy who spent his life learning this shit and even when everything he says afterwards is pure conjecture with no peer-reviewable process behind it, it's now scientific fact. This is what people who don't know what science is actually believe

Like how an engineer can debunk evolution (with peanut butter) because he's an engineer and engineers are smart so he must be right https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD6B0ad7fgo I will never not post this clip when I can. Shoutout to Chuck Missler who died 5 days ago.

Good observation boys however I did not make that account, but go ahead pat yourselves on the back and claim victory because that's a lot easier than addressing my points or admitting your wrong.

https://puu.sh/Ahzc3.png

No please do enlighten us with your wisdom, I'm keen to hear it.

for one, you're arguing with yourself, lol you "debunked" only arguments that you made. but yeah dude i'm sure it's everyone else who's a lightweight

I change my mind. You guys are correct and Proj3ct_ZeRo is indeed wrong. Thank you all very much for the enlightening points. ProJ3ct_ZeRo is no good and I just unsubbed from charlatan Peterson's patreon.

Holy shit this thread is some top level rollercoaster ride

i think project naught is not the same guy but instead someone trolling him

i feel more inclined to trust opinions and thoughts of a man who has a PhD in Psychology, wrote extensively on totalitarian regimes and religion, taught at Harvard, and teaches at UofT. no offense to the armchair philosophers on facepunch who feel inclined and obligated to make a fit on any video with Jordan Peterson's name on it. it's almost as if you don't need to click on the thread rather than telling people to stop posting the videos especially when there is very little issue with the video at all (as far as extremist and unpalatable views).

Why don't you listen to other people who have PhDs instead of only listening to one who (presumably) supports your preexisting beliefs? It's not as if there's a shortage of differing viewpoints of PhD graduates when it comes to political issues. Does this mean that if I find a single person with a PhD in basket weaving I can trust all of their views on quantum physics?

Your mum's bigger than you?

I didn't say only listen Jordan Peterson at all. In fact, there are plenty of qualified intellectuals who disagree greatly with him, such as Sam Harris (they have also had plenty of debates). You took what I said clearly out of context. My issue is with the armchair philosophers on Facepunch that like to bolster their egos by taking what he says out of context and doing half-assed "rebuttals". Also - Jordan Peterson is speaking on a topic that is closely related to his studies in psychology so the idea that he is speaking out of his ass is absurd. I think Jordan Peterson to stay in the public eye as an educator, and I want his ideas challenged. He certainly deserves the attention he has gotten.

You want his ideas to be challenged, but you also dismiss anyone who criticises him because they don't have a piece of paper? Why should it matter whether someone has a PhD if the stuff they say isn't back by the actual academic body of work on the subject? When I said you should listen to other people with PhDs, I mean you should listen to people with doctorates on the subject of political science, history, biology, evolutionary psychology or sociology, y'know the stuff actually related to the subject matter. Peterson's doctorate in clinical psychology gives him no expertise in the areas in which he makes factually incorrect claims, like the idea that lobsters have hierarchies therefore humans must too. His views are completely misinformed in areas he has no actual expertise in, and based more on jungian psychoanalysis and conservative ideology than actual current science. You should read stuff written by PhD graduates in the actual areas being discussed, not people you already agree with.

I am dismissing the people who pull the "dumb man's intellectual" shtick, calling his followers and himself dimwitted for simply disagreeing with or misinterpreting what he was. Perhaps, I should have been more clear about that. It shouldn't matter if someone has a PhD, but it is important to note that a PhD is not just a piece of paper. Nor are decades of studies that go deeply into understanding these complex ideas. And Sam Harris and Eric Weinstein are conservative ideologues? It's hard to take what you say seriously if you can just make blatantly false statements like that.

Why didn't you ask me about Ben Shapiro? Unless you're suggesting that he is in fact a conservative ideologue? As for Eric Weinstein, he's the managing director for Peter Thiel's investment firm, Thiel is the one who invested in Hulk Hogan's sextape lawsuit against Gawker, is a hardcore libertarian (a real taxation is theft kind) and wrote a book about how universities are corrupting the youth through the evils of political correctness. Sam Harris is generally what is referred to as an antitheist, although he doesn't refer to himself as such. He's mainly famous for a podcast and not a body of scientific work. He's the kind that goes further than being atheist/agnostic and actively believes religion (mainly christianity) is to blame for all of the evils in the world while advocating his own brand of vague spiritualist thinking based on hinduism. All three I would consider to be ideologues.