He’s so smart and articulate! Yeah, if you ate lead paint chips as a kid, or decided that huffing glue as a past time was a great idea.
Why is it that the cringiest fucking weebs like this guy? Does the suit give him some sort of weird dominion over them? These losers should be case and fucking point as to why you need Critical Thinking classes in schools…and it should also fucking highlight why Republicans are desperately trying to make public schools systematically dumber. A generation of highly educated people is detrimental to the conservative ideology (unless your making literally millions of $$$).
A lack of visible positive role models is a big part of it. When nobody else wants to engage with isolated and directionless young white men, people like Peterson will fill the vacuum. Couple that with amoral algorithms of social media generating engagement at any cost, and they soon have an audience.
Ensuring everyone has opportunities and and a sense of inclusion would go a lot further than just trying to teach everyone to recognise false shepherds. That’s just treating the symptom and not the cause, and would likely end up with them falling prey to another wolf with a better sheepskin.
Be careful with that second sentence. Keep in mind that there’s an age everyone experiences, not just white men, where people feel isolated and unheard. Believing that it only applies to young white men is a slippery slope into the mindset that creates these whackjobs.
Keep in mind that there’s an age everyone experiences, not just white men, where people feel isolated and unheard. Believing that it only applies to young white men is a slippery slope into the mindset that creates these whackjobs.
OK, but young white men are Peterson’s target demographic and he doesn’t really appeal to anyone else (broadly). You’re correct that everyone experiences that feeling but it’s not really relevant to this conversation.
The person you replied to did not imply in any way that only young white men experience that feeling of isolation. Rather, the point was that they are the group most affected by Peterson’s rhetoric.
Oh, I don’t disagree. There’s many systemic failures that have to occur for this to happen. YouTube thankfully has gone through efforts to remove it’s radicalization issue, so hopefully we’ll start to see it slow down or peter out over the next decade or so. However, I’m worried that the damage is already done.
I think it’s partly they see a little bit of themselves in him, so it’s like a “I’m you but better so listen to me” thing. But it’s also because she focuses on the Canadian government, which is really easy to make fun of and ridicule policy wise as of late. So these men see him “owning” the Liberal Canadian government for their many bad policies and they idolize him.
Tell me one thing he says (other than his religious takes or takes on trans) that you disagree with. I am curious why people would be against his statements as his ‘clean your room’ style is very general
I also believe nobody knows what he teaches and likes to circlejerk against him
Tell me one thing he says (other than his religious takes or takes on trans) that you disagree with.
I mean, that’s like saying “tell me one thing Hitler says (other than racism and politics) that you disagree with”…
His “teachings” are completely entangled with religion and culturally conservative dogma. This aspect of his character isn’t really separable from his teachings or his actions.
To be honest, his actual “philosophy” is just a bunch of word salad that individuals can gleem meaning from when it suits them.
Except hitler is known for his politics and racism. The meme was about mens health and how he is a bad resource for that view. I think you can dissect that from his philosophy and religious teachings.
Except hitler is known for his politics and racism.
And Jordan Peterson isn’t famous for his anti-trans dogma, or crazy fusion of religion and “philosophy”?
The meme was about mens health and how he is a bad resource for that view.
And I am staying that his religious and anti-trans attitude is a key reason of why he is a bad resource for that view. His views of religion and trans people are a inseparable part of his world view.
Yeah JBP is famous outside of his mentor crowd for different reasons. Some people flock to him for guidance, and others look at his other takes and judge him as a whole. It would be akin to having a conversation about good leadership skills and bringing up Hitler as a good model for using effective communication skills for uniting his base regardless of the outcome. I am not talking about Hitlers history of racism or politics.
I just want you to acknowledge that many people dont come to JBP for his stance on religion or trans issues. They come for a fatherly role model. I want you to criticize that not his stance on whatever philosophical problem because they can be seperated. If you can show me an example where it needs to be together then that is acceptable.
I see what you’re saying “you can dig through this pile of shit (racism, homophobia, and other bigotry) and find a nugget of gold (basic ass advice on self help and leadership)” and that’s as true for JP as it is for Hitler.
I think what everyone else is saying is “WHY?!??” why are you fighting so hard to dig through the shit. There are many people handing out that gold with very little shit digging required.
When you fight so hard for the right to dig through that much shit to find small amounts of easily accessible gold, people are going to rightfully start to think it’s not just the gold you’re after.
Im losing confidence that you have anything to bring to the table other than dog whistle style messages. I am not trying to defend the guy on all moral positions, i am just looking for this one thing. Its either you know or you dont.
Nothing in what I said is a dog whistle. You clearly don’t know what that term means.
This is the first time I responded to you and I was pretty clear: when you support heinous people so ardently you can’t blame people for assuming you support heinous people.
I just want you to acknowledge that many people dont come to JBP for his stance on religion or trans issues.
That’s kinda how propaganda works… Even if you don’t come for the trans and religion dogma, you will be exposed to it.
Hitler as a good model for using effective communication skills for uniting his base regardless of the outcome.
Lol, it’s the same model… Invent a boogie man, lie, cheat, steal, and hurl abuse at those who oppose you. Yes, it would be like bringing up hitlers “leadership skill”. But, then ignoring the reality of what that “leadership” really entailed.
show me an example where it needs to be together then that is acceptable.
You can’t separate the two because he does not separate them. His philosophy leads him to believe in, and justify his own dogmatic views.
This is not a “separate the art from the artist” as this person’s art is getting people to embody his own philosophy.
Thats not how propoganda works. Im asking you to formulate an opinion on one subject matter. I can talk about the bible on how it is the most important piece of literature of all time and not be indoctrinated.
You can take a quote of his, show me that it is both intended to bolster his dogmatic philosophy while also empowering young men. That would be an acceptable example. If you can show me that he does this I will give this to you.
Lol, so telling people what they want to hear under ulterior motivations isn’t propaganda?
Im asking you to formulate an opinion on one subject matter.
You are, but JP isn’t… That’s the whole point. His ideology involves embodied cognition, one which implores you to adopt a new set of behaviors and practices. He doesn’t just want to change how you think about one subject, he wants you to make systemic behavioural changes.
I can talk about the bible on how it is the most important piece of literature of all time and not be indoctrinated.
Yes, and I can talk about JP without being indoctrinated. However I can’t practice Christianity or JPs ideology without being indoctrinated. Practice in action is part of the indoctrination process.
You can take a quote of his, show me that it is both intended to bolster his dogmatic philosophy while also empowering young men.
His dogmatic philosophy was created to rile up young men, they are inseparable. The simple fact that you believe that young men need to be empowered is evidence of your indoctrination. What group of young people has more power and opportunities than young men in the west?
Just by being born in the US as a male makes me one of the most empowered beings on the planet. I have more influence over my government than most every other citizen on the planet. I will create and capture more wealth than nearly any other citizen on the planet. I have more opportunity in education and job placement than nearly any other person on the planet. There are nearly 8 billion people on the earth and the only other people who have an opportunity better than me are maybe a hundred million dudes who were born with more wealth. You haven’t had your opportunity or “power” taken from you, you’re just lazy, which is perfectly fine. The only problem with laziness occurs when you are also massively entitled.
Jordan Peterson’s entire scam is giving young economically disadvantaged men something to blame for their woes. Instead of blaming the shareholder, the management, or even economic policy, it’s because “men aren’t just allowed to be men anymore”. He takes that idea and mixes it with actual bits of stolen philosophy and pop psychology.
If there is anything meaningfully beneficial in his teachings, it’s scaffolding was erected by someone else. Why dig through the massive pile of shit when you could just go read the people he scavenged it from? Why read JP when you could just read Descartes or Heidegger, hell if you wanted the pop application of Enactivism go read Marie Kondo. She will also tell you to clean your room, but with 100% less transphobia.
Without writing a thesis and deepdiving into his rhetoric - He’s not a philosopher, yet often makes references to well known philosophical platitudes from people like Gödel in efforts to argue conservative and religious viewpoints. For example: Argument on Existence of God
Notice how he takes a common sense observation, and then applies it to an idea. That’s okay, your supposed to do that. My issue with him is that he then makes another assumption, then another…then another. And soon, he’s making conclusions built upon a shaky bridge of assumptions that lead back to a small kernel of actual wisdom.
If your paying attention to him, it’s very similar to how conspiracy theories are created, you take a solid kernel of truth or seed of wisdom that you can use to anchor the idea…to someone that doesn’t know better, that’s all they need to believe everything else.
Jordan Peterson is not always wrong, I think he makes genuine points on some subjects when it’s based on his actual areas of expertise, but he’s sort of a smart sounding jack-of-all-trades when it comes to anything else. For example, he’s a psychologist…why did he come up with an all/mostly-meat diet? Because it worked in a niche case with his daughter? It’s entirely anecdotal, not researched, divergent from common sense dietary advice, and frankly dangerous.
I said dont give a religious example as that is open to much criticism. I am talking in reference to his points on self-improvement and how everyone here believes they should be ignored. Please give an example on that.
I gave you an example of his argument style that I have issues with, not specifically an argument about religion that I disagree with. I noticed that a lot of his arguments try to use a strong basis on moral or objective reasoning and then provide flimsy but intellectually sounded deduction to stretch further and further towards his ultimate objective. I’ve given an example of it, and technically a second in regards to his promoted dietary practices. Do with them what you will. :)
Ugh, my bad for giving you the benefit of the doubt. I thought you were genuinely asking and not just looking for a gotcha. (also, for the record, I’m not the person you originally responded to)
Women wear make up ONLY to signal sexual arousal. Healthy women want kids (so do unhealthy women; healthy women can also want kids). “Sorry, not beautiful” about a woman. Telling people on Twitter to off themselves.
The dude is in trouble for calling himself a neuroscientist and evolutionary biologist ffs. I mean, do I need to go on? Or do you think it’s fair to say that his religious and trans arguments aren’t the only issues he’s currently facing removal of his licensure over?
This comment has nothing to do with your original comment, but if you need me to tie together how his misogyny hurts young men that follow him we can go over that
About Alek Minassian, a man accused of killing six people after running them over with a van in Toronto: “He was angry at God because women were rejecting him. The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
Oh, some incel murdered 6 people, must of been a woman’s fault somehow…
Is defending a literal misogynist terror attack enough evidence for you?
Saying that women only do things to serve or benefit men doesn’t empower young men? That is literally telling young men that women are subservient to them…
Who exactly is stealing the power away from these young men? And what exactly are they taking away?
Can you give us a example of how JP actually empowers men?
Saying that women only do things to serve or benefit men doesn’t empower young men
I have never heard JBP say this. I have heard him say that agreeable people tend to be stepped on and that women tend to be agreeable… but thats not the same thing.
Dont turn this on me. I asked if you could provide an example of how he isnt effective at empowering young men(which is the point of this meme). You cant reverse uno and ask me the same question
I mean you asked for a quote and someone provided a quote. You can look up the quote and find articles about it.
It’s just one of the misogynistic lies he spews on the regular. I believe in the same interview he stated that high heels were invented to lengthen the legs of women to make them more attractive… In reality high heels were first worn by men to keep shit from getting in their shoes.
I have heard him say that agreeable people tend to be stepped on and that women tend to be agreeable… but thats not the same thing.
Lol, so much better… It’s your fault you are being stepped on, not the generations of oppression and systemic disenfranchisement. Does that apply to everyone? Is he saying that Africans were just to agreeable so we had to enslave them… Broken as logic.
asked if you could provide an example of how he isnt effective at empowering young men
Yes, I’m going to first prove God doesn’t exist, then I will work on proving the negative with JP … You can’t prove a negative my dude. If you are making the claim that he empowers young men, it’s up to you to provide the evidence that proves it.
If you are making the claim that he empowers young men, it’s up to you to provide the evidence that proves it.
Im just going to respond to this because im kinda over this. The claim was initially made by the meme. I am questioning this, yet you are here asking me for proof of the contrary.
The claim was initially made by the meme. I am questioning this, yet you are here asking me for proof of the contrary.
The claim was made by a meme with no supporting evidence, and thus can be dismissed without evidence.
The meme is also inanimate and cannot defend it’s own affirmation. However, you chose to substantiate this affirmation, which means you now have the onus of burden of proof.
He’s so smart and articulate! Yeah, if you ate lead paint chips as a kid, or decided that huffing glue as a past time was a great idea.
Why is it that the cringiest fucking weebs like this guy? Does the suit give him some sort of weird dominion over them? These losers should be case and fucking point as to why you need Critical Thinking classes in schools…and it should also fucking highlight why Republicans are desperately trying to make public schools systematically dumber. A generation of highly educated people is detrimental to the conservative ideology (unless your making literally millions of $$$).
A lack of visible positive role models is a big part of it. When nobody else wants to engage with isolated and directionless young white men, people like Peterson will fill the vacuum. Couple that with amoral algorithms of social media generating engagement at any cost, and they soon have an audience.
Ensuring everyone has opportunities and and a sense of inclusion would go a lot further than just trying to teach everyone to recognise false shepherds. That’s just treating the symptom and not the cause, and would likely end up with them falling prey to another wolf with a better sheepskin.
Be careful with that second sentence. Keep in mind that there’s an age everyone experiences, not just white men, where people feel isolated and unheard. Believing that it only applies to young white men is a slippery slope into the mindset that creates these whackjobs.
OK, but young white men are Peterson’s target demographic and he doesn’t really appeal to anyone else (broadly). You’re correct that everyone experiences that feeling but it’s not really relevant to this conversation.
The person you replied to did not imply in any way that only young white men experience that feeling of isolation. Rather, the point was that they are the group most affected by Peterson’s rhetoric.
Oh, I don’t disagree. There’s many systemic failures that have to occur for this to happen. YouTube thankfully has gone through efforts to remove it’s radicalization issue, so hopefully we’ll start to see it slow down or peter out over the next decade or so. However, I’m worried that the damage is already done.
I think it’s partly they see a little bit of themselves in him, so it’s like a “I’m you but better so listen to me” thing. But it’s also because she focuses on the Canadian government, which is really easy to make fun of and ridicule policy wise as of late. So these men see him “owning” the Liberal Canadian government for their many bad policies and they idolize him.
Tell me one thing he says (other than his religious takes or takes on trans) that you disagree with. I am curious why people would be against his statements as his ‘clean your room’ style is very general
I also believe nobody knows what he teaches and likes to circlejerk against him
I mean, that’s like saying “tell me one thing Hitler says (other than racism and politics) that you disagree with”…
His “teachings” are completely entangled with religion and culturally conservative dogma. This aspect of his character isn’t really separable from his teachings or his actions.
To be honest, his actual “philosophy” is just a bunch of word salad that individuals can gleem meaning from when it suits them.
Except hitler is known for his politics and racism. The meme was about mens health and how he is a bad resource for that view. I think you can dissect that from his philosophy and religious teachings.
And Jordan Peterson isn’t famous for his anti-trans dogma, or crazy fusion of religion and “philosophy”?
And I am staying that his religious and anti-trans attitude is a key reason of why he is a bad resource for that view. His views of religion and trans people are a inseparable part of his world view.
Yeah JBP is famous outside of his mentor crowd for different reasons. Some people flock to him for guidance, and others look at his other takes and judge him as a whole. It would be akin to having a conversation about good leadership skills and bringing up Hitler as a good model for using effective communication skills for uniting his base regardless of the outcome. I am not talking about Hitlers history of racism or politics.
I just want you to acknowledge that many people dont come to JBP for his stance on religion or trans issues. They come for a fatherly role model. I want you to criticize that not his stance on whatever philosophical problem because they can be seperated. If you can show me an example where it needs to be together then that is acceptable.
I see what you’re saying “you can dig through this pile of shit (racism, homophobia, and other bigotry) and find a nugget of gold (basic ass advice on self help and leadership)” and that’s as true for JP as it is for Hitler.
I think what everyone else is saying is “WHY?!??” why are you fighting so hard to dig through the shit. There are many people handing out that gold with very little shit digging required.
When you fight so hard for the right to dig through that much shit to find small amounts of easily accessible gold, people are going to rightfully start to think it’s not just the gold you’re after.
Im losing confidence that you have anything to bring to the table other than dog whistle style messages. I am not trying to defend the guy on all moral positions, i am just looking for this one thing. Its either you know or you dont.
Nothing in what I said is a dog whistle. You clearly don’t know what that term means.
This is the first time I responded to you and I was pretty clear: when you support heinous people so ardently you can’t blame people for assuming you support heinous people.
That’s kinda how propaganda works… Even if you don’t come for the trans and religion dogma, you will be exposed to it.
Lol, it’s the same model… Invent a boogie man, lie, cheat, steal, and hurl abuse at those who oppose you. Yes, it would be like bringing up hitlers “leadership skill”. But, then ignoring the reality of what that “leadership” really entailed.
You can’t separate the two because he does not separate them. His philosophy leads him to believe in, and justify his own dogmatic views.
This is not a “separate the art from the artist” as this person’s art is getting people to embody his own philosophy.
Thats not how propoganda works. Im asking you to formulate an opinion on one subject matter. I can talk about the bible on how it is the most important piece of literature of all time and not be indoctrinated.
You can take a quote of his, show me that it is both intended to bolster his dogmatic philosophy while also empowering young men. That would be an acceptable example. If you can show me that he does this I will give this to you.
Lol, so telling people what they want to hear under ulterior motivations isn’t propaganda?
You are, but JP isn’t… That’s the whole point. His ideology involves embodied cognition, one which implores you to adopt a new set of behaviors and practices. He doesn’t just want to change how you think about one subject, he wants you to make systemic behavioural changes.
Yes, and I can talk about JP without being indoctrinated. However I can’t practice Christianity or JPs ideology without being indoctrinated. Practice in action is part of the indoctrination process.
His dogmatic philosophy was created to rile up young men, they are inseparable. The simple fact that you believe that young men need to be empowered is evidence of your indoctrination. What group of young people has more power and opportunities than young men in the west?
Just by being born in the US as a male makes me one of the most empowered beings on the planet. I have more influence over my government than most every other citizen on the planet. I will create and capture more wealth than nearly any other citizen on the planet. I have more opportunity in education and job placement than nearly any other person on the planet. There are nearly 8 billion people on the earth and the only other people who have an opportunity better than me are maybe a hundred million dudes who were born with more wealth. You haven’t had your opportunity or “power” taken from you, you’re just lazy, which is perfectly fine. The only problem with laziness occurs when you are also massively entitled.
Jordan Peterson’s entire scam is giving young economically disadvantaged men something to blame for their woes. Instead of blaming the shareholder, the management, or even economic policy, it’s because “men aren’t just allowed to be men anymore”. He takes that idea and mixes it with actual bits of stolen philosophy and pop psychology.
If there is anything meaningfully beneficial in his teachings, it’s scaffolding was erected by someone else. Why dig through the massive pile of shit when you could just go read the people he scavenged it from? Why read JP when you could just read Descartes or Heidegger, hell if you wanted the pop application of Enactivism go read Marie Kondo. She will also tell you to clean your room, but with 100% less transphobia.
Without writing a thesis and deepdiving into his rhetoric - He’s not a philosopher, yet often makes references to well known philosophical platitudes from people like Gödel in efforts to argue conservative and religious viewpoints. For example: Argument on Existence of God Notice how he takes a common sense observation, and then applies it to an idea. That’s okay, your supposed to do that. My issue with him is that he then makes another assumption, then another…then another. And soon, he’s making conclusions built upon a shaky bridge of assumptions that lead back to a small kernel of actual wisdom.
If your paying attention to him, it’s very similar to how conspiracy theories are created, you take a solid kernel of truth or seed of wisdom that you can use to anchor the idea…to someone that doesn’t know better, that’s all they need to believe everything else.
Jordan Peterson is not always wrong, I think he makes genuine points on some subjects when it’s based on his actual areas of expertise, but he’s sort of a smart sounding jack-of-all-trades when it comes to anything else. For example, he’s a psychologist…why did he come up with an all/mostly-meat diet? Because it worked in a niche case with his daughter? It’s entirely anecdotal, not researched, divergent from common sense dietary advice, and frankly dangerous.
deleted by creator
I said dont give a religious example as that is open to much criticism. I am talking in reference to his points on self-improvement and how everyone here believes they should be ignored. Please give an example on that.
I gave you an example of his argument style that I have issues with, not specifically an argument about religion that I disagree with. I noticed that a lot of his arguments try to use a strong basis on moral or objective reasoning and then provide flimsy but intellectually sounded deduction to stretch further and further towards his ultimate objective. I’ve given an example of it, and technically a second in regards to his promoted dietary practices. Do with them what you will. :)
deleted by creator
So your answer is “no i dont have any examples” then am I right?
Ugh, my bad for giving you the benefit of the doubt. I thought you were genuinely asking and not just looking for a gotcha. (also, for the record, I’m not the person you originally responded to)
Im not looking for a gotcha lmao, i asked something specific and i want a specific answer. Stop generalizing
Women wear make up ONLY to signal sexual arousal. Healthy women want kids (so do unhealthy women; healthy women can also want kids). “Sorry, not beautiful” about a woman. Telling people on Twitter to off themselves.
The dude is in trouble for calling himself a neuroscientist and evolutionary biologist ffs. I mean, do I need to go on? Or do you think it’s fair to say that his religious and trans arguments aren’t the only issues he’s currently facing removal of his licensure over?
This has nothing to do with empowering young men.
This comment has nothing to do with your original comment, but if you need me to tie together how his misogyny hurts young men that follow him we can go over that
Show me an example of misogyny, please
Show me you can read my first comment, please.
That wasnt in respnse to what I said though. You just started spewing misogyny stuff
Oh, ok you’re illiterate, my apologies.
“The cure for that is enforced monogamy.”
About Alek Minassian, a man accused of killing six people after running them over with a van in Toronto: “He was angry at God because women were rejecting him. The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
Oh, some incel murdered 6 people, must of been a woman’s fault somehow…
Is defending a literal misogynist terror attack enough evidence for you?
Send link if you can
Sure
Saying that women only do things to serve or benefit men doesn’t empower young men? That is literally telling young men that women are subservient to them…
Who exactly is stealing the power away from these young men? And what exactly are they taking away?
Can you give us a example of how JP actually empowers men?
I have never heard JBP say this. I have heard him say that agreeable people tend to be stepped on and that women tend to be agreeable… but thats not the same thing.
Dont turn this on me. I asked if you could provide an example of how he isnt effective at empowering young men(which is the point of this meme). You cant reverse uno and ask me the same question
I mean you asked for a quote and someone provided a quote. You can look up the quote and find articles about it.
It’s just one of the misogynistic lies he spews on the regular. I believe in the same interview he stated that high heels were invented to lengthen the legs of women to make them more attractive… In reality high heels were first worn by men to keep shit from getting in their shoes.
Lol, so much better… It’s your fault you are being stepped on, not the generations of oppression and systemic disenfranchisement. Does that apply to everyone? Is he saying that Africans were just to agreeable so we had to enslave them… Broken as logic.
Yes, I’m going to first prove God doesn’t exist, then I will work on proving the negative with JP … You can’t prove a negative my dude. If you are making the claim that he empowers young men, it’s up to you to provide the evidence that proves it.
Im just going to respond to this because im kinda over this. The claim was initially made by the meme. I am questioning this, yet you are here asking me for proof of the contrary.
The claim was made by a meme with no supporting evidence, and thus can be dismissed without evidence.
The meme is also inanimate and cannot defend it’s own affirmation. However, you chose to substantiate this affirmation, which means you now have the onus of burden of proof.