The friends of Jordan Peterson

[Correll]

He seems to have problems with women for some reason . He was a guest on Question Time last year and didnt have much to say. Maybe he felt a bit out of his comfort zone.

No, he doesn't necessarily have a problem with women, personally. But, being the obnoxious nutcase he is, he panders to the frustrations and resentments of men who manifestly do have a problem with women, mostly with not getting any, and he then throws in a dollop of Islamophobia in his quest for fame and fortune. It's easy enough to understand: Since he is bent on collecting followers who feel they are the victims of women, and the "PC mob" that insists even women be treated with respect, he needs to quash the competing female victim narrative, and deny its historical accuracy. Of course, a person who calls him on his nonsense - and a woman, to boot - quite predictably stirs up the rage of "The friends of Jordan Peterson". In other words, he's a pied piper, and "harmless" is the very last term I would use to describe him.

Sounds like nothing I have heard him say.

 

[Correll]

He seems to have problems with women for some reason . He was a guest on Question Time last year and didnt have much to say. Maybe he felt a bit out of his comfort zone.

No, he doesn't necessarily have a problem with women, personally. But, being the obnoxious nutcase he is, he panders to the frustrations and resentments of men who manifestly do have a problem with women, mostly with not getting any, and he then throws in a dollop of Islamophobia in his quest for fame and fortune. It's easy enough to understand: Since he is bent on collecting followers who feel they are the victims of women, and the "PC mob" that insists even women be treated with respect, he needs to quash the competing female victim narrative, and deny its historical accuracy. Of course, a person who calls him on his nonsense - and a woman, to boot - quite predictably stirs up the rage of "The friends of Jordan Peterson". In other words, he's a pied piper, and "harmless" is the very last term I would use to describe him.

You know more about him than me.The one time I saw him he was quite subdued and didnt have much to say.But "cultural marxism" doesnt mark him out as a great thinker.

Why not?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

He seems to have problems with women for some reason . He was a guest on Question Time last year and didnt have much to say. Maybe he felt a bit out of his comfort zone.

No, he doesn't necessarily have a problem with women, personally. But, being the obnoxious nutcase he is, he panders to the frustrations and resentments of men who manifestly do have a problem with women, mostly with not getting any, and he then throws in a dollop of Islamophobia in his quest for fame and fortune. It's easy enough to understand: Since he is bent on collecting followers who feel they are the victims of women, and the "PC mob" that insists even women be treated with respect, he needs to quash the competing female victim narrative, and deny its historical accuracy. Of course, a person who calls him on his nonsense - and a woman, to boot - quite predictably stirs up the rage of "The friends of Jordan Peterson". In other words, he's a pied piper, and "harmless" is the very last term I would use to describe him.

You know more about him than me.The one time I saw him he was quite subdued and didnt have much to say.But "cultural marxism" doesnt mark him out as a great thinker.

Why not?

Because cultural marxism is just a loony conspiracy theory.

 

[Correll]

He seems to have problems with women for some reason . He was a guest on Question Time last year and didnt have much to say. Maybe he felt a bit out of his comfort zone.

No, he doesn't necessarily have a problem with women, personally. But, being the obnoxious nutcase he is, he panders to the frustrations and resentments of men who manifestly do have a problem with women, mostly with not getting any, and he then throws in a dollop of Islamophobia in his quest for fame and fortune. It's easy enough to understand: Since he is bent on collecting followers who feel they are the victims of women, and the "PC mob" that insists even women be treated with respect, he needs to quash the competing female victim narrative, and deny its historical accuracy. Of course, a person who calls him on his nonsense - and a woman, to boot - quite predictably stirs up the rage of "The friends of Jordan Peterson". In other words, he's a pied piper, and "harmless" is the very last term I would use to describe him.

You know more about him than me.The one time I saw him he was quite subdued and didnt have much to say.But "cultural marxism" doesnt mark him out as a great thinker.

Why not?

Because cultural marxism is just a loony conspiracy theory.

Calling something a name, is not an argument.

I assume that is all you have, or you would have posted something real.


So, that complaint of yours has been debunked.


So, you want to admit your real problem with him? Or you want me to guess?

 

[there4eyeM]

Considering the level of what passes for discourse generally, of late, Dr. Peterson is a refreshing zephyr. Posed with a reasoned and dispassionate question, his responses are considerate, considered and concise. He expresses expertly what so many think and feel when they find themselves in the uncertain zone between "left" and "right".

 

[Correll]

Considering the level of what passes for discourse generally, of late, Dr. Peterson is a refreshing zephyr. Posed with a reasoned and dispassionate question, his responses are considerate, considered and concise. He expresses expertly what so many think and feel when they find themselves in the uncertain zone between "left" and "right".

And when confronted by this, liberals have a real problem.

 

[there4eyeM]

Considering the level of what passes for discourse generally, of late, Dr. Peterson is a refreshing zephyr. Posed with a reasoned and dispassionate question, his responses are considerate, considered and concise. He expresses expertly what so many think and feel when they find themselves in the uncertain zone between "left" and "right".

And when confronted by this, liberals have a real problem.

It certainly seems that expressing a different view of any kind is met with instant, vociferous hostility from some people.

 

[Correll]

Considering the level of what passes for discourse generally, of late, Dr. Peterson is a refreshing zephyr. Posed with a reasoned and dispassionate question, his responses are considerate, considered and concise. He expresses expertly what so many think and feel when they find themselves in the uncertain zone between "left" and "right".

And when confronted by this, liberals have a real problem.

It certainly seems that expressing a different view of any kind is met with instant, vociferous hostility from some people.

While , if you watched the infamous Cathy Newman interview, their first line of defense, is utter denial of what other people say.


Repeatedly, in that interview, Peterson would say something, and Cathy would immediately restate it, completely misrepresenting what he just said, and then ask him to defend the shit she just made up.


And that behavior is very common. Hell, Seely is doing it right now, in another thread with me.

 

[Dragonlady]

The hysteria about Dr. Jordan Peterson is entirely incomprehensible. The man is a reasoned thinker who brings nothing but intelligent observation to the table. That he is vilified is testimony to the inability to listen and hear, see and understand.

The man is an idiot. I'm not surprised you think he's great. You have an affinity for fools.

 

[K9Buck]

Are you telling me that someone on the internet gave that girl a hard time after her interview?!

Well that does it for me. I'm leaving the GOP! I'm going to disavow God, join the Democratic Party, call for the destruction of Israel, change my gender and advocate for open borders and unlimited immigration.

 

[K9Buck]

The man is an idiot.

I agree. Peterson is not the wise, old sage that you clearly are.

 

[Correll]

The hysteria about Dr. Jordan Peterson is entirely incomprehensible. The man is a reasoned thinker who brings nothing but intelligent observation to the table. That he is vilified is testimony to the inability to listen and hear, see and understand.

The man is an idiot. I'm not surprised you think he's great. You have an affinity for fools.

THe man is literally a genius, and only a liar or a fool would claim otherwise.

 

[Tehon]

The hysteria about Dr. Jordan Peterson is entirely incomprehensible. The man is a reasoned thinker who brings nothing but intelligent observation to the table. That he is vilified is testimony to the inability to listen and hear, see and understand.

The man is an idiot. I'm not surprised you think he's great. You have an affinity for fools.

THe man is literally a genius, and only a liar or a fool would claim otherwise.

He is not a genius and I am neither a liar or a fool. His beliefs are fundamentally flawed.

 

[Correll]

The hysteria about Dr. Jordan Peterson is entirely incomprehensible. The man is a reasoned thinker who brings nothing but intelligent observation to the table. That he is vilified is testimony to the inability to listen and hear, see and understand.

The man is an idiot. I'm not surprised you think he's great. You have an affinity for fools.

THe man is literally a genius, and only a liar or a fool would claim otherwise.

He is not a genius and I am neither a liar or a fool. His beliefs are fundamentally flawed.

What do you consider the greatest flaw?

 

[Tehon]

The hysteria about Dr. Jordan Peterson is entirely incomprehensible. The man is a reasoned thinker who brings nothing but intelligent observation to the table. That he is vilified is testimony to the inability to listen and hear, see and understand.

The man is an idiot. I'm not surprised you think he's great. You have an affinity for fools.

THe man is literally a genius, and only a liar or a fool would claim otherwise.

He is not a genius and I am neither a liar or a fool. His beliefs are fundamentally flawed.

What do you consider the greatest flaw?

I will pick one, not necessarily of the most import.

He believes the antidote to moral relativism is found in meaning. But meaning is itself, relative.

 

[Correll]

The hysteria about Dr. Jordan Peterson is entirely incomprehensible. The man is a reasoned thinker who brings nothing but intelligent observation to the table. That he is vilified is testimony to the inability to listen and hear, see and understand.

The man is an idiot. I'm not surprised you think he's great. You have an affinity for fools.

THe man is literally a genius, and only a liar or a fool would claim otherwise.

He is not a genius and I am neither a liar or a fool. His beliefs are fundamentally flawed.

What do you consider the greatest flaw?

I will pick one, not necessarily of the most import.

He believes the antidote to moral relativism is found in meaning. But meaning is itself, relative.

If you have meaning in your life, you know that it is not "relative".

 

[there4eyeM]

Dr. Peterson is not talking about how one might act in a "Zen" world; he is talking about how humans function and have functioned and what we can do now in the present conditions.
Of course, all words, all language, all names/nouns are relative in an absolute, existential sense.

 

[Tehon]

Dr. Peterson is not talking about how one might act in a "Zen" world; he is talking about how humans function and have functioned and what we can do now in the present conditions.
Of course, all words, all language, all names/nouns are relative in an absolute, existential sense.

When one starts out with a faulty premise it is only natural to end up with a faulty conclusion. That is part of the challenge we face together.

Peterson may very well be helpful to some. I don't believe he offers a way forward for us all.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The 'debate of the century': what happened when Jordan Peterson debated Slavoj Žižek

Dont think I would buy tickets for the rematch.

 

[Tehon]

The 'debate of the century': what happened when Jordan Peterson debated Slavoj Žižek

Dont think I would buy tickets for the rematch.

Jordan Peterson's opening remarks regarding Marx are a joke. He hasn't a clue what he is talking about. It is common for people to get Marx wrong. Most people haven't studied him and on a message board like this it is to be expected. From a leading "intellect", not so much.

I wouldn't pay to see him speak either. But for free, it's worth a listen just for the laughs.