jordan peterson

[Alcofribas]

good-ass post m9.

 

I do think there’s an amusing irony about all this cry baby bullshit resentment about how the righteous winners can no longer win bc affirmative action prevents them.

[cwmbrancity]

generally, his position is that winners deserve everything they get and losers/weirdos just eat it cos that's just how it is. more specifically, winners equate to people who have traditionally held power (male, white, rich cunts) and losers equate to people who are increasingly demanding their fair share of power (women, darkies, poor cunts), thus upsetting the usual balance and creating confusion into which step surrogate dad figures like JBP. this sort of regressive social-darwinist thinking dovetails perfectly with what he espouses, and also comes somewhat naturally with being a trolly little 21 yr old who thinks they've got everything figured out without having educated themselves on anything.

 

bear in mind this is all coming from someone who migrated to Sweden from a 3rd world country, reaping benefits from this for himself through no real effort of his own, yet somehow thinks it justified to deny these benefits to other prospective migrants by buying into the anti-migrant hysteria centred around Sweden, whilst trying to obscure his own origin. the hypocrisy of this is more deserving of scorn than anything else, nevermind the JBP-fandom.

 

 

Olé

[Candiru]

*raises glass of JBP tears*

[YangYing]

generally, his position is that winners deserve everything they get and losers/weirdos just eat it cos that's just how it is. more specifically, winners equate to people who have traditionally held power (male, white, rich cunts) and losers equate to people who are increasingly demanding their fair share of power (women, darkies, poor cunts), thus upsetting the usual balance and creating confusion into which step surrogate dad figures like JBP. this sort of regressive social-darwinist thinking dovetails perfectly with what he espouses, and also comes somewhat naturally with being a trolly little 21 yr old who thinks they've got everything figured out without having educated themselves on anything.

 

bear in mind this is all coming from someone who migrated to Sweden from a 3rd world country, reaping benefits from this for himself through no real effort of his own, yet somehow thinks it justified to deny these benefits to other prospective migrants by buying into the anti-migrant hysteria centred around Sweden, whilst trying to obscure his own origin. the hypocrisy of this is more deserving of scorn than anything else, nevermind the JBP-fandom.

a couple of things, the people who "win" are not those who traditionally held power but those who are getting ahead currently.. which include women and people of all colors.

 

this is true here I never said it was true in the US, or any of the third-world countries I mentioned. (where it most certainly ISN'T true and all of the lefts' policies and theories to pursue equality are in dier need.. perhaps not socialism itself, since that hasn't gone so well..)

 

edit: I have met many immigrants and immigrant families. Id say most of them work and try to make their living while a few live off the state and complain. (this is a true miracle btw, can you imagine being able to live off state welfare somehwat well while doing no work at all? is no wonder people, certainly not only immigrants, do it!)

 

I do not believe is justified at all to rip these benefits of other potential immigrants, I do believe they are not deserving of them if they come here.. live off the state, and complain about it (this position, again, doesn't apply for the US or the other countries I mentioned)

[cruising for burgers]

Everyone's rooms nice n tidy?

usagi just cleaned mixl2's room, damn son...

[YangYing]

good-ass post m9.

I do think there’s an amusing irony about all this cry baby bullshit resentment about how the righteous winners can no longer win bc affirmative action prevents them.

look, I understand this and I agree that this would be a regressive/bigoted/whatever stance if the hierarchy in question is predicated on power and you need policies to correct it (eg the rich white man can no longer pay a shitton of money to get their incompetent son into university because affirmative action has been implemented)

 

you must realize however, that such a policy becomes itself regressive if the hierarchy in question is predicated on competence (in the pursuit of reaching equal levels of female/male professors in uni you start hiring based on gender an not on competence alone)

 

I am saying what I believe to be true, in pursuit of being corrected! thats in part what the point of a forum/dialogue is no?

[goDel]

Have to admit I haven't followed the discussion in this thread. (At all) And for most of the time wasnt even interested in this new name in online discussions. But now that he's creeping up everywhere....And so is this intellectual dark web thing.... I've spent a little time with it. My first read: he's a conservative intellectual. And whether or not I agree with him, intellectually he's a straight arrow, as far as I can tell. He respects science. And from someone with, as far as I can tell, mostly conservative views, that's rather refreshing. Especially in the current political climate.

 

I think it's refreshing to see him on Fox using science to support his arguments. Thats a big step forward from the "science is..." and than fill in elitist/hoax/lie/... bs. Especially when the people on Fox seem to accept his arguments. At that point, they not only accept his views, but also his reasoning. And especially that last bit is the more important of the two, imo.

 

It might be part of a conservative renaissance which puts conservatism back on the map of rational thinking. Which is a good thing, imo. Because people with a conservative inclination are a big part of any society. Not just the US. And whenever their point of views have been pushed aside like wasteful garbage, things turn to shit. (For a number of reasons) It's a good thing to have some rational thinking on the conservative side of the political spectrum again. That's one of the things that was and still is lacking. And it's not just jordan peterson putting it back on the map. There's more conservative thinkers who - especially since trumps got elected- put on their free thinking cap and have become openly critical about anything which before would have meant they had to turn against their own tribe. Which might ultimately be the point i'm trying to make: he takes conservative thinking out of the safety of the conservative tribal bubble and reintroduces it to scientific reasoning. Outside the tribal court of opinion and into the scientific court. Science and facts matter again. Just like free thinking.

 

So yeah. He's a conservative with some interesting thoughts and ideas. And even though I don't consider myself a conservative thinker, I'm happy to see they still exist. Because progressive thinking (loving all these generalizations) is not the end all be all. Just like conservative thinking isnt. Obviously. You'd need a bit of both, I'd argue. Which is a trivial point. Or at least, it should be. I'm not sure anymore, tbh.

[eugene]

he doesn't read/have the capacity to understand the stuff he criticizes (and now consistently ignores that very criticism of him), how's that "science" or "intellectual"?

[goDel]

Have an example?

 

Also, he's a prof of psy at univ of toronto. What do you mean he he hasnt got the capacity to understand the stuff he criticizes? You're not going for the "different ideas is equal to not understanding" angle, are you?

[eugene]

every sentence of his with the keywords "post-modernism" or "cultural marxism".

[goDel]

Are you sincere about having any form of discussion, or do you just want to push the "youre wrong!" Sticker?

 

Hows that intellectual? Well, the trolling answer is he's using words with more than 3 syllables. That's 70% intellectual in the current days. He knows difficult words. And even though he may use those in a way that is "wrong". Which is a debate in and of it self (postmodernism? Marxism? You might as well add capitalism and you've got yourself a real party!).

 

Look, I gave my opinion. That's all. If you disagree, fine. Please don't give me this bs. You're wasting youre and my time, tbh.

[YangYing]

You're not going for the "different ideas is equal to not understanding" angle, are you?

he is in a sense because jordans understanding of postmodernism is different to his and so jordan is wrong

 

alco pls enlighten us on this mystical thing that is postmodernism

 

 

edit: only the last 10 mins of this are rlly relevant

[Alcofribas]

Are you sincere about having any form of discussion, or do you just want to push the "youre wrong!" Sticker?

 

Hows that intellectual? Well, the trolling answer is he's using words with more than 3 syllables. That's 70% intellectual in the current days. He knows difficult words. And even though he may use those in a way that is "wrong". Which is a debate in and of it self (postmodernism? Marxism? You might as well add capitalism and you've got yourself a real party!).

 

Look, I gave my opinion. That's all. If you disagree, fine. Please don't give me this bs. You're wasting youre and my time, tbh.

this has been covered in the thread

[goDel]

I thought Seth Abrahamson made some sense in a recent twitter thread. Went into the post modernism thing to quite an extent. He made some interesting comments about the follow up: metamodernism. And commented that jordan peterson is more the "lets go back to before the post modernistic world and pretend post modernism ever existed" kind of guy. He made sense. Especially because Jordan himself openly admits hes a conservative. He probably does want to live in a pre post modern society.

 

So, could it be that jp lacks a good understanding of the value of post modernism? Yeah, sure! Does that mean he hasnt got the capacity to understand that which he criticizes? Ehm...is this even a real argument? No, obvsly not. Why even go there...

[goDel]

 

Are you sincere about having any form of discussion, or do you just want to push the "youre wrong!" Sticker?

Hows that intellectual? Well, the trolling answer is he's using words with more than 3 syllables. That's 70% intellectual in the current days. He knows difficult words. And even though he may use those in a way that is "wrong". Which is a debate in and of it self (postmodernism? Marxism? You might as well add capitalism and you've got yourself a real party!).

Look, I gave my opinion. That's all. If you disagree, fine. Please don't give me this bs. You're wasting youre and my time, tbh.

this has been covered in the thread

What would you want me to do? Apologize for not having read the thread? I started my post saying I haven't followed this thread. If I offend anyone with my ignorant post: I'm sorry. But please, either just ignore my ignorance or be upfront about it. Instead of this passive aggressive nonsense.

[Alcofribas]

Jordan Peterson is not a serious person, he’s a petulant reactionary who deploys jargon and half-baked notions from intellectual history to give his cultural grievances an air of mystique and authority. his entire mo is to assert something unequivocally and then immediately backpedal so that he doesn’t have to face scrutiny. and excellent example of this is his response to his “enforced monogamy” comment, immediately saying he didn’t mean enforced at all, just encouraged. he also recently unequivocally answered the question “is a trans woman a real woman” by stating “no,” and then concluding his trite comment with “but what is real?”

 

if you want to pretend his understanding of postmodernism is merely different and not wrong, it’s on you to justify the various lies he tells on the subject. For instance, itt I pointed out that his university of Wisconsin lecture included pure fabrications about the life and work of Foucault (he was an “avowed marxist,” unfettered by the “100,000,000,” suicidal all his life, bitter at never being accepted socially, etc). his representation of postmodernism in that discussion is that Foucault and Derrida hate hierarchies and then he just rambles in saying hierarchies are natural and can’t be avoided. this isn’t serious or “scientific,” it’s deceitful and stupid.

also lol at calling my post “passive aggressive.” just check the thread rather than demand people rehash arguments already made in it. damn dude

[eugene]

 

 

Are you sincere about having any form of discussion, or do you just want to push the "youre wrong!" Sticker?

Hows that intellectual? Well, the trolling answer is he's using words with more than 3 syllables. That's 70% intellectual in the current days. He knows difficult words. And even though he may use those in a way that is "wrong". Which is a debate in and of it self (postmodernism? Marxism? You might as well add capitalism and you've got yourself a real party!).

Look, I gave my opinion. That's all. If you disagree, fine. Please don't give me this bs. You're wasting youre and my time, tbh.

this has been covered in the thread

What would you want me to do? Apologize for not having read the thread? I started my post saying I haven't followed this thread. If I offend anyone with my ignorant post: I'm sorry. But please, either just ignore my ignorance or be upfront about it. Instead of this passive aggressive nonsense.

 

i dunno, what was the point of your "that's my opinion, deal with it." hit-n-run? were you expecting people not to react to it?

[auxien]

Alco if you want goDel to read this thread you should probably get Seth Abramson to tweet about it.

 

Also, what eugene said.

[zaphod]

lol this thread is the same argument repeated a hundred times. 

 

"i didn't bother reading this fucking thread here's a bunch of statements"

"maybe read the thread, all those points are addressed"

"WHOA WHOA DAMN DUDE i just said i have no idea what i'm talking about"

[YangYing]

is this thread replacing the skrillex thread?

[goDel]

I didnt demand anything, dude.

 

But it's clear again why I never bothered checking into this discussion. He obvsly has some different ideas. And somehow that justifies all the ad hominem stuff thats thrown at his head. Whatever. You can say he's not serious (well, he is), petulant reactionary and all that. It's all an attack on the person, which is in and of itself remarkable. Because, why bother attacking the person? Has he had sex with your significant other? Stole your car? Won the election in an illegal way? His representation of post modernism is wrong, really? Is that an excuse?

 

"Damn dude"

 

I'm checking out of this thread again.

[YangYing]

a mandatory read for all new watmm members

 

come on you fuckers let's push it to 100 pages, we can do it

[dr lopez]

JP has taken HUGE advantage of the successful conservative battle against intellectualism and liberal education in the USA, Canada and to a somewhat lesser extent Europe. young people today are so completely starved for any sort of *basic* critical theory that the first idiot who comes along, yells loud enough, says a few blustery phrases and preys upon common insecurities will be crowned as some sort of savior. a messiah for people who aren't necessarily stupid (and may in fact crave some intellectual discussion), but simply have no frame of reference here, donny. like a child who wanders into a movie...

 

hate to say it, but when STEM wankers continually bash liberal arts ed as pointless... we end up with JP. sad!

[goDel]

JP has taken HUGE advantage of the successful conservative battle against intellectualism and liberal education in the USA, Canada and to a somewhat lesser extent Europe. young people today are so completely starved for any sort of *basic* critical theory that the first idiot who comes along, yells loud enough, says a few blustery phrases and preys upon common insecurities will be crowned as some sort of savior. a messiah for people who aren't necessarily stupid (and may in fact crave some intellectual discussion), but simply have no frame of reference here, donny. like a child who wanders into a movie...

 

hate to say it, but when STEM wankers continually bash liberal arts ed as pointless... we end up with JP. sad!

 

well, yeah. people are starved to have any form of basic critical theory coming from the right, or the conservative side. But that's not because the conservative battle against intellectualism was successful. It's more the opposite, I'd argue. People were (are?) starving for some people to make actual arguments supporting their beliefs. And the irony is that up until now, this attack on intellectualism only showed how poor they were at actually making any arguments at all. You can say what you want about JP. But saying it's an attack on intellectualism is more strawman than anything else, imo. He might be clueless about postmodernism. But even so, that wildly different from dismissing science as elitist, brushing aside climate science as opinion, or keeping darwin out of the curriculum.

[dr lopez]

wtf r u talking about lol