Rutibex posted:

a PhD doesnt mean you are generally smart, it means you are very good at one extremely specific thing

Ups_rail posted:

With a man or a woman?

Who What Now posted:

So was CS Lewis

Who What Now posted:

What's bad is that even though he "acknowledges" that he doesnt actually change his mind. He still makes the exact same dumbshit argument about baking cakes for gay people being oppresion. So on top of being a grifter jackass he's a liar and a hypocrite too.

Lil Swamp Booger Baby posted:

Jordan Peterson just died

Zulily Zoetrope posted:

I am not gonna actually watch that, but I'm gonna guess it boils down to the old incel adage of "ladies, have sex with a gross weirdo once in a while and this will somehow stop sexual assault from happening. If you would just get over yourselves and gently caress dudes you don't want to gently caress, we could eliminate sexual coercion!"

Loveshaft posted:

Matthew McConaughey is a Jordan Peterson fan, apparently. He went on the rear end in a top hat’s podcast.

Goddamnit.

Palpek posted:

Remember when in an old interview before he got famous Peterson said that when he talks to women he has to consciously restrain himself or he could say things that the current society doesn't accept? Then years later when that interviewer from Vice laughingly asked what does JP mean when he says that we don't know if men and women can work together, he works with women just fine and Peterson had a complete meltdown. Right-wing radicalization always traces back to weird problems with women, without fail it keeps being the other side of the coin.

Palpek posted:

That's interesting, do you remember any examples?

Antifa Turkeesian posted:

When he says there's a preference at the top of this page, that means that his soldiers raped all the women they came across, right? Or that the women were bartering sex for rations or the lives of their families or something, right?

Blisster posted:

Nah I haven't met any IRL Jorp fans as far as I know. I was just getting bored in lockdown and arguing with internet randos. I guess I got a bit shaken because one of them made a case that C-16 could actually lead to imprisonment (If someone was covered by the Ontario Human Rights Code, AND was found to have been discriminating against a student, AND refused to write an apology or pay a fine), and I couldn't find the clips of his more overt lies about the bill like that it would make some of his lectures count as hate speech and stuff, even though I know I've seen them.

I really thought that someone this popular had to have something going for him besides basic self-help but I guess that was naive. It's sort of hard to believe he became a successful psychologist with such little self-awareness. It's hard to tell how much is stupidity and how much is dishonesty/grift.

I even watched the whole Zizek debate previously but I thought maybe a lecture would let him lay out his case in a more nuanced way. If anything it was even worse.

Wark Say posted:

That would imply that he's into picking through someone else's brains, when he seems to be all about his own noggin's droppings.

Mr Interweb posted:

Dr. Media Understanderer is at it again:

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1428766232602370052

Lil Swamp Booger Baby posted:

I'm Jordan Peterson

Nobody Interesting posted:

oh lmao I'm dumb, I really thought this was in reference to Maxime Bernier. Ignore me, uh, eh?

Nice Tuckpointing! posted:

Mr Interweb posted:

Apologies for the triple post but my man is on a roll tonight

https://mobile.twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1443984318716596233

Strategic Tea posted:

Hell, you see a lot of Very Online Leftists too who find religion because Jesus stuck up for the poor and so believing allows them to be literally holier than thou.

Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:

https://twitter.com/bronzeswords/status/1449345260207828995

old beast lunatic posted:

Why doesn't this rear end in a top hat talk about stuff he knows? I'd listen to jorp advice on Benzos, much like I'd listen to Rogan's advice on punching someone in the head.

Manzoon posted:

The lurker advice:

Tell them that it appears your original statement was accurate and they were clearly getting too emotional to respond logically, wasting both their and your time.

Olympic Mathlete posted:

That tweet had me like I wonder how many times he's hit his wife.

Dongsturm posted:

Awesome, he's a nazi pedophile with incest fantasies. I'm eagerly awaiting the news of his secret sex dungeon with the severed cocks collection stuffed and mounted on the walls.

Ihki posted:

I sort of just spent a page and a half building a semi-contrarian anti-Jorp position which was looking at the material and ideological practicality of people who genuinely like the guy for substantive reasons, and I thought I conceded there's quite a bit more to it than how he makes you feel fuzzy and academic words (unless used by Peterson) make you scared and insecure. My generous reasoning for this would include something like how Jordan is a Christian conservative response to the anglophone death of metaphysics, celebrated too soon by scientism. What does seem to be true is how any criticism of the guy quickly becomes loving bullshit garbage. I guess the funny part is, I really don't see any other objections you've made other than how Jorp makes you feel fuzzy, and academic words make you feel scared and insecure. It's like you're afraid the world is trying to stop you from cumming. Sometimes it is just that simple. It's interesting.

eSporks posted:

And it ain't just "intellectuals" I deal with this poo poo all the time from homophobic family.

Powerful Katrinka posted:

I'm a woman, and I would really love it if men like Jorp didn't talk about me like I'm part of a different species with alien intelligence and inscrutable motives. These guys think about women the way biologists talk about octopus intelligence. "It is believed that the mysterious Female has independent nerve centers in their limbs and use coloring to signal fertility."

Yaldabaoth posted:

It's not that complicated. They don't think they're bigoted because they think their hatred of anyone who isn't a cis white fascist male is justified due to their brains being hardwired to be shifty and paranoid towards anyone who's different from them. Those feelings of paranoia feel so normal to them that they sooner assume everyone else really is a horrible monster who's out to enslave and exterminate them, than stop and question those feelings. It's why guys like Peterson are so confident that the things they believe are correct and true: It's the way they're genetically programmed to think and behave, so it feels like the correct way to think and behave to them.

The Sausages posted:

My god it's like he really thinks goons engaging in toxic cynicism at any and every opportunity actually means something different in this thread. It's not that kind of operation buddy. And unlike everyone else I think I actually get where you are coming from. The core problem here is that even with appropriate high-minded nuance and despite your sincere efforts, where you're coming from is still a place of ignorance and stupidity.

Nice Tuckpointing! posted:

Objective considerations of contemporary culinary phenomena, vis a vis Butler's interpretation of Childs' later work through the lens of Zizekian appetite (which I feel is dubious at best) compels the conclusion that success or failure in determining the grain-based origin in a direct competitive correlation to the saline paradigm of meat preservation and consumption exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with a conclusion that I can not unendorse. I literally cannot make this any clearer.

Olympic Mathlete posted:

In this clip he's commenting on a Cricket player who suffered racial abuse by his team, the management just ignored it and let it happen.
https://twitter.com/KeejayOV3/status/1461478152874639365?s=20

He was never a smart man but by lord he has melted his brain. Using all the big words in the world means nothing if what you're saying whilst using them is incredibly loving dumb. I do enjoy when people question what he means though, his points just fall apart.

Tac Dibar posted:

I guess another core idea in the alt-right brand of thought is that hierarchies are given, and existing structures should not be questioned. Individuals are only allowed to affect their situation through their own individual efforts, never through cooperation or interventions on the system level.

This helps explain an absolutely bizarre book about bullying I stumbled on, “Bullies to Buddies” by Izzy Kalman, where the basic idea is that the burden of change is on the bullied person, who should make the bullies into their friends. Teachers or parents, on the other hand, should never be involved, it just makes things worse. The police are the only acceptable authority, and the should only be involved in cases where there has been overt physical violence. I suspect that this view stems from the same mindset, that “strong” and “weak” people will assume their just positions in society, and change is up to the individual. There should never be interventions on the systemic level.