btw this is the Milo vid I was talking about.... I swear the only thing that vid is missing is Derek stomping some guys skull in a curb, what in the actual fuck.
On November 13 2017 04:51 Stroggoz wrote:
glad i dont fit into any of these stupid starter packs. im an actual classical liberal that reads adam smith and wilhelm von humboldt for the insight. being homeless sucks btw, there arn't many things worse.
It does suck. I heard him say once that he was doing this as a voluntary poverty thing for religious reasons. I also learned he has a place to stay. However, I learned more about him today and he has schizophrenia and he's almost completely blind. His place was being used by drug dealers and sex trade workers and he's had his violin stolen. His life is a lot worse than he lets on. I think, without romanticizing it, that for someone who does actually take it up as a voluntary thing and who doesn't have a mental illness it might not be that bad if they have a talent like he does. At least I think it's an experience that would change you for the better if it's done temporarily, assuming you can do it without becoming an addict of course.
Why would it change me for the better? The one time i was homeless, it didn't change me for the better in any way that i can think of. it would have made me miserable if it lasted for a long enough time.
Did you miss the "voluntary" part of my post, or did you do it voluntarily and it didn't wasn't an important experience? What I said doesn't apply to anyone who is forced into that situation. The circumstances that force people into homelessness are probably much more likely to destroy you than make you stronger. The cycles of addiction you're forced into just to make your daily life bearable are incredibly hard to surmount.
I just think a lot of people would benefit from a withdrawal from their daily comforts and bad habits for some time and just living with the bare minimum for some time could help some people. It's one of the things I learned from studying Stoicism, though they rarely took it to that level themselves unlike the Cynics, they just chose to undergo other more minor uncomfortable experiences regularly. I don't think most people would need to go that far, but I can imagine it being positive for the rare individual. I think it's positive in two possible ways. If there is a religious or purpose-oriented reason behind it, like a wandering monk. Or if it's someone who is crippled by fear, it could be overcome by throwing himself into it. If your worst fear is homelessness and it eats you alive to think it could happen to you one day, it's probably not a bad idea.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 17/11/2017 09:35
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Nov 17 2017 12:51. Posts 5296
On November 13 2017 04:51 Stroggoz wrote:
glad i dont fit into any of these stupid starter packs. im an actual classical liberal that reads adam smith and wilhelm von humboldt for the insight. being homeless sucks btw, there arn't many things worse.
It does suck. I heard him say once that he was doing this as a voluntary poverty thing for religious reasons. I also learned he has a place to stay. However, I learned more about him today and he has schizophrenia and he's almost completely blind. His place was being used by drug dealers and sex trade workers and he's had his violin stolen. His life is a lot worse than he lets on. I think, without romanticizing it, that for someone who does actually take it up as a voluntary thing and who doesn't have a mental illness it might not be that bad if they have a talent like he does. At least I think it's an experience that would change you for the better if it's done temporarily, assuming you can do it without becoming an addict of course.
Why would it change me for the better? The one time i was homeless, it didn't change me for the better in any way that i can think of. it would have made me miserable if it lasted for a long enough time.
Did you miss the "voluntary" part of my post, or did you do it voluntarily and it didn't wasn't an important experience? What I said doesn't apply to anyone who is forced into that situation. The circumstances that force people into homelessness are probably much more likely to destroy you than make you stronger. The cycles of addiction you're forced into just to make your daily life bearable are incredibly hard to surmount.
I just think a lot of people would benefit from a withdrawal from their daily comforts and bad habits for some time and just living with the bare minimum for some time could help some people. It's one of the things I learned from studying Stoicism, though they rarely took it to that level themselves unlike the Cynics, they just chose to undergo other more minor uncomfortable experiences regularly. I don't think most people would need to go that far, but I can imagine it being positive for the rare individual. I think it's positive in two possible ways. If there is a religious or purpose-oriented reason behind it, like a wandering monk. Or if it's someone who is crippled by fear, it could be overcome by throwing himself into it. If your worst fear is homelessness and it eats you alive to think it could happen to you one day, it's probably not a bad idea.
no i'd never be voluntarily be homeless unless someone gave me an interesting/valuable perspective on it that i have yet to see, and i wasn't voluntarily homeless before. it really wasn't a big deal because i knew i was going to get a new place to live soon. Seems like an inefficient use of time to me to conquer your fear that way. I'd rather just make money to prevent myself from becoming homeless, or help create a socialist system to prevent homelessness. I also don't fear being homeless already and am not religious, so that could be it as well. I actually know a guy that lived in the woods voluntarily for 3 years and came out fine afterwards, i think it was something spiritual for them, but i would go crazy doing that. It would be seriously bad for my social life and mental health and intellectual life, and it is the same for most people. I want to grow as a person and become smarter and more useful to other people, and i can't without basic necessities that would allow me to do so. Well, living in the woods is not exactly the same as being homeless i guess, but it seems similar in some ways.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Peterson had conservative bias, as Loco pointed out before, Peterson once just tossed aside even the possibility of a reasonable argument about anti-natalism so he can be intellectually dishonest its very evident in his religious views too, that being said I love many of his talks, he makes very strong well tought points in a very articulated fashion and turns them into usable every-day knowledge, I think Loco dislikes him because he is kind of a purist and also he is also probably unaware of his left leaning bias.
I am unaware that I lean to the left? lol, are you joking? It's certainly not a bias either, every reason I have for it is a rational one.
I dislike him in a similar way I dislike all gurus. Peterson doesn't have anything original to contribute. The number of ridiculous beliefs he holds is astoundingly high, yet he presents himself as someone who is very self-critical and skeptical. I also don't think it's true that he expresses himself very well. He gives off that impression, but when you really slow down and listen, he says a lot of words that say absolutely nothing. It's empty rhetoric that strings people along and makes them feel like they're part of his thought process. I think people who regard him as an intellectual giant have had their intellectual growth stunted somewhere along the way. I've talked with a lot of professional philosophers and not a single one of them think Peterson is something other than a hack.
It comes down to staying in your lane, as they say. If you specialize in one field and that's where you're an authority, your confidence to opine on matters in other fields shouldn't be the same (but it is for people like Peterson). If you want to know what a real transdisciplinary thinker is so that you can dispense with people like JP, read Edgar Morin. You have the chance of doing so since his work has been widely translated and he's famous in Latin America.
On November 17 2017 02:21 Spitfiree wrote:
Last few days I actually went through 2-3 hrs of videos of Peterson & Shapiro, each, and tbh I don't really get what Loco s bashing them for.
Here's a treasure trove of a subreddit where you can see things from another angle (with the help of educated people) and learn. It's up to you, I'm not going to do the work for you.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Dunno man, if that is a treasure trove I'm kinda disappointed by the things that impress you. I've read 3 posts and they are just trying to do the exact same things I dislike in Peterson, except on the other side of the specter, its actually quite amusing since they don't realize they're basically doing the same thing ... It's a whole subreddit dedicated to shitting on him, naturally, you'll find reasonable arguments, but I'm guessing you could see where my concern lies.
Also, does Peterson believe in cultural Marxism? Never heard(those whole few hours I've listened to him :D) him say anything close to that. The whole idea of cultural Marxism seems too idiotic for someone like him to believe it though I've been surprised on things that looked much more unlikely
Obv excluding the religious part and etc. you're both anti government and think that ppl should do w/e they want as long as they don't hurt anybody else etc.
It's kind of odd that he's so religious but anti government though, that almost feels like an oxymoron tbh
On November 17 2017 18:34 tapatapaz wrote:
lol i thought you had something there Baal, but that Milo's video is nothing
edit: actually i take that back. it is something, but not really that much
Dude you can see Richard Spencer, an open white supremacist doing the siegl heil and you can see many others doing it in Milos face while singing a nationalistic song, how is this not evidence of being involved in white supremacist groups?
Milo's only defense was that it was dark and he couldnt see them and that obviously is bullshit
On November 18 2017 02:12 Spitfiree wrote:
Dunno man, if that is a treasure trove I'm kinda disappointed by the things that impress you. I've read 3 posts and they are just trying to do the exact same things I dislike in Peterson, except on the other side of the specter, its actually quite amusing since they don't realize they're basically doing the same thing ... It's a whole subreddit dedicated to shitting on him, naturally, you'll find reasonable arguments, but I'm guessing you could see where my concern lies.
Also, does Peterson believe in cultural Marxism? Never heard(those whole few hours I've listened to him :D) him say anything close to that. The whole idea of cultural Marxism seems too idiotic for someone like him to believe it though I've been surprised on things that looked much more unlikely
Obv excluding the religious part and etc. you're both anti government and think that ppl should do w/e they want as long as they don't hurt anybody else etc.
It's kind of odd that he's so religious but anti government though, that almost feels like an oxymoron tbh
Obviously, you don't know Peterson well enough and/or you don't understand the things he's involved in. I've been following the guy for a long time, not just a few days, so we can't expect to reach an agreement regardless of what your views are. I didn't have any major criticisms of the guy either when I had only watched a few hours of his stuff.
The subreddit offers a pretty thorough debunking of him if you read it for long enough and you know what he's about. Just today there were a couple really on point articles posted on him. It's not about it impressing me, it just echoes my own feelings a lot of the time (which I arrived at independently).
On November 18 2017 02:12 Spitfiree wrote:
Dunno man, if that is a treasure trove I'm kinda disappointed
QFT
I gave it a quick look and so far I saw a girl bitching that his boyfriend follows Peterson and Rogan and ruined his relationship, then another post saying that Person debunks himself when he claims in a video that he is against the activist ethos, and then a third one that laughed at this:
That to me looks pretty reasonable as all those ideologies are collectivist in nature and refute the false dichotomy of socialism vs fascism when they are both collectivist authoritarianism.
So far that link looks like a garbage can that you claim there is gold if you keep looking but so far it all seems like trash and I dont feel like digging anymore, dissapointing.
I am unaware that I lean to the left? lol, are you joking?
I dislike him in a similar way I dislike all gurus.
I've talked with a lot of professional philosophers and not a single one of them think Peterson is something other than a hack.
I said you were unaware of your bias
You believe you hate him because he is a "guru" yet you are probably like other "gurus" more than anybody else in this entire forum.
Oh you talked with professional philosophers and all said that Peterson is a hack... case closed gentleman, lets all go home, Loco got this lol.
Do you have an actual argumenta against specific subjects against him? or all we are going to just have to settle with Reddit hunts?
We probably agree on most of the things we think he is wrong about, but I dont discard the rest because of that, I disagree with Foucault but he has a lot interesting points that I agree with and I think your tendency to dislike him is that bias I'm talking about an intelectual snobbism.
Which is basically a tautological statement. You could elaborate on why you think I'm biased because this says absolutely nothing. I am biased in favor of what, the idea of there having less harm and more fairness in the world? What liberal values do you think I hold and which I'm not aware of?
You believe you hate him because he is a "guru" yet you are probably like other "gurus" more than anybody else in this entire forum.
How am I guru-like? I've been passionate about philosophy for many years and I pursued my interests autodidactically. I've also been disillusioned about how much philosophy can be of any help. My favorite thinkers are two people who were radical in their youth and became disillusioned and spent the rest of their lives exploring how to live with as few illusions as possible. "More than anyone else on this forum." Honestly, that's by far the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say. And putting "guru" in quotes, rofl. Peterson is the epitome of a guru. Look at the amount of money he earns per month to tell people how to live their lives and tell them who is an enemy of his sacrosanct Western Values and who isn't. Please.
Oh you talked with professional philosophers and all said that Peterson is a hack... case closed gentleman, lets all go home, Loco got this lol.
Yes, believe it or not, the opinions of people who actually read books and take ideas seriously have more merit than the average person who browses the internet and loves getting into politically heated exchanges. It's pretty telling when there is a consensus among them that someone has no idea wtf they're talking about. It's also pretty telling that people who want to bolster their worldview use Peterson's credentials when none of his arguments on post-modernism and neo-marxism have been peer-reviewed. His work has largely nothing to do with the things he's involved in now [and famous for].
Do you have an actual argumenta against specific subjects against him? or all we are going to just have to settle with Reddit hunts?
Have you already forgotten my previous arguments? It would be pretty hard not to have any arguments on specific subjects with a Christian conservative pro-lifer who is by all evidence a raging sexist. The problem is that I have a big personal problem with brevity. If I set out to do something like debunk someone's ideas, I want to do it rigorously. I do that shit too much already (mostly elsewhere) and it's simply not worthwhile. The subreddit is filled with examples of his idiocy and bad arguments. Feel free to cherry pick the stuff you don't think has any merit and ignore the rest, I really don't care.
We probably agree on most of the things we think he is wrong about, but I dont discard the rest because of that, I disagree with Foucault but he has a lot interesting points that I agree with and I think your tendency to dislike him is that bias I'm talking about an intelectual snobbism.
I was the first to post a Peterson video on this site where he discussed meaning in life with some Buddhist guy and I found it stimulating. In other words, I was the first here to believe he had valuable things to say or else I wouldn't have posted it. I didn't dislike him at all when I watched his Existentialism lecture after that and gave him the benefit of the doubt for a long time even when he became involved in highly politicised subjects. I've precisely said that the problem is that he takes himself to be a transdisciplinary thinker when he is not -- he should stay in his lane. He's now little else than a guru/ideologue -- and a bully to boot -- with an harmful agenda, so that's why I dislike him, not because of some preformed opinion of the guy.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Peterson is pretty good when he sticks to psychology, self-improvement, Big 5 personality, clinical experiences and he has done enough close reading that he can reference Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche pretty well but I just realized we are in another Peterson discussion. I'll have to read that subreddit.
Cliffs on how he is a raging sexist?
I basically had a bad taste in my mouth when a lot of his Christian beliefs started coming to light.
On November 19 2017 03:00 RiKD wrote:
Peterson is pretty good when he sticks to psychology, self-improvement, Big 5 personality, clinical experiences and he has done enough close reading that he can reference Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche pretty well but I just realized we are in another Peterson discussion. I'll have to read that subreddit.
Cliffs on how he is a raging sexist?
I basically had a bad taste in my mouth when a lot of his Christian beliefs started coming to light.
He believes that traditional gender roles are entirely based in biology and contribute to the stability of a society. Recently he came out and tweeted that "“With all the accusations of sex assault emerging (eg Louis CK) we are going to soon remember why sex was traditionally enshrined in marriage.”
He said last month that the problem with "crazy" women is that you aren't allowed to beat them. He also said that "feminists don't criticize Islam because they unconsciously long for masculine dominance."
I'm not surprised he adores Jung so much, Jung was a fucking asshole who cheated on his wife every week.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Damore wrote that women, on average, have “higher levels of neuroticism”, something that may “contribute to the lower number of women in high stress jobs”.
On November 19 2017 02:28 Loco wrote:
the idea of there having less harm and more fairness in the world? What liberal values do you think I hold and which I'm not aware of?[/b]
people pursuing fairness have burnt the world many times, and for example you are not aware of your sexism-pranoia, you called Peterson a raging sexist, that is just crazy
[quote]
How am I guru-like? I've been passionate about philosophy for many years and I pursued my interests autodidactically. I've also been disillusioned about how much philosophy can be of any help. My favorite thinkers are two people who were radical in their youth and became disillusioned and spent the rest of their lives exploring how to live with as few illusions as possible. "More than anyone else on this forum." Honestly, that's by far the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say. And putting "guru" in quotes, rofl. Peterson is the epitome of a guru. Look at the amount of money he earns per month to tell people how to live their lives and tell them who is an enemy of his sacrosanct Western Values and who isn't. Please.
I didnt say you were guru-like, I said you like following gurus more than anybody else in here.
Yes, believe it or not, the opinions of people who actually read books and take ideas seriously have more merit than the average person who browses the internet and loves getting into politically heated exchanges.
argumentum ad verecundiam... lately you have done a lot of those.
Have you already forgotten my previous arguments? It would be pretty hard not to have any arguments on specific subjects with a Christian conservative pro-lifer who is by all evidence a raging sexist.
I think we agree on the many things Peterson is wrong, you are wrong calling him sexist tho.
We probably agree on most of the things we think he is wrong about, but I dont discard the rest because of that, I disagree with Foucault but he has a lot interesting points that I agree with and I think your tendency to dislike him is that bias I'm talking about an intelectual snobbism.
I've precisely said that the problem is that he takes himself to be a transdisciplinary thinker when he is not -- he should stay in his lane. He's now little else than a guru/ideologue -- and a bully to boot -- with an harmful agenda, so that's why I dislike him, not because of some preformed opinion of the guy.
I dont know how he regards himself, he has many interesting things to say, and his "bullying" is simple dissent to the leftist dogma that took a hold of academia and students and is precisely what we need.
On November 19 2017 03:00 RiKD wrote:
Peterson is pretty good when he sticks to psychology, self-improvement, Big 5 personality, clinical experiences and he has done enough close reading that he can reference Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche pretty well but I just realized we are in another Peterson discussion. I'll have to read that subreddit.
Cliffs on how he is a raging sexist?
I basically had a bad taste in my mouth when a lot of his Christian beliefs started coming to light.
He believes that traditional gender roles are entirely based in biology and contribute to the stability of a society. Recently he came out and tweeted that "“With all the accusations of sex assault emerging (eg Louis CK) we are going to soon remember why sex was traditionally enshrined in marriage.”
He said last month that the problem with "crazy" women is that you aren't allowed to beat them. He also said that "feminists don't criticize Islam because they unconsciously long for masculine dominance."
I'm not surprised he adores Jung so much, Jung was a fucking asshole who cheated on his wife every week.
So he has a stupid belief that sex should remain in marriage, that makes him wrong and a conservative, not a sexist.
Pretty dishonest way to frame what he said, because he is 100% truth, women can get away with pushing discourse far beyond any man could and its something feminist very often do, for example:
I can post dozens of vids where feminists get away with violence and that is what Peterson was saying, I guess you are a raging sexist if you point that out
He said they unconsciouisly long for masculine dominance, since he is a psychologist isnt that "staying in his lane" as you want? to what do you attribute feminists supporting Islam?
On November 19 2017 03:53 RiKD wrote:
Damore wrote that women, on average, have “higher levels of neuroticism”, something that may “contribute to the lower number of women in high stress jobs”.
On November 19 2017 02:28 Loco wrote:
the idea of there having less harm and more fairness in the world? What liberal values do you think I hold and which I'm not aware of?[/b]
people pursuing fairness have burnt the world many times, and for example you are not aware of your sexism-pranoia, you called Peterson a raging sexist, that is just crazy
[quote]
How am I guru-like? I've been passionate about philosophy for many years and I pursued my interests autodidactically. I've also been disillusioned about how much philosophy can be of any help. My favorite thinkers are two people who were radical in their youth and became disillusioned and spent the rest of their lives exploring how to live with as few illusions as possible. "More than anyone else on this forum." Honestly, that's by far the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say. And putting "guru" in quotes, rofl. Peterson is the epitome of a guru. Look at the amount of money he earns per month to tell people how to live their lives and tell them who is an enemy of his sacrosanct Western Values and who isn't. Please.
I didnt say you were guru-like, I said you like following gurus more than anybody else in here.
[quote]
That's what I read at first and I wrote a reply to that, but then I reread your statement which says:
"yet you are probably like other "gurus" more than anybody else in this entire forum."
So I edited my post. Ok, so, which gurus do I like? I thought you said I was an independent thinker? If I like gurus more than anybody else on this entire forum, that says quite the opposite. Means I need people to tell me what to think, because that's what gurus are for.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On November 19 2017 03:24 Loco wrote:
[QUOTE]On November 19 2017 03:00 RiKD wrote:
Peterson is pretty good when he sticks to psychology, self-improvement, Big 5 personality, clinical experiences and he has done enough close reading that he can reference Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche pretty well but I just realized we are in another Peterson discussion. I'll have to read that subreddit.
Cliffs on how he is a raging sexist?
I basically had a bad taste in my mouth when a lot of his Christian beliefs started coming to light.
He believes that traditional gender roles are entirely based in biology and contribute to the stability of a society. Recently he came out and tweeted that "“With all the accusations of sex assault emerging (eg Louis CK) we are going to soon remember why sex was traditionally enshrined in marriage.”
He said last month that the problem with "crazy" women is that you aren't allowed to beat them. He also said that "feminists don't criticize Islam because they unconsciously long for masculine dominance."
I'm not surprised he adores Jung so much, Jung was a fucking asshole who cheated on his wife every week.
So he has a stupid belief that sex should remain in marriage, that makes him wrong and a conservative, not a sexist.
I wasn't aware that conservatism and sexism were mutually exclusive, good to know. Also lol if you think the only thing that tweet says is that he has a silly belief about sex and marriage. That's the least ridiculous part of the tweet. And you know as well as I do that I just picked one recent example to show to RiKD but his beliefs conform pretty much 100% with traditional sexist beliefs. He thinks women who don't have children miss out on their main purpose in life. His beliefs are so strong there that he even denies overpopulation.
Pretty dishonest way to frame what he said, because he is 100% truth, women can get away with pushing discourse far beyond any man could and its something feminist very often do, for example:
I can post dozens of vids where feminists get away with violence and that is what Peterson was saying, I guess you are a raging sexist if you point that out
"Extremists can be violent, therefore we should be able to beat women and what keeps a conversation civil is the threat of violence. I can show you more examples of extremists being violent while pacifists take it, if you don't believe such a thing exists." Yawn.
He said they unconsciouisly long for masculine dominance, since he is a psychologist isnt that "staying in his lane" as you want?
Yep he sure is, and that's an instance of him making a sweeping generalization that he can't back up with any solid evidence. Or am I just not aware of the many replicated studies that show this is true? Help me out if that's the case.
to what do you attribute feminists supporting Islam?
Well, first of all, where did you learn that feminists support Islam? I'm not informed on the matter, but it sounds like one of those things that gets repeated within an echo chamber and is assumed to be self-evident as a result. I'm pretty sure there are feminists that criticize islam, but let's assume there aren't many. Seems like a complex answer is required there, certainly one that's a lot more complex than jumping to a conclusion and pandering to an audience that pays me $100k+ per month. I don't know, maybe because progressives defend minorities regardless of their views? Defending Islamists from abuse is not the same as avoiding to criticize the rotten ideas of Islamic doctrine. Also, religious practice manifests in different ways depending on socioeconomic conditions. People don't often act on the bad ideas in their religions even if they're well educated, so it's probably not a very efficient use of one's time.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
United States. Nov 19 2017 04:00. Posts 8509
