Peterson is a fucking pseud
Other urls found in this thread:
the 12 rules book is really more of self help book, so yes he is a pseudo-peterson
Is this an article about Leftcoms?
Please somebody make memes with this.
What the fuck does that shit even mean? Jfc, Peterson is such a fucking clown
Isn't this true of 99% of right-wing "intellectuals" tho
I think he's trying to build a "hero's arc" style of graph for all human experience. I think.
The /lit/ portion of our board immediately comes to my mind.
/tg/ fags report in!
This is the exact shit the logical positivst railed against. Peterson just craps out meaningless garbage. It's not even wrong.
I'm convinced Peterson himself doesn't actually have a plan when he draws these things up. It's some sort of spontanous poetry of stream of consciousness, I mean there is no explanation, nothing in his writings as well.
The man is basically also ripping off Confucianism and Taoism aswell
Every liberal theorist after JS Mill is probably spinning in their grave.
On the last Chapo episode their theory for his popularity was that kids are taught absolutely nothing about philosophy so when they hear Peterson regurgitate poorly understood snippets from Nietzsche’s Wikipedia page they think it’s brilliant and original.
That's only because you don't understand what's being said
I want to fuck his mouth while he cries.
Is Jungianism inherently reactionary?
I'm not big-brained enough to begin to understand this
"The kulaks were (…) apes, scum, vermin, filth and swine."
–Jordan Peterson, 12 Rules for Life.
The Current Affairs article by Nathan J. Robinson is a very good piece, but it's three times longer than it needs to be (and could have done without the white-male-amirite quip in the intro which will just put off exactly the people who would benefit the most from reading it). Here is a short fun takedown: macleans.ca
Truly the stupid man's intellectual. In some terrifying way, Peterson is also a huge embodiment of late stage capitalism.
Nah, he's the desperate man's intellectual, people are too beaten down for honesty, America has largely reproduced the moral grey zone of Auschwitz in all of its culture
How ? He's pretty outspoken about what he want.
It’s pretty clear what he does. His vagueness is carefully calculated so that his target demographic (frustrated incels, socially alienated white boys, and anybody who is rightly sick of SJW insanity and liberal cancer) can latch onto it in a way that confirms their pre-existing prejudices and frustrations. However it’s loose enough that he can basically backpedal whenever actually challenged on it, insist that the person questioning him doesn’t understand, and thus appear to be super smart. The whole lipstick thing is a perfect example.
In other words it’s about implying right wing bullshit without actually saying it so he never actually has to defend any reactionary views, while simultaneously reenforcing them among his base.
t. Peterson fan
He did say he though that encouraged sexual harassement.
I don't really see what you're on about there, he made his position pretty clear and obviously don't encourage harassement.
Holy shit, this has to be a joke!
I never said it wasn’t.
Then what was his position? He dropped some trivia on the origins of makeup. That’s it. It’s pretty obvious that it was bait, both for his fans to infer the idea that women who get harrassed while wearing makeup deserve it, and for the liberals to immediately latch onto and REEEE about at which point he points out that he never actually said that. In other words, he didn’t actually take a position on workplace harassment, he just said something with sexist implications that was vague enough that he could deny those implications.
It would be like if we were discussing economics and worker rights and I said “porkies used to hire thugs to kill strikers”, and somebody asked me if I was saying capitalism kills, and I just told them that’s not what I meant and that they just don’t understand my point. Saying a random fact doesn’t constitute an actual position on anything.
DemSoc's video about it. At 6:04 he shows a snippet were Peterson says you can't be a Marxist and a human being at the same time.
Well shit they don't make sense. It's deep, profund, esoterology, my friend. You'll need to watch his lecture to understand the true meaning of those universal symbols
Oh ok, I saw a bunch of people arguing otherwise in a previous thread.
Well, no, his point is that we need to figure out rules for mixed workplace to reduce sex scandal. And if we're going to ban sexual display why not ban makeup too ? Experimenting the effect of a makeup-less workplace might be worth investigating.
That's what he's saying. The "sexist implication" (which he directly state later) is that women who wears makeup get harassed more often, which is not sexist
Again, that still has the implication that it’s the women’s responsibility to not be raped instead of a responsibility to not rape people. If you wanted to reduce gun deaths nobody would seriously suggest wearing bulletproof vests at all times as a viable solution, partially because it would operate under the assumption that not getting shot is the responsibility of the victim. It’s dog whistle rhetoric pure and simple.
A better comparaison would be wearing something that flaunt your wealth in a shitty part of town.
Not painting yourself as a target for a potential crime is what you should be doing.
This is the very definition of "blaming the victim" rhetoric.
People must state these things clearly, which would be
"It's your fault you wore that and got raped" : victim blaming
"You should watch out walking down that street while wearing that” ： giving caution
Nah, you're just a brainlet.
I always knew this guy was a phony. just like martin shkreli
just like tucker carlson
just like shapiro
every other kike you see
melissa harris perry
all u cucks, we're watching
At least Martin Shrekli is honest about being a class A++ douchebag, Peterstein pretends to be the good guy while loathing any form of activism besides whining and cleaning your room.
oh shid :-DDD got me
I live for diagrams like these, dunno why they're like my fetish
Impressive drawing but utterly useless.
Ohh I agree but still, diagrams man how do they work, they're such a mistery and I wanna marry one
God is delicious.
I tried, obviously not as good as
Turns out either Peterson lied about being inducted into a native tribe or he just so stupid he thought he was inducted when he wasn’t
Can we all put our differences aside and admit his daughter is a hot piece of ass?
Hahaha, oh wow.
What did he mean by this?
It kills me that this same guy said something about academics being useless and doing nothing.
I'd have to hit it from behind because her face reminds me of Peterson. Too bad she doesn't have a bigger ass
Too mannish of a face imo
She's also a con artist, much like her father.
Not wearing lipstick isn’t “taking a precaution”, it’s changing your everyday behaviour because some perv at work can’t keep in his pants, literally allowing a rapist to dictate your behaviour to you. We aren’t talking about a sketchy alleyway here, we are talking about a populated, controlled environment at work. For somebody who is supposedly all about taking personal responsibility, Peterson is sure quick to make excuses for dudes who are literally not civilized enough to keep it in their pants.
Don’t worry user, next time I see you I’ll finger your asshole and then tell you to wear something less sexy next time if you don’t want me to molest you.
I meant that Peterson’s fans are primarily white teenagers with daddy issues, the same kind of low T cucks that fill up the rest of the alt right.
these people are literally twisting themselves into insane rapists in their quest to defend the honor of peterson-kun
imagine trotting out lipstick as something that makes a woman deserve rape and/or harassment (ignore for a moment the moral atrocity of even entertaining a she-was-asking-for-it style argument at all)
So taking a precaution ? It's not even that dramatic, you're just putting less efforts so that you don't get hit on. Of course, if you want to present yourself in a way that will invit people to hit on you, with all that imply, then go ahead.
I'll just break you in half, you underfed commie.
Ok, I wanted to see how long it would take until this board reached 4/pol/ level of victimhood and delusion.
Good thing I never said that. Geez, it's like you decided what Peterson was saying by only listening to one phrase taken out of context.
You seem unable to understand the concept of how accountability works. We aren’t talking about walking down the street and unknown assailants here, we’re talking about a problem that can be immediately solved by simply rooting out and dealing with these people. Nobody should have to alter their behaviour to fit the whims of a criminal. Out on the street that’s one thing, since keeping perpetrators at bay and catching them after the fact is much harder, but we are talking about a much more controlled and strictly policed environment here, meaning that saying “take precautions” is just a lazy way of not actually dealing with the problem while implying that it’s a woman’s responsability to construct her habits around the activities of some scumbag.
Lmao like any Peterson fan could do that, the only reason why any of you like him is because of your daddy issues. I bet if I put on a Kermit the Frog voice and told you to clean your room you would run and do it.
You also seem unable to tell the difference between what may be good advice vs an actual solution to a problem. If there was a serial killer on the loose and the police just told everybody to lock their doors as a solution to the problem that would be retarded.
Jesus. I want to base some fantasy lore off this shit.
Okay OP can you learn to post information instead of data? A 2 hour long non entertaining video with bad microphones that doesn't get to the point (or eventually, either way the information should be clear).
Then an article which is very long, has no paragraphs or subsections and tries very hard to bombard you with analogies. Which makes the message very hard to digest and rather poor, just get to the point share the findings the people who would read such a wall don't want to read through 5 analogies.
This also demotivates me from even bothering with the article. That's not me defending Peterson though, just the quality of the sources could be a lot better.
4pol is just retarded at the moment, it has become Holla Forums pretty much. Guess the original user base moved somewhere else, nothing like how it was a year before last US election. Also a lot of shitty OP's just trying to datamine.
This is of course the most complete and overwhelming destruction of Peterson's entire position, but the way Peterson argues it makes it very difficult to respond to him except in long form like this since his positions are so hard to pin down.
How do we convince Peterson dorks to read Robinson's article?
He probably meant given the context that you couldn't come out as a Marxist in the 70's / 80's, and people in the US would still see you as a human being. Instead they would see you as an evil communist.
Anyhow attacking post modernism is easy. It's a flawed school of thought with and end result of many useless articles and papers that are explicitly made very domain specific to the point you can't even repeat the research. You could already see in 1996 what kind of a meme post modernism was with the Sokal hoax. Still you have many articles written on the same flawed argumentation form that Sokal explicitly used to write a fake science article because he knew they would publish it (then come out and say it was all a hoax and nonsense).
NO that is not what Peterson believes. He is so much against post modernist thought and so pro objective reality that he believes those symbols are objective and not subject to different cultural interpretations!
Which is why you try to make clear graphs or an image that is a clear mental support rather than vague icons.
Yeah it's called controlling yourself son.
No its not, it is unfortunately poorly written and doesn't hammer on the points, gets stuck in his own word. If the writer paid more attention to formatting and keeping its own biases out it probably would be a great way to attack Peterson.
Also I find it kind of embarrassing that a Harvard academic writes and formats like this. Is USA education just a joke / meme? Do they just pay their way to get a phd from it?
The useless articles that I mentioned earlier had to do with these academics. They write on and on about very specific problems, their methodology of research often can't be repeated. A lot of sociologists are doing this and even if it goes through peer review into a journal, nobody really mentions it which has lead to a great degradation of the quality in all social sciences.
Right wingers are very much against this from happening since most of these positions attack them. They push for more multiculturalism, more women workplace dominance, more migration etc. They don't benefit from it and see how those researchers are not delivering proof. So it's natural they would take in an 'anti intellectual' position, however its more of an issue with the social sciences.
I think that over time, social sciences will become more and more obsolete. Because with data science you can find patterns, proof patterns and deliver proof that gets rid of all the subjective hypothesis driven research that occurs in sociology. Because the data will show the important facets of social networking / behavior.
I thought that was Holla Forums's general opinion for months.
Yeah but to be fair Chapo is run by fucking retards
Those are clear for everyone, according to Peterson (which is what I was trying to say).
He disregards the notion of subjective interpretation due to subjective knowledge.
what did he mean by this
yes, you didn't say it, you just implied it with the might of a thousand suns
OH FUCK OFF
every time it's him being taken out of context, he didn't mean it THAT way, you're misconstruing blah blah
what he did was what he always does - say some dumb as fuck thing egenral enough to be hard to reply to but with fucked up implications, and when challenged he says "well I'm surely not saying THAT! you're taking me out of context/strawmanning me!" and pretends to be outraged. it's a form of motte-and-bailey.
can't wait for this utopia of retards gathering data without knowing how to interpret it, can't see how that could ever go wrong
I don't think I have ever encountered a more pathetic fanbase. Even Harris fanboys are more intelligent (and also a lot less obviously broken.)
Or maybe women have agency of their own and want to look good for themselves without having cunts harass them you dumb nigger.
Treating women like this is literally nigger tier.
She looks like a younger Peterson after 10 years on tranny drugs
Do you think he keeps yelling at his daughter not to wear lipstick?
Has anyone read "A Confederacy of Dunces"?
That's what Peterson's philosophy reminds me of.
I'm surprised he hasn't brought up the wheel of fortuna.
no, Peterson's endgame should be revealing itself to most people if it hasn't yet. to harness control over the dragon of chaos, we must become the dragon
the last pill for his followers to swallow
Yeah, I think we should maybe hold workplaces to higher standards than slums, but that's only me.
Is Dugin a Nick Land tier kook, or what? What the fuck is with that blackboard?
add "follow your leader, bucko"
and maybe also photoshop his head onto a lady
bad meme, but related
That's the kind of dude who would benefit from psychoanalysis but instead they're following this pseud. Sad!
You don't wanna know how deep the rabbit hole goes, believe me
It's really not. It's actually nothing but sob stories and reactionary tangents.
both are inventions meant to preserve the status quo
No, but it's inherently essentalist garbage on a philosophical level.
What if there's a crisis of masculinity?
Who are these?
Then please explain away what a common ancestor is. What pre-human structures are. Please?
Nigger the most recent common ancestor between humans and lobsters goes back to the Cambrian era at least, we aren’t remotely similar. You could just as easily point out communistic social behaviour in ants or bees and use that to suggest that communism is our natural state. Notice how Peterson didn’t mention anything about Bonobos, literally humanity’s closest living relative. Why? Because their society is both matriarchal and nonviolent, which totally blows his “hurr durr alpha males and masculine hierarchies are natural” out of the water without even addressing things like the naturalist falacy or the nature/nurture debate in animal society. Then there is the fact that his entire reason for bringing the lobsters up at all was a giant strawman, since he claimed that his “neo-Marxist postmodernists” held the belief that hierarchy was the product of capitalist patriarchy. Well if he knew the first thing about literally anything he tries to talk about he would know that the postmodernist view of power is precisely the opposite of that. Foucault argued that power was everywhere in human society, and that even in a perfect communist utopia hierarchies would continue to exist. He doesn’t even bother researching the basic positions of the people he claims to oppose, he is a hack and if you think he is anything more you are legitimately stupid.
Does this count?
I read the first half or so of the article and its literally just been this guy saying Peterson is a fraud or vague and quoting difficult passages from his books without context as proof, since hey, they're hard to understand. Can anyone convince me this isn't just another half-assed hatchet job on the man? After like a dozen of these things I'm losing my will to care.
I remember you fucker, I can't believe you're still going on about the bonobos. Have you read any of the actual research articles about bonobo society yet? You're pretty much just wrong.
truly psychology is 100% a pseudoscience
I haven’t brought them up before this, you must be thinking of somebody else.
About what exactly?
Wrong about hierarchy in bonobos. There's some interesting things to be said about it but it would be wasted on the likes of you and your reddit spacing.
What specifically? I said that their hierarchies were primarily based along matriarchal and matrilineal structures. Is this incorrect?
That's not what you said, you're shifting frame to the portion of your claims that you know you can back up and trying to get me to argue on that. Which tells me you're not interested in talking about bonobos, you're interested in scoring rhetorical points so I should just continue treating you like trash.
Also even without Bonobos, there are plenty of examples of firmly matriarchal social species that are much closer to humans than fucking lobsters are. Hyenas and elephants are good examples. Any way you cut it Peterson is a moron.
That’s exactly what I said.
You said a number of things, you picked one of them and I don't see why I should play along with this little game you're trying to do. Those poor shitty chimps never deserved to have their lifestyles be a pawn in the societal theorizing of a bunch of self-important shittier chimps.
There's also examples of non-western cultures which have significantly different interpretations of heroism, masculinity, hierarchy, etc. than the shit Peterson spouts as "universal", mystical truths about humanity.
You don't need to even bring this sort of stuff up to see he's an idiot, who while blissfully ignorant (or dishonestly ignoring) the philosophies he talks about, or much of history, is arrogant enough to push his non-statements and mystic mumbo-jumbo as something resembling insight, which is "totally not political".
lul don't speak too soon
It is very vain of you to present yourself as someone who is capable of being convinced.
It's happened before. And who the fuck says vain anyway? Am I a posh English lady? We've had one of these threads up constantly for months now always saying the same things. Or that there's been a million fucking thinkpieces debunking Peterson on the same things. Clearly opinions have fucking calcified at this point. I keep some vain hope that someone will say something new but I was mostly being rhetorical. We're all just circlejerking what we already think at this point, don't come at me like you're any different.
I'm not the one saying "Come on, convince me!"
You've been presented with good articles but they're never "good enough" for you. And they never will be.
why did you feel the need to share that with us user
holy fug dude.
I can actually listen to this guy.
Yeah he's not bad.
"because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive"
I'm close to getting my master's in psychology. I've never seen any of this shit.
Unless this is something they teach when your PHD, this is all comes from Peterson's deranged mind.
the videos that this guy does where uses a medium to interview dead philosophers is fucking bizarre but also entertaining
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!