CDZ The Greatest, Most Articulate, Most Profound Social Commentator of Our Time: Jordan Peterson

[Shrimpbox]

Conservatives have finally found the Moses to lead them out of the media wilderness. Superlatives can’t begin to describe Jordan Peterson. Watch his dozens of videos on YouTube. Buy his book, 12 Rules or Life, An Antidote to Chaos. This guy is the liberal arts degree we all should have gotten in college. He is brilliant. But he applies his brilliance so that we can connect to it instead of instead of holding us at arms length. Best of all he destroys all the progressive myths with pure logic.

As a conservative you always believed you were on the right path but you never had as much of the intelligentsia back you up. You were shamed into submission, shouted down, spat upon, and diminished in every aspect of your being. Worst of all you were branded ignorant, backwards and pedestrian. Jordan Peterson changes all that. He gives each one of us the weapons and armor we need to go into battle with the elitists, the left, the college professors and the socialists. He has an answer for everything. He embraces the individual, not the collective. He tramples all over notions like rudderless compassion or utopian visions. He brings Jung and Freud and his training as a clinical psychologist into full play. The man is informed on everything from biology to pop culture. He speaks with such erudition and clarity you spend time just savoring a sentence over and over. It is not an overstatement to say that he may singlehandedly reverse the decline of western civilization.

His book is not light reading. It takes a focus for me. I find I grasp it better on the audio book. I have only finished three chapters but chapter three gives you all the ammunition you need to dispatch all the left leaning army here at usmb. Yes he is that good. It would not do for me to paraphrase his ideas as I could not approach his level of communication.

I gladly confess to being a disciple, even a sycophant. One of Peterson’s greatest suggestions is that if you are going to be a moral man you are required to be a judge mental man, there can be no morality without it. That’s a good start. Research this guy. Be a part of history while it is being made. Use this guy to find meaning and direction in your life. I certainly am. Thank you Jordan Peterson.

 

[Crepitus]

Ok, never heard of the guy.

His biggest presence is on YouTube, bumping elbows with the fools doing the lastest viral.challenge and dancing as they run alongside their moving cars, but he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Yeah, let's go with that.

 

[MarathonMike]

He makes a lot of sense. You can demean him by equating him with viral challenges or you can read what he wrote. Here is an example:

Happiness is a pointless goal. Don’t compare yourself with other people, compare yourself with who you were yesterday. No one gets away with anything, ever, so take responsibility for your own life. You conjure your own world, not only metaphorically but also literally and neurologically. These lessons are what the great stories and myths have been telling us since civilisation began.
— Jordan Peterson, 2018[3]

 

[WheelieAddict]

Just a bunch of BS that caters to how some want to view things. He has found a money making niche with it, quite profitable for him.

Jordan Peterson’s Flimsy Philosophy of Life

Jordan Peterson’s Bullshit

Review of Jordan Peterson’s Stupid Lecture – Alexander Douglas – Medium

 

[FA_Q2]

Just a bunch of BS that caters to how some want to view things. He has found a money making niche with it, quite profitable for him.

Jordan Peterson’s Flimsy Philosophy of Life

Jordan Peterson’s Bullshit

Review of Jordan Peterson’s Stupid Lecture – Alexander Douglas – Medium

That is a nice list of what OTHER people think about Peterson but ultimately not very helpful.

Listening to some of his debates I really don't see him as all that different from a dozen other people in similar situations but he really is quite competent. MOst of the time people simply do not respond because they cant argue with the logic.

Then again, logic and reasoning do not take a front seat in political discourse anymore.

 

[flacaltenn]

Conservatives have finally found the Moses to lead them out of the media wilderness. Superlatives can’t begin to describe Jordan Peterson. Watch his dozens of videos on YouTube. Buy his book, 12 Rules or Life, An Antidote to Chaos. This guy is the liberal arts degree we all should have gotten in college. He is brilliant. But he applies his brilliance so that we can connect to it instead of instead of holding us at arms length. Best of all he destroys all the progressive myths with pure logic.

As a conservative you always believed you were on the right path but you never had as much of the intelligentsia back you up. You were shamed into submission, shouted down, spat upon, and diminished in every aspect of your being. Worst of all you were branded ignorant, backwards and pedestrian. Jordan Peterson changes all that. He gives each one of us the weapons and armor we need to go into battle with the elitists, the left, the college professors and the socialists. He has an answer for everything. He embraces the individual, not the collective. He tramples all over notions like rudderless compassion or utopian visions. He brings Jung and Freud and his training as a clinical psychologist into full play. The man is informed on everything from biology to pop culture. He speaks with such erudition and clarity you spend time just savoring a sentence over and over. It is not an overstatement to say that he may singlehandedly reverse the decline of western civilization.

His book is not light reading. It takes a focus for me. I find I grasp it better on the audio book. I have only finished three chapters but chapter three gives you all the ammunition you need to dispatch all the left leaning army here at usmb. Yes he is that good. It would not do for me to paraphrase his ideas as I could not approach his level of communication.

I gladly confess to being a disciple, even a sycophant. One of Peterson’s greatest suggestions is that if you are going to be a moral man you are required to be a judge mental man, there can be no morality without it. That’s a good start. Research this guy. Be a part of history while it is being made. Use this guy to find meaning and direction in your life. I certainly am. Thank you Jordan Peterson.

I've seen a couple segments of him being interviewed. Quite impressive. Not quite sure he's a thoroughbred conservative tho -- if that matters to you. Sounds a bit "libertarian" on actual political policy.

As desperate as the situation here in the US -- its MUCH worse in Canada for free speech and the "Red Tide". So he's basically busy keeping Canada a free and prosperous country. Don't you Cons count on him for saving ALL of North America.

 

[flacaltenn]

If you Cons are looking for a Moses, I have the guy for you. He just won the primary in Primary in Mich to run against Debby Stabenow. He JUST MIGHT WIN... Check this guy out seriously. I've RARELY seen a candidate like this that can speak to the issues and understands America...

Wish we could draft him for the Libertarian Party. But he's too much on the Trump Train right now.

Trump calls John James 'future star' of GOP after Michigan Senate primary win

 

[Shrimpbox]

Yes, Peterson is not a partisan. But the act of thinking through issues provides a foundation for people like me who are looking for an intellectual basis for our case. You cannot read him without being forced to think. He crystallizes things that have been amorphous. In his definition of life he brings order to chaos, or rather he moves into the grey border between order and chaos. Anyone who dismisses this man as bullshit or an opportunist is just scared that he is right and they have nothing.

 

[FA_Q2]

But the act of thinking through issues provides a foundation for people like me who are looking for an intellectual basis for our case.

No offense shrimp but is this not backwards?

You really should not be looking for intellectual foundations for your causes or beliefs. Rather those causes and beliefs should be based on intellectual foundations that are already set. IOW, the thinking should come before the cause, not the cause searching for the thinking.

 

[Shrimpbox]

I am not offended at all FAQ. It is a good question.

For starters, up until about 10 years ago Americans were not under attack by the left the way they are today. I was not on a message board dueling with people of varying intellect. Secondly, Peterson spends all day thinking these things through. It has been almost 50 years since I was in college and I have not been in an environment conducive to intellectual discussion for many years, to put it mildly. The leftists have always had Marxist theory or Alinsky s rules for radicals as templates for their actions. Conservatives have never had an offense like the progressives. And I have always advocated for more offense like trump has used in his campaigns but I do not have the background or knowledge to fluently make my case on every issue.

So to piontedly answer your question. Peterson hasn’t given me new views about social issues, he has given me new tools to argue about those issues. He has given me an offensive playbook. Now I am not saying this was his plan, he has been trying to sort his own life out in an honest and public way. I am just cribbing off of Peterson’s work, and I have nothing but awe for how articulate and profound, how deep, Peterson’s thinking is. Let me use the example I used in the opening post. Peterson says a moral man has to be a judgemental man, morality demands it. How succinct, how to the point, how short and sweet. So when a leftist says you shouldn’t judge people you simply say well if I don’t judge I can’t have a position vis a vis that person so our discussion becomes irrelevant. Let me give one more example. Peterson has compared leftist identity politics to terrorism. Terrorists in the Gaza Strip plant their offices and weapons in the middle of civilian homes to keep Israel from attacking and killing innocents. Progressives surround themselves in the same fashion with identity groups so you can’t attack them without going through black, women, or Muslims and causing casualties. Like the terrorists, the progressives don’t care about these groups, they just use them as human shields to keep them from having to engage directly with the enemy. How brilliant is this conception? It is off the charts. Peterson pops out these gems like the rest of us breath.

Let me end with a modern metaphor. Think of me as a tesla going down the road(yeah right Shrimp) and my batteries need to be recharged. I have just stopped and plugged Jordan Peterson in. The car, the batteries haven’t changed, I just need more energy. Frankly this guy is so stimulating, my mind feels like it is going through an enlightenment, a Renaissance. I’m pumped.

Peterson will be on fox next Sunday at 9.

 

[FA_Q2]

I am not offended at all FAQ. It is a good question.

For starters, up until about 10 years ago Americans were not under attack by the left the way they are today. I was not on a message board dueling with people of varying intellect. Secondly, Peterson spends all day thinking these things through. It has been almost 50 years since I was in college and I have not been in an environment conducive to intellectual discussion for many years, to put it mildly. The leftists have always had Marxist theory or Alinsky s rules for radicals as templates for their actions. Conservatives have never had an offense like the progressives. And I have always advocated for more offense like trump has used in his campaigns but I do not have the background or knowledge to fluently make my case on every issue.

So to piontedly answer your question. Peterson hasn’t given me new views about social issues, he has given me new tools to argue about those issues. He has given me an offensive playbook. Now I am not saying this was his plan, he has been trying to sort his own life out in an honest and public way. I am just cribbing off of Peterson’s work, and I have nothing but awe for how articulate and profound, how deep, Peterson’s thinking is. Let me use the example I used in the opening post. Peterson says a moral man has to be a judgemental man, morality demands it. How succinct, how to the point, how short and sweet. So when a leftist says you shouldn’t judge people you simply say well if I don’t judge I can’t have a position vis a vis that person so our discussion becomes irrelevant. Let me give one more example. Peterson has compared leftist identity politics to terrorism. Terrorists in the Gaza Strip plant their offices and weapons in the middle of civilian homes to keep Israel from attacking and killing innocents. Progressives surround themselves in the same fashion with identity groups so you can’t attack them without going through black, women, or Muslims and causing casualties. Like the terrorists, the progressives don’t care about these groups, they just use them as human shields to keep them from having to engage directly with the enemy. How brilliant is this conception? It is off the charts. Peterson pops out these gems like the rest of us breath.

Let me end with a modern metaphor. Think of me as a tesla going down the road(yeah right Shrimp) and my batteries need to be recharged. I have just stopped and plugged Jordan Peterson in. The car, the batteries haven’t changed, I just need more energy. Frankly this guy is so stimulating, my mind feels like it is going through an enlightenment, a Renaissance. I’m pumped.

Peterson will be on fox next Sunday at 9.

Very well thought out response. Thank you shrimp.

I do think he is pretty spot on for the most part but then I also do not see him actually challenged in any interview or debate I have seen of him thus far. Every one I have seen is terribly difficult to get through because it is nothing more than someone trying to tell him what he means when he never made any statements that were even in the same ballpark. The straw men that are thrown at him are so blatant I don't see how they are willing to even air such tripe without being ashamed.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Try watching the videos of him in the classroom or in his home responding to questions. The videos on his rules seem more obtuse than his book. The videos with him on a dark stage are excellent too.

 

[McRocket]

I know a woman who used to have him as a prof when she was in university. All she says about him is he was arrogant and kept going on and on about the movie the 'Lion King'.

From what I have seen of him...he is very intelligent, VERY arrogant, misogynistic, tries to impress with intimidation and verbiage and though he makes a few good points...most of it sounds like obviousness and/or semi-nonsense.

He generally seems to appeal to weak people on the right who are unhappy with their lives and either want someone to tell them what to do and/or someone to tell them whom to blame.

 

[sakinago]

Just a bunch of BS that caters to how some want to view things. He has found a money making niche with it, quite profitable for him.

Jordan Peterson’s Flimsy Philosophy of Life

Jordan Peterson’s Bullshit

Review of Jordan Peterson’s Stupid Lecture – Alexander Douglas – Medium

So going through the first article here, this guy is just making a bunch of strawmen arguments, I don’t know whether that’s purposeful or he just hasn’t heard him speak all that much. So, let’s start with his summation of Peterson on religion. This guy claims that Peterson is saying Christianity is superior to all other religions, and that people without religion are devoid of moral values, and will be bad people. And he references stories of the Old Testament that make modern day man cringe. I think you’d agree with my summation of this article so far? So, Peterson never claims outright that he believes Christianity is superior, closest thing he’s said to that is he thinks Christianity does the best when it comes to explaining the nature of evil. The reality is quite contrary to this articles claim. Peterson (if anyone has actually listened/read to a lick of him) they would hear him often reference other religions such as Buddhism, Daoism, and even ancient religions no longer in practice such as ancient Sumerian and Egyptian. He does this, along with Christianity, to point out the common themes. Despite their fantastical nature, like a hawk god fighting off his evil uncle rescuing his father and giving him one of his eyes, he points out the themes embedded within those stories of how they describe the world, and how to act in the world. He also explores these themes in non-religious stories such as Disney movies. He brings these up to illustrate that there a two types of truth, one is objective or scientific truth, the other is more of a moral truth or how to act in way where society doesn’t break down. The sort of objectivism or scientific truth by nature is supposed to be devoid of morality, or else it is no longer objective, and we come to scientific truth through the scientific method. As for moral truth, we come to that through telling stories or allegories that tell us how to act, like the boy who cried wolf (don’t do that), or the Good Samaritan (be like the samaratian and also don’t pre-judge strangers from a disliked group). He brings up these stories to show why they’re important, and to illustrate why he believes that mythology is almost in a way part of evolution, backing it up with psychology and neuroscience with how our brains work. This mythology came about from our ancient ancestors learning things the very hard, miserable, and bloody way. He never claims that no-one can become a good person if they’re not religious. His concern was Niche’s same concern in the parable of the old madman, “God is dead, we killed him with our “rationality”, whose going to replace him? Us? The murderers of all murderers. There’s not going to be enough water in the oceans to clean the blood off or hands, but it’ll take 40 years till we see how bad it gets. The church is at fault for killing God.” That’s a quick paraphrase of niches parable. Peterson’s point is scientific objectivism is not a good replacement for mythology, and leads us down dark paths, that the likes of Niche and Kipling warned about before we saw the major atrocities in the 20th century. His point is, if you’re criticizing books like the Bible on their scientific merits (a book written before science even existed), then you’re reading it the wrong way, not getting the point. If you’re also judging books like the Bible from the eyes of modern man, you’re also reading it wrong. This article cites a verse condoning the killing of you’re own children. What’s not mentioned is the context of the time period, which you could call for your kids to get publicly stoned, and it would be a village pass time, pretty much world wide. The verse he is citing is one that states, you CANNOT decide for yourself that your children deserve death for this or that, you MUST bring them to a court in which there will be a trial on if your kids deserve death, from impartial sources. That’s revolutionary, especially in a time where a common religion was Baal worship, where you toss your infants in a fire in hopes that Baal will bring in a good crop this year. That was one of the biggest religions at the time. The article also references God asking abraham to sacrifice his son, and says “well isn’t that just terrible,”. In our context yes (except when it’s in womb it’s all A ok) in that context NO, since god told him not too, and it was just a test. The Jews hated Baal worship, at least while they were well behaved Jews.There so much more nuance to this discussion than Peterson says Christianity is the only one ay to receive morals, everything else bad.

Moving on to the articles take on Peterson’s individuality stance. The author implies that Peterson is trying to disavow or replace the golden rule by his “treat yourself as someone that you are responsible for,” which the author calls an inversion of ththis golden rule. Another strawman. Peterson’s rule here simply talks about how people are more likely to give prescription pills, in the correct dosages and timing per orders, to their pets than they are themselves. This is even when there are serious consequences for a person not taking their pills. Peterson’s point is how are you going to be capable of taking care of others if you’re not taking care of yourself. This rule is saying that you are someone of worth, treat yourself that way. Take your pills, exercise, eat healthy, be more productive with time, stop doing things that you know are bad for you. Once you get better at doing this for yourself, you will be more capable of helping others. Certainly not a replacement for the Golden rule. I really have a hard time seeing why someone would find this objectionable. There’s another aspect to this rule that is, take the plank out of your own eye. If your life is a mess, and if that’s largely due to your own choices, or at least if your not doing everything you can to make it better, you shouldn’t be telling other people how to live their life. This rule is only one aspect to Peterson’s stance on individualism, it no where near sums it all up. There are other aspects like, be honest with yourself and stop blaming everyone/thing around you for all your problems. If they are the source of all your problems, then you’re screwed because you’re powerless to fix them. And if you’re not being honest with yourself, you’re going to choose solutions that aren’t based on reality to try to fix your problems, and that’s not going to go well. This doesn’t mean that Peterson doesn’t acknowledge that the world/system/bad actors around you don’t cause tragic problems for you, in fact he often states that they will and do. You also have to be honest with the people around you, either you will make that relationship better, or find out that person/friend/workplace may not be best for you. If you don’t, you’ll become resentful and make bad situations worse in one way or another. Still this summation of Peterson is a far cry on what his stance is on individualism.

That’s as far as I read in this article, I will continue reading more, and respond.

 

[sakinago]

I know a woman who used to have him as a prof when she was in university. All she says about him is he was arrogant and kept going on and on about the movie the 'Lion King'.

From what I have seen of him...he is very intelligent, VERY arrogant, misogynistic, tries to impress with intimidation and verbiage and though he makes a few good points...most of it sounds like obviousness and/or semi-nonsense.

He generally seems to appeal to weak people on the right who are unhappy with their lives and either want someone to tell them what to do and/or someone to tell them whom to blame.

What specifically do you find mysoginistic? I haven’t heard it. I know the way some outlets have been portraying him blantantly dishonestly.

Example: watch this vid first of the vice interview.


Now watch the full segment.


Holy cow, that crafty editing on vices part is waaaaay off the mark of Peterson point. Mind you the full interview lasted 2 hours, and Peterson had stated that at that point he was reaching the limit of the interview, with the interviewer he felt was trying to have a dishonest conversation. The first video is what many Peterson critics reference when they say he’s misogynistic, the other is his enforced monogamy line (which is an anthropological term for societies that are monogamous). The rest is because some on the left don’t like the fact that he’s using proven science explaining the differences between men women, because they do not like the fact that there are differences. So I’m just curious is there anything outside of the reasons I cited that give you the misogynistic impression of Peterson, or are you mostly going off of short clips and what others say about him?

 

[FA_Q2]

I know a woman who used to have him as a prof when she was in university. All she says about him is he was arrogant and kept going on and on about the movie the 'Lion King'.

From what I have seen of him...he is very intelligent, VERY arrogant, misogynistic, tries to impress with intimidation and verbiage and though he makes a few good points...most of it sounds like obviousness and/or semi-nonsense.

He generally seems to appeal to weak people on the right who are unhappy with their lives and either want someone to tell them what to do and/or someone to tell them whom to blame.

Intimidation?

I do not think you are watching the same videos that I am. I have not seen him try and intimidate anyone once.

 

[Shrimpbox]

I know a woman who used to have him as a prof when she was in university. All she says about him is he was arrogant and kept going on and on about the movie the 'Lion King'.

From what I have seen of him...he is very intelligent, VERY arrogant, misogynistic, tries to impress with intimidation and verbiage and though he makes a few good points...most of it sounds like obviousness and/or semi-nonsense.

He generally seems to appeal to weak people on the right who are unhappy with their lives and either want someone to tell them what to do and/or someone to tell them whom to blame.

I guess there are no weak people on the left, or lefties who need to be told who to blame. He is only arrogant if you define that word as suffering fools gladly. It is a shame you are so narrow minded you can only see Peterson through an ideological lens.

 

[FA_Q2]

Ran into some interesting things from him on YouTube. I would say that he really is not a conservative though. He just has some core arguments that agree with some conservative positions. Of course, that really gives me a more appreciation for him. He is not a partisan.

You might find this interesting. It is very long (3 hours) but is very interesting IMHO. Worth the time IMHO.

 

[McRocket]

Ran into some interesting things from him on YouTube. I would say that he really is not a conservative though. He just has some core arguments that agree with some conservative positions. Of course, that really gives me a more appreciation for him. He is not a partisan.

You might find this interesting. It is very long (3 hours) but is very interesting IMHO. Worth the time IMHO.

So you appreciate misogynistic egomaniacs who try to drown their 'followers' in excessive verbiage and 1950's ideas (phrased to sound modern)?

So noted.

Most of his ideas fall into two categories with me? 'Well duh' ones or 'nonsensical' ones (most - the latter).

No offense, but if you are actually learning substantial things from this guy...than you are probably either generally confused and/or not terribly bright.

 

[McRocket]

Just a bunch of BS that caters to how some want to view things. He has found a money making niche with it, quite profitable for him.

Jordan Peterson’s Flimsy Philosophy of Life

Jordan Peterson’s Bullshit

Review of Jordan Peterson’s Stupid Lecture – Alexander Douglas – Medium

That is a nice list of what OTHER people think about Peterson but ultimately not very helpful.

Listening to some of his debates I really don't see him as all that different from a dozen other people in similar situations but he really is quite competent. MOst of the time people simply do not respond because they cant argue with the logic.

Then again, logic and reasoning do not take a front seat in political discourse anymore.

Half of the time, they seem to not be able to argue with him because they do not understand him fully. He is known for using unnecessary verbiage/terminologies. And it is obvious that he uses it to try an intimidate.
It's called - in some business circles - Greenspan-talk.

But if you actually listen to what he is saying - and break it down - it's largely nonsensical or staggeringly 'well duh'ish'. It's also LOADED with stereotypes and misogyny.
The guy CLEARLY has a hate on for independent women.