jordan peterson phenomena - Page 7

On May 19 2018 05:41 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On May 19 2018 04:25 GoTuNk wrote:   On May 19 2018 03:05 Loco wrote: Who gives a shit on the wealth differences in freely married couples? I mean aside from nutjob leftist obsessed with inequality. It's a direct refutation of Peterson's incel claim that women tend to go only for high-status men... did you even read the quote he's referring to? Speaking of "nutjob ideas of people obsessed with inequality", how about forced monogamy? Isn't he proposing this as a solution to rectify inequality? How do you justify Peterson proposing this if he's all about the freedom of individuals and the opposition to "equality of outcome"?   Jordan Peterson talks about pretty much every subject on earth and has a gazillion of hours on youtube, surely you can take out of context something he said somewhere and disprove it. So what. Jesus. You fit the lobster stereotype perfectly. "Someone criticized Jordan Peterson and showed data, AH!!! NOT AN ARGUMENT, OUT OF CONTEXT, AISDIUHASD!" Yeah, he has thousands of hours of videos in which he rants and says a lot of very banal things, misinterprets law, literature and science, calls himself a "neuroscientist," and makes a bunch of outrageous claims all over the place. Jordan Peterson knows a lot about Jungian psychology, mythology and his own subfield of personality psychology. That's it. Once he strays from those fields he makes blatant errors constantly and engages in demagoguery. Your internet daddy's not Leonardo da Vinci dude. He was an obscure psychology professor before he started ranting about "Postmodern Neo-Marxism" infiltrating academia and he would have stayed obscure because he's not some genius, he's an opportunist who found a very profitable niche for reactionary ideas.

I had to actually google what an "incel" is. I've never seen Jordan Peterson use that word.
I'm not sure how you would group Peterson with them, as he would call them a bunch of losers who need to improve their life, and tell them to get their shit together. Unlike socialist shills who would call them victims of the capitalist system if they thought they could get some electoral advantage out of it.

I'm not a leftist nutjob like you are, doing all sort of ad hominem attacks and assosiation fallacies like "X said Y, Y is friend of Z, Z said something wrong, X is a horrible human being" type of thing. I accept people I like can be wrong. This subject on particular is the most fringe stuff I've read about.
Trump is the BEST PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. IN THE 20th CENTURY. By a mile.
That doesn't change that sleeping with tens of prostitutes is disgusting, people have flaws, we take the good and the bad and filter what's relevant.
I'm not a jew aswell, but I like Shapiro most of the time.
I'm not gay, but I've ground fond of Dave Rubin thanks to people like you

GoTunk that isn't what he said to them at all. In the interview linked on page 5 on this thread, he said the cure for incels is enforced monogamy.

On May 19 2018 14:15 GoTuNk wrote: Trump is the BEST PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. IN THE 20th CENTURY. By a mile.

Perfect Trumpkin statement.

On May 19 2018 14:37 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On May 19 2018 14:15 GoTuNk wrote: Trump is the BEST PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. IN THE 20th CENTURY. By a mile. Perfect Trumpkin statement.

Typical no facts ad hominem attack.

Here are some facts: Lowering taxes, booming economy, booming stock market, lowest black and latin unemployment in U.S. history, U.S. political prisoners in korea are back safe, korean peace talks and support of U.S. international allies.

On the other hand, democrats defended Hamas and MS-13 this week. Great people.

Unless something unexpected happens, Trump is gonna win by a landslide on 2020.

On May 19 2018 14:29 Liquid`Drone wrote: GoTunk that isn't what he said to them at all. In the interview linked on page 5 on this thread, he said the cure for incels is enforced monogamy.

Can't find it could you link me to it? Like the actual Peterson saying it.

I actually googled "enforced monogamy" and all I can find is NYT hit pieces.

Also, wtf is enforced monogamy. Arranged marriages?

interviews don't normally release transcripts. And I dunno. I think it's fair enough to interpret him in a way where he is not advocating for legal enforcement of monogamy, but rather for social coercion discouraging having multiple sexual partners, but I still think that's significantly more anti-freedom than asking people to call people who change genders by the gender they now identify as, which I don't really see as a significant infringement of any kind.

On May 19 2018 18:38 GoTuNk wrote: Show nested quote + On May 19 2018 14:37 NMcNasty wrote:   On May 19 2018 14:15 GoTuNk wrote: Trump is the BEST PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. IN THE 20th CENTURY. By a mile. Perfect Trumpkin statement. Typical no facts ad hominem attack. Here are some facts: Lowering taxes, booming economy, booming stock market, lowest black and latin unemployment in U.S. history, U.S. political prisoners in korea are back safe, korean peace talks and support of U.S. international allies. On the other hand, democrats defended Hamas and MS-13 this week. Great people. Unless something unexpected happens, Trump is gonna win by a landslide on 2020.

Here are some other facts, the taxes lowering only helps the corporations and there was previously a similiar attempt to allow corporations to bring their foreign capital into the country by Bush, he managed to do it, only to have all of the new money income spread between shareholders instead of the money being used to create jobs, improve working environments and etc. So on that note he basically didn't do shit.

Booming economy and stock market? Are you serious? :D

Lowest black and latin unemployment? Yes, congrats on bearing the fruits of Obama's work

U.S. political prisoners and peace talks? Yes, you can thank the presidents of China for that. The only reason that came to be is because they finally decided to impose the sanctions on NK, which every other UN country did previously including the USA. Trump literally did nothing new other than appear in the media spreading false propaganda, in fact the only different thing he did was spread fear throughout the people of potentially starting a nuke war with a mad dictator that has nothing to lose. What a great politician


I mean I don't care that Trump is a shallow bigot that likes to fuck pornstars and uses racist slurs, but he hasn't done anything. He's trying to enforce policies which will hurt the environment, is slowly but surely alienating all of his meaningful allies and has the potential of starting another war in the Middle East while surrounding himself with fucktard neoliberalists who TRULY believe democracy can be brought by force e.g. Bolton. What a successful president.

It's not like I expect him to ban guns or anything radical like that, americans are too dumb of a society to abandone "their right to protect themselves from the government" ( what a hilarious statement, its so funny and tragic on so many levels - Its not like that same government has sent its young men to die in meaningless wars, but hurr durr government is evil - we need guns ). I expect him to just have common sense and not fall for the policies which the pities of corporate giants need. The ones that will be extinct in 50 years as the businesses they run will have nothing to run on e.g. coal.

On May 19 2018 19:22 Liquid`Drone wrote: interviews don't normally release transcripts. And I dunno. I think it's fair enough to interpret him in a way where he is not advocating for legal enforcement of monogamy, but rather for social coercion discouraging having multiple sexual partners, but I still think that's significantly more anti-freedom than asking people to call people who change genders by the gender they now identify as, which I don't really see as a significant infringement of any kind.

He has stated repeteadly it is ok to for people to requested to be called by a certain gender, and that he actually does. What he opposes is GOVERNMENT COMPELLED SPEECH. You seem to have him completely backwards. Willing to review your premise? Found you a 5 min clip of someone trying to misrepresent him, and him actually saying what he believes.

"It's purely simply this: there has never been a time in english common law, where the government compelled speech"

https://youtu.be/Ddzf9Mm4hdY?t=3m6s

He is not forcing anyone on the mongamy thing, there are very good reasons to discourage sexual promiscuity and ultimately It's just an opinon. You can call him an infringer of liberty when he starts advocating for GOVERNMENT COMPELLED MONOGAMY. It is a black and white difference.

completely off topic but it's good to see Meghan Markle going around recommending chomsky to people, haha . That is actually the best media exposure the left has ever got.

On May 19 2018 13:26 Spitfiree wrote: Also @Loco regarding my previous "how children will be raised" question, I probably didn't express myself correctly. I don't care if a third-type-gender people get to adopt a baby/ have children on their own and how they raise them as long as it doesn't hurt the child, indeed what they do in their home is their business. The question is - how do we stop insane people like these - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...ve-father-mother-raised-daughter.html These scenarios should never occur. It's a slippery slope as potential laws that could protect such children could directly end up hurting the third-type-gender people though, so at what point do we set borders and balance the basic human rights? Also under the new "law" about HIV it's HIGHLY unlikely that anyone would end up in jail in practice. Not to mention his argument of "people being more inclined to test themselves for HIV as that would reveal if they are HIV positive because of the new law" is a complete joke. I highly doubt there are people out there who wouldn't test themselves purely because they'd otherwise be able to abuse the previous law... what kind of a joke is that?

I don't read tabloids. No serious argument should involve having to link to a tabloid newspaper. Anyway, I read a few paragraphs to get the gist of what you're concerned with. You seem to be arguing that normalizing transgenderism will inevitably lead to scenarios where a parent consciously imposes a gender on a child that is different than their biological sex. I see no evidence of that. If anything, the sooner it becomes normalized, the less likely there will be insane people who pull off stunts like that to supposedly "support transgender equity". We're dealing with mental health issues here. As a society we should look at why we breed such a high rate of mentally ill people instead of focusing on exactly how this mental illness ends up manifesting itself.

The HIV quote makes sense to me. Think about it, about half of pregnancies are unplanned in the US. What does that tell us? That people are terrible at doing this sex-with-protection thing. Imagine if the consequence of actually knowing that you have HIV and ending up exposing someone to it is spending your life in prison, it does seem a lot less likely that someone will want to officially know about it, especially if their livelihood depends on sex that is sometimes unprotected by request of the client (or forced). It's not so much "abusing the system" as it is having not knowing as your only defense in order not to have your entire life ruined in the event that you expose someone. I think what informs one's decision here comes down to your view of human nature and the penal system. Are there a lot more people who make mistakes than people who are legitimately malicious? Is the penal system the ideal solution for both the perpetrator of this crime and society? Is your view of the ideal penal system based on retributive justice rather than deterrence? (You don't have to answer these questions, I'm just saying that they're relevant.)

On May 19 2018 20:35 Stroggoz wrote: completely off topic but it's good to see Meghan Markle going around recommending chomsky to people, haha . That is actually the best media exposure the left has ever got.

That is hilarious. I'm completely uninformed about this... how the hell did a girl like this end up being in a position to marry the prince? And why would she? Lol.

She prob just read his work and liked what he had to say. It's not like the royal family filters out people with radical ideas, harry can marry whoever he wants, and possibly he chose to marry someone who was a lefty radical.

On May 19 2018 20:31 GoTuNk wrote: Show nested quote + On May 19 2018 19:22 Liquid`Drone wrote: interviews don't normally release transcripts. And I dunno. I think it's fair enough to interpret him in a way where he is not advocating for legal enforcement of monogamy, but rather for social coercion discouraging having multiple sexual partners, but I still think that's significantly more anti-freedom than asking people to call people who change genders by the gender they now identify as, which I don't really see as a significant infringement of any kind. He has stated repeteadly it is ok to for people to requested to be called by a certain gender, and that he actually does. What he opposes is GOVERNMENT COMPELLED SPEECH. You seem to have him completely backwards. Willing to review your premise? Found you a 5 min clip of someone trying to misrepresent him, and him actually saying what he believes. "It's purely simply this: there has never been a time in english common law, where the government compelled speech" https://youtu.be/Ddzf9Mm4hdY?t=3m6s He is not forcing anyone on the mongamy thing, there are very good reasons to discourage sexual promiscuity and ultimately It's just an opinon. You can call him an infringer of liberty when he starts advocating for GOVERNMENT COMPELLED MONOGAMY. It is a black and white difference.

That basically means he's in line with the C16 bill that he hates though. It doesn't cause the penal system to target people for 'misgendering'. And I don't think the statement that there's 'never been a time in english common law where the government compelled speech' is true anyway. Verbal threats and harassment can certainly be illegal, and should be, too. It's just a matter of finding where the line should go, which is always gonna be arbitrarily defined.

I don't really have problems accepting that the interview to some degree misrepresents him, the interviewer seemed to have a negative impression before entering the interview and that's not a great point of departure. I also think it's somewhat likely that he gave a vague answer that was up for interpretation - this is fairly common for people who have an as broad of a following as peterson does. But Peterson is just as guilty of misrepresenting the C16-bill, so I don't really feel too badly for him.

On May 19 2018 20:37 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On May 19 2018 13:26 Spitfiree wrote: Also @Loco regarding my previous "how children will be raised" question, I probably didn't express myself correctly. I don't care if a third-type-gender people get to adopt a baby/ have children on their own and how they raise them as long as it doesn't hurt the child, indeed what they do in their home is their business. The question is - how do we stop insane people like these - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...ve-father-mother-raised-daughter.html These scenarios should never occur. It's a slippery slope as potential laws that could protect such children could directly end up hurting the third-type-gender people though, so at what point do we set borders and balance the basic human rights? Also under the new "law" about HIV it's HIGHLY unlikely that anyone would end up in jail in practice. Not to mention his argument of "people being more inclined to test themselves for HIV as that would reveal if they are HIV positive because of the new law" is a complete joke. I highly doubt there are people out there who wouldn't test themselves purely because they'd otherwise be able to abuse the previous law... what kind of a joke is that? I don't read tabloids. No serious argument should involve having to link to a tabloid newspaper. Anyway, I read a few paragraphs to get the gist of what you're concerned with. You seem to be arguing that normalizing transgenderism will inevitably lead to scenarios where a parent consciously imposes a gender on a child that is different than their biological sex. I see no evidence of that. If anything, the sooner it becomes normalized, the less likely there will be insane people who pull off stunts like that to supposedly "support transgender equity". We're dealing with mental health issues here. As a society we should look at why we breed such a high rate of mentally ill people instead of focusing on exactly how this mental illness ends up manifesting itself. The HIV quote makes sense to me. Think about it, about half of pregnancies are unplanned in the US. What does that tell us? That people are terrible at doing this sex-with-protection thing. Imagine if the consequence of actually knowing that you have HIV and ending up exposing someone to it is spending your life in prison, it does seem a lot less likely that someone will want to officially know about it, especially if their livelihood depends on sex that is sometimes unprotected by request of the client (or forced). It's not so much "abusing the system" as it is having not knowing as your only defense in order not to have your entire life ruined in the event that you expose someone. I think what informs one's decision here comes down to your view of human nature and the penal system. Are there a lot more people who make mistakes than people who are legitimately malicious? Is the penal system the ideal solution for both the perpetrator of this crime and society? Is your view of the ideal penal system based on retributive justice rather than deterrence? (You don't have to answer these questions, I'm just saying that they're relevant.)

@Part 1 - Okay, yeah I could see how your proposal would be the natural way things would go, does make a lot of sense.

@Part 2 - Its not about abusing the system or anything. I could hardly imagine what it could feel like living with HIV, but it seems absurd that you shouldn't be required to share that information before having sex with someone. It's not comparable to sex without protection. You should bear the responsibility of affecting someone else's life with an incurable disease and I'm a strong believer for deterrence and could see how the current western justice system in most countries isn't exactly focused on that.

The possibility of having the disease is an incentive big enough to get tested, otherwise you wont get threatment and the next time you catch a cold, chances are you'll die as you won't have an immune system. Anyway seems to me that I just can't understand the deterrence which comes with the new law here. It seems to me that it just grants a carte blanche to spread the disease as one pleases without having consequences or an incentive not to.

On May 19 2018 20:35 Stroggoz wrote: completely off topic but it's good to see Meghan Markle going around recommending chomsky to people, haha . That is actually the best media exposure the left has ever got.

You were kinda the last person I'd expect to follow anything related to that wedding :D I don't think she realizes that her choice of husband kind of contradicts Chomsky's views though as he seems like a social anarchist.... also doesn't Chomsky have like 7 books

chomsky has over a 100 books, but he has only written probably 1/5 of them, most of them are collections of interviews and lectures and he repeats a lot of stuff.

I don't see how her choice of husband contradicts chomsky's views. Harry is part of the elite, sure-although the royal family is a ceremonial role basically, it's removed from policy decision making. Chomsky is from an elite environment as well, MIT is about as establishment as it gets; its easier to criticise power from the centre of it; Chomsky advocates that those with special privileges and power have a responsibility, and they ought to be critical of power. This is outlined in one of his first essays he wrote on politics; 'the responsibility of intellectuals'. Although later he said it can apply to anyone with privilege-not just intellectuals. I know chomsky well and he would accept that within the capitalist system people are compromised, he isn't judgemental of those who have to pursue a career out of self interest. In fact he warned me in an email specifically that if I pursued a life of serious scholarly dissidence that it would probably not be good for my life.

and yeah i don't follow the wedding but hard not to pick up this kind of stuff, it was reported in the guardian and a lot of people from various leftist media that i read took interest in it as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...d-shake-up-monarchy-says-noam-chomsky

This is like new level socialist anarchist stunting:

"In fact he warned me in an email specifically that if I pursued a life of serious scholarly dissidence that it would probably not be good for my life"

Even more stunting would be to tell Noam Chomsky "Fuck you! I'm doing it anyway you big pussy!"

Edit: I am kind of over the slang stuntin'

Still, imagine a world where the brag is correspondence with Chomsky? Not the new Nikes.

there's a lot of stuff i disagree with on jordan peterson about ,but i can really appreciate the way he presents his ideas and thoughts. i feel like we're living in a day and age where presenting ideas that are against the norm generally leads to extreme argumentative and demonstrative thoughts. no one is willing to listen to the other side

if we could come to a place where both sides present their arguments and then have a civilized discussion right after, that would be a major step in the future of our civilization

On May 20 2018 08:09 TimDawg wrote: there's a lot of stuff i disagree with on jordan peterson about ,but i can really appreciate the way he presents his ideas and thoughts. i feel like we're living in a day and age where presenting ideas that are against the norm generally leads to extreme argumentative and demonstrative thoughts. no one is willing to listen to the other side if we could come to a place where both sides present their arguments and then have a civilized discussion right after, that would be a major step in the future of our civilization

Calm down, Mr. Dave Rubin

This guy even plugs his book while trying to roast JP. I like Ben Dyson being the guest of Bryan Callen's podcast a number of times but the guy is way too crazy it's hard to take him seriously. This is him saying Kobe is the greatest player of all time lmao