I guess various social media platforms have banned Alex Jones?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Zontar:
Yup, they make mistakes, that's why [list]...

Whatever dude. I really could not care less at another steaming dump of completely unverified waffle that's not only straight out of the world of right wing misinformation networks.[1]

Sorry, but there's a reason why the SPLC being a hate group and nothing more is yet another thing on the growing list of things liberals and conservatives are in agreement on

Almost no-one considers the SPLC a hate group outside the extremist fringe of the right you're in.

If I want to know what other people think, I see what they say for themselves. I don't skip to the summary on them prepared by the attack dogs of their ideoological opponents. You could even try doing the same, you know.

[1] I mean, heck. Your defence of calling the SPLC a hate group was an article by a completely partial Republican Party activist who used to work for recently convicted fraudster Paul Manafort.

So, what has Alex Jones been doing lately? Did he got unbanned? Did he fund a new social media platform? Or is he still whining like a baby?

ineptelephant:

trunkage:
And I think a lot of people know here that I detest Sargon for being a Regressive.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Ol' Sargon is a whole mess of contradictions:


OT: Surely no one trusts facebook, google and the rest to remove people from their platforms purely for moral reasons. Frankly, its arguable that the platform holders aren't even incentivized to remove people who break their terms of service. The only constant among all this purging is an overriding business concern.

Its fun to watch as someone who thoroughly deserves to be de-platformed is finally kicked off, but there's nothing really to stop anything from being removed. Most channels/users break the ToI at some point, as is intended by the ToI creators. Whether or not those channels are removed is solely down to the usefullness of that content to the site operator.

Today its Jones (which is pretty funny) but tomorrow it could be a lot of people. Alternatively these platform owners will sanitize their domains into an add-friendly hellscape where even swearing will instantly lead to being de-monotized and isolated through the search algorithim.

In previous arguments, I've listed some of the points that Sargon uses to define what he thinks as a Regressive. Eg. Using stereotypes to dismiss arguments, using insults to dismiss arguments, etc. In the same videos, he would then use those same tactics against liberals and especially what he defines as Regressive. So many times he's literally being what he hates.

To your platform comment, Alex Jones losing his platform is probably connected to Pew Die Pie and the adpocalyspe. I actually don't know why advertisers gave up so much control in the first place. That never made sense other then YouTube throwing its weight around. YouTube has never been the most responsible group, and hasn't learnt anything from the concept of unintended consequences.

Zontar:

CheetoDust:
Does anyone even take it seriously anymore? Either he means it and it's hilarious or he doesn't and it's sad.

You know it's funny, this is how conservatives and liberals see progressives. At least I can take comfort in the fact that subversive globalists have lost the war and we're in the mopping up phase of the conflict, so it doesn't matter how much the reality denial brigade tries to rewrite history and reality in the name of The Party.

Subversive globalists have lost? Could have fooled me with all the third world labour, tax havens and multinational companies with more money and power than many countries. Oh you mean "brown people and the people who show then respect" again don't you? It genuinely baffles me that in a world of cheap t-shirts manufactured by bloody fingered Bangladeshi children, where the Irish government straight up tells google not to worry about paying their taxes and a man who is blatantly a globalist, corporatist only seeking to make himself and his family and friends richer is the most hold the most powerful office in America you claim globalists have lost? So here's a question, when you say globalist what is it you actually mean?

Zontar:

altnameJag:
And here I thought Net Neutrality was unnecessary.

Why? People who opposed the bill never made the claim (or at least it wasn't what a noteworthy number where).

Really? So people weren't making he claim that the internet was just fine before net neutrality? Sounds like calling it unnecessary to me. If it was just fine then why would it need ANY regulation?

trunkage:
In previous arguments, I've listed some of the points that Sargon uses to define what he thinks as a Regressive. Eg. Using stereotypes to dismiss arguments, using insults to dismiss arguments, etc. In the same videos, he would then use those same tactics against liberals and especially what he defines as Regressive. So many times he's literally being what he hates.

Ah ok, I misinterpreted your position. In my mind I read your post as a claim that Sargon was regressive in the sense of not being left wing. Apologies. Sargon flits around with comments sometimes eschewing a hard interpretation of Marx ("everyone who makes things with the 'fruit of their hands' [sic] should have access to what they make") and other times bemoaning the cultural marxist conspiracy. The man should have no credibility, and yet...

trunkage:
To your platform comment, Alex Jones losing his platform is probably connected to Pew Die Pie and the adpocalyspe. I actually don't know why advertisers gave up so much control in the first place. That never made sense other then YouTube throwing its weight around. YouTube has never been the most responsible group, and hasn't learnt anything from the concept of unintended consequences.

That is true. Advertisers getting pissy about content is hardly new on more traditional media and everyone was aware that Youtube was losing money for a long time. This has been long overdue, but no less regretable (though I am glad they started with Jones. Silver linings and all.)

CheetoDust:
Subversive globalists have lost?

I am also fascinated by the phenomenal rise of globalised nationalism. Now we can have Canadians and Americans teaching Europeans about xenophobia and vice versa. Whether it's Steve Bannon trying to find a new money-making scheme now he's persona non grata in Trump's America, Canadian identitarians so disappointed by the lack of racial tensions in their own country they've got to complain about Africans crossing the Med., or Nigel Farage having to go to cross the Atlantic because they've yet to realise he's a self-important clown, the international opportunities for the world's xenophobes have never been greater.

trunkage:
To your platform comment, Alex Jones losing his platform is probably connected to Pew Die Pie and the adpocalyspe. I actually don't know why advertisers gave up so much control in the first place. That never made sense other then YouTube throwing its weight around. YouTube has never been the most responsible group, and hasn't learnt anything from the concept of unintended consequences.

It almost certainly is, but do remember YT's irresponsibility is two-sided and was slanted towards large corporations long before the adpocalypse -- one needn't look further than the phenomenon of false copyright claims, the erosion of fair use on the platform, and the uphill, odds-stacked battle content creators face to assert their rights under fair use even taking monetization out of the equation, as proof positive.

Let's not forget that while the PDP debacle got the ball rolling, one major chapter was when PepsiCo got angry people were being allowed to criticize them on YouTube over that stupid-ass Kendall Jenner ad. And, Ethan and Hila Klein's investigative work on the subject that demonstrated major media corporations have agreements with Alphabet/YT that exempt them from community guidelines, and allow videos on their own channels that violate them to remain monetized.

Neither can we ignore YouTube's -- and Alphabet's -- vested interest in the outcome of the fight. The correlation between the adpocalypse and YT pushing premium services, while stripping or invalidating basic functionality (e.g. the whole subs/notifications thing) and manipulating search and recommendation algorithms, cannot be ignored. What should be beyond debate at this point, is YT is weaponizing the adpocalypse to seize a greater share of profits for themselves, after content creators fled to crowdsourcing platforms in the adpocalypse's wake.

What's this have to do with Jones? Well, we've established YouTube isn't an ethical actor, and it's my belief they only did it for the PR. It's not to combat fake news, since the new trend in cash-grab schemes on YouTube seems to be creating "news" channels which plagiarize other sources' B-roll, with professional-sounding channel names and professional-looking lead-in and closing segments, with audio narration of questionable quality or text-to-speech narration. And, it's not to combat "fake news" or to push an ideological agenda, since RT, Breitbart, Rebel Media, and Daily Wire are still up and fully monetized...so far, anyhow. They nailed Jones because he was the lowest-hanging fruit on the tree.

Zontar:

The old rules got overturned in 2014. Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014)

Please pay attention.

Problem is that didn't actually overturn the rulings that created de facto net neutrality to begin with, which was why Netflix didn't sue for the lower speed it experienced after the ruling (helped that it turned out they had done that themselves and the ISPs had nothing to do with it, which is why there hasn't been a corresponding drop in speed after the bill was overturned and no longer the law). You ask me to pay attention, yet you aren't even looking into why half the country opposed the specific bill we're talking about.

Not that it matters, the entire problem arose because of government enforced monopoly to begin with.

...So, Silicon Valley Netflix lowered its own network speed while negotiating a bandwidth contract with Silicon Valley Comcast.

But okay, the legal ruling that said that the FCC can't regulate the blocking of websites anymore. So Comcast, Time Warner, etc, can freely block access to, say, Alex Jones' website. This is somehow fine, but Apple, Youtube, et all, can't block him on their specific platforms, despite years of demented nonsense including arguing that the parents of school shooting victims are all liars by name.

"Why didn't Netfliz sue" asks the guy who's somehow failed to realize the court had just made that exchange both explicitly, entirely legal and not regulated by the FCC. Sue on what grounds, exactly?

CheetoDust:

Zontar:

altnameJag:
And here I thought Net Neutrality was unnecessary.

Why? People who opposed the bill never made the claim (or at least it wasn't what a noteworthy number where).

Really? So people weren't making he claim that the internet was just fine before net neutrality? Sounds like calling it unnecessary to me. If it was just fine then why would it need ANY regulation?

Actually my point is that people where pointing out that yes, before the "net neutrality in name only" bill was passed we already effectively had net neutrality and yes, the internet then as how did not suffer the problems people who used outright lies about the state of the internet in Spain for comparison claimed things where and would be today if they had been right.

altnameJag:

Zontar:

The old rules got overturned in 2014. Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014)

Please pay attention.

Problem is that didn't actually overturn the rulings that created de facto net neutrality to begin with, which was why Netflix didn't sue for the lower speed it experienced after the ruling (helped that it turned out they had done that themselves and the ISPs had nothing to do with it, which is why there hasn't been a corresponding drop in speed after the bill was overturned and no longer the law). You ask me to pay attention, yet you aren't even looking into why half the country opposed the specific bill we're talking about.

Not that it matters, the entire problem arose because of government enforced monopoly to begin with.

...So, Silicon Valley Netflix lowered its own network speed while negotiating a bandwidth contract with Silicon Valley Comcast.

But okay, the legal ruling that said that the FCC can't regulate the blocking of websites anymore. So Comcast, Time Warner, etc, can freely block access to, say, Alex Jones' website. This is somehow fine, but Apple, Youtube, et all, can't block him on their specific platforms, despite years of demented nonsense including arguing that the parents of school shooting victims are all liars by name.

"Why didn't Netfliz sue" asks the guy who's somehow failed to realize the court had just made that exchange both explicitly, entirely legal and not regulated by the FCC. Sue on what grounds, exactly?

This post is confusing as all hell. You're asking me why things that are neither morally okay nor legal are okay while something that's legal but morally reprehensible should not be, why companies who blocked a man not for specific things he did but for "Hate Speech" (meaning you nor anyone else bringing up specific incidents has a leg to stand on because those incidents where explicitly, in their own words, not why he was banned, meaning you cannot use them as the justification in an intellectually honest discussion on the matter), then ask why Netflix didn't sue another company for an act it did upon itself for RP reasons. I'm sorry, but your post is part of the reason there is a perception that those supporting corporate fascists have no argument, because all you're doing here is asking nonsensical questions that make no sense in context.

Also 1791 just blew out every argument the corporatists have brought out. Not that a liberal, conservative, socialist or libertarian could possibly remain ideologically consistent and support the act, but corporatists being blown out of the water and receiving an irrecoverable decisive defeat in the field of rational debate is always good to see.

Every day we get closer to the point where globalists realise they where the villain of this story.

Agema:

CheetoDust:
Subversive globalists have lost?

I am also fascinated by the phenomenal rise of globalised nationalism. Now we can have Canadians and Americans teaching Europeans about xenophobia and vice versa. Whether it's Steve Bannon trying to find a new money-making scheme now he's persona non grata in Trump's America, Canadian identitarians so disappointed by the lack of racial tensions in their own country they've got to complain about Africans crossing the Med., or Nigel Farage having to go to cross the Atlantic because they've yet to realise he's a self-important clown, the international opportunities for the world's xenophobes have never been greater.

Can anyone explain how indentations are about identity politics or intersectionalism? I'd assume the Petersons (Him being a collectivist) of the world who complain about these things isn't an identitarian.

trunkage:

Agema:

CheetoDust:
Subversive globalists have lost?

I am also fascinated by the phenomenal rise of globalised nationalism. Now we can have Canadians and Americans teaching Europeans about xenophobia and vice versa. Whether it's Steve Bannon trying to find a new money-making scheme now he's persona non grata in Trump's America, Canadian identitarians so disappointed by the lack of racial tensions in their own country they've got to complain about Africans crossing the Med., or Nigel Farage having to go to cross the Atlantic because they've yet to realise he's a self-important clown, the international opportunities for the world's xenophobes have never been greater.

Can anyone explain how indentations are about identity politics or intersectionalism? I'd assume the Petersons (Him being a collectivist) of the world who complain about these things isn't an identitarian.

What are you trying to ask here exactly trunkage? I'm a little confused as to who you're asking about what, and why you're calling Peterson a collectivist when he's about as far as one can get from that.

Though at least you're not pretending to know things about Canada that you clearly don't know much of anything about like Agema is. There's no lack of racial tensions over here, and I have no idea why pretending otherwise somehow delegitimises the opposition to mass human smuggling by pirates and gangsters who should be locked up given how many deaths they are directly responsible for through their actions, to say nothing of the social issues the trafficing is causing since it has doomed the EU and assured its failure (not that any liberal, conservative or socialist is upset by that, the EU in its current form is antithetical to all those ideologies, and is long past the point of redemption through reformation being realistic).

Zontar:

trunkage:

Agema:

I am also fascinated by the phenomenal rise of globalised nationalism. Now we can have Canadians and Americans teaching Europeans about xenophobia and vice versa. Whether it's Steve Bannon trying to find a new money-making scheme now he's persona non grata in Trump's America, Canadian identitarians so disappointed by the lack of racial tensions in their own country they've got to complain about Africans crossing the Med., or Nigel Farage having to go to cross the Atlantic because they've yet to realise he's a self-important clown, the international opportunities for the world's xenophobes have never been greater.

Can anyone explain how indentations are about identity politics or intersectionalism? I'd assume the Petersons (Him being a collectivist) of the world who complain about these things isn't an identitarian.

What are you trying to ask here exactly trunkage? I'm a little confused as to who you're asking about what, and why you're calling Peterson a collectivist when he's about as far as one can get from that.

Though at least you're not pretending to know things about Canada that you clearly don't know much of anything about like Agema is. There's no lack of racial tensions over here, and I have no idea why pretending otherwise somehow delegitimises the opposition to mass human smuggling by pirates and gangsters who should be locked up given how many deaths they are directly responsible for through their actions, to say nothing of the social issues the trafficing is causing since it has doomed the EU and assured its failure (not that any liberal, conservative or socialist is upset by that, the EU in its current form is antithetical to all those ideologies, and is long past the point of redemption through reformation being realistic).

Peterson is about personal responsibility. Which hasn't got much to do with NOT being a collectivist. In fact, being personally responsible is a necessary state to be a collectivist. You need to follow a set of rules to be part of the group. Someone who is worried about being an individual apart from the collective doesn't have to worry personal responsibility. Libertarians are pretty collective (as is someone like Ayn Rand) as well. Taking the Rand example, while she talk about being individuals, she was very strict about what individuals are allowed to do. I.e. A collective. Libertarians point to the Theory of Moral Sentiments being paired with the Wealth of Nations. That Capitalism is a set of feedback loops that (generally) enforce appropriate behaviour (slavery being a prime example as a bad feedback loop.) But while Capitalism is more free than other ideologies, it still has to be forced onto others (e.g. Onto Corporatists, Christians, Anarchists, Communists, etc.) Capitalism is still collectivist, just maybe to a lesser extent. You personally get worried about Globalisation, which is arises from Capitalism... Which means Capitalism is forcing you to live a certain way. (Despite claiming to be about freedom.)

I could deal with Peterson if he didn't act like his ideology was better than anyone else. He has some good insights into how the world works but wants to make sure people live similar to his way. He gets too worried about making people treat him a certain way (which sounds exactly like a snowflake). I.e. I see him as an SJW, just for Chrstians and Conservatives, not for Liberals.

trunkage:
Peterson is about personal responsibility. Which hasn't got much to do with NOT being a collectivist. In fact, being personally responsible is a necessary state to be a collectivist. You need to follow a set of rules to be part of the group. Someone who is worried about being an individual apart from the collective doesn't have to worry personal responsibility. Libertarians are pretty collective (as is someone like Ayn Rand) as well. Taking the Rand example, while she talk about being individuals, she was very strict about what individuals are allowed to do. I.e. A collective. Libertarians point to the Theory of Moral Sentiments being paired with the Wealth of Nations. That Capitalism is a set of feedback loops that (generally) enforce appropriate behaviour (slavery being a prime example as a bad feedback loop.) But while Capitalism is more free than other ideologies, it still has to be forced onto others (e.g. Onto Corporatists, Christians, Anarchists, Communists, etc.) Capitalism is still collectivist, just maybe to a lesser extent. You personally get worried about Globalisation, which is arises from Capitalism... Which means Capitalism is forcing you to live a certain way. (Despite claiming to be about freedom.)

This sounds like a roundabout way of saying collectivist is one of those meaningless terms that has no purpose since all things fall under it no matter how much you break it down, even though that's not how I've seen people use it in any instances until now.

I could deal with Peterson if he didn't act like his ideology was better than anyone else. He has some good insights into how the world works but wants to make sure people live similar to his way. He gets too worried about making people treat him a certain way (which sounds exactly like a snowflake). I.e. I see him as an SJW, just for Chrstians and Conservatives, not for Liberals.

That's kind of ironic given his overtly liberal politics. I also wouldn't say I see his view of figuring out one's self and not trying to control others as being comparable to SJWs who do, well just about the exact opposite of that. I mean hell the reason he's a household name in the first place was because he took the liberal position on Bill C-16 (the only liberal position on the bill in fact) due to it being inherently prone to abuse (by design I might ad), coupled with his refusal to use people's make up pronouns (though oddly enough some go so far as to claim he hates trans people, despite being perfectly okay with calling someone male or female pronouns depending on which they want).

In a sane world Peterson never would have risen to where he is now in society at large, he's just have been remembered as one of the most respective and cited psychologists of our time. But we aren't in sane times, he's become one of Canada's most well known civil rights activists and a de facto father figure for a generation of fatherless young men, and almost by accident no less. A pitiable state of affairs, though one I don't think will last much longer given the West's current civilisational shift to the right to counteract the death of liberalism.

Zontar:

trunkage:
Peterson is about personal responsibility. Which hasn't got much to do with NOT being a collectivist. In fact, being personally responsible is a necessary state to be a collectivist. You need to follow a set of rules to be part of the group. Someone who is worried about being an individual apart from the collective doesn't have to worry personal responsibility. Libertarians are pretty collective (as is someone like Ayn Rand) as well. Taking the Rand example, while she talk about being individuals, she was very strict about what individuals are allowed to do. I.e. A collective. Libertarians point to the Theory of Moral Sentiments being paired with the Wealth of Nations. That Capitalism is a set of feedback loops that (generally) enforce appropriate behaviour (slavery being a prime example as a bad feedback loop.) But while Capitalism is more free than other ideologies, it still has to be forced onto others (e.g. Onto Corporatists, Christians, Anarchists, Communists, etc.) Capitalism is still collectivist, just maybe to a lesser extent. You personally get worried about Globalisation, which is arises from Capitalism... Which means Capitalism is forcing you to live a certain way. (Despite claiming to be about freedom.)

This sounds like a roundabout way of saying collectivist is one of those meaningless terms that has no purpose since all things fall under it no matter how much you break it down, even though that's not how I've seen people use it in any instances until now.

I could deal with Peterson if he didn't act like his ideology was better than anyone else. He has some good insights into how the world works but wants to make sure people live similar to his way. He gets too worried about making people treat him a certain way (which sounds exactly like a snowflake). I.e. I see him as an SJW, just for Chrstians and Conservatives, not for Liberals.

That's kind of ironic given his overtly liberal politics. I also wouldn't say I see his view of figuring out one's self and not trying to control others as being comparable to SJWs who do, well just about the exact opposite of that. I mean hell the reason he's a household name in the first place was because he took the liberal position on Bill C-16 (the only liberal position on the bill in fact) due to it being inherently prone to abuse (by design I might ad), coupled with his refusal to use people's make up pronouns (though oddly enough some go so far as to claim he hates trans people, despite being perfectly okay with calling someone male or female pronouns depending on which they want).

In a sane world Peterson never would have risen to where he is now in society at large, he's just have been remembered as one of the most respective and cited psychologists of our time. But we aren't in sane times, he's become one of Canada's most well known civil rights activists and a de facto father figure for a generation of fatherless young men, and almost by accident no less. A pitiable state of affairs, though one I don't think will last much longer given the West's current civilisational shift to the right to counteract the death of liberalism.

My opinion in short: Peterson criticises SJWs (good) by doing exactly what he criticises SJWs for.. He wants to increase one groups civil rights at the expense of others (typical SJW behaviour.) He says that certain groups should think for themselves and listen to people like him (very typical SJW). When I say I believe he's worse than Trump, this is why. Trump is just a troll who happens to have power. Peterson is smarter than Trump. Peterson is a true believer who thinks equality means taking rights away from certain groups. If he ever got power, Bill C-16-esque policies and regulations would be the norm, just against anyone he doesn't like (instead of against people who get offended over being demanded to use pronouns.)

I don't speak up that much against him (except here, I need to vent about him sometimes.). SJWs need to be called out. But I know I need to call him out sometimes now before he becomes our 'Lord and Saviour'

Anyway, Identarians. They sound like Right-Wing intersectionalists to me. Thoughts?

Zontar:
In a sane world Peterson never would have risen to where he is now in society at large, he's just have been remembered as one of the most respective and cited psychologists of our time.

Wow. That's rather rude to the psychological community, don't you think? I think there are psychologists doing actual work (running sutdies, actually critically engaging across disciplines, not taking sabbaticals to dupe man-children out of money) who would be quite insulted at the suggestion that their work is less valuable than that of a self-help guru turned partisan con-man.

Seriously though, name one of Peterson's psychological arguments backed up by evidence and tested by scientific rigour. Name for me one academic journal article written by Doc. P. There aren't any that are famous because none of them were considered anything above mediocre by the academic psychological community.

I don't doubt that someone like Peterson will be quoted by people who haven't studied psychology to a university level, but by psychologists? By academics? Get the hell out of here. Richard Dawkins was (as I understand it) a perfectly fine evolutionary biologist but a terrible philosopher. Dawkins is discussed in philosophy because it is useful to have a "how not to do it" example to learn from. That is the only circumstance that I can see Peterson becoming a staple of teaching psychology. "Well cited" in terms of "Let me cite an example of how not to write your paper".

Zontar:
In a sane world Peterson never would have risen to where he is now in society at large, he's just have been remembered as one of the most respective and cited psychologists of our time.

Peterson stopped being an academic as soon as he spun his bullshit claims about C-16 into a sixty-thousand-dollar a month paycheck from Patreon. Ever since then, he's just been another Dr. Oz or Dr. Phil - a self-help guru who made the jump from professional practice to popular media by peddling ill-defined claptrap to people who don't know any better.

trunkage:
Can anyone explain how indentations are about identity politics or intersectionalism? I'd assume the Petersons (Him being a collectivist) of the world who complain about these things isn't an identitarian.

The new-fangled "identitarian movement" is a collaboration of north American and European white nationalist / far rightists. Originated in France, I think.

Jordan Peterson is definitely not an identitarian, although he's probably very popular with them (although not for reasons of white nationalism).

Zontar:
Though at least you're not pretending to know things about Canada that you clearly don't know much of anything about like Agema is.

Broadly, Canada has integrated immigrants better than most countries and it usually ranks high in terms of tolerance and inclusion. It has minimal problems with illegal immigration compared to the USA or Europe.

This is precisely why it's so disappointing for outliers on Canada's spectrum of social tolerance.

Zontar:
In a sane world Peterson never would have risen to where he is now in society at large, he's just have been remembered as one of the most respective and cited psychologists of our time.

Depends what we mean by "most". In terms of academic reputation, I doubt he'd even make it into the top 10 currently living psychologists in Canada, never mind the world. He's got a good but by no means exceptional publication record, and has contributed nothing recognised as truly groundbreaking.

So Peterson is definitely a respected and successful academic psychologist. More than that... no. Had a bunch of MRAs not latched on to him, you couldn't have told the difference between him and thousands of other toiling academic psychologists you'll never have heard of.

trunkage:
My opinion in short: Peterson criticises SJWs (good) by doing exactly what he criticises SJWs for.. He wants to increase one groups civil rights at the expense of others (typical SJW behaviour.) He says that certain groups should think for themselves and listen to people like him (very typical SJW). When I say I believe he's worse than Trump, this is why. Trump is just a troll who happens to have power. Peterson is smarter than Trump. Peterson is a true believer who thinks equality means taking rights away from certain groups. If he ever got power, Bill C-16-esque policies and regulations would be the norm, just against anyone he doesn't like (instead of against people who get offended over being demanded to use pronouns.)

I think you have a fundamentally different understanding of the concept of what is a right from most people. Peterson at no point has ever advocated taking away people's rights, and those opposed to Bill C-16 did no such thing. Forcing people to use made up pronouns in compelled speech with the threat of violence by the state to enforce it is a violation of the rights of those forced to used that compelled speech. Not being able to force people to use made up pronouns is not a violation of one's rights.

Anyway, Identarians. They sound like Right-Wing intersectionalists to me. Thoughts?

Well I can certainly see how intersectionalism could lead one to take their position if that's what you're saying, but then again intersectionality's logical conclusion is libertarianism with a disdain for socialism, and we don't really see that brand of socialist suddenly making the connections that lead to that, so I'm not sure how many intersectionalists actually follow through on that or just stop when it's convenient.

ineptelephant:

Wow. That's rather rude to the psychological community, don't you think? I think there are psychologists doing actual work (running sutdies, actually critically engaging across disciplines, not taking sabbaticals to dupe man-children out of money) who would be quite insulted at the suggestion that their work is less valuable than that of a self-help guru turned partisan con-man.

Given how Peterson's studies, papers, articles and the rest of his body of work is some of the most cited work in the field of psychology, no, anyone who isn't a "politics above professionalism" type wouldn't take issue with that. Even if he never does another peer reviewed work again he's done more then most in the field will over a career. Hell the two professors who caused the Wilfrid Laurier scandal have less citations between the collective body of both their careers then Peterson's average paper does. Though to be fair, their body of work is thoroughly unimpressive.

Seriously though, name one of Peterson's psychological arguments backed up by evidence and tested by scientific rigour. Name for me one academic journal article written by Doc. P. There aren't any that are famous because none of them were considered anything above mediocre by the academic psychological community.

You speak with odd authority for someone who wasn't aware of Peterson's position within the field before reading my post.

I don't doubt that someone like Peterson will be quoted by people who haven't studied psychology to a university level, but by psychologists? By academics? Get the hell out of here. Richard Dawkins was (as I understand it) a perfectly fine evolutionary biologist but a terrible philosopher. Dawkins is discussed in philosophy because it is useful to have a "how not to do it" example to learn from. That is the only circumstance that I can see Peterson becoming a staple of teaching psychology. "Well cited" in terms of "Let me cite an example of how not to write your paper".

Again, speaking with odd authority for a layman. Unless you're going to tell me of all the psychologists I've ever met (and as someone who took psychology in CEGEP, I've met a few more then most people) you're literally the first and only one so far who pretends being one of the most cited in the field means the opposite in psychology of what it would in literally any other field.

Hate Peterson all you like, but to pretend he isn't an expert on psychology and one of the most renowned in the field long before he became a household name, well that's just not in any way aligned with the facts.

bastardofmelbourne:

Zontar:
In a sane world Peterson never would have risen to where he is now in society at large, he's just have been remembered as one of the most respective and cited psychologists of our time.

Peterson stopped being an academic as soon as he spun his bullshit claims about C-16 into a sixty-thousand-dollar a month paycheck from Patreon. Ever since then, he's just been another Dr. Oz or Dr. Phil - a self-help guru who made the jump from professional practice to popular media by peddling ill-defined claptrap to people who don't know any better.

He wasn't exactly wrong about Bill C-16 though. In fact as has been discussed here to death already, unless one is willing to take the position of "well just because it's explicitly unconstitutional and that it could be abused, doesn't mean it will", there's really no defence for C-16, especially not from a liberal position (yeah I know I'm the one who keeps pointing out liberalism is dead in the West, but there's still a shocking number of opponents of liberalism who call themselves liberals)

Agema:

Zontar:
Though at least you're not pretending to know things about Canada that you clearly don't know much of anything about like Agema is.

Broadly, Canada has integrated immigrants better than most countries and it usually ranks high in terms of tolerance and inclusion. It has minimal problems with illegal immigration compared to the USA or Europe.

This is precisely why it's so disappointing for outliers on Canada's spectrum of social tolerance.

Oh boy, someone fell for propaganda it would seem. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but rumours of Canadian tolerance have been unimaginably exaggerated. I'm not the exception, I'm not an outlier, I'm the norm, I'm afraid, and if you take 5 steps outside of downtown Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver or Ottawa, the crushing reality of just how small the area of those studies that "prove" how tolerant Canada actually is. And its been getting worst up here just like its been getting worst in Europe, for much of the same reason (the issue isn't as bad, but Canadians are also quicker to react negatively to things then we'd care to admit). Sure we have a history of assimilating immigrants, but then we didn't until recently start getting ones that didn't want to assimilate, and the issues that's bringing up, well as I said, I'm the norm up here these days, not the exception.

There's a reason the conservatives had to rig their leadership race to prevent Bernier from winning, and why we're currently going through a strong blue wave at the ballot boxes. It isn't because we're innately superior beings (though that doesn't stop many foreigners from thinking that, many of our own people thinking that, or the Liberal party making policy predicated on the assumption that we are).

Agema:

Zontar:
In a sane world Peterson never would have risen to where he is now in society at large, he's just have been remembered as one of the most respective and cited psychologists of our time.

Depends what we mean by "most". In terms of academic reputation, I doubt he'd even make it into the top 10 currently living psychologists in Canada, never mind the world. He's got a good but by no means exceptional publication record, and has contributed nothing recognised as truly groundbreaking.

So Peterson is definitely a respected and successful academic psychologist. More than that... no. Had a bunch of MRAs not latched on to him, you couldn't have told the difference between him and thousands of other toiling academic psychologists you'll never have heard of.

Why is everyone who doesn't actively want to destroy Western civilisation accused of being an MRA these days? Or still actually, I thought that ended back in 2015-16ish.

Anyway given his position at the University of Toronto, he's definitely in the top 10 psychologists in the country. That's not one of the fields just any academic with a respectable career can get that spot for. Beyond that I couldn't say since that's where my knowledge ends, though given how much of a surplus of psychology degrees the US has I won't pretend to imagine he's in the top 10 in North America just through sheer numbers.

Agema:
Broadly, Canada has integrated immigrants better than most countries and it usually ranks high in terms of tolerance and inclusion. It has minimal problems with illegal immigration compared to the USA or Europe.

This is precisely why it's so disappointing for outliers on Canada's spectrum of social tolerance.

Honestly, people like Zontar have a serious problem integrating, see his parroting of Americanisms instead of adopting traditional Canadian values, I bet he barely speaks French too.

Zontar:
Someone from the island has no place talking about the South Shore like that.

We From The Island pay for all of you suburban hicks and keep the country's economy rolling. Have a bit of respect for your betters.

One more word from you and I'm sending the Bill 101 Secret Police after you.

Zontar:

He wasn't exactly wrong about Bill C-16 though. In fact as has been discussed here to death already, unless one is willing to take the position of "well just because it's explicitly unconstitutional and that it could be abused, doesn't mean it will", there's really no defence for C-16, especially not from a liberal position (yeah I know I'm the one who keeps pointing out liberalism is dead in the West, but there's still a shocking number of opponents of liberalism who call themselves liberals)

It literally just adds gender expression to the already existing hate speech statutes. It's shorter than this post.

Sonmi:

Zontar:
Someone from the island has no place talking about the South Shore like that.

We From The Island pay for all of you suburban hicks and keep the country's economy rolling. Have a bit of respect for your betters.

One more word from you and I'm sending the Bill 101 Secret Police after you.

Let me at them

image

altnameJag:

Zontar:

He wasn't exactly wrong about Bill C-16 though. In fact as has been discussed here to death already, unless one is willing to take the position of "well just because it's explicitly unconstitutional and that it could be abused, doesn't mean it will", there's really no defence for C-16, especially not from a liberal position (yeah I know I'm the one who keeps pointing out liberalism is dead in the West, but there's still a shocking number of opponents of liberalism who call themselves liberals)

It literally just adds gender expression to the already existing hate speech statutes. It's shorter than this post.

Yeah but most people aren't aware that the existing hate speech laws are as I described, doesn't really get the message across that it violates our constitution and is enforced by a kangaroo court that exists outside the judiciary that has literally 1 example of someone being found not guilty.

Zontar:
Given how Peterson's studies, papers, articles and the rest of his body of work is some of the most cited work in the field of psychology, no, anyone who isn't a "politics above professionalism" type wouldn't take issue with that.

That claim is unsupported nonsense. "most cited in the field of psychology" Hm? More than Freud? More than Jung? More than Skinner? Come on. You like the guy because he stands on your side of the "debate" around transgender rights and politically in general, I understand. Claiming that he's the most cited however is just absurd. You haven't bothered to look up total citations for psychologists. Not even for modern psychologists. Which is not to mention the problem with your argument where you assume that "most cited" means "most valid".

You speak with odd authority for someone who wasn't aware of Peterson's position within the field before reading my post.

Uhm what? Zontar, do you think you can read people's minds?

Again, speaking with odd authority for a layman. Unless you're going to tell me of all the psychologists I've ever met (and as someone who took psychology in CEGEP, I've met a few more then most people) you're literally the first and only one so far who pretends being one of the most cited in the field means the opposite in psychology of what it would in literally any other field.

Oh I see, Peterson is the most cited (and therefore respectable?) psychologist in his field because you met a few people who said so. Carry on then. Forgive me for doubting your solid base of evidence.

ineptelephant:

That claim is unsupported nonsense. "most cited in the field of psychology" Hm? More than Freud? More than Jung? More than Skinner? Come on.

I said " some of the most cited work in the field of psychology", amazing how you quoted the fact I said that in my comment quotation, making it visible to all, yet you still mined it when writing up your comment.

Uhm what? Zontar, do you think you can read people's minds?

Well I'll admit I was assuming since you speak like someone who isn't aware of his position in his field. Was assuming ignorance rather then malice, that you where not aware rather then lying.

Oh I see, Peterson is the most cited (and therefore respectable?) psychologist in his field because you met a few people who said so. Carry on then. Forgive me for doubting your solid base of evidence.

Citations aren't the be-all-end-all, true, but I'm going to trust the professional stance of a man on his field who has an average of mid-higher end 3 digit citations per paper/study over someone who has less then that for his collective body of work. Or two in the case of that scandal. Not a perfect metric, but a professor of psychology teaching at Toronto University isn't going to reach that position and be as cited as he is without at the very worst being an expert beyond most of those who enter the field, that is objectively the minimum bar he has crossed, and it pisses me off to see people who are laymen by comparison hurl insults and arguments devoid of substance at him because his political and/or religious views don't match with his, and they think that's enough to discredit him in their minds. It's part of the cancer that's killing academia.

Zontar:

ineptelephant:

That claim is unsupported nonsense. "most cited in the field of psychology" Hm? More than Freud? More than Jung? More than Skinner? Come on.

I said " some of the most cited work in the field of psychology", amazing how you quoted the fact I said that in my comment quotation, making it visible to all, yet you still mined it when writing up your comment.

Just a quick fun fact: I also have a body of work that is "some of the most cited in the field of psychology."[1]

I mean I've written all of a handful of undergrad papers for a Psych 101 course I once took, but 'some of the most' is one of those wonderful weasel phrases that when combined with your usual complete lack of evidence means absolutely nothing other than sounding impressive.

[1] depending on how big of a "some" we are taking

Avnger:

Zontar:

ineptelephant:

That claim is unsupported nonsense. "most cited in the field of psychology" Hm? More than Freud? More than Jung? More than Skinner? Come on.

I said " some of the most cited work in the field of psychology", amazing how you quoted the fact I said that in my comment quotation, making it visible to all, yet you still mined it when writing up your comment.

Just a quick fun fact: I also have a body of work that is "some of the most cited in the field of psychology."[1]

I mean I've written all of a handful of undergrad papers for a Psych 101 course I once took, but 'some of the most' is one of those wonderful weasel phrases that when combined with your usual complete lack of evidence means absolutely nothing other than sounding impressive.

Okay, someone who has been called as such by professional psychologists I know with more citations on his average work then the collective body of some of the people who've called him a hack, like the two who caused the Wilford Laurier scandal. Specific enough for you?

[1] depending on how big of a "some" we are taking

Zontar:

Yeah but most people aren't aware that the existing hate speech laws are as I described, doesn't really get the message across that it violates our constitution and is enforced by a kangaroo court that exists outside the judiciary that has literally 1 example of someone being found not guilty.

Weird. You don't normally keep unconstitutional things around for *checks notes* 40 years.

Back on topic: I'm not entirely surprised that multiple platforms would ban a dude who *checks notes* released somebody's personal information and maps to addresses associated with their family.

I mean, that'll get you banned from most forums on the internet.

Zontar:

Avnger:

Zontar:

I said " some of the most cited work in the field of psychology", amazing how you quoted the fact I said that in my comment quotation, making it visible to all, yet you still mined it when writing up your comment.

Just a quick fun fact: I also have a body of work that is "some of the most cited in the field of psychology."[1]

I mean I've written all of a handful of undergrad papers for a Psych 101 course I once took, but 'some of the most' is one of those wonderful weasel phrases that when combined with your usual complete lack of evidence means absolutely nothing other than sounding impressive.

Okay, someone who has been called as such by professional psychologists I know with more citations on his average work then the collective body of some of the people who've called him a hack, like the two who caused the Wilford Laurier scandal. Specific enough for you?

Still waiting for anything more than your personal anecdotes. Do you have an aversion to providing some sort of evidence or do you just have none?

[1] depending on how big of a "some" we are taking

I feel its ironic people are getting into an argument about how much someone is cited with a guy who quite notoriously never uses citations

What's this? Zontar is making unfounded claims and statements of fact without citations again?
Everyone, gather 'round and let's all say it together!
image

Zontar:
Citations aren't the be-all-end-all, true, but I'm going to trust the professional stance of a man on his field who has an average of mid-higher end 3 digit citations per paper/study over someone who has less then that for his collective body of work.

So... do you actually know just how many of those "average of mid-higher end 3 digit citations per paper/study" are good citations or are actually refuting his arguments??? Because the number of times someone is cited means nothing, for all you know, 90% of those citations could be people going "Look at this fucko! He's just so wrong! HAHAHA" You didn't even throw an actual fucking number out to back this shit up, you pulled an incredibly vague ballpark out of your own ass and you're using it as justification as to why JP has higher validity or credibility.

You're like Trump, Zontar, and this ain't a compliment, I assure you. In one breath you say "Citations aren't the be-all-end-all" yet the next you say "But I'm going to trust this person based entirely on how many times they've been cited over someone else's citation count." You've fallen past arguing in bad faith to just arguing badly.

Zontar:
I said " some of the most cited work in the field of psychology", amazing how you quoted the fact I said that in my comment quotation, making it visible to all, yet you still mined it when writing up your comment.

It's still absolutely untrue.

Peterson's most cited non-collaborative work is his book, maps of meaning, with 289 citations. His most cited collaborative work (which isn't actually his, Colin DeYoung, for example, who has collaborated with Peterson several times, has far more average citations than him) still has less than 1000.

John R. Anderson's most cited work has over 14,000 citations. Alan Baddeley, over 36,0000 citations. Albert Bandura, over 74,000 citations (more than Sigmund Freud's most cited work, in fact) and those are just a handful of people whom I picked because they're still alive. Heck, psychoanalytic feminist (and alleged Bulgarian spy) Julia Kristeva, whose work is relatively obscure in the Americas, has over 13,000. Luce Irigaray, another feminist psychoanalyst, has 7,000.

Then there's the "postmodern Marxists" Peterson himself has gone after. Jacques Derrida, more than 20,000 citations for one book. Michel Foucault, 73,000. Jacques Lacan, 12,000. Jean Paul Sartre, 12,000. Are you suggesting that Jordan Peterson was wrong, or a bad academic, for criticising people vastly, vastly more cited than himself?

But, since you're so concerned about people talking about things they don't understand, let me tell you a little inside secret.

Citation analysis is bullshit

It doesn't actually mean anything, because academia is not a popularity contest. "Celebrity academics" tend to have absurdly giant numbers of citations, but that doesn't mean anyone is actually reading the work they're cited in. Do you really think people are actually reading the 74,000 individual works Albert Bandura is cited in? Even if one is only trying to assess impact, as opposed to contribution to a field, citation statistics ultimately tell us nothing about the impact of someone's work because there's no way of knowing the reach or quality of those citations. Heck, with the kind of citations numbers Peterson typically gets (other than Maps of Meaning, his most cited individual work has 15 citations), he could very easily boost his own stats by just citing himself in his collaborative research even if it's entirely irrelevant.

Jordan Peterson's name is mud in academia. He's an emotionally unstable little man who cries on youtube, and for some reason that's enough to make him a "celebrity academic", but his actual academic work is trash. Some of the people who criticize him may have fewer citations, but they're almost undeniably better and more relevant academics by virtue of actually producing any academic work worth reading, or by being able to teach, or by engaging with their discipline. Peterson does none of these things. Writing self-help books and talking to youtube may pay the bills, but it isn't academic work.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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