Post: #1

Anyone heard of this guy? He's a right-wing professor in Canada who started out as an atheist liberal and ended up seeing what was actually happening. Suffice to say his kind is a rarity in academia these days. He makes his cases with hard facts, logic, and reference to the material, staying articulate without descending into vitriol or conspiracy theory. I wonder how he survives.

Here's one of his speeches.
https://youtu.be/aDRgMUoEvcg?t=31m12s

Quote:...and then when the Marxists say, well that wasn't real Marxism, what it really means, and I've thought about this for a long time, it's the most arrogant possible statement anyone could ever make.

It means, if I would've been in Stalin's position I would've ushered in the damn utopia instead of the genocidal massacres because I understand the doctrines of Marxism and everything about me is good It's like well think again sunshine, you don't understand it, you don't understand it and you're not that good. And if the power was in your hands, assuming you had the confidence, which you don't, you wouldn't have done any better and even if you had there would've been someone else waiting right behind you to shoot you the first time you actually tried to do anything good. And that's what happened to all of the old guard who ran the damn revolution. Stalin rounded them all up and shot them, along with their families and millions of other people.

So even if you do happen to be that avatar of moral purity that you claim implicitly, the probability that you'd get to act out your goodness in relationship to those possessed by your ideology is zero.

Post: #2

Is he really right-winged though? I figured he was more in the camp of Sargon of Akkad. Still liberal but not a totalitarian

Post: #3

Search function is your friend:

Canadian Professor stirs up controversy by refusing to use non-binary pronouns

"Non-Binary" Academic Refuses To Debate Psychology Professor On Gender Pronouns

Joe Rogan's Most Red Pill Interview Ever

I agree though that Peterson deserves his own thread discssung his work in general, in the Deep Forum.
I've been going through his youtube channel recently, watching the "Maps of Meaning" and "Personality" lecture series.
Highly interesting stuff. Very accessible, never gets boring and I already learned a lot.

Post: #4

Yeah, I think Peterson deserves his own thread in the deep forum.

This should be a thread about his ideas, and the other threads can be about his activism. One central thread that is about what he thinks. The first two threads Belgrano listed are about his activism. The Rogan thread doesn't even have Peterson's name in the title, so is basically unsearchable.

I have listened to a lot of his lectures and debates, and have regretted that I wasn't taking notes because there are some really good takeaways from each one, even if it is only a line or two to be used in political discussion.

I am planning to take notes from now on when I listen to his talks, to give a summary of each one plus relevant or useful quotes.

I think this dude is special. He combines politics and academics and morality and religion in ways that no one else I know of is doing right now.

I have listened to him on a lot of podcasts, and he almost without exception totally inspires the hosts, I mean you can hear the rising excitement in their voices by the end of the conversation. Bryan Callen. Joe Rogan. A couple others I can't remember.

Even me, to be honest. I have gotten pretty jaded about academic thinking, feeling like it is a lot of hot air most of the time, and he gets me inspired to get back into it. When I was an undergraduate, there was nothing more stimulating that intellectual discovery and exploration, and I would like to get that back.

So a Jordan Peterson master thread about his ideas is a really good idea, and will be a benefit to everyone on the forum.

Even his video about what social justice is, one of the first videos back in November when he got a lot of heat was so short, so succinct, and so well thought out. I am going to watch it again soon.

Leave the activism to the other threads. Let this be the place for the ideas of Jordan Peterson. Because he is so well read, it will also end up touching on Jung, Nietzsche, Solzhenitsyn, Dostoevsky, all the people Peterson has read closely and deeply, and who knows what other past masters of western civilization.

I see no downsides to a Master Peterson Thread.

Any time you listen to one of his lectures, leave a link and your impressions and takeaways from his speech, even if it is only a line or two. Hell, even if it is only a new link.

I think it will benefit anyone who takes the time to look at it. I love Tucker Carlson as much as anyone, but he hits a lot of weak targets. Peterson really gives you a chance to dig in a subject.

Post: #5

@Belgrano:　Apologies, I searched his name and couldn't find anything.

(03-15-2017 11:28 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  I am planning to take notes from now on when I listen to his talks, to give a summary of each one plus relevant or useful quotes.

I think this dude is special. He combines politics and academics and morality and religion in ways that no one else I know of is doing right now.

The right really needs to support these sorts of guys, because occupying the castle of academia is what gives the left their veneer of legitimacy. Guys can sit around on forums all day coming up with the most brilliant of conjectures and it will mean jack all if it can't go mainstream.

(03-15-2017 09:38 AM)alexdagr81 Wrote:  Is he really right-winged though? I figured he was more in the camp of Sargon of Akkad. Still liberal but not a totalitarian

He doesn't have to be pure rightwing to have his good ideas become powerful, that's my thinking at least.

Post: #6

He's been on the Sam Harris podcast twice in recent months.

They clashed on the idea of 'truth' on the first one and the podcast kind of stagnated.

First: https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-is-true

Second: https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/m...-and-chaos

Interesting dude.

Post: #7

(03-15-2017 02:12 PM)3extra Wrote:  He's been on the Sam Harris podcast twice in recent months.

They clashed on the idea of 'truth' on the first one and the podcast kind of stagnated.

First: https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-is-true

Second: https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/m...-and-chaos

Interesting dude.

I found the first podcast to be pretty uncompelling. I think the main problem is that deep down, Peterson is a spiritual person trying to squeeze his spirituality into academic terms, and Harris is pretty much a standard empirically minded academic. I don't think there is any way for the two to come together.

Post: #8

He may be a classical liberal (in the European sense). And if he is, thank god. We need more of them in the limelight.

Anyway, besides his obvious intelligence and passion, he possess something that I did not think would be effective in the modern colosseum of culture, and that is his earnestness and gentleness.

In the other thread, Ghost Tiger and I were debating on whether or not he should crank up the rhetoric. But it seems like on the Joe Rogan podcast he just laid it all out without the usual vitriol and need to score cheap points on one's enemies. He came off as a real honest man forced into this realization.

The effect I saw on my social media from normies who rarely care about real politics was massive. People started referencing him and comparing him to the various SJWs they co-exist with (whether it was friends, media figures, professors, or co-workers). Something about Peterson's logico-moral mysticism connected with them on a major level.

He is bludgeoning the left with dialectics.

Post: #9

(03-15-2017 11:28 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  Yeah, I think Peterson deserves his own thread in the deep forum

[...]

I think this dude is special. He combines politics and academics and morality and religion in ways that no one else I know of is doing right now.

I have listened to him on a lot of podcasts, and he almost without exception totally inspires the hosts, I mean you can hear the rising excitement in their voices by the end of the conversation. Bryan Callen. Joe Rogan. A couple others I can't remember.

Even me, to be honest. I have gotten pretty jaded about academic thinking, feeling like it is a lot of hot air most of the time, and he gets me inspired to get back into it. When I was an undergraduate, there was nothing more stimulating that intellectual discovery and exploration, and I would like to get that back.

(The following is from here)

Gents, I encourage you to check out Professor Peterson's website [1], not just for the vids highlighting his courageous fight for free speech, coherent debate, and scientific integrity [2], but also to consider his vast contributions to scientific knowledge. To take just two examples that may appeal to the RVF membership - a university lecture on youtube re: personality-based gender differences [3], and an academic paper re: the contribution of neuroticism to the relative happiness of conservatives [4].

Professor Peterson, I salute you.

Links:

[1] http://jordanbpeterson.com
[2] Dana B Barr: "Integrity in Science" (Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 2007)
[3] Jordan Peterson: "2016 Personality Lecture 12: Gender Differences: Agreeableness and other traits: the Science" (Youtube video, 2016)
[4] Jordan Peterson: "Why Do Conservatives Report Being Happier Than Liberals? The Contribution of Neuroticism" (Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 2015).

Post: #10

(03-15-2017 03:22 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  He may be a classical liberal (in the European sense). And if he is, thank god. We need more of them in the limelight.

Anyway, besides his obvious intelligence and passion, he possess something that I did not think would be effective in the modern colosseum of culture, and that is his earnestness and gentleness.

In the other thread, Ghost Tiger and I were debating on whether or not he should crank up the rhetoric. But it seems like on the Joe Rogan podcast he just laid it all out without the usual vitriol and need to score cheap points on one's enemies. He came off as a real honest man forced into this realization.

The effect I saw on my social media from normies who rarely care about real politics was massive. People started referencing him and comparing him to the various SJWs they co-exist with (whether it was friends, media figures, professors, or co-workers). Something about Peterson's logico-moral mysticism connected with them on a major level.

He is bludgeoning the left with dialectics.

You and me brother, I was having the same debate with him. Let Jordan be Jordan, he is doing fine. And that's that.

Post: #11

(03-15-2017 11:28 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  Any time you listen to one of his lectures, leave a link and your impressions and takeaways from his speech, even if it is only a line or two. Hell, even if it is only a new link.

His Personality course lectures have been fantastic and worth every moment (I just finished Existentialism). I also have been keeping notes on some of the ideas that especially jumped out at me, and was planning to put them together into a post here to share with the forum.

Interestingly Peterson mentions at times many tidbits that are game-applicable and almost sound game-aware; perhaps he is aware of some online stuff, but I think more likely it is simply because he is an educated and keen observer of humanity.

Some of my favorite passages with summaries/quotes (I tried embedding the videos but the time stamps kept coming up off):


Lobsters live in dominance hierarchies and use the serotonin system to keep track of their dominance position, when they are at bottom of the social hierarchy they become “depressed”, and when at the top serotonin increases (serotonin system is also responsible for depression in humans). Can give antidepressants to loser lobsters and they don’t feel so bad after a fight. So the social basis of our being is so ingrained that the same system from 300 million years ago is still operating at the base of our brain. “That's why status and reputation are so important to people . . . How people respond to you and what they think of you, that matters."


The dominant chimpanzees are not the ruthless, violent tyrants; sometimes there will be one who acts like that, but then the other chimps gang up and tear him to pieces. The chimps that tend to be the most dominant for the longest time have a wide network of friends, engage in many “social” interactions like grooming, and they actually pay a lot of positive attention to the female chimps (who have their own hierarchy).


(showing picture of Medusa looking at her own reflection, “mother nature with a head full of snakes”)
that’s actually an archetype to some degree that men get confused with women, that’s the “witchy” part of women, that’s the part that’s attractive, attractive, but rejecting, rejecting; and so many men are petrified of women, they won’t approach them at all, they have no idea how to talk to them, they’re just petrified into immobility, and that’s way more common than you think; and so that breeds resentment like you wouldn’t believe; like the guy that shot up Dawson College, what the hell do you think motivated him? . . . that’s what he saw (pointing at Medusa head) . . . and it’s because he was too damn useless to be attractive to anyone . . . and that’s the problem, if you’re chronically rejected by people it’s often because of your own insufficiencies . . . whether that’s cowardice or lack of social skills, or whatever it is . . . you can’t just brush it off as “oh well no one really likes me but I’m okay” . . . it’s like no, wrong, if everybody rejects you, there’s probably something wrong . . . but getting all whiney about it and then violent is not very helpful, but it’s really common.

Post: #12

Social Justice/Freedom of Speech: Bill C16 Debate Queen's Law School

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAQlleqDgbI

This was well worthwhile. Jordan discussed the pronoun / identity situation with mastery. Some quotes:

“I refuse to cede linguistic territory to the people with whom I disagree. Once you cede linguistic ground to your adversaries you have decided that you are going to play a game within the rules that they have established. And therefore you lose.

Louis C.K. said ‘If you call someone an asshole, they can’t actually object, because it’s not up to them.’ It’s up to someone else to determine if that’s the case, because that identity classification is actually a socially negotiated process.

And that’s the thing about your identity. The idea that your identity is a subjective construct, and I’m being literally truthful about that, that’s what two-year-olds think.

Your identity is like your reputation. You think you get to have the reputation you want? Well, good luck with that one! We’re so good at tracking reputation we have an evolved module for remembering reputation. You cheat once, I’ll never forget it. And you don’t get to object to that. I mean, you can, but that isn’t going to change the outcome. And it doesn’t change the fact that your reputation, which is certainly a major part of your identity, is something that is dependent on the interactions that you have with other people. To revert to the notion that it’s a purely subjective construct – I just can’t believe we are seriously considering it, let alone writing it into law.”

Post: #13

Right now I am listening to his video where he talks to the class of a sympathetic colleague's at Ryerson University:





My comments will be in parentheses. My emphases in bold.

First he recaps the early videos that got him in so much trouble that are chronicled in the thread here:

/thread-58559.html

Regarding the first video:





He is opposed to Canadian Bill C:16 because it is written so badly and dangerously especially where it expands hate speech laws to include misgendering people.

2:56 Especially the lunacy of employers being legally responsible for any consequences of the speech of their employees whether intended or not.

(Like if a person who was born as a man but identifies as a women happens to be expressing her gender in a masculine way that day accidentally gets called sir.)

4:05 This is one of his key points, he believes that the idea that your identity is a matter of pure personal choice and whim is insane.

He believes that identity consists of two things.

One:

4:05

Quote:[Identity is] a functional set of tools to help you operate in in the world.

He references Piaget who believes that this starts when the baby is at the breast, and starts to learn to balance desires against the demands of the environment.

He further states:

Quote:Your identity is a negotiated game and you are not in charge of it by any stretch of the imagination at all.

This learning continues when you play with other kids and you integrate your desires into the broader social game.

For Peterson, this is the first part of identity, the social part. The second part is the biological part:

6:30 Here Peterson puts it plainly:

Quote:The idea that identity has no biological basis is factually wrong.

He says they have written into the bill that identity is pure whim.

Now he goes on to list some of the biological dimensions of identity.

7:19 Gender identity is not a spectrum, it is a "modified bi-modal distribution" with some exceptions.

7:34 99.7% of everyone who has a biological identity as a male or a female identifies as a male or a female.

Gender expression as well sexual orientation are similarly divided into two categories.

Hence:

8:43

Quote:It's not a spectrum, and that's that!

(As far as I am concerned, this stuff is important to know, to battle the social constructionists. Not a spectrum, a bi-modal distribution with some exceptions. It cuts the solipsistic arguments at the knees. You don't get to believe whatever you want to, bitches.)

8:47 Here he lists personality differences between men and women that are consistent across cultures and expressed through differences between men and women in the Big Five personality traits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_p...ity_traits

If you want to understand Peterson fully, you will have to look into the Big Five personality traits. He references them over and over in his talks.

The basic personality differences between men and women is that women are high in trait agreeableness, and high in neuroticism, across all cultures.

Men are low in both across all cultures.

That is why more men are in prison,(low agreeableness) and more women have psychiatric disorders (high neuroticism, as in negative emotions, as in depression and anxiety.)

He also goes on the list the differences between men and women in terms of gross morphology, which he says exist at every level, from the cellular to the social.

Okay, I am stopping here today. Damn, look at all that writing, and I am only 9 minutes into an hour and a half lecture. Either I gotta work on my summarizing, or this is key stuff and I am glad I wrote it down.

Anyway, these are key concepts, because you should be able to crush anyone who tries to argue gender identity is a spectrum because there is great evidence that:

1. Identity is a functional set of tools to survive socially, not whatever you want it to be.
2. The vast majority of gender identity and expression matches biological sex.
3. Men and women even have personality differences that match their biology across cultures
   

Post: #14

I really like Peterson's insights on psychology. Here he talks about the importance of external identity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFeIRVueNRM

Reminds me oddly of a book from WWII where some Japanese guys mention that imperial subjects are made from the outside in; I think there's some merit to that.

And something here on maternal thinking, which feminists stupidly reject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPAfS8-wm8g

Post: #15

This is a continuation of the above post.

Peterson now covers the second of his two videos that caused all the controversy:






The second vid covers the practices of the HR department at the University of Toronto on two fronts.

The first is the current equity strategy, equity, not equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome. The second is the use of faulty tests for the HR department to find unconscious bias and then reeducate them.

Essentially, what he does, as I cover in this post, is follow these two policies to their logical conclusion, which is absurdity.


The basic idea, Peterson says, is that a certain group, in this case HR, gets to define demographics as it suits them. In this case it is women and men. Now, if any department from the top to the bottom of University does not have absolutely fifty/ fifty distribution between men and women, it is deemed corrupt and discriminatory, and measures are taken.

10:00 Here he makes on of his very best points, and it might end up being the best takeaway from this video.

He says that in Sweden, a place where they have taken legal and social measures to make sure everything is equal between men and women, instead of finding men and women becoming more alike they actually become more different.

In Sweden, there is 20 to 1 ratio of women to men in nursing, and a 20 to 1 ratio of men to women in engineering.

Therefore:

12:30

Quote:Social constructionism is wrong!

(I am hoping to find the reference to this study, since it was a population wide study, not a small group.)

Not only is it wrong, but Peterson points out that for it to be right:

13:59

Quote:you have to assume men and women have identical interests and temperaments and that if they don't the state should bloody well intervene to insure that they do.

So, you have the fact that women and men are naturally different, and these ideologues want the state to force them to be the same.

Already insane.

He goes on to say that what about Asians, Indians, Jews, gays, etc. that are over-represented in certain professions, do we want to even that out too?

He is exposing the basic absurdity of identity politics here, the fact that it sounds good in the moment, but breaks down into absurdity in the long run.

15:22

Quote:The problem with fractionation by group identity is that it's endless.

He believes that eventually you will fractionate it all the way down to the individual, except that there is already a culture that does that, and it is Western Civilization, where the ultimate group is the individual.

Now, the second part of his beef in this video is with the HR department has to do with their policies on unconscious biases, and while at the moment these rules only apply to the HR department itself, he wisely says that it is already other places and is probably coming for you.

He is very disturbed by the idea that you will soon be forced to let the state muck around as he says with your perceptions, to retrain them.

He takes issue with the Harvard Implicit Association Test, which I believe is the instrument that is being used widely now to determine whether or not someone has unconscious biases. He says that even the author has admitted that the test is not reliable as a diagnostic.

(I was curious about this test. I took it here: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/. I took the Weapons IAT, that purports to determine whether or not you associate danger with blacks or not. These were my results:

Quote:Here is your result:
Your data suggest a moderate automatic association for Harmless Objects with Black Americans and Weapons with White Americans.

It is a very odd test in which they are continually changing which keys to press for which results and measuring the rapidity of response. I think the idea is that if you are quick to click on a dangerous weapon after you clicked on a black face, and slower with a white face, you associate black people with weapons more, or something.

As you can see from my results, I consider blacks more harmless --but can't that be an insult itself?- and whites as more dangerous or associated with guns. It seemed to me that because they changed which buttons to use to indicate black and white people, and harmless and dangerous, it might also be that your rates would speed up as you got used to the new buttons. It might be that I have seen more movies with rednecks in them or more white people talking about the 2nd amendment. Seems to prove nothing.

Never mind, you might want to take one of these tests to see for yourself.

18:02 Peterson thinks the most important thing to know is that diagnostic tests have rules of reliability that few tests pass, tests like the I.Q. test and the Big Five Inventory pass these tests, and these implicit bias tests pass no rules of reliability. In other words, people who take these tests have different results on different tests.

Also, there is no evidence that testing a certain way on the test will predict behavior, so if it isn't reliable and doesn't predict behavior, what good is it?

18:55 Peterson:

Quote:It's good if you want people to send you to retraining exercises so that you can have your perceptions adjusted in the direction that your organization and the state thinks is proper.

He makes the point that there are organizations even now, and places like hospitals, that are using these tests to terrorize their employees. My take is that these tests are just like Lie Detectors, a mind fuck of the highest degree, but not what they claim to be.

20:10 Here Peterson says that these are being used for political not scientific reasons and that the reason they are getting away with it is that the field of social psychology is totally corrupt, and this is an example.

20:30 His final damning analysis is that even if, for the sake of argument, you admitted that these tests were valid, you would still have a problem:

Quote:There's no evidence whatsoever that those damn unconscious bias training programs have the effect they're supposed to have, and there's some evidence that they actually have the reverse effect.

That pretty much concludes his commentary on the first two videos that got all the attention.

Main take aways:

#1: Forcing equity instead of equality of opportunity on people is wrong and Sweden proves it.

#2: The problem with identity politics is that it ultimately reduces down to the individual, a system that we already have.

#3: Forcing bad science on organizations for political reasons is an assault on the individual and should not be tolerated.

Post: #16

Peterson is one of those rare breeds of truly classical liberals who values freedom of speech and objective reality instead of post-modernist deconstructionist bullshit. He, like Milo, Roosh and others are providing a much needed public service in a time of universal bullshit being honored as truth. Truth is inherently simple and beautiful. Male and female, for instance. Two genders. That's it. When the lies come in, you get complexity.

58 genders?



My hat is off to the good professor. Would buy him several rounds of drinks and talk with over philosophical matters.

Post: #17

Another fascinating clip from Jordan.
This one is about the gini coefficient.
It explains so much about human behaviour.
But in particular, it sheds some light on why we see such high crime rates for third world migrants in Europe, US and other first world regions.

Post: #18

This lecture by him is really good. I appreciate this thread. I would not have known of him otherwise.

Post: #19

Okay this is my third post going through this video and taking notes. I am at the twenty minute mark.





His talks are extremely dense, I am finding it hard to leave anything out.

One of the things he talks about that gets me thinking is how sometimes you have to talk or write to figure out what you think. I think one of the ways the SJWs get us is that they attack directly at things we assume to be true, and while we feel instinctively that they are full of it, often we don't have enough practice as they do arguing the points. I am hoping that some of the quotes from Peterson in these posts will be useful in arguing against leftist lies as a kind of a references resource.

In this talk, he makes the point that Social Justice and its tribunals are actually turning on its head centuries old precedents about rights of the people. SJWs tend to list the rights that groups have, and Peterson makes the point that this is fundamentally different from the tradition of English Common Law:

28:45

Quote:English Common Law is one of the most remarkable developments of civilization, period.

28:50

Quote:In the English system the supposition is that you have all the rights there are. They're not enumerated, you just have all of them except when one of those rights imposes a restriction on someone else.

Then you go to court, it gets ironed out, and becomes a precedent. As a result, English Common Law is a tremendous body of evolved doctrine.

The SJWs, on the other hand, makes lists in a bill of rights, and only certain groups have those enumerated rights. This is where Canada is headed with its Social Justice tribunals (their real name) like the one in Ontario.

The reason for this is that the SJWs are post modernists who see no value in tradition and look at everything as power struggles between oppressors and the oppressed, Marxists basically.

So to fight the SJWs, you can't let it all go down to warring immediate views, you have to stay in there swinging for the value of the Western tradition and how it has evolved.

30:48

Quote:There's all sorts of things wrong with Western society, always will be, but compared to 85 to 90 percent of the planet this is bloody heaven and that's why people want to move here.

He goes on to criticize the SJW idea that when you talk about the millions killed under Stalin or Mao, that doesn't apply to them because they were doing it wrong. The SJWs somehow think they are purer of heart and would implement it correctly.

Peterson 32:00:

Quote:If you think like that, there's something wrong with you! You're dangerous.

32:15

Quote:Even if a saint administered from each according to his ability and to each according to his need perfectly, the next leader would stab him in his bed.

The text he comes back to again and again is "The Gulag Archipelago," for truly understanding the nature of communism.

He believes that things like Rights Tribunals and forced use of words, like gender pronouns, is how this kind of madness starts:

33:20

Quote:We've been down that road already, and so what the hell are we doing? We're going down it again under the guise of equity!

He spends some time explaining what temperamental traits lead to the different political views and begins to take some questions from the students.

My favorite quotes aren't even scholarly in this lecture. I appreciate the bitter sarcasm, righteous indignation, and anger when he mocks the SJWs for acting like they know what the hell is going on:

37:40

Quote:Yeah, yeah, everything is caused by the same thing. First, right, you got one causal principle, now you're a philosopher! You can figure out everything with it!

At about the 40 minute mark he also makes the point that reason that a small number of men at the top have all the power is because they work insanely harder than everyone else, and the question isn't why have opportunities been denied to women, but why is there a minority of people who only enjoy work.

Again, he mocks the SJWs and their childishly reductionist views:

40:40

Quote:You think that the people who run things are sitting at home smoking big cigars, telling their minions what to do, it's like, that's like the 1920's millionaire that's on the cover of a Monopoly game. That's no sociological analysis!

I am getting a lot out listening to this closely and taking notes. Even if we only deal with the issues that come up from his activism, we can see that what is actually going on is a defense of Western Tradition itself, and to know concepts like English Common Law, or even the insane oversimplifications of the Post Modernists makes it that much clearer that these Authoritarian Leftists are just barbarians who have no idea what is going on, and are so narcissistic that they think whatever idea pops into their head is superior to traditions that have been centuries in the making.

Post: #20

i called up peterson a few days ago after binging on his vids for a few days. we spoke for around 8 minutes and here are my comments.

1) as much as he talks about language being ESSENTIAL ["i will NOT use THOSE pronouns!!!"], after i mentioned to him that "TRANS-" means "across/through" [as in TRANSCENDENTAL] in latin and there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING transcendendal about "transgender/transsexxual" folk who are OBSESSED with sexuality/body-dysmorphia and that the whole NOTION of transvestite/transsexual was introduced early last century by a most likely deviant jewish psychiatrist [look him up], he back-peddaled "well, it's an established/common lingo now".

FUCK THAT!

i'm not using "trans", "woman" or "trans woman" to refer to deviants who were born into a male body and think they are TRUE women, because "womb-centeric womanhood is not inclusive enought".

strike ONE!

2) he cut the convo a bit short by saying that he had to teach a class.

this was true - he had a class in a couple of hours. but. inbetween, he kept on shitposting on twitter.

another fail-strike.

3) he did not respond to multiple e-mail follow-up on this convo. i know his is extremely busy and probably receives tons of e-mail, but this one was different - he simply has to hold up his "i am a clinical psychologist/i am ok with "trans" people [BUT NOT THE AUTHORITARIAN LEFTISTS] veneer".

this is like half-a-strike.

Post: #21

also note that four years ago peterson and his daughter were on the tv talking about their family history of depression.

i have no problem with that - we all have familiar histories/roots - but the fact that his [a CLINICAL psychologist] college-aged daughter was ALREADY on ANTI-DEPRESSANTS makes me questions how well-embodies his body of knowledge/wisdom is.

marx sounded EXTREMELY seductive to so many, yet his ideas didn't produce much good after STALIN came to power/NEP was abandoned.

Post: #22

cawa:,

When you plan to take down one of the fastest rising public intellectuals in the world, a man of integrity, and a modern day hero to many, could you at least try to capitalize letters when appropriate?

Post: #23

(03-23-2017 06:23 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  cawa:,

When you plan to take down one of the fastest rising public intellectuals in the world, a man of integrity, and a modern day hero to many, could you at least try to capitalize letters when appropriate?

i'm not taking peterson down - i'm pointing out his unconscious shadow/weak spots.

i wish somebody would do that for me.

p.s. i don't consider name capitalization "appropriate". to paraphrase the man: "i will NOT use THEIR language, bucko!"

P.P.S. even after that call, i still listened to some of his new vids :-)

Post: #24

There were a lot of ideas that jumped out at me from his Rogan podcast, that I've been meaning to come back to it and take notes. I went in expecting mostly another rant about SJW but Peterson went way deeper than that. A few things I recall:

- Peterson talked about the idea of "self-authoring" and some executive skills type classes taught at Rotterdam School of Management. He mentioned he's built some curriculum to teach these to younger men and boiled some of it down to a web based training he's packaged on his website. On my list to check that out

- Also talked about and promoted the need for an alternative to the current state of the university system. YES! It seems insurmountable at the moment but I hope more people get on this train. It's gotten so bad that I am anguishing over the thought of sending my kids to college, even as much as I value education. It's not just the SJW and social engineering aspect, although that is large, I'm also starting to doubt it's value from a simple cost benefit perspective. Prices are getting way out of hand, and the value has been dropping due to all these distractions from... education. That should be the primary focus, it no longer is.

Post: #25

(03-23-2017 05:47 PM)cawa: Wrote:  also note that four years ago peterson and his daughter were on the tv talking about their family history of depression.

i have no problem with that - we all have familiar histories/roots - but the fact that his [a CLINICAL psychologist] college-aged daughter was ALREADY on ANTI-DEPRESSANTS makes me questions how well-embodies his body of knowledge/wisdom is.

Oh no! A psychologist -- with a history of depression in his family -- suffering from a common mood disorder! What a fraud!


Here's the video in question he's referring to, for anyone curious