Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 745

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time

His commentary on religion is no different than that of Pat Robertson or Kirk Cameron. He just uses bigger words. And he’s never been reasonable.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

darthrush said:

I don’t like Peterson’s views on women or the fact that he thinks there can not be art without religion.

He used to seem like a pretty reasonable guy who was a well mannered debater but slowly his ideas have been getting crazier and crazier.

Crazy pays the bills?

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

darthrush said:

I don’t like Peterson’s views on women or the fact that he thinks there can not be art without religion.

He used to seem like a pretty reasonable guy who was a well mannered debater but slowly his ideas have been getting crazier and crazier.

Crazy pays the bills?

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Hot damn! We should start our own cult or something. We can worship a giant velvet painting of Ric Olie…

And I totally misread that as creating a Giant Bender.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jordan Peterson doesn’t really have ideas. He’s intentionally vague, slippery, and convoluted in order for his followers to basically interpret his drivel in ways that are personal to them. It also helps so that when people call him out for being full of shit, he can pretend that they’re “misunderstanding” his points when in reality there are no real points at all.

First, citation needed?

Second, you say this as though the media in general doesn’t do this. Drumming up drama that likely didn’t previously exist so that they can make themselves sound justified when they complain about it.

So even if Peterson does this, which I’m not convinced he does, he certainly would not be the first, last, or only person to do this on either side of the fence. There’s an entire culture and market where people and corporations make money off of manufactured drama.

I can’t give a citation because my impression is based on literally everything I’ve ever heard him say or seen him write. I have yet to be impressed by a single sentence that this charlatan has uttered. Expose yourself to some of his work and you’ll see what I mean. His speeches are just ramblings filled with big words.

My problem really is that it would be easier to paint him as stupid if the people who report on him as being stupid weren’t themselves equal or greater in stupidity. Reporting on a report on an opinion about some of what he said is one example. Another is his interview with Cathy “So-What-You’re-Saying-Is…” Newman.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jordan Peterson doesn’t really have ideas. He’s intentionally vague, slippery, and convoluted in order for his followers to basically interpret his drivel in ways that are personal to them. It also helps so that when people call him out for being full of shit, he can pretend that they’re “misunderstanding” his points when in reality there are no real points at all.

First, citation needed?

Second, you say this as though the media in general doesn’t do this. Drumming up drama that likely didn’t previously exist so that they can make themselves sound justified when they complain about it.

So even if Peterson does this, which I’m not convinced he does, he certainly would not be the first, last, or only person to do this on either side of the fence. There’s an entire culture and market where people and corporations make money off of manufactured drama.

I can’t give a citation because my impression is based on literally everything I’ve ever heard him say or seen him write. I have yet to be impressed by a single sentence that this charlatan has uttered. Expose yourself to some of his work and you’ll see what I mean. His speeches are just ramblings filled with big words.

My problem really is that it would be easier to paint him as stupid if the people who report on him as being stupid weren’t themselves equal or greater in stupidity. Reporting on a report on an opinion about some of what he said is one example. Another is his interview with Cathy “So-What-You’re-Saying-Is…” Newman.

I don’t know what this means, but Peterson is one of the dumbest voices in the political discourse these days. Now he’s moved on to basically being a self-help guru, but writing about a piece about Peterson is not as stupid as Jordan Peterson’s “ideas.”

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

SilverWook said:

Hot damn! We should start our own cult or something. We can worship a giant velvet painting of Ric Olie…

And I totally misread that as creating a Giant Bender.

Since that picture, he’s doubled his number of monthly donors and likely makes 100,000 dollars a year. And before anyone accuses me of jealousy, I’ll just admit it. (That’s my trademark honesty.) I wish that I could make a million bucks a year from lying to stupid people on the internet. I would love to have it that easy. So yeah, I’m jealous!

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

One of his tenants in his self help book is ‘Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them’. Another is ‘Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street’.

This man is selling snake oil like it’s going out of style.

she/her

Author
Time

Thankfully none of his followers have kids. 😉

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Hold on a minute. I really hope you just punked me, or something, because the insanity of that latter tenant just hit me. What kind of moron would advocate touching strange animals? That’s the kind of thing that kindergarten teachers tell five year-olds not to do. You don’t just pet a random animal. That’s not safe. For Christ’s sake!

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jordan Peterson doesn’t really have ideas. He’s intentionally vague, slippery, and convoluted in order for his followers to basically interpret his drivel in ways that are personal to them. It also helps so that when people call him out for being full of shit, he can pretend that they’re “misunderstanding” his points when in reality there are no real points at all.

First, citation needed?

Second, you say this as though the media in general doesn’t do this. Drumming up drama that likely didn’t previously exist so that they can make themselves sound justified when they complain about it.

So even if Peterson does this, which I’m not convinced he does, he certainly would not be the first, last, or only person to do this on either side of the fence. There’s an entire culture and market where people and corporations make money off of manufactured drama.

I can’t give a citation because my impression is based on literally everything I’ve ever heard him say or seen him write. I have yet to be impressed by a single sentence that this charlatan has uttered. Expose yourself to some of his work and you’ll see what I mean. His speeches are just ramblings filled with big words.

My problem really is that it would be easier to paint him as stupid if the people who report on him as being stupid weren’t themselves equal or greater in stupidity. Reporting on a report on an opinion about some of what he said is one example. Another is his interview with Cathy “So-What-You’re-Saying-Is…” Newman.

I don’t know what this means

You aren’t alone.

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Hold on a minute. I really hope you just punked me, or something, because the insanity of that latter tenant just hit me. What kind of moron would advocate touching strange animals? That’s the kind of thing that kindergarten teachers tell five year-olds not to do. You don’t just pet a random animal. That’s not safe. For Christ’s sake!

I pet random dogs all the time. Sometimes random cats.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

darthrush said:

I don’t like Peterson’s views on women or the fact that he thinks there can not be art without religion.

He used to seem like a pretty reasonable guy who was a well mannered debater but slowly his ideas have been getting crazier and crazier.

Crazy pays the bills?

Ain’t that the truth. Unfortunately in this new world of clicks and likes, vocally agreeing with them makes them money, vocally disagreeing with them makes them money and even just researching what they said makes them money. Only completely ignoring them puts them out of business, something people (including us in this thread) will fail to do every time.

VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.

Author
Time

I recommend anyone reading articles about Peterson actually read or listen to Peterson instead. I don’t agree with everything he says (like a lot of the religious-based theory), but is that a reason to discount him completely? The biggest issue with discourse today is that we throw away entire people because we don’t agree with one or two things they say.

He’s been portrayed as an anti-Semite (despite lecturing extensively about the dangers of fascism as it relates to the Holocaust and the lessons to be learned from it), a misogynist (despite presenting some of his most touching points while talking about how much he treasures his wife and daughter), a fascist (despite his entire platform being free speech and vehemently anti-fascist), and a host of other things that don’t align with what he says.

The Vibe interview, which was heavily edited for broadcast, made Peterson look crazy. At least watch the unedited version (available on YouTube) before coming to any conclusions. I don’t agree that he was saying women are hypocrites for wearing makeup; he simply acknowledged what makeup is at its core (something that enhances attractiveness by simulating good health through clear skin and replicating aspects of sexual response, like rosy cheeks) and why that might confuse some men. He often answers with “I don’t know” when presented with baiting questions, which apparently is a crime based on the ways interviewers react.

There’s a huge gap between what Peterson says and what others say he says. Disagree with his ideas all you want, but don’t form your opinions about people based entirely on what other people say about them, especially with so much material freely available.

I recommend his more recent interviews with Dave Rubin. They’re relatively relaxed discussions. I watched one just yesterday where Peterson admits his acerbic style hasn’t benefited him in many cases, so he’s working on his delivery. He’s had a tendency to go after his interviewers pretty hard in the past, though frankly I think most of them deserved it for asking terrible questions.

I used to be fairly hard left, but after seeing the massive discrepancies between mainstream reporting about some of these supposedly “alt-right” personalities and what the subjects of their articles actually say and do, I’ve started to wonder what other things we’re being told that are complete horseshit, or at least are being run through a left-leaning political filter. It seems like anything to the right of socialism is being cast as alt-right in an attempt to lump it all together.

I’m not a Trump supporter by any means, but holy hell have liberals lost their minds since he was elected.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

I used to be fairly hard left, but after seeing the massive discrepancies between mainstream reporting about some of these supposedly “alt-right” personalities and what the subjects of their articles actually say and do, I’ve started to wonder what other things we’re being told that are complete horseshit, or at least are being run through a left-leaning political filter. It seems like anything to the right of socialism is being cast as alt-right in an attempt to lump it all together.

I’m not a Trump supporter by any means, but holy hell have liberals lost their minds since he was elected.

Well this explains the SJW crack the other day I guess.

Beyond that you seem to be making a sweeping generalization about left-leaning political filters?

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

I used to be fairly hard left, but after seeing the massive discrepancies between mainstream reporting about some of these supposedly “alt-right” personalities and what the subjects of their articles actually say and do, I’ve started to wonder what other things we’re being told that are complete horseshit, or at least are being run through a left-leaning political filter. It seems like anything to the right of socialism is being cast as alt-right in an attempt to lump it all together.

I’m not a Trump supporter by any means, but holy hell have liberals lost their minds since he was elected.

Well this explains the SJW crack the other day I guess.

Beyond that you seem to be making a sweeping generalization about left-leaning political filters?

I’ve been exposed to a ton of radical nonsense in the tech industry lately. Saw a guy on Twitter get absolutely roasted by a fairly prominent feminist in the tech industry because his new book title had the word “craftsman” in it. This guy wasn’t a native English speaker and was absolutely beaming about his accomplishment of having published a programming book, and this woman with 40k followers ripped him to shreds and demanded everyone boycott the book because it didn’t say “craftsperson”.

This is the dude’s livelihood and she’s going to hit him that hard over a single word? Why not use it as an opportunity to have a dialog about it and maybe get him to change it for subsequent print runs (or patch the electronic versions)?

I always have time for a discussion about diversity and how some words can be exclusionary, but I don’t have time for hitting regular people in their bank account over something so petty. It’s out of control.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY

Author
Time

There are stupid people on both sides and don’t think focusing in on them is terribly helpful in general; if anything it just makes things worse.

Author
Time

Jay said:

It seems like anything to the right of socialism is being cast as alt-right in an attempt to lump it all together.

Woah, am I thinking of a different America or something?

i’m a girl she/her

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

There are stupid people on both sides and don’t think focusing in on them is terribly helpful in general; if anything it just makes things worse.

Labeling them as “stupid people” makes it easy to dismiss them, until you realize they’ve achieved notoriety, power, and an ability to shift the discourse, and ultimately the direction of society.

Jeebus said:

Jay said:

It seems like anything to the right of socialism is being cast as alt-right in an attempt to lump it all together.

Woah, am I thinking of a different America or something?

There’s some hyperbole in there, but the general sentiment stands. Some of the stuff being labeled as alt-right is just regular old conservatism (and even classical liberalism) that isn’t far left enough for the hard left to consider within the bounds of reason.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY

Author
Time

I just mean that focusing on the hyperbolizers does nothing to further intelligent discussion. People shouldn’t swear off certain ideas just because some people are bad at expressing them.

Pushing back against these loud and harmful types seems like a separate issue to me.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

I just mean that focusing on the hyperbolizers does nothing to further intelligent discussion. People shouldn’t swear off certain ideas just because some people are bad at expressing them.

Pushing back against these loud and harmful types seems like a separate issue to me.

Gotcha. I don’t want to focus on them, but we have to deal with them when they start to affect the lives of real people.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

I recommend anyone reading articles about Peterson actually read or listen to Peterson instead. I don’t agree with everything he says (like a lot of the religious-based theory), but is that a reason to discount him completely? The biggest issue with discourse today is that we throw away entire people because we don’t agree with one or two things they say.

I’ve disagreed with everything he’s ever said.

He’s been portrayed as an anti-Semite (despite lecturing extensively about the dangers of fascism as it relates to the Holocaust and the lessons to be learned from it),

Can’t speak to this. I know nothing about it.

a misogynist (despite presenting some of his most touching points while talking about how much he treasures his wife and daughter),

He says women that don’t want to be harassed are hypocrites if they wear makeup. He believes they’re responsible for procreating. He laments the fact that he can’t get away with hitting “crazy women” when they compare him to Nazis. He thinks “enforced monogamy” will stop mass shootings. There’s many more, but women have every reason to think that Peterson is not someone that has their interests at heart.

a fascist (despite his entire platform being free speech and vehemently anti-fascist)

He constantly advocates violence over mere words. His response to the Times article was to say that he wanted to slap the author. He also has advocated violence towards socialists. Also, “enforced monogamy” sounds incredibly fascist to me. He’s very authoritarian at heart. His self-help book is basically just a list of edicts for others to follow.

The Vibe interview, which was heavily edited for broadcast, made Peterson look crazy. At least watch the unedited version (available on YouTube) before coming to any conclusions. I don’t agree that he was saying women are hypocrites for wearing makeup; he simply acknowledged what makeup is at its core (something that enhances attractiveness by simulating good health through clear skin and replicating aspects of sexual response, like rosy cheeks) and why that might confuse some men.

Even if I were to concede that the only reason women wore makeup was to appear attractive, that’s no excuse for “confused” men. If I see someone with makeup on that I find attractive, I never assume that they are trying to appear attractive to me specifically. They could want to appear attractive to their own partner, or someone else at work, or maybe they just like the way they look with makeup on. Not committing sexual harassment is the simplest and easiest thing in the world.

There’s a huge gap between what Peterson says and what others say he says. Disagree with his ideas all you want, but don’t form your opinions about people based entirely on what other people say about them, especially with so much material freely available.

I certainly haven’t done that. His worldview is totally antithetical to my philosophy by which I live, and that’s based on what he’s said, not what others have said about what he’s said.

I used to be fairly hard left, but after seeing the massive discrepancies between mainstream reporting about some of these supposedly “alt-right” personalities and what the subjects of their articles actually say and do, I’ve started to wonder what other things we’re being told that are complete horseshit, or at least are being run through a left-leaning political filter. It seems like anything to the right of socialism is being cast as alt-right in an attempt to lump it all together.

This is not true. Socialism, as we saw in the election, was quashed by the supposedly fringe-left mainstream media in favor of the centrist corporate candidate Hillary Clinton. There was no leftist candidate available in the 2016 election other than Jill Stein who was not going to win. As for your alt-right comment, I actually don’t see much difference between the alt-right and the normal right. It’s a lot more openly racist and regressive, but it’s basically just modern-day Republicanism amped up to a frightening extreme. And the right hasn’t distanced itself from it at all.

I’m not a Trump supporter by any means, but holy hell have liberals lost their minds since he was elected.

“liberals lost their minds”? Every single one of them? I mean, if they did it’d be kind of fair given that Trump is the most illiberal president in about a century, but how have they lost their minds? What are they calling for now that is so much crazier than what liberals were calling for five years ago?

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

I used to be fairly hard left, but after seeing the massive discrepancies between mainstream reporting about some of these supposedly “alt-right” personalities and what the subjects of their articles actually say and do, I’ve started to wonder what other things we’re being told that are complete horseshit, or at least are being run through a left-leaning political filter. It seems like anything to the right of socialism is being cast as alt-right in an attempt to lump it all together.

This is not true. Socialism, as we saw in the election, was quashed by the supposedly fringe-left mainstream media in favor of the centrist corporate candidate Hillary Clinton. There was no leftist candidate available in the 2016 election other than Jill Stein who was not going to win.

Ehhh. If we’re talking about Sanders here, I wouldn’t really consider him a socialist. He calls himself a “democratic socialist,” but his platform was much more “social democrat.” Other than that, I agree. The Overton window in America has been totally shifted to the right. There is no left-wing party, leftists don’t have a voice in national politics.

i’m a girl she/her