The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

[TheGreatA]

I don't see how pure materialism and scientific thinking could ever fill that gap, even if our scientific understanding of the world increased infinitely. Maybe it could somehow, but I don't see it.

In the mean time though yeah that void is fairly obvious. I think a lot of people just avoid it. Either they avoid thinking about it or they avoid trying to fill it in because they are ill equipped to do so with their current perspective and understanding of things, or they just don't bring it up for personal or career reasons. Or maybe some people can be content in their nihilism as long as they are distracted by other things.

I could see it filling that gap. But to achieve anything even close to a complete scientific understanding of the universe, is going to require the cultivation of thoughts that go beyond what we expect to exist. One could say that all of what we have proven to exist, is the material and the scientific of today. We have made these concepts a part of our every-day, material world. But at a point in time, phenomenons such as electricity and combustion appeared to us as "magical". There are scientific concepts being developed today, that to the materialists and scientists of a past era, would've appeared as pure rubbish, spouted by mystics and shamans and the mentally ill.

It may be that at a future date, we will see the resurrection of a dead body, as a completely normal thing, explained by science. Not as a laughable myth perpetuated in ancient books, by men who believed in magic. Yet it would not have been made possible, perhaps, if it weren't for the mystic, seemingly magical concepts having sparked the debate of whether it is possible or not, in the first place.

 

[21 Savage]

You need to watch Peterson's lectures on phenomenology (and possibly existentialism) to understand what is meant by the idea that material reality might not be the truest form of reality. In the west we're used to think of material reality as the ultimate reality. To understand the phenomenological point of view you need to, as a thought experiment, flip your entire framework of reference to imagine that meaning is real, and dead matter is subordinate. And that might be true.

It's funny, you think you're edgy by posting your gotcha video... in reality you don't even understand the psychological and philosophical concepts involved in the conservation. "Derp derp Christinity is stupid," jesus dude.

really makes you think

 

[21 Savage]

Dr. JP's Youtube videos have improved my life so much. As a young, intelligent and maybe a little lost, middle-class white guy I truly appreciate his work. In fact, I've decided to drop out of law school and leave the postmodern nexomarxist indoctrination cult of a university that I was attending, so that once Dr. JP starts up his own online (real) university with the money I and others provide him on Patreon I can sign up immediately.



Perhaps I'm being a bit optimistic but I've already picked up my first piece of course material by purchasing the film 'Frozen', I look forward to delving deeper into the neomarxism and psychology behind propaganda films like this.

 

[TheGreatA]

Dr. JP's Youtube videos have improved my life so much. As a young, intelligent and maybe a little lost, middle-class white guy I truly appreciate his work. In fact, I've decided to drop out of law school and leave the postmodern nexomarxist indoctrination cult of a university that I was attending, so that once Dr. JP starts up his own online (real) university with the money I and others provide him on Patreon I can sign up immediately.



Perhaps I'm being a bit optimistic but I've already picked up my first piece of course material by purchasing the film 'Frozen', I look forward to delving deeper into the neomarxism and psychology behind propaganda films like this.

Just a heads-up, as a "learned" man, Peterson is likely intelligent enough to have given his "indoctrinated followers" advice about these sorts of crude shaming tactics.

You're probably going to have to come up with something more worth-while to make them re-consider their positions.

 

[The ScorpioN]

I have also noticed the disgusting snobbery over Peterson's Patreon. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything he says or does, but those that criticize and attack him are convinced that makes him pure evil.

"Ugh, Peterson is making $50,000 from his Patreon. What a hateful asshole (sneer)."

Spoiler

Come on man, put that shit in a spoiler tag

 

[Devout Pessimist]

This is an interesting clip, JP basically gets BTFO'd for being a religious nut and his pseudo-intellectual facade consisting of word salads and deflections while actually just promoting christianity gets exposed hard.

Religious Nut and Pseudo-Intellectual?

 

[Devout Pessimist]

As a JP fan I recommend other fans of JP to watch this discussion. He does a fantastic job articulating his thoughts (as always hehe, 145+ IQ) as to why advertising atheism is cancer. At first I didn't understand, but now I'm aware that atheist bus ads are clever media ploys. As the case so often is, the careful listener will notice just how far ahead, intellectually, JP is compared to all the other guests.

Like always when I watch Dr. JP clips and lectures I feel almost overwhelmed by the amount of wisdom he endows upon me and all of his other listeners, so I've tried to pick out some of my favorite quotes of his from this discussion.

"There is no evidence that he [Richard Dawkins] is being opressed, even though maybe he should be."

"If you don’t have any faith in an ultimate authority that says essentially that life is sacred, what’s to stop you from mobilizing everything you can to kill as many people as you can?"





Really makes you think

Peterson does an excellent job at putting smug Atheists in their place.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

You need to watch Peterson's lectures on phenomenology (and possibly existentialism) to understand what is meant by the idea that material reality might not be the truest form of reality. In the west we're used to think of material reality as the ultimate reality. To understand the phenomenological point of view you need to, as a thought experiment, flip your entire framework of reference to imagine that meaning is real, and dead matter is subordinate. And that might be true.

It's funny, you think you're edgy by posting your gotcha video... in reality you don't even understand the psychological and philosophical concepts involved in the conservation. "Derp derp Christinity is stupid," jesus dude.

@21 Savage needs to clean his room.

 

[helltoupee]

He was resisting the gender pronoun issue because of its ideological underpinnings and politics behind it, and that it was an escalation to essentially legislate what someone must say.

I don't think he has a problem with referring to a transgender as the opposite, if that is what you are getting at. His perspective is that you shouldn't force someone to say something, especially when done on ideological grounds which he is familiar with in terms of NeoMarxism/Postmodernism, and that it is a social negotiation essentially.

But who/what legislation is forcing someone to say something?

C-16 simply adds gender to discrimination law. You are no more liable to get arrested for telling a 50yo lady she looks like she is 70, than you are for saying Mary looks more like a Chuck. Unless you are advocating genocide of transgenders, or old people, or black people, or white people, or disabled people, etc etc etc., JP completely misses the nuance and instead promotes hyperbole.

 

[TheGreatA]

But who/what legislation is forcing someone to say something?

C-16 simply adds gender to discrimination law. You are no more liable to get arrested for telling a 50yo lady she looks like she is 70, than you are for saying Mary looks more like a Chuck. Unless you are advocating genocide of transgenders, or old people, or black people, or white people, or disabled people, etc etc etc., JP completely misses the nuance and instead promotes hyperbole.

The problem is that we already have cases where the mere criticism of a "protected group" has led to sentences. If it was just about threatening genocide, then I reckon less people would have problems with it.

A man in my country was sentenced with a crime for saying that "not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim", after a terror attack. Which factually, is not far from the truth (especially when it comes to terror attacks around the European region). What next? Is saying that a man doesn't belong in a women's bathroom (in reference to transgenders), going to be regarded as hate speech soon? Or using the wrong pronoun?

It is not very clear where the line is drawn when it comes to these laws. It's not such a far-out theory to believe that they're being set up in order to start punishing people for what the state regards as "thought crimes".

 

[helltoupee]

The problem is that we already have cases where the mere criticism of a "protected group" has led to sentences. If it was just about threatening genocide, then I reckon less people would have problems with it.

A man in my country was sentenced with a crime for saying that "not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim", after a terror attack. Which factually, is not far from the truth. What next? Is saying that a man doesn't belong in a women's bathroom (in reference to transgenders), going to be regarded as hate speech soon? Or using the wrong pronoun?

It is not very clear where the line is drawn when it comes to these laws.

That's a far cry from Peterson's implied battle cry of "if you are walking down the street and call transgender Betsy by his real name David, you will be going to jail".

Furthermore, you will always find outliers and exceptions to every significant application of law and justice. As IDL said, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I will admit, however, that I don't know the circumstances of the example you mention - do you have a link? I'd like to read the specifics.

 

[TheGreatA]

That's a far cry from Peterson's implied battle cry of "if you are walking down the street and call transgender Betsy by his real name David, you will be going to jail".

Furthermore, you will always find outliers and exceptions to every significant application of law and justice. As IDL said, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I will admit, however, that I don't know the circumstances of the example you mention - do you have a link? I'd like to read the specifics.

Is he actually saying that? I thought his argument was more in the lines that it's a slippery slope and that it might very well end up with that. But I cannot say that I've paid much attention to his rants about trans-genders. It is thankfully not an issue that's yet become part of the public debate here (although the push has started from the usual channels).

This is the case I was talking about:

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finns_party_mp_charged_for_disseminating_hate_speech/9265434

 

[Devout Pessimist]

But who/what legislation is forcing someone to say something?

C-16 simply adds gender to discrimination law. You are no more liable to get arrested for telling a 50yo lady she looks like she is 70, than you are for saying Mary looks more like a Chuck. Unless you are advocating genocide of transgenders, or old people, or black people, or white people, or disabled people, etc etc etc., JP completely misses the nuance and instead promotes hyperbole.

Peterson is more concerned about where all of this is potentially leading us in regards to the future. If I remember correctly, he said we could potentially see problems with legislation like bill C-16 five to ten years down the road. We will not see the potential consequences of this thought policing immediately if there are any consequences.

 

[IDL]

But who/what legislation is forcing someone to say something?

C-16 simply adds gender to discrimination law. You are no more liable to get arrested for telling a 50yo lady she looks like she is 70, than you are for saying Mary looks more like a Chuck. Unless you are advocating genocide of transgenders, or old people, or black people, or white people, or disabled people, etc etc etc., JP completely misses the nuance and instead promotes hyperbole.

It falls into the hate crime category and human rights tribunals (parallel legal stream), so it moves it into the thought crime territory. It also makes employers responsible for enforcing it (such as the university), and that is not to mention that it is ideologically driven.

I think you are missing the nuance if you think it is "If you aren't calling for genocide then it won't affect you". Unless you view not complying with a demanded made up pronoun as calling for someones genocide.

Interestingly, one of the gender studies profs he spoke with on an interview publicly said that he considers non compliance as violence and criminal hate crime, so the people pushing for this stuff do hold very radical positions and are authoritarian to the core. That was also the same character that claims that there is no biological difference between males and females.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Is he actually saying that? I thought his argument was more in the lines that it's a slippery slope and that it might very well end up with that. But I cannot say that I've paid much attention to his rants about trans-genders. It is thankfully not an issue that's yet become part of the public debate here (although the push has started from the usual channels).

This is the case I was talking about:

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finns_party_mp_charged_for_disseminating_hate_speech/9265434

Peterson has said he is concerned about potential problems down the road. He has never said a specific tragedy will certainly happen. When it comes to bill C-16 he is mainly concerned about the lack of clarity in the language of the bill and how the lack of clarity can lead to radical interpretations by the human rights commissions.

 

[helltoupee]

Is he actually saying that? I thought his argument was more in the lines that it's a slippery slope and that it might very well end up with that. But I cannot say that I've paid much attention to his rants about trans-genders. It is thankfully not an issue that's yet become part of the public debate here (although the push has started from the usual channels).

This is the case I was talking about:

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finns_party_mp_charged_for_disseminating_hate_speech/9265434

It says the guy was charged, which we all know the old saying about indicting ham sandwiches. Do you know the outcome?

It also seems this case is a bit different. The guy being charged is a member of Parliament and was using the statement on his Facebook page. Are you of the opinion that our leaders (those in authoritative positions) whose inflammatory language could very well have large scale consequences (inciting riots, lynch mobs, etc), should be able to direct hate speech at anyone they please?

I'm not going to debate whether or not what he said qualifies as hate speech, that's a separate issue. But for the sake of argument, let's pretend it was, like he said "I'm calling on all my constituents to kill all transgenders", which C16 now protects, do you think adding gender to discrimination is wrong?

 

[IDL]

Peterson is more concerned about where all of this is potentially leading us in regards to the future. If I remember correctly, he said we will probably be seeing problems with legislation like bill C-16 five to ten years down the road. We will not see the potential consequences of this thought policing immediately if there are any.

Also that it is far more than 'gender'. It is 'gender expression'. So, like something you can try on one day and change the next day. Something completely arbitrary and disconnected from any scientific basis or any objective limits.

Basically the way the law is written is jumbled and can mean a million different things.

 

[helltoupee]

It falls into the hate crime category and human rights tribunals (parallel legal stream), so it moves it into the thought crime territory. It also makes employers responsible for enforcing it (such as the university), and that is not to mention that it is ideologically driven.

I think you are missing the nuance if you think it is "If you aren't calling for genocide then it won't affect you". Unless you view not complying with a demanded made up pronoun as calling for someones genocide.

Interestingly, one of the gender studies profs he spoke with on an interview publicly said that he considers non compliance as violence and criminal hate crime, so the people pushing for this stuff do hold very radical positions and are authoritarian to the core. That was also the same character that claims that there is no biological difference between males and females.

You don't have to comply with a demanded upon pronoun. Where does C16 say you do? If I walk down the street and tell you to call me Fred, and you insist on calling me Susan, you think I could have you jailed if you don't call me Fred?

 

[helltoupee]

Peterson is more concerned about where all of this is potentially leading us in regards to the future. If I remember correctly, he said we could potentially see problems with legislation like bill C-16 five to ten years down the road. We will not see the potential consequences of this thought policing immediately if there are any consequences.

While I don't agree with him, I will thank you for clarifying what I may have misunderstood about his intentions.

 

[IDL]

You don't have to comply with a demanded upon pronoun. Where does C16 say you do? If I walk down the street and tell you to call me Fred, and you insist on calling me Susan, you think I could have you jailed if you don't call me Fred?

I can't recall the details exactly, but it adds 'gender identity' and 'gender expression' into the protected class groups so if you don't comply then you are 'discriminating against a protected class' which is a thought crime.

Also for clarity, 'Fred' and 'Susan' are nouns and this is referring to pronouns. So it would be more like saying if someone wanted you to use 'Xer' and you didn't want to and instead used 'he' or 'she'

In terms of how someone could get punished, I think the process is that a human rights violation is lodged against you and then you are brought in front of a panel, or something like that. But it affects institutions also because employers become afraid they will violate these rules (which are not clearly defined) so they become enforcers of the new ideology.