What's your opinions on Jordan Peterson?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

KingsGambit:
Current millenials seem determined to tear down and destroy everything and everywhere they go, ruin soon follows.

Evilthecat has already pointed out that your hostility bleeds over into views that are in considerable tension with your supposed commitment to free speech. I also have to ask, as a millenial, what do you expect me to make of completely over the top insults and fearmongering directed at me because of my age? What am I (or my siblings and friends) determined to tear down? What have we destroyed? And for you more personally, what do you think this kind of writing accomplishes?

Also, 'Current millenials'? As opposed to the millenials of a generation later or earlier?

Pseudonym:

KingsGambit:
Current millenials seem determined to tear down and destroy everything and everywhere they go, ruin soon follows.

Evilthecat has already pointed out that your hostility bleeds over into views that are in considerable tension with your supposed commitment to free speech. I also have to ask, as a millenial, what do you expect me to make of completely over the top insults and fearmongering directed at me because of my age? What am I (or my siblings and friends) determined to tear down? What have we destroyed? And for you more personally, what do you think this kind of writing accomplishes?

Also, 'Current millenials'? As opposed to the millenials of a generation later or earlier?

Millenials are a specific generation, who grew up at the turn of the "Millenium" (ie. the naughties). There weren't "millennials" prior. I'm approx gen x/y, after me came gen y, then millenials, currently I would describe as teens to 26-27ish, give or take.

I'm talking about SJWs and those for whom the highest values seem to revolve around identity politics, race, oppression, "diversity", "inclusivity", the current fad for transgender politics and the rest. So far, liberals are set on ruining marriage, romance and relationships by branding everything rape and using hashtags to ruin mens' careers. They are more puritanical than the most conservative 50s adults ever were. They are trying to ruin science, erasing gender and sexuality. They are ruining education, brainwashing students in the humanities to believe in this vile ideology. They are trying to ruin games (note BioWare, Kingdom Come Deliverance), movies (Disney's Star Wars) and other arts.

YouTube and Twitter are censored by these leftist types who choose what people can and can't say and it's always the SJW/feminist agenda that gets heard, while right-wing/conservative views are censored, demonetised or stealthed hidden. Far-leftism is a cancerous terrible ideology that is bad for women, bad for men, bad for kids, bad for society and bad for the economy.

"What do I think my writing accomplishes?" - I'm taking part in the discussion and getting my viewpoint across. The question was about our opinions on Jordan Peterson, my answer was that he is a necessary force in this world to counter the batshit left. It should be alarming when someone liberal like me has more in common with the right than the left. Bill C16 in Canada is a gross example of leftist ideology bleeding into law and is a dangerous step in a wrong direction. I think I got all your questions?

KingsGambit:
They are trying to ruin games (note BioWare, Kingdom Come Deliverance), movies (Disney's Star Wars) and other arts.

Yo, I'mma let you finish, but the problem is capitalism.

KingsGambit:
The question was about our opinions on Jordan Peterson, my answer was that he is a necessary force in this world to counter the batshit left. It should be alarming when someone liberal like me has more in common with the right than the left. Bill C16 in Canada is a gross example of leftist ideology bleeding into law and is a dangerous step in a wrong direction. I think I got all your questions?

I'll take this as a summary of your argument, so I don't have to dissect the entirety of your previous posts.

1. Jordan Peterson is not a necessary force to counter the batshit left. Batshit crazy members of any political spectrum are best addressed by dismantling their arguments in an academic fashion and providing a more factually sound counter-argument. Jordan Peterson does not always meet that standard; he is a clinical psychologist whose recent lectures cover fields ranging from law to philosophy to evolutionary biology, fields in which he does not possess the necessary academic expertise to be able to speak authoritatively.

The result is that his counterarguments range from decent to factually unsound to his own special variety of batshit crazy. This makes his recent public ventures detrimental to the self-professed goal of curtailing extreme left-wing political views, because he is simply responding to batshit insanity with his own batshit insanity without ever properly dismantling the first piece of batshit insanity. The end result is just more batshit insanity. I mean, you want to know more, go read the other four pages of the thread that you skipped over before making your post.

2. It should be alarming when a self-professed liberal has more in common with the right than the left. I am not alarmed for the simple reason that I do not believe it's actually true. It's a claim I see often; that someone is just "left-of-centre", but is somehow being forced to vote for right-wing people because the left-wing is just so awful that the only recourse is to vote for...the more awful people? The politicians whose broader voting base represents a mixture of fiscal conservatives, religious fundamentalists, cultural traditionalists, and basic racists? How does that solve your problem?

I find it more credible that there's a lot of people who want to believe that they're left-of-centre ideologically, but whose voting habits are fundamentally motivated by their anxieties about 21st-century cultural changes - changes that they fear will render them politically marginalised. To put it another way, these people are voting because of culture rather than because of policy. If the self-described "Jordan Peterson liberal" valued policy over culture, they'd be voting left-wing, because that's where their self-proclaimed policy sympathies lie. But because they are more worried about culture than about policy, they instead vote for right-wing candidates - whose policies are actively the opposite of what they want - because those candidates promise to fight against the threat of a changing culture. To those people, I'd just give a reality check: no-one can really control culture, if it's going to change it'll change, you just have to deal with it. Policy is more important in the long run because that's where your welfare is directly impacted. So vote on policy; don't vote on culture.

3. If your mention of C-16 was in good faith, I regret to inform you that you have been tragically misinformed as to the nature of the bill. This is actually one of the reasons I am inclined to dislike Jordan Peterson; he first got everyone's attention by spouting alarmist nonsense about a comically minor amendment to existing Canadian anti-discrimination legislation that would not have nearly the impact he claimed it would have. Speaking as a law graduate and a researcher who studies administrative tribunals like the ones who would preside over discrimination claims, Peterson was talking absolute fucking garbage.

I'd go into detail, but I already did that. The tl;dr was that Jordan Peterson doesn't understand what powers an administrative tribunal has, he doesn't understand how arbitrated dispute resolution works, he doesn't understand the relationship between the powers of the judiciary and the powers of a civil tribunal, and he dramatically misled his audience as a result. Just...whatever you heard Peterson say about C-16, it was 98% bullshit. That's all I can say. He was a psychologist who decided to branch out into law apropos of nothing, and quite predictably, he got the law very, very wrong.

KingsGambit:
Millenials are a specific generation, who grew up at the turn of the "Millenium" (ie. the naughties). There weren't "millennials" prior. I'm approx gen x/y, after me came gen y, then millenials, currently I would describe as teens to 26-27ish, give or take.

I'm 33 and I'm still a millenial. Most cultural studies I've read basically attribute 'millenials' as people born roughly in the early 80s to the mid-90s.

Millenials were just people who spent their formative years in the late 20th century going on into the 21st.

Some researchers stipulate 'millenial' to mean people born even past the 21st cut off, citing things like understanding in some fashion the shift to permanent online interraction in Western countries through the memory of the adoptance of smartphones and wi-fi/roaming connectivity--to the permanent wi-fi hotspot presence.

Which describes a metric fuckton of us.

Give or take about 10 years it will be post-millenial subcultural realignment, and 'millenials' will be mostly old fucks telling kids about what it was like to have a Myspace account and dial up internet.

I plan to bore my cousin's kids to tears with such stories. I will definitely be saying 'back in my day' when I talk to them when they graduate from uni. It will be great fun... for me. Actually, one of my cousin's kids loves my embarassing amount of G4 MLP merch, so we gel pretty well. She also shares my love of contemporary exploration of Australia, or at least my stories of it, so much so I think she wants to study geoscience in uni when she's older.

I heard she also wants me to show her how to free climb and go diving, but that can wait until she's an adult and understands personal risk and take responsibility for it.

But hey--if I ever become an embittered conspiracy theorist, too, maybe I can peddle bullshit about the evils of postmillenialism infecting academia?

I'm talking about SJWs and those for whom the highest values seem to revolve around identity politics, race, oppression, "diversity", "inclusivity", the current fad for transgender politics and the rest. So far, liberals are set on ruining marriage, romance and relationships by branding everything rape and using hashtags to ruin mens' careers.

Transgender politics being? What? Being able to see a doctor? Not being mistreated in hospitals without recourse? Freely serving in the military? Being able to have their contracts upheld as equally valid under the law? Having the same expectations in the marketplace? Being able to change their birth certificates?

They are more puritanical than the most conservative 50s adults ever were. They are trying to ruin science, erasing gender and sexuality. They are ruining education, brainwashing students in the humanities to believe in this vile ideology. They are trying to ruin games (note BioWare, Kingdom Come Deliverance), movies (Disney's Star Wars) and other arts.

How?

I know for a fact board gaming as well as pen & paper is doing just great.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/25/board-games-internet-playstation-xbox

YouTube and Twitter are censored by these leftist types who choose what people can and can't say and it's always the SJW/feminist agenda that gets heard, while right-wing/conservative views are censored, demonetised or stealthed hidden. Far-leftism is a cancerous terrible ideology that is bad for women, bad for men, bad for kids, bad for society and bad for the economy.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/03/17/youtubes-restricted-mode-is-hiding-lgbt-content-from-viewers/

"What do I think my writing accomplishes?" - I'm taking part in the discussion and getting my viewpoint across. The question was about our opinions on Jordan Peterson, my answer was that he is a necessary force in this world to counter the batshit left.

By peddling bullshit?

It should be alarming when someone liberal like me has more in common with the right than the left. Bill C16 in Canada is a gross example of leftist ideology bleeding into law and is a dangerous step in a wrong direction. I think I got all your questions?

???

KingsGambit:
They are trying to ruin games (note BioWare, Kingdom Come Deliverance), movies (Disney's Star Wars) and other arts.

It costs you nothing at all for other people to consider themselves different genders than male and female, or to recognise them. Homosexual marriage changes your marriage rights not in the slightest. You are totally free to enjoy Kingdom Come: Deliverance even if other people don't. You lose nothing if other people can design their in-game avatar to be other races, genders or sexuality. You are totally free to find a partner who enjoys rough sex and being bought flowers. All the SJWs in the world don't stop the Daily Mail or Fox News propounding the opposite. No-one forces you to read or care about the opinion of a reviewer who thinks a piece of media should have had more women.

Liberalism is about considering what maximises people's freedom, not agreeing with various different ways of viewing the world. So much of what you are talking about makes not one jot of difference to your freedom... so no complaint in the name of liberalism is worth a damn in these matters. And liberals also need to scrutinise the right very carefully: because the growing movement in the right is most definitely not liberalism, much as it may occasionally posture so.

KingsGambit:

Pseudonym:
Also, 'Current millenials'? As opposed to the millenials of a generation later or earlier?

Millenials are a specific generation, who grew up at the turn of the "Millenium" (ie. the naughties). There weren't "millennials" prior. I'm approx gen x/y, after me came gen y, then millenials, currently I would describe as teens to 26-27ish, give or take.

Hence, why 'Current millenials' is redundant. There is only one group of millenials and it is pretty much the same group that it was ten years ago or will be in another ten years.

KingsGambit:
I'm talking about SJWs and those for whom the highest values seem to revolve around identity politics, race, oppression, "diversity", "inclusivity", the current fad for transgender politics and the rest. So far, liberals are set on ruining marriage, romance and relationships by branding everything rape and using hashtags to ruin mens' careers. They are more puritanical than the most conservative 50s adults ever were. They are trying to ruin science, erasing gender and sexuality. They are ruining education, brainwashing students in the humanities to believe in this vile ideology. They are trying to ruin games (note BioWare, Kingdom Come Deliverance), movies (Disney's Star Wars) and other arts.

This is all incredibly vague, pointlessly hostile and wholly lacking in argumentation.

People are getting married just fine, though marriage is more optional these days. Also, gay people can now marry, though it's not clear to me how that should impact the marriage of anyone else. Ussually the hashtags that ruin the carreers of those who are sexually inappropriate. That might seem puritanical if you feel you shouldn't have to consider whether others want you to touch them, or to fuck them. So be it. Star wars was always mediocre at best with ups and downs. I don't know what ruined it now. Bioware was bought by EA, other people started working there, and mass effect Andromeda was a terrible idea from the start. Besides that, Bioware was always pretty progressive. The bland star trekky moderate progressivism is built into the setup of mass effect from the first game. Same with the bits of dragon age I played. I don't know about before that. In any case, a few bad games or movies are not that big a deal. As for science being ruined, how? What are you even talking about?

KingsGambit:
YouTube and Twitter are censored by these leftist types who choose what people can and can't say and it's always the SJW/feminist agenda that gets heard, while right-wing/conservative views are censored, demonetised or stealthed hidden. Far-leftism is a cancerous terrible ideology that is bad for women, bad for men, bad for kids, bad for society and bad for the economy.

I don't know much about twitter. As for youtube. I've been watching for ten years or so. Youtube itself does not pay attention to what people put out there. They don't have nearly the manpower to actively censor anything. Youtube also has always been broken in certain regards. Barely anyone I watch has ever spoken (verbally or in writing) with a youtube employee. False flagging has been a thing since forever. For searchrankings they probably use algorithms which are obscure even to those who programmed them, let alone to the people who make the decisions on them. Demonitization happens on grounds of what advertisers want to be seen with as interpreted by similar dumb and obscure algorithms. The idea that youtube specifically targets the right is not supported by evidence and is in contradiction to all the evidence pointing to youtubes overall approach of negligence and incompetence. Also, how
did 25 year old, left wing, humanity students get intp positions of power at google?

KingsGambit:
"What do I think my writing accomplishes?" - I'm taking part in the discussion and getting my viewpoint across. The question was about our opinions on Jordan Peterson, my answer was that he is a necessary force in this world to counter the batshit left. It should be alarming when someone liberal like me has more in common with the right than the left. Bill C16 in Canada is a gross example of leftist ideology bleeding into law and is a dangerous step in a wrong direction. I think I got all your questions?

Ok, so you seem to have missed the point of that question, because you don't share its premise. Said premise being that the text you are writing is not coherent political discourse and was not altogether meant to be literal. I has assumed that you weren't altogether serious in saying preposterous villifying nonsense like "Current millenials seem determined to tear down and destroy everything and everywhere they go, ruin soon follows" and had assumed you were being hyperbolic as a kind of joke. Let me put it this way. Why did you bother to respond to me if I am so bad? And why talk about what you think I am when you are already talking to me? I am a millenial, a humanities student, a leftist and an 'SJW' by the standards of the people who use that dumb phrase. If I am determined to destroy everything, including games, movies, art, science, marriage and what not, why would I bother to talk to you?

Or maybe, to just get to the point, this image of your enemy as a cabal of SJW millenials who run youtube, twitter and HR of most companies at the age of 25 and who are determined to destroy everything for shits and giggles is conspiratorial nonsense.

KingsGambit:

So while I believe in equality for all and am against discrimination, because I believe all women short-lists, equity, diversity hiring and positive discrimination are sexist and racist, I get to be called misogynist and racist.

Man, if the greatest factor contributing to how you vote is an immense fear of getting called "racist" by some random 19-year-old online, you must be living a pretty good life, my dude.

Man, so many people being wrong, and me having difficulty even logging in... and they nuked my beautiful Ignore List, which I painstakingly kept at an appropriate 86. So, long time no see for some of you. Anyway, let's see if this works.

bastardofmelbourne:

I mean, let's talk about the rape manual line. That comment dates back to 1986. In the three decades since then, the academic study of mathematics has, surprisingly, not been taken over by postcolonialists. That's because when you go to a mathematician and say "hey, this philosopher called the Principia a rape manual," they go "so what?" and return to their mathematicationitizing. Mathematicians don't care about postcolonial feminist epistemology.

How about this: "Rigor accomplishes dirty deeds, however, serving three primary ends across engineering, engineering education, and engineering education research: disciplining, demarcating boundaries, and demonstrating white male heterosexual privilege. Understanding how rigor reproduces inequality , we cannot reinvent it but rather must relinquish it, looking to alternative conceptualizations for evaluating knowledge, welcoming diverse ways of knowing, doing, and being, and moving from compliance to engagement, from rigor to vigor."

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19378629.2017.1408631 (parts bolded for emphasis by me)

That would be Dr. Donna Riley, Head of the School of Engineering Education, Purdue University.

As for mathematicians, some sure do. Like, here's a quote I just pulled from comments at the American Mathematical Society blog site:

"Is not our problem is that we have allowed white cishet men (nearly all of whom had utterly disgusting views about race and gender) to define "mathematics," "logic" and "proof" for us? We should recognize that there are many kinds of math, many kinds of logic, and many kinds of proof, and assemble a new concept of math from the mosaic of cultural expression that humanity affords."

bastardofmelbourne:

A better and more specific term that doesn't erroneously implicate a huge swathe of 20th-century academia in a malevolent cultural conspiracy?

Yes, that would be preferable. But unfortunately more precise terms like "SJW" are too often dismissed as merely epithets in juvenile Internet feuding. And it has the benefit of identifying one of the pillars and bulwarks of this academic orientation. Which, by the way, does involve "huge swathes", just not in any clandestine arrangement.

bastardofmelbourne:

Batshit crazy members of any political spectrum are best addressed by dismantling their arguments in an academic fashion and providing a more factually sound counter-argument.

Except that there's a whole giant academic project to fact-proof batshit against the very concept of counter-arguments. That's exactly the problem!

So much for the "academic fashion".

KingsGambit:

Current millenials seem determined to tear down and destroy everything and everywhere they go, ruin soon follows. Jordan Peterson is able to articulate what most of us want to but can't find the words or courage to say. The far left are a danger to society, the root of the most resurgent racism I've seen in the modern day and don't seem to be stopping. I'm glad gamergate happened to throw most of them out, although it wasn't entirely successful (there are still games and reviewers who view games thru the lens of race, gender and the rest.)

Millenials? Tearing down? destroying? You talk as if it were millenials who gave us Brexit and Trump or that its millenials who conspire to tear down the EU. As I understand these are mainly opposed by millenials and voted into policy by Babyboomers as one final ''fuck you'' to the next generation before they pass the torch

Addendum_Forthcoming:
I'm 33 and I'm still a millenial.

You aren't a millenial, you're gen Y by my understanding. But to clarify, the generation I was referring to are currently teens-mid/late 20s. So born around mid/late 90s and on, give or take. Essentially anyone who cannot remember a time before Facebook, smartphones, ipads, selfies, etc and the rest. At 33, you grew up in the 90s, I'm talking the next lot after you.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Transgender politics being? What? Being able to see a doctor? Not being mistreated in hospitals without recourse? Freely serving in the military? Being able to have their contracts upheld as equally valid under the law? Having the same expectations in the marketplace? Being able to change their birth certificates?

Military yes, but also the bathroom/changing room thing, the competing in sports thing, the pronoun thing and having to accept that anyone can be any gender (including a list of 30 or so others which apparently exist now) at any time just by feeling like it. That's the gist of it.

BreakfastMan:
Man, if the greatest factor contributing to how you vote is an immense fear of getting called "racist" by some random 19-year-old online, you must be living a pretty good life, my dude.

Don't they teach comprehension anymore? I don't know if you're intentionally obtuse or just missing the point. We really need to get some emojis on this site so I can roll my eyes at you.

Pseudonym:
Ok, so you seem to have missed the point of that question, because you don't share its premise. Said premise being that the text you are writing is not coherent political discourse and was not altogether meant to be literal. I has assumed that you weren't altogether serious in saying preposterous villifying nonsense like "Current millenials seem determined to tear down and destroy everything and everywhere they go, ruin soon follows" and had assumed you were being hyperbolic as a kind of joke.

Maybe I did miss some point. I'm not writing "political discourse", I'm writing my opinion on why the world needs Peterson. Like him, I am shocked by the radical left. I believe they are genuinely harmful to society and as mentioned, would go as far as voting right just to keep them away from power.

bastardofmelbourne:
2. It should be alarming when a self-professed liberal has more in common with the right than the left. I am not alarmed for the simple reason that I do not believe it's actually true. It's a claim I see often; that someone is just "left-of-centre", but is somehow being forced to vote for right-wing people because the left-wing is just so awful that the only recourse is to vote for...the more awful people? ...

I find it more credible that there's a lot of people who want to believe that they're left-of-centre ideologically,

One thing to point out, not "the more awful people". Very specifically "the LESS awful people." That is the point I was making, that while I dislike the right, they are now the lesser of two evils relative to how far the left has now gone. They've gone so far left, that despite being left of centre, I'm now closer to the right than with them. You can believe what you will, but as I said, apart from my views on economy and military, I am socially liberal probably across the board. I would vote LibDem in the UK if they stood any chance of winning anything, and I would vote Labour if Corbyn wasn't the leader of the most racist party in living memory. I have in the past and would in the future.

KingsGambit:

BreakfastMan:
Man, if the greatest factor contributing to how you vote is an immense fear of getting called "racist" by some random 19-year-old online, you must be living a pretty good life, my dude.

Don't they teach comprehension anymore? I don't know if you're intentionally obtuse or just missing the point. We really need to get some emojis on this site so I can roll my eyes at you.

Not even touching the point, because the point is asinine. [1] If you can afford to care this deeply whatever the fuck Kotaku said about an indie game, you honestly must not be encountering a whole lot of actual problems in your life.

[1] Like really dude, you expect us to believe that some nebulous "far-left" cabal has a stranglehold on power and speech when, in the US, the right-wing party controls both houses of congress, the presidency, most governorships, and most state houses? Really?

BreakfastMan:
Like really dude, you expect us to believe that some nebulous "far-left" cabal has a stranglehold on power and speech....

Ummm....what? I need to apologise because now you've lost me.

KingsGambit:

BreakfastMan:
Like really dude, you expect us to believe that some nebulous "far-left" cabal has a stranglehold on power and speech....

Ummm....what? I need to apologise because now you've lost me.

What is your point of confusion here?

Agema:

Vendor-Lazarus:
...until the ctrl-left intervened with their usual cries of "sexist! racist! xxxxPhobe!" to muddle the waters and tar the movement.

Sure. Because the fact the term "alt-right" was initially adopted by white nationalists like Richard Spencer over 5 years ago to refer to themselves required muddying by anyone at all. You guys were late to the party, pal, and you should have checked who was hosting it before you turned up.

How about this: the alleged "alt-right" that's not Spencer & co. so overwhelmingly outnumbers his "alt-right" that they can just take it over? In which case, it's going to be just a piece of historical trivia, as in "You know the alt-right was actually coined by people as racist as the Social Justice Junta of the early 21st century?" "Wow, I had no idea! That's like Ph.D. level Pol. History detail."

Parties can get out of hand so easily, especially when any random passerby can get forcibly shoved in by the people complaining about the noise. Even though they themselves are carrying on a rare ol' hootenanny all over the block.

Never heard of him until Contrapoints took a look at him.

KingsGambit:

Pseudonym:
Ok, so you seem to have missed the point of that question, because you don't share its premise. Said premise being that the text you are writing is not coherent political discourse and was not altogether meant to be literal. I has assumed that you weren't altogether serious in saying preposterous villifying nonsense like "Current millenials seem determined to tear down and destroy everything and everywhere they go, ruin soon follows" and had assumed you were being hyperbolic as a kind of joke.

Maybe I did miss some point. I'm not writing "political discourse", I'm writing my opinion on why the world needs Peterson. Like him, I am shocked by the radical left. I believe they are genuinely harmful to society and as mentioned, would go as far as voting right just to keep them away from power.

And that opinion relates to politics and is conveyed in speech, that speech has some fairly typical patterns. So it is political discourse even if you don't recognise it as such. Even if it wasn't, the general incoherence of your position, as well as your inability or unwillingness to communicate it without visible malevolence towards an entire age bracket, would still be a problem.

This is extremely relevant: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/05/the-real-dangerous-ideas

Summarized: the idea that Jordan Peterson et al are some plucky underdogs challenging the political consensus is utterly stupid. There are many reasons why.

Seanchaidh:
This is extremely relevant: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/05/the-real-dangerous-ideas

Summarized: the idea that Jordan Peterson et al are some plucky underdogs challenging the political consensus is utterly stupid. There are many reasons why.

Well, I gave it a quick glance-over. And while the piece is not entirely without merit, it does seem to miss the point. Namely that it's not the people dissatisfied with the treatment of Peterson and his even less controversial "IDW" (I do dislike the moniker) pals who need to be told this, but the legions of SocJus zombies REEEEEEEEing about them in apocalyptic terms, the coddled toddlers on both sides of the academic podium who fancy they are engaged in an epic struggle against the harshest oppression of all - that against their bottomless need for extravagant validation at every turn.

I didn't click on any of the links in the article, as who knows where they lead. (Left me curious though. Guy who stabbed his wife and won two Pulitzers, who dat? Norman Mailer?) However, I do have to roll my eyes at that old chestnut "There was no real Socialism in the Soviet Union!" Yeah, no kidding. There is no such thing, and there's never going to be. What we have is a long list of suffering and wrongs, but yet again no real solution for them.

The thing that bugs me most is always the suggestion that people spewing the most radical fantasies are somehow not "Left" enough, just because they stupidly endorse politicians like Hillary Clinton and have no grasp of the role of that dreaded capitalism in their own lives, as if more of that froth would finally break through to a Better Way. And what all this actually suggests is that a great many people have been lured into magical thinking, believing their frantic symbolic gesturing against imaginary entities is somehow an acceptable form of "working towards" some Utopia where the wrongs listed here will cease. The sooner they get off that pipe, the sooner they can finally start figuring out some real-world solutions to some of these issues, hopefully always remembering that, as a catchy 80s pop hit had it, "people are people". Meaning that no plan can afford to leave out the fact that they will screw ya to benefit themselves, no matter how "altruistic" your ideals.

StatusNil:

Seanchaidh:
This is extremely relevant: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/05/the-real-dangerous-ideas

Summarized: the idea that Jordan Peterson et al are some plucky underdogs challenging the political consensus is utterly stupid. There are many reasons why.

Well, I gave it a quick glance-over. And while the piece is not entirely without merit, it does seem to miss the point. Namely that it's not the people dissatisfied with the treatment of Peterson and his even less controversial "IDW" (I do dislike the moniker) pals who need to be told this, but the legions of SocJus zombies REEEEEEEEing about them in apocalyptic terms, the coddled toddlers on both sides of the academic podium who fancy they are engaged in an epic struggle against the harshest oppression of all - that against their bottomless need for extravagant validation at every turn.

I didn't click on any of the links in the article, as who knows where they lead. (Left me curious though. Guy who stabbed his wife and won two Pulitzers, who dat? Norman Mailer?) However, I do have to roll my eyes at that old chestnut "There was no real Socialism in the Soviet Union!" Yeah, no kidding. There is no such thing, and there's never going to be. What we have is a long list of suffering and wrongs, but yet again no real solution for them.

The thing that bugs me most is always the suggestion that people spewing the most radical fantasies are somehow not "Left" enough, just because they stupidly endorse politicians like Hillary Clinton and have no grasp of the role of that dreaded capitalism in their own lives, as if more of that froth would finally break through to a Better Way. And what all this actually suggests is that a great many people have been lured into magical thinking, believing their frantic symbolic gesturing against imaginary entities is somehow an acceptable form of "working towards" some Utopia where the wrongs listed here will cease. The sooner they get off that pipe, the sooner they can finally start figuring out some real-world solutions to some of these issues, hopefully always remembering that, as a catchy 80s pop hit had it, "people are people". Meaning that no plan can afford to leave out the fact that they will screw ya to benefit themselves, no matter how "altruistic" your ideals.

There is nothing in this post but equivocating about meaningless niceties, and no actual critique of the ideas presented. Just FYI.

Pseudonym:
And that opinion relates to politics and is conveyed in speech, that speech has some fairly typical patterns. So it is political discourse even if you don't recognise it as such. Even if it wasn't, the general incoherence of your position, as well as your inability or unwillingness to communicate it without visible malevolence towards an entire age bracket, would still be a problem.

Argue with what I said, not how I said it. Stop being a stickler and try to get what I'm saying. I'm talking about the far left, not an "entire age bracket". We're talking in generalities. I don't give a damn about political correctness and if you feel "offended" by my words, then that's on you; if you want to debate like an adult, you need to stop getting offended so easily. Incoherence, inability, unwillingness....I think you're using words to try and be rude or discredit me, rather than actually discuss my ideas. Challenge me on why Peterson is a force for good. Challenge me on why the far left are dangerous. Challenge me on why I pity millenials for the raw deal they're getting.

Stop arguing nonsense. Stop correcting me or trying to find a hole and challenge me on my ideas. Otherwise, we've played this record, it's time to move on. I suspect you're just being rude and have no actual intention to try and discuss my actual points. I can normally tell the difference between someone worth talking to and someone who isn't and I'm having trouble here.

KingsGambit:

Addendum_Forthcoming:
I'm 33 and I'm still a millenial.

You aren't a millenial, you're gen Y by my understanding.

... Gen Y and millenials are the same thing man. Literally just Google gen y and the first thing that comes up is millenials.

Edit: never mind.

KingsGambit:
You aren't a millenial, you're gen Y by my understanding. But to clarify, the generation I was referring to are currently teens-mid/late 20s. So born around mid/late 90s and on, give or take. Essentially anyone who cannot remember a time before Facebook, smartphones, ipads, selfies, etc and the rest. At 33, you grew up in the 90s, I'm talking the next lot after you.

I don't know what to tell you. Gen Y are millenials. The term came into force as per the reality of the ticking hands of the clock, from one century to the next. Traditionally the argument was all people who spent their formative years in one century, and became adults in another. Some researchers extended the gaze because of the shift to always online services and because the massive effect of the global credit crunch leaving scores of Gen Y and other millenials with periods of longterm unemployment, low savings reservoirs, and homelessness... that will likely leave most of this current generation living worse than their parents for the first time since the Great Depression.

I'm okay with shifting the idea of have 1995-to roughly now birth years as 'postmillenials' ... if only because by internalizing the effects of global wars in Middle East, the new pseudo-Cold War, the permanent 'War on Terror', and the effects of the global Credit Crunch making it harder for the incoming generation building a savings pool.

But that doesn't change the fact that people like me are 'millenials'.

Plus, you know ... it makes sense.

That and the 21st century is off to a rocky start.

Military yes, but also the bathroom/changing room thing, the competing in sports thing, the pronoun thing and having to accept that anyone can be any gender (including a list of 30 or so others which apparently exist now) at any time just by feeling like it. That's the gist of it.

'Military yes' ... what does that even mean?

Also, yeah ... bathrooms are kind of important because we don't want to die in them. It was conservatives that made bathroom bills a thing in the U.S., how the fuck is any of that our fault or specifically """transgender politics"""? Also, who cares? You do understand that other cultures thousands of years older than any Western extant society has multiple ideas of gender?

This isn't exactly a new thing. If anything it's indicative of more people through the medium of the internet having the ability to simply speak without being parsed or interrupted from across the world.

Moreover ... what does this have to do with thoroughly fucking stupid, illiterate nonsense Jordan Peterson spews on about 'postmodernist neo-Marxists'? Please explain to me, as a postmodernist, how any of that is feasibly possible? By what magic of metaphysics always this tumble dryer of word-salad spew such shit to make them consistent and understandable?

Because he hasn't actually explained it.

After all ... a postmodern thinker skeptically deconstructs everything. What Marxists thinkers (and modernists in general) do is create grand narratives seeking as if trying to build to a universalism of agency and 'knowledge'. A postmodernist says objective truth is a lie, and potentially oppressive to thought on its own.

A modernist points to the scientific method. A postmodernist points to history and experimental science and the constant shock of the new.

A modern art theorist points to minimalism and says 'art has a quintessential reality' ... a postmodern art theorist points to (ironically) late-stage minimalism and says 'Art does not have its own quintessential reality... you disproved that yourselves'.

All of those """identity politics""" you mishandled portray as being subversive ... guess who also critiques them unfavourably as a postmodern thinker. People like Judith Butler. But unlike Peterson she actually knows what she's talking about and relates it in a way that is metaphysically congruent. It's almost as if people who haven't actually read people like Judith Butler, seem to have a fucking stupid antipathy to them that people like Peterson is capitalizing on.

What people like Peterson are expressing is quite simply that you don't care if you're right or wrong, so long as people like trans activists are silent.

So no. You're not a """liberal""". You could just be angry, and wrong.

The hundreds of CEOs that told North Carolina conservatives that bathroom bills are awful are not postmodern neo-Marxists. They might be postmodernists, they might be modernists, they might even be romantics, but they're certaily not Marxists and they're most certanly not """leftists""" in general.

Peterson's attempt of non-critique is basically saying to all angry people who don't like minority groups speaking for themselves is; "Hey, here's a simplistic, morally bankrupt and artificially constructed buzzterm for you to use that you can put everyone that ever tells you you're wrong into ... aren't I a fucking genius!?"

It's intellectually bankrupt.

It's also the true threat to freedom of thought and academia when people like Peterson pull this bullshit. People like you are most guilty of the "identity politics" you so decry.

Your screed on millenials, and fabricating clearly wrong descriptors of it, is no different.

It's manufactured.

Rather than having an actual critique... what Peterson tried to do is create a blanket that suitably encompasses all multitudes of argumentation for everything . Which would be fine if it were honest. But instead decides to infantilize his supporters in pretending like they're somehow fighting a communal foe, by reducing everyone that calls bullshit on him and you as if a faceless, nameless blob of fabricated buzzterms that can only be defined as; "Anybody I don't like."

It's no different from the screed a handful of scientists had against a misinterpretation of po-mo in the early 90s. It's no different than the 'social consciousness' screed of Protestants screaming about D&D in the 80s. It's no different than conservatives screed about civil rights in the 60s.

Postmodernism has been around for 60 years. And it's just as contentious with Marxists as it is with conservatives. As a tool for social critique of behaviour, art theory, language and history it is phenomenal ... and people overtly chalk up its disagreement with science, when in truth its primary critique is with assumptions of objective truth and the methods of examination and its discourse.

StatusNil:
How about this: the alleged "alt-right" that's not Spencer & co. so overwhelmingly outnumbers his "alt-right" that they can just take it over?

They shouldn't be taking over Spencer's type of alt-right, they should be helping bury it. If they're not, it rather suggests they're substantially closer to it than they often like to make out.

And in practice, that's potentially true. There's always been an overlap between US libertarianism and social conservatism, white nationalism, etc. after all.

KingsGambit:
I suspect you're just being rude...

Yes, but you have been plenty rude too. Your attitude has often come across as intolerant, angry, dismissive and superior. You employ indiscriminate broadsides against various sectors of the populace, for which you ARE going to get complaints.

You obviously don't like it when people criticise or get spiky with you in return. I recommend one or both of two remedies - a) be more considerate; b) practice what you preach:

if you feel "offended" by my words, then that's on you; if you want to debate like an adult, you need to stop getting offended so easily.

StatusNil:
So, long time no see for some of you.

image

StatusNil:
How about this: "Rigor accomplishes dirty deeds, however, serving three primary ends across engineering, engineering education, and engineering education research: disciplining, demarcating boundaries, and demonstrating white male heterosexual privilege. Understanding how rigor reproduces inequality , we cannot reinvent it but rather must relinquish it, looking to alternative conceptualizations for evaluating knowledge, welcoming diverse ways of knowing, doing, and being, and moving from compliance to engagement, from rigor to vigor."

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19378629.2017.1408631 (parts bolded for emphasis by me)

That would be Dr. Donna Riley, Head of the School of Engineering Education, Purdue University.

Well, that sounds like a pretty dumb thing for a department head to say. So while I agree with you on that, I should also point out - I'm sure you missed this unintentionally, it's buried on their website - that she's head of the School of Engineering Education, not head of the entire department or college of engineering. The Purdue School of Engineering Education is one of eleven schools that comprise the Purdue College of Engineering, and by the looks of its mission statement, it's the least important one.

Academics aren't immune to bad apples. Dr. Riley's work includes this impressive piece of crap, which is absolutely cringeworthy on first scan. But the good news is that the website you used keeps track of article metrics. From that, we can see that Dr. Riley's paper on "why academic rigor isn't that important" has been cited...thirteen times on Mendeley, twice in the news, three times on blogs, and four hundred and sixteen times on Twitter.

I think that can tell you a lot about its impact on academia. It seems to have made a big splash on social media and been thoroughly ignored by the actual academics. You ask me, that was the purpose of the article in the first place; say something ridiculous, get a lot of flak, put your name out in the news so that it's easier to get a job. Lots of spectacle, little impact.

StatusNil:
As for mathematicians, some sure do. Like, here's a quote I just pulled from comments at the American Mathematical Society blog site:

Man, your previous example was way better. No-one gives a shit about the comments page of a blog. That shouldn't count as a citation.

StatusNil:
Except that there's a whole giant academic project to fact-proof batshit against the very concept of counter-arguments. That's exactly the problem!

So how does producing your own fact-proof bullshit help matters? Because it sounds like it'd just lead to the academic equivalent of two people shouting over each other in a closed room for all eternity.

I had a double post, so rather than snip it I figured I'd link this little gem, because it popped up somewhere and I was thoroughly interested in it. (Here in the interest of fairness is a rebuttal in defence of Peterson, which I did not find nearly as interesting.)

What got me about it were the excerpts from Maps of Meaning. I haven't read it; I just assumed it was academically sound, because it got published and I'm not a professor of psychology, so what do I know?

But reading the excerpts...look, I just find it really funny that Peterson focuses so much time on how postmodernists are trying to take over the world with obfuscatory pseudo-academic garbage when his own work includes this kind of nonsense:

What the fuck does that mean??? I translate dense jurisprudence for a living, and I can't dissect that paragraph. It gives my brain indigestion. I know I'm not dumb; is there a secret psychologist jargon that I need to learn before it starts making sense?

Is he just saying "A thing may be the right thing to do in some situations, but the wrong thing to do in other situations!" What about this stuff?

Can anyone explain to me what this shit is trying to prove?

bastardofmelbourne:

But reading the excerpts...look, I just find it really funny that Peterson focuses so much time on how postmodernists are trying to take over the world with obfuscatory pseudo-academic garbage when his own work includes this kind of nonsense:

What parts of po-mo do you have a problem with? Be specific. It's quite large a topic... after all, bit hard to call someone like Foucault 'pseudo-academic' ... though arguably thereason why he's so well-dispersed is because he actually knows how to write.

What the fuck does that mean??? I translate dense jurisprudence for a living, and I can't dissect that paragraph. It gives my brain indigestion. I know I'm not dumb; is there a secret psychologist jargon that I need to learn before it starts making sense?

Is he just saying "A thing may be the right thing to do in some situations, but the wrong thing to do in other situations!" What about this stuff?

A synthetic combination of the Hegelian dialectic, bit of Kantian metaphysics, cognitive psychology and rationalist ideality (procedural knowledge as he uses it) of a moral state conflicting with an experiential understanding of goal orientated behaviour.

What is problematic is the idea that procedural knowledge is rational. You can totally explain procedural knowledge through 'simple accumulation'. Ideas of beauty, referentialism of artistic works, intertextuality of language acquisition, enculturation... Now one can argue whether that is horse before cart, or cart before horse, but both of which undermine the idea of an intrapsychic (from within the mind, and only the mind) condition that is beholden only to itself.

Or more so to speak, it's a really long winded way of saying people need stuff, so teamwork is inevitable, leading to a conflict of rationalist sensibilities, thus a purely rationalist capacity to envision both heroic motivation and physical necessity for perceivably 'good' end-states of agency undermines a suitably potent intrapsychic condition from emerging, and that dictates a class based order built on the conflict of reason between people.

Which echoes, oddly, a Nietzschean will to power.

It's not objectionably bad idea, but the problem is the assumptions it makes.

You could also say he is confusingly adding in Mill's critique of Bentham in a utilitarian sense, Mill's critique of separating intellectual pleasures (hard-fought and long-term gained measures towards promoting units of happiness) and Bentham's "Pigs in Mud" problematic units of happiness of sitting around and eating ice cream.

So the difference of units of happiness by studying to become a doctor that can heal people and prevent illness as a volunteer in MSF on some God-forsaken warzone--and the difference of handing out free ice cream to thousands of kids each weekend.

Both of them produce units of happiness, both of them do so without thought of reward, both of them do so irrespective of specific beneficiaries (the highest moral state of high agency capacity in utilitarianism), but there is an educated (experiential) difference why one is going to be better than another. That is assuming the doctor is actually skilled that is. Obviously a doctor that is highly incompetent that kills more patients than saves should recognize themselves they won't assist the situation for the better.

More over you can empirically understand why this is so. You can implement the exercise of forming an opinion through observation and not necessarily through conflict, but reference. I don't have perpetual battles with myself ad nauseum, nor is it simply because I have developed a macrological moral worldview that simply allows me to act.

Out of context, mostly not knowing how he is using specific terms such as procedural knowledge and heroic context, it looks like his idea of the method that individuals build a moral code based on actions and how conflict with that moral code in the context of interpersonal relationships. This conflict causes different strands of the moral code to stand or fall in the chaos of dealing with temptations. Dealing with the fallout of those choices leads to the construction of a new moral code. This process is then repeated through life, constantly striving to be better and grow stronger in the moral system but always thrown into chaos when forced to make a decision based on those moral guidelines.

I think that is what he is getting at, maybe. It's a bit confusing and meandering and the terms are not well defined.

bastardofmelbourne:

What the fuck does that mean??? I translate dense jurisprudence for a living, and I can't dissect that paragraph. It gives my brain indigestion. I know I'm not dumb; is there a secret psychologist jargon that I need to learn before it starts making sense?

Is he just saying "A thing may be the right thing to do in some situations, but the wrong thing to do in other situations!" What about this stuff?

What, that? Seems perfectly straightforward: you do stuff, and that gives you an idea of how to do stuff. But then, what is the right thing to do in a given situation? You need to make up rules about that. But other people are going to disagree, and that's too bad.

As for the critique you linked, I'm not going to read yet another thing that feels it's necessary to smugly add "(it helps if you're male and Caucasian)" as if that's a startling insight, rather than a regular tic of the genre. However, I do agree with the headline, it is indeed a sign of an impoverished intellectual and political landscape that he's The intellectual for so many. There should be lots of them around, giving entertaining, mildly eccentric rambles around a variety of subjects. But there aren't. Maybe that has something to do with how the "progressive" thought police are just hammering him for something so freaking benign? There's your landscape impoverishment in action. It's been colonized.

StatusNil:

What, that? Seems perfectly straightforward: you do stuff, and that gives you an idea of how to do stuff. But then, what is the right thing to do in a given situation? You need to make up rules about that. But other people are going to disagree, and that's too bad.

That is literally not what he writes. Moreover, that is profoundly stupid on its own.

Peterson routinely writes about the nature of having a 'higher purpose' all the time. One can almost assume as if an appeal toa rationalist idea of spiritual alignment to assist personal agency. Moreover in that passage alone he uses intrapsychic numerous times. Moreover in that passage alone, he arbitrarily separates it as if distinct from interpersonal. Meaning a conflict with purely self that can be paralyzing.

He routinely writes about something akin the the Hegelian dialectic in terms of precedural knowledge. So it's not just an interpersonal conflict, but one that can be had as if entirely within the mind, that causes chaos.

Maybe that has something to do with how the "progressive" thought police are just hammering him for something so freaking benign? There's your landscape impoverishment in action. It's been colonized.

Why? Because people are telling him he's wrong? See, what I reckon is the case is the 'PC police' is people that simply actually articulate their ideas and make them congruent. It didn't stop him getting book deals, so the 'PC police' aren't doing their job very well.

Plus, you know, not making up idiotic, metaphysically incongruent buzzterms like 'postmodern neo-Marxists' ...

If 'eccentric' is shorthand for 'batshit', then maybe there's a reason why more 'eccentrics' aren't getting book deals? If I wrote a supposedly non-fiction book about the evils of 'Republican Space-Nazis' how much should I be taken seriously?

Addendum_Forthcoming:

That is literally not what he writes. Moreover, that is profoundly stupid on its own.

Peterson routinely writes about the nature of having a 'higher purpose' all the time. One can almost assume as if an appeal toa rationalist idea of spiritual alignment to assist personal agency.

Moreover in that passage alone he uses intrapsychic numerous time. Moreover inthat passage alone, he arbitrarily separates it as if distinct from interpersonal. Meaning a conflict with purely self that can be paralyzing.

He routinely writes about something akin the the Hegelian dialectic in terms of precedural knowledge. So it's not just an interpersonal conflict, but one that can be have as if entirely within the mind, that causes chaos.

Yeah, but I glossed over it as part of "coming up with the rules" for the sake of brevity. It's an individualist view that posits the priority of individual moral reasoning, obviously derived in part from interpersonal experience. It goes with his whole thing of "cleaning your room" before attempting to change the world. Nothing arbitrary about that, nor solipsistic.

And what's so "profoundly stupid" about "spiritual alignment to assist personal agency"?

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Why? Because people are telling him he's wrong? See, what I reckon is the case is the 'PC police' is people that simply actually articulate their ideas and make them congruent. It didn't stop him getting book deals, so the 'PC police' aren't doing their job very well.

Not for the lack of trying. Just today, he posted another article likening him to, well, Hitler. It's a recurring theme, remember that Lindsey Shepherd inquisition? Yeah, cos he's totally gonna genocide those "IDW" pals of his, Dave Rubin (who is touring with him at the moment), Ben Shapiro, Christina Hoff Sommers, those Weinstein brothers... truly an audacious display of anti-semitism.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Plus, you know, not making up idiotic, metaphysically incongruent buzzterms like 'postmodern neo-Marxists' ...

I think the people who made up an idiotic, metaphysically incongruent ideology like postmodern neo-Marxism are even more to blame for that one.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
If 'eccentric' is shorthand for 'batshit', then maybe there's a reason why more 'eccentrics' aren't getting book deals? If I wrote a supposedly non-fiction book about the evils of 'Republican Space-Nazis' how much should I be taken seriously?

Mildly eccentric. There are degrees to things, remember? And let's see your book first before we decide its merits.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Peterson routinely writes about the nature of having a 'higher purpose' all the time. One can almost assume as if an appeal toa rationalist idea of spiritual alignment to assist personal agency.

You don't even need to assume it.

In an earlier post in the thread, I pointed out an instance where he was caught on camera arguing that without religion we lose "Art and poetry and narrative and morality". :s

aegix drakan:

In an earlier post in the thread, I pointed out an instance where he was caught on camera arguing that without religion we love "Art and poetry and narrative and morality". :s

Since I'm here, I think the question is "So?"

Is he trying to force a theocracy on you? Or anyone? If anything, his view of religion seems kind of instrumental to me.

Also, are you sure that's an accurate quote? Because it sure doesn't sound like something he would say. "without religion, we love art and poetry... " Dude is into religion AND art, poetry etc. What he does suggest is that ideology tends to substitute for religion for lots of people. So they are religious about their ideology. Which he thinks is bad. Mmmkay?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here