Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles

[Timbermen]

22 hours ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

Actually you were right. There's evidence that peterson was againt bill 28.

 

Bill 28, the All Families Are Equal Act, 2016, recognizes the legal status of allparents, whether they are LGBTQ2+ or straight, and whether their children were conceived with or without assistance. The government plans to proclaim the law in force as of Jan.Nov 29, 2016

 

Although I believe it came in an email from his wife the message was certainly abhorrent and doesn't align with the defenses in this thread being made on his behalf. 

 

“A new bill, introduced in Ontario on September 29th, subjugates the natural family to the transgender agenda. The bill — misleadingly called the ‘All Families Are Equal Act’ — is moving extremely fast. We must ACT NOW to stop this bill from passing into law.”

 

 

Hey i just found something out that explains alot. There really are alot of layers to this onion. That guy in JoeyJoe's profile pic, that's actually a clinical psychologist named Steven Brûlée's. He has his own podcast. No wonder JoeyJoe hates him.

 Seems like it's professional jealousy because when you break down brûlée's message, it's almost the same. Obviously jealousy because Peterwise has millions of followers and Get Back JoeJoe only has one, HerrDmentalityFunk. This message helped him lot though. Check it out, Dr. Steve Brûlée's.

.

 

[Smashian Kassian]

On 6/12/2020 at 1:04 PM, HerrDrFunk said:

How so? 

Just a few examples of your projecting:

On 6/12/2020 at 11:01 AM, HerrDrFunk said:

Hey, remember that time when an incel in Toronto mowed down a bunch of people, women mainly, with a van and Jimmy Pettersson's response was "Well, if women would just lower their standards, these men would get to have sex and these sorts of murders wouldn't happen; so enforced monogamy should be a thing."? Just me?

 

 

So yeah, after listening to all of that, I'll flat out say that James Pettley comes across as a man who has some deep-seated issues with women as he believes they're all looking to trade up when they have an opportunity. 

 

On 6/12/2020 at 12:45 PM, HerrDrFunk said:

 

Yeah, again, my main issue with PJ's ideas aren't the enforced monogamy bit. It's the idea that if women would just settle, society would stabilize and we wouldn't have incels murdering women out of frustration. 

 

From watching that video, Patersson seems to view women as a resource that he fears will be hoarded by the upper echelon of men in society. I'm glad Rogan pushed back against what Peters was saying because to be perfectly honest, he comes across like a man who didn't have much success with dating when he was younger and came to resent the men who did and, by extension, women as well. 

 

Not really. Just within the first 2-ish mins of the video he says:

"One of the things I've said continually ..... Your a young man and all the women are rejecting you, who's got the problem? Its not all the women. That's a bad road to go down. If all the women are rejecting you, its you."

 

That =/= your 'if women would just settle' premise that you've attributed to JP at the base of your criticism. So right off the bat you are infact misrepresenting his overall view as others have said.

 

The part about 'enforced monogamy' being some kind of solution to incels isn't the primary issue, its more of a byproduct, in the totality of his view.

"Its the solution to the relationship between men and women, fundamentally, is monogamous social norms" 

"To the degree that we deviate from that, we tilt towards a more violent society, I was making a very minor point"

"The fundamental reason its bad is its bad in the long run for children"

 

The disagreement in the conversation between Joe & JP to me seems to be that JP is looking at it in a broader societal sense. Joe makes points like "these men are just unattractive", "they need to become men", exc. and JP not only agrees but espouses the same message about these people 'needing to become men'.

 

And in your view this is some kind of attack on women by JP, or an inference that only women need to adhere to monogamy. Which isn't the case:

 

 

In the larger conversation. I'd agree with JP that the primary problem in this conversation is children. From a developmental standpoint, I can't really think of a thing we do in society thats more important than raising children. 

 

I read this article from a guy who actually wrote a book criticizing JP. And a primary point in the article was about 'competence hierarchy', IQ, and how in large part people with those attributes that allow them to succeed in society relative to those who don't are winners of a "genetic lottery". It was an interesting read. 

https://merionwest.com/2020/05/12/the-irrelevance-of-the-intelligence-debate/

 

I'd also equate that to being born in an environment that best allows them to succeed. Where as others aren't. Which gets back to the point about the importance of raising children.

 

For example:

On 6/12/2020 at 1:02 PM, HerrDrFunk said:

Do you genuinely believe the only roads to sex are money, power and looks?

 

Would the other roads not be: 

A] Innate superior social skills, or

B] Being "raised right". Meaning, to have a level of 'competence' (lets say) that allows you to move up the social hierarchy & become desired/attractive? Becoming 'men' as Rogan says. 

 

And that's not to say you can't have a good upbringing with step parents, or without the traditional family. Or that parents in monogamous relationships always do a great job parenting. But it becomes more difficult for children coming from 'broken homes', and such, does it not?

 

If these are the 'solutions' to the problem of potential incels, only one of those roads is within our control.

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

11 minutes ago, Timbermen said:

Hey i just found something out that explains alot. There really are alot of layers to this onion. That guy in JoeyJoe's profile pic, that's actually a clinical psychologist named Steven Brûlée's. He has his own podcast. No wonder JoeyJoe hates him.

 Seems like it's professional jealousy because when you break down brûlée's message, it's almost the same. Obviously jealousy because Peterwise has millions of followers and Get Back JoeJoe only has one, HerrDmentalityFunk. This message helped him lot though. Check it out, Dr. Steve Brûlée's.

.

 

Never said I hated Peterson. It's the sycophantic portion of his fan base that I find abhorrent.

[Jester13]

13 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

Never said I hated Peterson. It's the sycophantic portion of his fan base that I find abhorrent.

The ones who cheer in his debates at odd times? 

[Sean Monahan]

7 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

The ones who cheer in his debates at odd times? 

The thing I find irritating about his fan base is the faction of it with this sort of complex wherein if you don’t subscribe to what he says, you must not be intelligent enough to understand it. 

[HerrDrFunk]

8 hours ago, Jester13 said:

Just to add: the reason why I asked for a solid premise is because you have so far been off base:

 

" The basic crux of Patey's argument is monogamy = good, all other forms of relationships = bad; so we need enforced monogamy."

 

This is an incorrect interpretation of his views. He's arguing more for "studies show" that monogamy = more desirable, all other forms = less desirable; and that human beings anthropologically enforced monogamy into society because the outcome of the overall success of society is more likely.

 

Maybe you're misunderstanding what he means by enforced? He's not saying we need to enforce monogamy (i.e. force people to have a partner and only one partner; he's against authoritarian rule) but rather human beings as a species already naturally enforce it into the culture, as it's the response to survival and longevity as a species that's shown to statistically work the best in raising healthy and successful families and community. 

 

Again, I was summarizing Paulson's arguments in the video that was posted to their most basic elements. I feel like you want to argue about this so much that you're not reading my posts? 

 

Quote

To stop society from breaking down, we need enforced monogamy. Which is not forcing a woman to marry a man against her will but rather following societal norms which enforce traditional monogamous relationships through various social mechanisms. 

Again, I'm well aware that enforced monogamy isn't forcing someone into a relationship against their will. 

Edited June 14, 2020 by HerrDrFunk

[HerrDrFunk]

4 minutes ago, Sean Monahan said:

The thing I find irritating about his fan base is the faction of it with this sort of complex wherein if you don’t subscribe to what he says, you must not be intelligent enough to understand it. 

Huh, it's the damnedest thing but I know exactly what you mean.

[Sean Monahan]

Just now, HerrDrFunk said:

Huh, it's the damnedest thing but I know exactly what you mean.

And the ironic thing is JBP is big on free speech and free thinking, yet some of his fans seem to totally gloss over the free thinking part and are hellbent on getting everybody onboard the JBP train. 

[Timbermen]

2 minutes ago, Sean Monahan said:

The thing I find irritating about his fan base is the faction of it with this sort of complex wherein if you don’t subscribe to what he says, you must not be intelligent enough to understand it. 

I think an example of that has been debunked quite well in this thread. There's plenty of examples of his words being taken completely out of context. We're starting a group to answer that, the Lobsters. Getting the shirts designed now.

[HerrDrFunk]

3 hours ago, Jester13 said:

Who are we talking about again, HerrDrFunkhauser? 

I'm actually all for this one. Sounds like a sweet prog rock band. 

 

3 hours ago, Timbermen said:

HerrDrPavlovsFrothingDj hasn't shown much creativity at all.

 

I give you much for credit for this than your fear of the red menace in 2020.

[Sean Monahan]

4 minutes ago, Timbermen said:

I think an example of that has been debunked quite well in this thread. There's plenty of examples of his words being taken completely out of context. We're starting a group to answer that, the Lobsters. Getting the shirts designed now.

I’ve had plenty of conversations about JBP’s ideas outside of this board. A couple of my best buddies are big JBP fans and have been since he rose to prominence a few years back. They’ve tried to hammer me with his ideas numerous times since. 
 

If everybody thinks the same, nobody ends up thinking at all. People have differing ideas, opinions, etc and that’s totally fine. There’s stuff JBP says that I agree with and there’s stuff that I don’t. On the whole I don’t really care for him though. 

Edited June 14, 2020 by Sean Monahan

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, Jester13 said:

I definitely agree that many people do 'need' the stories and that they do even "help" many people. And I also agree - go figure - that it's exactly that resistance that makes him seem like an apologist, because he actually argues that people need the stories in order to live a meaningful and purposeful life. And this is where he and I part ways...

But you did just admit that some people do need them.

 

Can you say for certain that people with lower IQ, less reasoning powers etc would be able to not only grasp but integrate some of these concepts without some of the more *ahem* dramatic themes... and even though I'm resistant and loath to admit it, the dogma? I think that's where JP's stance comes from.

 

Some people may need the nonsense the rest of us might be happy to do away with because of its negative side effects. Perhaps we need 'two tier' religion? 

 

2 hours ago, Jester13 said:

Granted, the religious stories do help lots of people, and there's lots of good lessons within many of them; however, I lean more towards Albert Camus' thoughts that the 'need' for such stories or beliefs is tantamount to philosophical suicide, that strongly holding onto such things - whether religion, dogma, the stories, afterlife, finding meaning in life, and especially ignoring that death is inevitable - leaves a person, in a sense, in a place of stagnation, a place that actually holds them back from self-improvement and truly feeling fully content in life. An example to help make this as clear as possible, in addition to the above, is Eckhart Tolle, or Deepak Chopra: both "help" people, but it's highly arguable the level they actually help people in a long-term sustainable way.   

And I think with the above caveat for 'some' people, I don't think his actual view on religion puts much weight on things like afterlife etc. For example he very much seems to feel 'heaven' and 'hell' are very earthly and mortal based outcomes from a combination of choices one makes and 'chaos'.

 

Safe to say he's been recently submerged in his own 'hell on earth' with his wife's cancer and his own health and addiction issues recently.

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

22 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

The ones who cheer in his debates at odd times? 

The ones who jump down your throat if you don't worship the ground he walks on. So, yes?

[Timbermen]

28 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

The ones who jump down your throat if you don't worship the ground he walks on. So, yes?

I was kidding about making Lobster shirts obviously, all these groups with matching shirts and Antifa costumes. Group politics, Identity politics, just like Wolfgang Peterson warned about.

[Jester13]

1 hour ago, Sean Monahan said:

The thing I find irritating about his fan base is the faction of it with this sort of complex wherein if you don’t subscribe to what he says, you must not be intelligent enough to understand it. 

I don't think the issue is intellectual ability but but rather a lack of intellectual honesty. It's eerily similar to Chris Hedges, Glen Greenwald, and Reza Aslan's treatment of Sam Harris. Funny how JP and Ben Shapiro were quick to apologize and straighten out their misrepresentation of some of Harris's views once. FTR, I'm not a conservative. 

 

1 hour ago, HerrDrFunk said:

 

Again, I was summarizing Paulson's arguments in the video that was posted to their most basic elements. I feel like you want to argue about this so much that you're not reading my posts? 

 

Again, I'm well aware that enforced monogamy isn't forcing someone into a relationship against their will. 

The last I'll say is that you've made your comments on JPs stance/ideas and your interpretations have been shown to be incorrect many times, but instead of having any kind of a rebuttal, on anything, you double down with more misrepresentation and a humour dodge. It's fine. I can see a discussion with you will go nowhere. 

 

57 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

The ones who jump down your throat if you don't worship the ground he walks on. So, yes?

More hyperbole. Cool. 

 

58 minutes ago, aGENT said:

But you did just admit that some people do need them.

Of course, it's part of the human condition to struggle in life, particularly with death, and people search for all kinds of self-help ideas to help them cope. 

 

Quote

 

Can you say for certain that people with lower IQ, less reasoning powers etc would be able to not only grasp but integrate some of these concepts without some of the more *ahem* dramatic themes... and even though I'm resistant and loath to admit it, the dogma? I think that's where JP's stance comes from.

Nothing is for certain, you know that  The thing about religious stories and dogma is that they're not grounded in reality but rather in mysticism, and so they play on the less reasoning power and lower IQ. But said demographic (and for anyone else reading, of course we're generalizing here) are still human with the ability to reason, they just need to be taught how to reason better and how to live more honestly and in reality as best as possible, which honestly aren't too hard of skills to learn - although I'm now starting to second guess myself after your apt warning from earlier. 

 

Quote

 

Some people may need the nonsense the rest of us might be happy to do away with because of its negative side effects. Perhaps we need 'two tier' religion? 

Hahaha, honestly, get rid of the dogma, keep the stories, but teach the stories as merely those, stories. Keep people grounded in reality. (Reality to the best of our knowledge, of course.)

 

Quote

 

And I think with the above caveat for 'some' people, I don't think his actual view on religion puts much weight on things like afterlife etc. For example he very much seems to feel 'heaven' and 'hell' are very earthly and mortal based outcomes from a combination of choices one makes and 'chaos'.

 

Safe to say he's been recently submerged in his own 'hell on earth' with his wife's cancer and his own health and addiction issues recently.

The afterlife was just an example of another area that people can end up fixating on - I've never heard him ever talk about it either and wasn't referring to him. 

 

Agree with you on the 'heaven' and 'hell' as well. He likes to argue that they are merely the same thing that Harris argues as good and bad when it comes to moral philosophy (I'm sure you've watched their Vancouver debates). JP is reconciling the ideas as some of the oldest in human history and that they still have a purpose. I tend to agree with both JP and Harris and think they are at heart possibly on the same page, in that a modernization of certain religions is in order; Harris wants it and JP is in the process of making it happen. They have a hard time being on the same stage, unfortunately, but I can see why: JP is a hand- and finger-waving, fast-talking eccentric whereas Harris is mindful, meditating, nostril-breathing Buddha.

 

It's super sad to hear what he's going through. No one wants or deserves any and all of what's been happening to him and his family. (Interesting how "the most caring good guys" on the left are the first to take joy in his plight.)

 

Is there a way out of all of this left-right fiasco, and if so, how?

Edited June 14, 2020 by Jester13

[Sean Monahan]

32 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

I don't think the issue is intellectual ability but but rather a lack of intellectual honesty. It's eerily similar to Chris Hedges, Glen Greenwald, and Reza Aslan's treatment of Sam Harris. Funny how JP and Ben Shapiro were quick to apologize and straighten out their misrepresentation of some of Harris's views once. FTR, I'm not a conservative. 

No. I’ve taken the time to slow down the conversation with these friends and have them explain to me what it is they think I’m not understanding. Still don’t agree with some of it. 

[aGENT]

47 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

Of course, it's part of the human condition to struggle in life, particularly with death, and people search for all kinds of self-help ideas to help them cope. 

 

Nothing is for certain, you know that  The thing about religious stories and dogma is that they're not grounded in reality but rather in mysticism, and so they play on the less reasoning power and lower IQ. But said demographic (and for anyone else reading, of course we're generalizing here) are still human with the ability to reason, they just need to be taught how to reason better and how to live more honestly and in reality as best as possible, which honestly aren't too hard of skills to learn - although I'm now starting to second guess myself after your apt warning from earlier. 

I'm less certain 'some' people might not need it though. People struggle to do what they know to be best for them/the right thing all the damn time (edit: myself included). Even the smartest among us, with those advanced reasoning skills, nevermind those less fortunate/endowed. There's too much temptation and we're still just glorified apes too prone to our whims and worst instincts.

 

Some people might unfortunately need a mystic Boogeyman to prod them. At least that's my very layman interpretation of Peterson's thinking.

 

Of course, that's where I tend to question whether the cure is worse than the disease. I honestly don't know. If you'd asked me five years ago, I'd say the cure was worse. I'm less sure now.

 

Quote

Agree with you on the 'heaven' and 'hell' as well. He likes to argue that they are merely the same thing that Harris argues as good and bad when it comes to moral philosophy (I'm sure you've watched their Vancouver debates). JP is reconciling the ideas as some of the oldest in human history and that they still have a purpose. I tend to agree with both JP and Harris and think they are at heart possibly on the same page, in that a modernization of certain religions is in order; Harris wants it and JP is in the process of making it happen. They have a hard time being on the same stage, unfortunately, but I can see why: JP is a hand- and finger-waving, fast-talking eccentric whereas Harris is mindful, meditating, nostril-breathing Buddha.

 

Quote

It's super sad to hear what he's going through. No one wants or deserves any and all of what's been happening to him and his family. (Interesting how "the most caring good guys" on the left are the first to take joy in his plight.)

 

Is there a way out of all of this left-right fiasco, and if so, how?

I thought that was rather 'interesting' as well 

 

Out of the fiasco... Hopefully with discussions from people like we're having (cheers btw). People need to actually be willing to participate in good faith, with intellectual honesty though, otherwise it's not going to accomplish much.

 

 

Edited June 14, 2020 by aGENT

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

37 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

 

More hyperbole. Cool. 

 

 

Thanks for making me quote your wall of text, lol

Not hyperbole, have a look back through this thread and you will see that you are one of the few people supporting Peterson (if you can call it that) capable of civil discourse. Maybe that's more hyperbole but it's the way I saw it.

I have a lot of opinions on this subject but I was met with a great deal of hostility when I first entered the fray and decided it was hardly worth the aggravation. 

[Jester13]

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I'm less certain 'some' people might not need it though. People struggle to do what they know to be best for them/the right thing all the damn time. Even the smartest among us, with those advanced reasoning skills, nevermind those less fortunate/endowed. There's too much temptation and we're still just glorified apes too prone to our whims and worst instincts.

 

Some people might unfortunately need a mystic Boogeyman to prod them. At least that's my very layman interpretation of Peterson's thinking.

 

Of course, that's where I tend to question whether the cure is worse than the disease. I honestly don't know. If you'd asked me five years ago, I'd say the cure was worse. I'm less sure now.

Sounds like what Dave Rubin is feeling lately as well. I can dig the sentiment. Five years ago was quite different and the debates included far-right fundamentalists, and now it's Shapiro and JP, who I have no issue disagreeing with and agreeing with in some ways. They're moderate rights and also want a dialectic and a safe space (har har) for agreeing to disagree. But, as we're now seeing, it's the far-left that needs an adjustment. 

 

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

 

I thought that was rather 'interesting' as well 

 

Out of the fiasco... Hopefully with discussions from people like we're having (cheers btw). People need to actually be willing to participate in good faith, with intellectual honesty though, otherwise it's not going to accomplish much.

 

 

Amen to that, brother. Hopefully we helped moderate a few minds throughout this thread. 

[Smashian Kassian]

4 hours ago, HerrDrFunk said:

 

Again, I was summarizing Paulson's arguments in the video that was posted to their most basic elements. I feel like you want to argue about this so much that you're not reading my posts? 

 

Again, I'm well aware that enforced monogamy isn't forcing someone into a relationship against their will. 

 

The problem with complex/difficult discussions is you can only simplify/summarize arguments to a certain degree before it becomes misinterpretation. 

 

 I think that's where people are coming from & so far there's been no legitimate response (when it would be welcomed), just the strawman 'unreasonable fanboys' argument.