re: Jordan Peterson doodles while debating a BBC female journalist

quote:

---

Holy shite this chick in the second video is rambling without making any coherent or cohesive point. She’s all over the fricking place with her annoying arse voice.

---

Yeahhh, I lost her about a minute into her little monologue.

quote:

---

He conflates postmodernism with Marxism, arguing that postmodernism is merely Marxist beliefs disguised as something else with the only difference being the change from rich vs poor being oppressor vs oppressed.

---

Yeah, and the problem here is? I find at the root of every single social justice endeavor is the goal of equality of outcome and not equality of opportunity. As Peterson says constantly and should be common sense, the latter is desirable and the former is only possible through government tyranny which is undesirable.

I'd love for you to outline where you think this stance goes awry, because it is very consistent with my own observations of how people work (why equality of outcome is only going to happen with government tyranny) and how politically left-leaning groups operate (why they consciously or unconsciously support Marxist ideals because they think equality of outcome is desirable).

quote:

---

He made an arse of himself crying about the Canadian legislation adding transgender people to the list of protected classes of people against discrimination by arguing that it was somehow the beginning of the slow march toward Communist reeducation camps. It was a fairly innocuous bill that he made bigger deal out of than it was.

---

That "innocuous bill" restricted free speech in the name of equality. It's an extremely dangerous precedent to set and if you think about it for very long you'd understand why. Once the government decides it can restrict our use of language to enforce fairness, a slippery slope argument should reveal itself without much effort.


You strike me as a political hack that dislikes Peterson because he makes you challenge your own worldviews, which is why you can't admit that his stances have any merit whatsoever.

quote:

---

I won’t claim to know more than a few clips of his — but I think there’s a subtle, yet wide gap between what he’s saying and what a lot of people get hammered for. Many folks cross the lines egregiously and then act like they didn’t. In the clips I’ve seen of him it appears he understands the nuance instead of being a heavy handed oaf.

---

I think what happens is that we all, through our societal upbringing, know what "common sense" is because it's something that has be ingrained in us without even knowing. Many people don't really know how to explain the finer points of why we call certain things "common sense". This is a very important thing to explain to leftists who are trying to twist every aspect of our society into a tool of oppression. It's important to have someone that can dismantle these ridiculous notions from a biological/cultural/philosophical perspective.

quote:

---

Yeahhh, I lost her about a minute into her little monologue.

---

"Sorry I don't agree with SJWs, but let me mock Trump, make fun of old white men, and do other stereotypical Sjw stuff"

quote:

---

He made an arse of himself crying about the Canadian legislation adding transgender people to the list of protected classes of people against discrimination by arguing that it was somehow the beginning of the slow march toward Communist reeducation camps.

---

are you talking about Bill C-16 where it is stated you can be charged with hate crimes for not using one of the listed gender neutral pronouns if a person whats to be referred to by as one of those pronouns?

quote:

---

It was a fairly innocuous bill

---

oh yeah, nothing say innocuous like government compelled speech. Keep fighting the good fight comrade

quote:

---

That "innocuous bill" restricted free speech in the name of equality.

---

worse... it didn't restrict speech, it compelled it.

It didn't say what you couldn't say rather it said what you must say

quote:

---

The latest display of mental retardation was his theory that men like the guy in Toronto wouldn't commit such acts of violence if we had forced monogamy. So having a fascist rape state will keep men from killing people according to Jordan Peterson. Because apparently guys are incapable of controlling their rage unless women sleep with them. This has made him quite popular among incel scum bags online.

---

People love to hear someone with intellectual authority tell them their actions/behaviors that aren’t acceptable to polite society are totally normal or natural. It helps them feel justified and actively dissuades genuine inward reflection and improvement. Peterson “gets away” with this by claiming he’s “just stating facts”. Which he kinda is, usually.

A lot of what he says isn’t technically wrong, and his writings and such can often have some helpful (albeit generic) life advice nuggets within. But, make no mistake, he knows when he preaches hierarchy stuff he’s just saying what certain disaffected groups wanna hear so they can feel better about their undeserved sense of superiority.

His real genius is how he’s captured this particular audience and is making a fricking killing taking their money.

quote:

---

A lot of what he says isn’t technically wrong, and his writings and such can often have some helpful (albeit generic) life advice nuggets within. But, make no mistake, he knows when he preaches hierarchy stuff he’s just saying what certain disaffected groups wanna hear so they can feel better about their undeserved sense of superiority.

His real genius is how he’s captured this particular audience and is making a fricking killing taking their money.

---

Please explain this "undeserved sense of superiority"

quote:

---

He conflates postmodernism with Marxism,

---

Ummmmm yeah?

quote:

---

People love to hear someone with intellectual authority tell them their actions/behaviors that aren’t acceptable to polite society are totally normal or natural. It helps them feel justified and actively dissuades genuine inward reflection and improvement. Peterson “gets away” with this by claiming he’s “just stating facts”. Which he kinda is, usually.

---

The problem here is that you make no distinction between explanation and justification. Explaining something does not justify it

People seem to jump to the conclusion that providing the basis for a behavior means he is saying it is ok

quote:

---

, he knows when he preaches hierarchy stuff he’s just saying what certain disaffected groups wanna hear so they can feel better about their undeserved sense of superiority.

His real genius is how he’s captured this particular audience and is making a fricking killing taking their money.

---

Peterson has been lecturing for decades, you can go back years and years and listen to his lectures, which I suspect you know already. He was not lecturing to become famous. His pre-fame thoughts are well established if you would like to compare them to his post-fame opinions.

So I have to ask, since he speaking these things for years with not so much as a glint of fame or mass following, are you saying it is impossible to hold his opinions on society without doing so merely for the desire to tell people what they want to hear?

Jordan Peterson did not capture fame, fame captured him when he dismantled a bumbling idiot on TV by simply not being a bumbling idiot in return. He did not become famous for his thoughts on Jung and Nietzsche

His fame is based on the fact that he is calm, rational, and causes people to think. That is what is sad. That society is so anxious, tense, and media is so eager for the got ya moment you can become famous for being composed. Composure as become so foreign to the modern media that we find it fascinating as an audience