Is Jordan B Peterson's new website idea an atrocious one or reasonable one?

[dontsnitch]

Being a liberal is considered the "right-wing" position, almost everywhere except in America.

Not sure I follow, isn't that sentiment more strongly expressed in the US than elsewhere?

 

[21 Savage]

I know that he identifies as a classic British liberal, he amusingly explained as much while refuting the charges of being a member of the Alt-Right. It just seems that because he is a champion of free speech and was vehemently opposed to bill C-16, that he is associated with being on the right, though I'm not sure that's true, as those issues are not traditionally associated with the right.

Granted, the Canadian spectrum is a little different than the US, I'm genuinely curious where people believe he lies. It seems to me that in the changing landscape, the old left-right dichotomy is not as useful as it once was.

>JP is considered right-wing because he is pro free speech
>mfw

He is associated with being on the right because of his obsession with SJWs, his views on women, his views on transpeople, his references to kek & pepe, his constant critique of "the left" but almost never of the right, the fact that he is a christian (neochristian amirite), and his $70k+ monthly patreon account that is paid for in full by deluded right-wingers who call themselves classical liberalists

 

[TheGreatA]

Not sure I follow, isn't that sentiment more strongly expressed in the US than elsewhere?

No.

If you're liberal in Europe, you're right-wing.

If you're liberal in America, you're considered left-wing or center.

 

[dontsnitch]

No.

If you're liberal in Europe, you're right-wing.

If you're liberal in America, you're considered left-wing or center.

I see what you mean, the problem as I see it is that there are many people who are liberal in name only, and others who are actually liberal that are branded as extremists.

 

[TheGreatA]

I see what you mean, the problem as I see it is that there are many people who are liberal in name only, and others who are actually liberal that are branded as extremists.

Those who are liberal in name only, are usually socialists.

 

[senri]

His fame arose sometime in 2016 I think, at first he was just someone going "Hey how about those SJWs amirite?" but now that he sees the $70k+/month he makes off of incels and other internet edgelords hes willingly turned into their lord and savior.

A lot of middle-class, teenage NEET intellectuals fucking love him. There is a sherbro in the WR who is a massive JP stan and he recently announced he has become a born-again christian. Definitely unrelated to JP though LOL.



To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Jordan Peterson. The brilliance is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical anti-SJW academia most of the concepts will go over a typical viewer’s head. There’s also Jordan's religious outlook, which is deftly woven into his lectures- his personal philosophy draws heavily from the bible and other christian literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these nuances, to realise that they’re not just intelligent- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Jordan Peterson truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn’t appreciate, for instance, the genius in Jordan's existential catchphrase “What do you mean by God?” which itself is a cryptic reference to Carl Jung’s Swiss epic Modern Man in Search of a Soul. I’m smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Jordan Peterson’s genius wit unfolds itself on their computer screens. What fools.. how I pity them.

And yes, by the way, i DO have a JP tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It’s for the ladies’ eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they’re within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid

Interesting Mr 21, you might be worth tasting...

 

[Jack V Savage]

Granted, the Canadian spectrum is a little different than the US, I'm genuinely curious where people believe he lies. It seems to me that in the changing landscape, the old left-right dichotomy is not as useful as it once was.

It's a spectrum rather than a dichotomy. And what's his position on wealth/income distribution? What does he think about tribalism vs. liberalism on issues like climate change, regressive tax cuts, and immigration?

Being a liberal is considered the "right-wing" position, almost everywhere except in America.

The right in America is completely batshit crazy, though.

 

[Jack V Savage]

>JP is considered right-wing because he is pro free speech
>mfw

He is associated with being on the right because of his obsession with SJWs, his views on women, his views on transpeople, his references to kek & pepe, his constant critique of "the left" but almost never of the right, the fact that he is a christian (neochristian amirite), and his $70k+ monthly patreon account that is paid for in full by deluded right-wingers who call themselves classical liberalists

I don't know his views on women or transpeople or about his references to kek and Pepe, but, yeah, those other things are why he seems like he's on the right, but admittedly, that's not definitive.

 

[senri]

I don't know his views on women or transpeople or about his references to kek and Pepe, but, yeah, those other things are why he seems like he's on the right, but admittedly, that's not definitive.

He got lumped into these terminologies because people want to bind him towards something that justifies and aligns their own agenda or alienates and dehumanize something that can easily be deconstructed. You see these Sapiens lost in the depth of The Ennui Mr Savage. This is the nature of the abyss where they can no longer tether their moral framework to their existence that would otherwise propel them towards the light.

They need guidance Mr Savage, even the found need to become better...Become beautiful...Just like you....

 

[Prokofievian]

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Jordan Peterson. The brilliance is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical anti-SJW academia most of the concepts will go over a typical viewer’s head. There’s also Jordan's religious outlook, which is deftly woven into his lectures- his personal philosophy draws heavily from the bible and other christian literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these nuances, to realise that they’re not just intelligent- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Jordan Peterson truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn’t appreciate, for instance, the genius in Jordan's existential catchphrase “What do you mean by God?” which itself is a cryptic reference to Carl Jung’s Swiss epic Modern Man in Search of a Soul. I’m smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Jordan Peterson’s genius wit unfolds itself on their computer screens. What fools.. how I pity them.

And yes, by the way, i DO have a JP tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It’s for the ladies’ eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they’re within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid

This is fucking incredible lol. And yes, I do get the reference.

 

[Ruprecht]

This is fucking incredible lol. And yes, I do get the reference.

I think it's a meme in it's own right. It's posted all over the place.

 

[brothir]

He got lumped into these terminologies because people want to bind him towards something that justifies and aligns their own agenda or alienates and dehumanize something that can easily be deconstructed.

The problem with your way of thinking here is that positions are not random in relation to one another. If you're going to think anything, you need a framework of some sort to operate from, but any choice in that regard will necessarily bind you to a set of positions. So then it becomes a matter of whether or not Peterson thinks anything about politics at all. If he's ever voted based on some sense of conscience, he has bound himself towards something. The only way he could break that binding is if he lived the rest of his live on a space station completely removed from society, and that's not happening.

The question then is whether or not he's willing to be honest and straightforwards about what he has bound himself to (and maybe whether or not he's intelligent to understand that he has). I don't follow Peterson very closely, but I can see the contours of someone who is willing to be considerably dishonest about just that.

 

[FrontNakedChoke]

Another balanced article from the CBC...

If anyone is familiar with academia in Canada, this is a very good idea. Most parents don't know what they're signing up their kids for, and a lot of the social sciences are racist cesspools. Shine a light on these cockroaches, they're only creating division and animosity in the country where you could argue that racial harmony was achieved.

Very true

 

[senri]

The problem with your way of thinking here is that positions are not random in relation to one another. If you're going to think anything, you need a framework of some sort to operate from, but any choice in that regard will necessarily bind you to a set of positions. So then it becomes a matter of whether or not Peterson thinks anything about politics at all. If he's ever voted based on some sense of conscience, he has bound himself towards something. The only way he could break that binding is if he lived the rest of his live on a space station completely removed from society, and that's not happening.

The question then is whether or not he's willing to be honest and straightforwards about what he has bound himself to (and maybe whether or not he's intelligent to understand that he has). I don't follow Peterson very closely, but I can see the contours of someone who is willing to be considerably dishonest about just that.

Listen to this Mr Brothir, it involves a framework to tether towards in relation to conceptualization of the truth. I cannot speak on the man's behalf so i leave it to you to come to your own conclusions...

 

[PolishHeadlock]

But that is not enough for a few people, they need him to make a binary choice to categorize his belief. The topic is complicated

 

[senri]

Your cortex is well lubricated today Mr Polish.

 

[RubberGuard5]

It's a spectrum rather than a dichotomy. And what's his position on wealth/income distribution? What does he think about tribalism vs. liberalism on issues like climate change, regressive tax cuts, and immigration?



The right in America is completely batshit crazy, though.

What variable is in the core of political spectrum? Wealth equality?

 

[IDL]

What variable is in the core of political spectrum? Wealth equality?

Peterson has talked about it a bit, and views wealthy inequality as a significant issue. Usually the devil is in the details though and people can agree about the existence of a problem but disagree on what actions should be taken in response to it. Can't say I know what his take on what action to take is.

 

[brothir]

Listen to this Mr Brothir, it involves a framework to tether towards in relation to conceptualization of the truth. I cannot speak on the man's behalf so i leave it to you to come to your own conclusions...

1) Pageau is wrong when he says that Weinstein committed a "performative contradiction". It's easy to literally insert a set of axioms that define the hierarchy of truth into what Weinstein said, in which case it's well defined and not contradictory.

2) Peterson is wrong when he claims that Weinstein conflates scientific truth and pragmatic truth. It's very obvious that the examples of heaven and reincarnation that Weinstein used were just that: examples, and could have been replaced by a large number of other examples so that Peterson's complaint about entangling it with the Darwinian process is entirely meaningless. Weinstein correctly points out that science can internally sort veracity, whereas no "metaphorical truth" system can do the same with respect to each other.

3) Peterson's later example with the KGB scientist blatantly mangles what words mean with regards to "ethical truth" superseding scientific truth. Something being determinable as true and that thing being determinable as true in an ethical way, for some definition of ethical, are orthogonal considerations. Sorting them with respect to each other is meaningless, and any set of axioms that try to do so will necessarily invoke an internal contradiction.

That's as far as I made it (6:25 or so). If this is the best Peterson can do, he really is not worth my time. Weinstein handled them, although he made a mistake when he accepted Pageau's initial argument. If he was a bit sharper, he would've made the same rebuttal I did.

 

[21 Savage]

1) Pageau is wrong when he says that Weinstein committed a "performative contradiction". It's easy to literally insert a set of axioms that define the hierarchy of truth into what Weinstein said, in which case it's well defined and not contradictory.

2) Peterson is wrong when he claims that Weinstein conflates scientific truth and pragmatic truth. It's very obvious that the examples of heaven and reincarnation that Weinstein used were just that: examples, and could have been replaced by a large number of other examples so that Peterson's complaint about entangling it with the Darwinian process is entirely meaningless. Weinstein correctly points out that science can internally sort veracity, whereas no "metaphorical truth" system can do the same with respect to each other.

3) Peterson's later example with the KGB scientist blatantly mangles what words mean with regards to "ethical truth" superseding scientific truth. Something being determinable as true and that thing being determinable as true in an ethical way, for some definition of ethical, are orthogonal considerations. Sorting them with respect to each other is meaningless, and any set of axioms that try to do so will necessarily invoke an internal contradiction.

That's as far as I made it (6:25 or so). If this is the best Peterson can do, he really is not worth my time. Weinstein handled them, although he made a mistake when he accepted Pageau's initial argument. If he was a bit sharper, he would've made the same rebuttal I did.

Watch the other half, it was quite entertaining. Weinstein ends up BTFOing them both and then Jordan and Jonathans speechlessness only gets interrupted by the moderator announcing the end of the panel