The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

[Unknown Pleasures]

JP cult members use a variation of the Narcissist Prayer to defend him.

That didn't happen
And if it did, it wasn't that bad
And if it was, that's not a big deal
And if it is, that's not my fault
And if it was, I didn't mean it
And if I did, you deserved it

That comic is pathetic.

 

[jimmas99]

I listened to the interview not sure what there is to complain about his answers seem fine to me. The makeup thing is the biggest gripe in the video and honestly I don't think it's that bad.

This thing people do where people get interested in a person and their idea. Then that person does tons of talks and interviews and people start dissecting everything and finding a flaw here and there is ridiculous. Please show me the intellectual that has never said or done anything stupid in their life.

You should watch it. It's honestly the most overblown thing I've ever seen. They are really reaching if that think this is what's going to bring him down. I'd say I'm surprised at the backlash they are receiving but twitter is it's own thing and who knows what's real on their. Could just be vice trying to get more views for their own interviews and make it seem like some huge controversy.

There's a reason no one gives a shit about this interview and the Cathy one blew up. One is relevant and something people want to listen to and learn from. This is a vice interview where Jordan says 1 semi controversial thing and they want to run with it.

Come on that interview was his worst, women and men can work together and we know the rules for fuck sake. Every serious Company have some sort of behavior policy

 

[TheGreatA]

Come on that interview was his worst, women and men can work together and we know the rules for fuck sake. Every serious Company have some sort of behavior policy

The truth is that women and men probably won't be working together in a hundred years. It's a temporary phenomenon. We might be the only generation that gets to witness such a thing.

Peterson is referring to a historical cycle which has seen many civilizations develop equality between genders as a result of high culture, and then descend to absolute inequality between the genders, once that high culture can no longer be sustained productively. As a person atleast somewhat familiar with history, he knows that the path taken here, regarding sexuality in the work place, leads to segregation of genders rather than integration between them.

What we are seeing is unnatural and cannot truly be imposed without repression of one gender disproportionately to the other. If women can continue to behave and market themselves sexually while men are expected to uphold themselves to old-time "chivalrous" standards of conduct, a near celibacy of sorts, there will eventually be calls on the part of men, to repress women sexually equally to the men (which is what originally led to theocratic sexual repression from previous "sexually liberated" pagan cultures).

All of that will inevitably lead to the question whether segregating the women and the men is simply an easier way to go on about it. We're already seeing that in the more "progressive" places like Sweden, where "all-female" events are slowly becoming a thing. Males will respond in kind, given enough time to do so. The males will be accused of being conservative reactionaries even though (like the alt-right and such movements), they are merely a natural part of the "progressive" flow.

Until people are capable of having a conversation about certain ground rules, that have moral and intellectual merit, we are inevitably going to see a descend into sexual repression, from the times of "sexual liberation" that we have "enjoyed" (or suffered from, depending on the individual).

The only problem for Peterson in this interview is that he tried to provoke a discussion that the interviewer was obviously incapable of intellectually having. If he had done this with even a Joe Rogan, the result would've been a discussion of some merit. Instead he was left with nothing but egg on his face as he probably assumed a bit too much about the interviewer's capabilities to hold a discussion.

 

[jimmas99]

The truth is that women and men probably won't be working together in a hundred years. It's a temporary phenomenon. We might be the only generation that gets to witness such a thing.

Peterson is referring to a historical cycle which has seen many civilizations develop equality between genders as a result of high culture, and then descend to absolute inequality between the genders, once that high culture can no longer be sustained productively.

There have never been a civilization like the one we have now globally so I don't know why this "cycle" can't be changed forever. We need women in the work Place for the economy to keep on going so i dont think that is going to change.

You seem to have a very pessimistic view of the future, I think we only going to get better as a global society (we just have to get rid of the fascists)

 

[TheGreatA]

There have never been a civilization like the one we have now globally so I don't know why this "cycle" can't be changed forever. We need women in the work Place for the economy to keep on going so i dont think that is going to change.

You seem to have a very pessimistic view of the future, I think we only going to get better as a global society (we just have to get rid of the fascists)

We don't need women in the workplace at all.

In fact, I myself, without exaggerating, can probably put hundreds of women out of a job. Not because I'm a male, or because I'm particularly talented, but because I can program and repair and maintain modern machines and software.

The future is one where machines allow us to begin to think about what is convenient and comfortable for us, and will inevitably allow us to critically evaluate everything that is not convenient and comfortable.

Women and men trying to co-exist together while having to make certain compromises about their living standards, their sexuality, their liberty of expression, is one idea that might end up being tossed into the trash can of history, once we move over the phase where a mass number of people are required to labour incessantly to uphold capitalist economy. The only reason why we struggle to uphold the current structure, is because of that very fact. Not because it is moral or because it is convenient to the men or women. But because currently, it is necessary.

These so-called fascists of yours, are merely the flip side of the same coin, that we call progressivism. They are men who think of themselves, who use all means to self-empower, and want to enjoy their existence as much as possible, while critically evaluating everything that inconveniences them. No differently from identity groups on the left. They are all the same, and they are all a part of this same progression towards a future where we can all exist in a bubble of comfort, free of our "enemies", free of anything that hinders our comfortable existence, enabled by machinery.

The critical theory of the left applies on both sides, not only against white men and patriarchy, but for them. These so-called "fascists" have merely taken up the narrative on the left, and used it for their own empowerment.

 

[IDL]

The truth is that women and men probably won't be working together in a hundred years. It's a temporary phenomenon. We might be the only generation that gets to witness such a thing.

Peterson is referring to a historical cycle which has seen many civilizations develop equality between genders as a result of high culture, and then descend to absolute inequality between the genders, once that high culture can no longer be sustained productively. As a person atleast somewhat familiar with history, he knows that the path taken here, regarding sexuality in the work place, leads to segregation of genders rather than integration between them.

What we are seeing is unnatural and cannot truly be imposed without repression of one gender disproportionately to the other. If women can continue to behave and market themselves sexually while men are expected to uphold themselves to old-time "chivalrous" standards of conduct, a near celibacy of sorts, there will eventually be calls on the part of men, to repress women sexually equally to the men (which is what originally led to theocratic sexual repression from previous "sexually liberated" pagan cultures).

All of that will inevitably lead to the question whether segregating the women and the men is simply an easier way to go on about it. We're already seeing that in the more "progressive" places like Sweden, where "all-female" events are slowly becoming a thing. Males will respond in kind, given enough time to do so. The males will be accused of being conservative reactionary's even though (like the alt-right and such movements), they are merely a natural part of the "progressive" flow.

Until people are capable of having a conversation about certain ground rules, that have moral and intellectual merit, we are inevitably going to see a descend into sexual repression, from the times of "sexual liberation" that we have "enjoyed" (or suffered from, depending on the individual).

The only problem for Peterson in this interview is that he tried to provoke a discussion that the interviewer was obviously incapable of intellectually having. If he had done this with even a Joe Rogan, the result would've been a discussion of some merit. Instead he was left with nothing but egg on his face as he probably assumed a bit too much about the interviewer's capabilities to hold a discussion.

I suspect the complete uncut clip containing the larger context of the discussion would portray the interviewer as even more of a simple jack than the sliced up clip does.

 

[jimmas99]

We don't need women in the workplace at all.

In fact, I myself, without exaggerating, can probably put hundreds of women out of a job. Not because I'm a male, or because I'm particularly talented, but because I can program and repair and maintain modern machines and software.

The future is one where machines allow us to begin to think about what is convenient and comfortable for us, and will inevitably allow us to critically evaluate everything that is not convenient and comfortable.

Women and men trying to co-exist together while having to make certain compromises about their living standards, their sexuality, their liberty of expression, is one idea that might end up being tossed into the trash can of history, once we move over the phase where a mass number of people are required to labour incessantly to uphold capitalist economy.

These so-called fascists of yours, are merely the flip side of the same coin, that we call progressivism. They are men who think of themselves, who use all means to self-empower, and want to enjoy their existence as much as possible, while critically evaluating everything that inconveniences them. No differently from identity groups on the left. They are all the same, and they are all a part of this same progression towards a future where we can all exist in a bubble of comfort, enabled by machinery.

The critical theory of the left applies on both sides, not only against white men and patriarchy, but for them.

Do you even do women bro? They are worth compromising for....

I work in a Place with probably 50-50 split men and women and i can't say i have to compromise a lot because i work with women, but that's just my experience.

"Before the future where we can all exist in a bubble of comfort, enabled by machinery" i believe we can't treat each other with respect and be professional towards eachother at the workplace. I personally don't find it to be that hard to be honest.

 

[TheGreatA]

I suspect the complete uncut clip containing the larger context of the discussion would portray the interviewer as even more of a simple jack than the sliced up clip does.

It was pretty obvious, anyway, what he was trying to accomplish there.

He was playing the villain a bit, being "troll-ish" and poking the interviewer to get something going. But it was obvious that the interviewer had not really put forth any kind of thought at all, into these sorts of discussions (beyond, well, I work with women right now so everything is cool).

The problem with Peterson getting all philosophical about these subjects, is that he expects some hack interviewer to be capable of forming an "intellectual space", with the required historical and philosophical considerations, where such conversations can be held without the fear of repercussions. That's simply not going to happen.

To most people, their job security is all that matters, and anything else comes secondary. You cannot expect a person such as the interviewer to even entertain that kind of a conversation because that might potentially put his job security at risk. At the very least, it's going to lead to uncomfortable moments with his co-workers if he missteps and says something that he probably shouldn't have said in regards to the questions asked by Peterson.

He was going to get nothing for an answer, and as a learned man, probably shouldn't have expected to.

To me, it shows that Peterson is far from the calculated conman or effective manipulator that some portray him to be, when seeing him miss such obvious cues. It displays to me, again, that he really is more of an idealist, humanist type who sometimes appears to struggle to fathom behavioural and intellectual patterns outside of his own. Almost to the point of having a sense of wonder and adventure about them, each time he encounters them. I reckon that's why he is into psychology, and into getting himself involved with these sorts of discussions. A more cynical person wouldn't bother.

 

[HOLA]

We don't need women in the workplace at all.

In fact, I myself, without exaggerating, can probably put hundreds of women out of a job. Not because I'm a male, or because I'm particularly talented, but because I can program and repair and maintain modern machines and software.

The future is one where machines allow us to begin to think about what is convenient and comfortable for us, and will inevitably allow us to critically evaluate everything that is not convenient and comfortable.

Women and men trying to co-exist together while having to make certain compromises about their living standards, their sexuality, their liberty of expression, is one idea that might end up being tossed into the trash can of history, once we move over the phase where a mass number of people are required to labour incessantly to uphold capitalist economy. The only reason why we struggle to uphold the current structure, is because of that very fact. Not because it is moral or because it is convenient to the men or women. But because currently, it is necessary.

These so-called fascists of yours, are merely the flip side of the same coin, that we call progressivism. They are men who think of themselves, who use all means to self-empower, and want to enjoy their existence as much as possible, while critically evaluating everything that inconveniences them. No differently from identity groups on the left. They are all the same, and they are all a part of this same progression towards a future where we can all exist in a bubble of comfort, free of our "enemies", free of anything that hinders our comfortable existence, enabled by machinery.

The critical theory of the left applies on both sides, not only against white men and patriarchy, but for them. These so-called "fascists" have merely taken up the narrative on the left, and used it for their own empowerment.

This all sounds like Christian fundamentalism masquerading as thoughtful philosophy.

 

[TheGreatA]

Do you even do women bro? They are worth compromising for....

I work in a Place with probably 50-50 split men and women and i can't say i have to compromise a lot because i work with women, but that's just my experience.

"Before the future where we can all exist in a bubble of comfort, enabled by machinery" i believe we can't treat each other with respect and be professional towards eachother at the workplace. I personally don't find it to be that hard to be honest.

Your problem is that you believe "you" to be all.

Just because you feel comfortable, doesn't mean that 99% of other people aren't struggling with it. The last French monarchs also believed everything to be fine, all the way up to the gallows.

I can assure you that almost 90% of the men in the world struggle to co-exist with women unless there are certain ground rules which both are made to follow.

Limits to male behaviour are inevitably going to be followed by limits to female behaviour. That is inevitable. And that's basically all Peterson was implying.

I can also assure you that Peterson has no trouble with that. He is perfectly fine with male and female sexual behaviour being limited. That male behaviour is being limited now, will only serve as ammunition to limit female behaviour at a future date, because the ground arguments on limiting both, are essentially the same (that it is provocative and uncomfortable). Everything, inevitably, balances out. Peterson, as more of a conservative on matters of sexuality, doesn't have such a big problem with what we are seeing right now, neither do I. That conservative principles on sexuality are being accomplished by the left, is in actuality a much less painful process, than if it required the conservative people to act out and put the burden on themselves.

The only people that suffer are those who believe in sexual liberty. They're getting "fucked" right now, from both sides.

 

[HOLA]

This, BTW, is a hilarious new twitter account.

Jordan Peterson, or Islamic cleric? Where do the quotes comes from? Who knows?!







As a matter of fact, Islamic fundamentalists might have something to learn here. A lesson in rebranding. Switch their message about the ladies to "evolutionary psychology" and I assume at least some confused lobsters would convert.

 

[TheGreatA]

This all sounds like Christian fundamentalism masquerading as thoughtful philosophy.

I'm no philosopher, and most certainly not a Christian. Your problem seems to be that you're incapable of seeing beyond the scope of what you've become accustomed to.

That's common in people who have served as soldiers on the battlefield of American politics, limited by the binary nature of it. Everyone who doesn't subscribe to my type of thinking, must be a Christian.

I'm about as godless and selfish as a man can be. That's why it is easy for me to predict the course of the currents. The world is no more than a battleground, for interests to be furthered. Yet it all, inevitably, balances out, as interests achieved, become privileges that corrupt. Thus, often times, privileges are easily given away, and once again longed for, after having been given up. That's part of what we are seeing right now.

There's a process of mourning what was lost on the part of males, and a process of enjoying new privileges on the part of females. That, too, will balance itself out, inevitably. The corruption on the part of females, we can already begin to witness. The mourning on the part of males, well, that is particularly obvious.

 

[HOLA]

I'm no philosopher, and most certainly not a Christian. Your problem seems to be that you're incapable of seeing beyond the scope of what you've become accustomed to.

That's common in people who have served as soldiers on the battlefield of American politics, limited by the binary nature of it. Everyone who doesn't subscribe to my type of thinking, must be a Christian.

I'm about as godless and selfish as a man can be. That's why it is easy for me to predict the course of the currents. The world is no more than a battleground, for interests to be furthered. Yet it all, inevitably, balances out, as interests achieved, become privileges that corrupt. Thus, often times, privileges are easily given away, and once again longed for, after having been given up. That's part of what we are seeing right now.

There's a process of mourning what was lost on the part of males, and a process of enjoying new privileges on the part of females. That, too, will balance itself out, inevitably. The corruption on the part of females, we can already begin to witness.

You sound almost like one of the characters from the book your avatar is from, with some extra misogyny.

 

[TheGreatA]

You sound almost like one of the characters from the book your avatar is from, with some extra misogyny.

And you sound like a caricature of a leftist, who has little more to offer to the conversation, outside of terms simplified as slogans for the masses and lended weight by superior intellects.

 

[HOLA]

And you sound like a caricature of a leftist, who has little more to offer to the conversation, outside of terms simplified as slogans for the masses and lended weight by superior intellects.

ok.

But before you go predicting the future..."I'm about as godless and selfish as a man can be. That's why it is easy for me to predict the course of the currents. The world is no more than a battleground, for interests to be furthered."

You may want to reread Demons more closely. Dostoevsky wrote that as a warning, not a guide book.

 

[jimmas99]

Your problem is that you believe "you" to be all.

Just because you feel comfortable, doesn't mean that 99% of other people aren't struggling with it. The last French monarchs also believed everything to be fine, all the way up to the gallows.

I can assure you that almost 90% of the men in the world struggle to co-exist with women unless there are certain ground rules which both are made to follow.

Limits to male behaviour are inevitably going to be followed by limits to female behaviour. That is inevitable. And that's basically all Peterson was implying.

I can also assure you that Peterson has no trouble with that. He is perfectly fine with male and female sexual behaviour being limited. That male behaviour is being limited now, will only serve as ammunition to limit female behaviour at a future date, because the ground arguments on limiting both, are essentially the same (that it is provocative and uncomfortable). Everything, inevitably, balances out. Peterson, as more of a conservative on matters of sexuality, doesn't have such a big problem with what we are seeing right now, neither do I. That conservative principles on sexuality are being accomplished by the left, is in actuality a much less painful process, than if it required the conservative people to act out and put the burden on themselves.

The only people that suffer are those who believe in sexual liberty. They're getting "fucked" right now, from both sides.

What do this even mean? "90% of the men in the world struggle to co-exist with women", struggle not to harass them? Life is a struggle bro, but i for one Think we should be able to co-exist without harassing each other. And i get it if you are a lonely guy no one likes......then The struggle probably real hard.

"The last French monarchs also believed everything to be fine, all the way up to the gallows" we used to live in Caves too, things evolve.....

 

[IDL]

It was pretty obvious, anyway, what he was trying to accomplish there.

He was playing the villain a bit, being "troll-ish" and poking the interviewer to get something going. But it was obvious that the interviewer had not really put forth any kind of thought at all, into these sorts of discussions (beyond, well, I work with women right now so everything is cool).

The problem with Peterson getting all philosophical about these subjects, is that he expects some hack interviewer to be capable of forming an "intellectual space", with the required historical and philosophical considerations, where such conversations can be held without the fear of repercussions. That's simply not going to happen.

To most people, their job security is all that matters, and anything else comes secondary. You cannot expect a person such as the interviewer to even entertain that kind of a conversation because that might potentially put his job security at risk. At the very least, it's going to lead to uncomfortable moments with his co-workers if he missteps and says something that he probably shouldn't have said in regards to the questions asked by Peterson.

He was going to get nothing for an answer, and as a learned man, probably shouldn't have expected to.

To me, it shows that Peterson is far from the calculated conman or effective manipulator that some portray him to be, when seeing him miss such obvious cues. It displays to me, again, that he really is more of an idealist, humanist type who sometimes appears to struggle to fathom behavioural and intellectual patterns outside of his own. Almost to the point of having a sense of wonder and adventure about them, each time he encounters them. I reckon that's why he is into psychology, and into getting himself involved with these sorts of discussions. A more cynical person wouldn't bother.

Yes I got the same impression, that he was trying to force the interviewer to think. To provoke him a bit. It reminded me of the Newman interview when he told her that 'she was making him uncomfortable' in a serious tone, and then immediately after smiled because it was to make a point.

It feels like a fools errand though, trying to get too much of a read on a sliced up clip. Vice edited it together in order create controversy (as anyone who is familiar with Vice would expect them to do) so for all we know they ended up finding agreement once the interviewer clued in to what Peterson was on about during further discussion.

But yeah I suspect you are correct in terms of job security. Vice is expected to produce an ideologically driven show piece and the interviewer most likely 'had a job to do'. Probably not quite as bad as Newman, but along the same lines. But hey, maybe the complete interview is really good. We probably won't know.

I think Peterson is an idealist in some senses, but I don't think in the way you describe. He's used to communicating with people who may or may not relate to what he's saying, and has a lot of patience. He has taught plenty of university classes as well as interacted with radical protestors, as well as agenda driven interviewers. Not to mention encountering whatever there is to encounter in clinical practice. Quite the adventure. I think if anything he relies on the 'tell the truth and let the chips fall as they may' approach, with the ideal being that that is the best course of action and will generally lead to a good outcome.

 

[TheGreatA]

ok.

But before you go predicting the future..."I'm about as godless and selfish as a man can be. That's why it is easy for me to predict the course of the currents. The world is no more than a battleground, for interests to be furthered."

You may want to reread Demons more closely. Dostoevsky wrote that as a warning, not a guide book.

Sure he did. And his warnings weren't paid any heed to back then, and they sure as hell won't be paid any heed to now.

He was a man who was incapable of living with the idea that there was no moral determinant over mankind's actions, thus he desperately clung onto Christian faith, despite all the evidence against. The "villains" of his books, were a vehicle to project his own thoughts and the conclusions that he would come to (beyond Christian morality), revolutionary and nihilistic (as was the common intellectual tradition of Russian youth at the time).

After having observed what happened in Russia and Eastern Europe historically, I find it quite easy to abandon such faith. There is no merit to weak structures that cannot be upheld for the long-term, and which insult the population's intelligence. The moral structure must be founded anew. These new morals must be such that they cannot be merely "abandoned" as a man would abandon an old coat, as Christianity was, on the weight of the overwhelming, unquestionable empirical evidence in favour of them.

The times have moved on from when Christianity was relevant, but there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, of course. Some of the morals do have merit, just not in the manner that they are explained.

 

[RubberGuard5]

What do this even mean? "90% of the men in the world struggle to co-exist with women", struggle not to harass them? Life is a struggle bro, but i for one Think we should be able to co-exist without harassing each other. And i get it if you are a lonely guy no one likes......then The struggle probably real hard.

"The last French monarchs also believed everything to be fine, all the way up to the gallows" we used to live in Caves too, things evolve.....

Struggle not to act on attraction they feel towards female coworkers is what he meant, I believe.

 

[IDL]

I'm not about to get #Metoo-ed. Besides, I'm almost twice her age and waaaay too big.(EDIT: in terms of height)

It was nice talking to her, though. She may be young but she's a tough old bird. She plans on bringing high profile speakers for next month's meeting and is trying hard to get Professor Peterson to be one of them. The problem is that he's busy as hell. But I think he kind of owes her a favor. She crystallized his dark prophecy about the inevitable wilful misapplication of bill C-16 and laid the fuckery bare for the whole world to see.

She told me Infowars has recently asked to interview her and she's hesitant because the conspiracy theory label often gets slapped on any viewpoints that stray from the prevailing ideologies. Because of the reputation Infowars has she was concerned that contact with them which could damage her credibility in the event of future dialogue with other media entities.
That led to a conversation in which the question was raised as to whether Professor Petersons appearance on Fox News in anyway delegitimized his message to those who maybe only have a limited introduction to this current cultural dynamic, of which he seems to be on the vanguard.

So It was pretty much a more jovial war room, with craft beer and nachos and about four more women than the number of females we have on this site (almost zero, i think) There were also a few "undercovers" but they were pretty easy to spot, The last one wrote a cry-piece editorial about the meeting in the student newspaper, but the feeling is that those at the WLU Rainbow Centre have completely overplayed their hand. (Their list of demands which included more money, the additional hiring of a trans person of color, and a panic button -I wish I was kidding, have so far gone unheeded.)

A few gay dudes talked about how the transfolk have essentially taken over the rainbow center and brought it, and by extension everybody else in the lgb community into disrepute.

I was very happy to see quite a few people of color there to. It was a pretty good time. I encourage you all to form a group and have similar types of discussions. At times it can be lonely having a viewpoint that can only be expressed furtively. You start to get weird after a while from tamping things down all the time.

It was weird though, the feeling I had; that a free speech meeting was a subversive act. It's feeling I'm not sure you are supposed to ever get used to. But I'm rambling. Again. lol

Your rambling is much appreciated!

Yeah Peterson is seemingly everywhere these days so could be hard to get but I would be surprised if he didn't go out of his way to visit assuming it's possible given timelines. He has mentioned (and has been asked about) Shepherd several times during interviews and obviously respects her. And as you say, she vindicated some of what he was saying prior, so I agree he does kind of owe her.

Interesting but not surprising in terms of your comment about the rainbow center (I'm assuming this is some on campus organization for LGBT activism). Peterson has mentioned the letters he gets from transgendered people saying very similar things (as in, they don't speak for me and I don't want any part of what they are doing and they are making out lives more difficult)

I'm not even going to ask about the panic button...

In terms of free speech feeling subversive, that is probably because of the efforts to associate free speech with hate, which is a political strategy designed to make moves against it in general. It's a sort of creeping soft totalitarianism, where the activists are used by people who would wish that sort of thing onto society (which is why the activism factories are so well supported and financed by those in power). This dynamic that is the slow creep is probably also a factor in why people appreciate Peterson drawing some attention to it, because they can feel it too even if they don't really know what it is.